A quick report on the other things:
*A call to positively safeguard the public domain (once PD remains PD, i.e. digitisations) passed. *A call to make it legally possible for authors to dedicate their work to the PD passed. *Explicit wording against further copyright term extension passed. *The linking liability was mostly taken out, although some ISP liability was voted in. *A call to lower obstacles to the re-use of PSI passed. *A proposal for ancillary copyright didn't pass.
And now we start thinking about what our media strategy should be before the plenary. I will start making a list of MEPs who I think could or should be convinced to co-sign.
Dimi
2015-06-16 12:05 GMT+02:00 Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk:
Here's a page for us to work through some things and sketch out a general strategy and plan of action. We can also collaborate on any other materials we need.
https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/User:Stevie_Benton_(WMUK)/Sandbox/Challenging_...
Such a stupid amendment!
Stevie
On 16 June 2015 at 11:02, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, trying to think constructively this is the advantage of GESAC being to greedy.
Cavada himself was going around telling everyone that he does not want to restrict rights in other countries, just to preserve French culture. Well, what happened is that they passed language copying bad practices to 15 EU countries will a full FoP exception. It is an own initiative report and not even the last word on it was spoken, but the general tendency to vote for any AMs that restrict use was obvious.
In order to fix this in plenary (6th of July I believe), we would need three things now:
- A sensible text for an amendment to table in for the plenary vote that
attracts very little opposition. 2. Getting many rather prominent MEPs from all groups to table this new amendment. 3. Some media fuzz in the countries that currently have a full exception.
D
2015-06-16 11:44 GMT+02:00 James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk:
One advantage is it gives us something very hard and concrete to kick against -- a real threat we can e.g. try to get on the front page of Metro
Sometimes it can be an advantage if people can see the bogeyman in full stark reality.
-- James.
On 16/06/2015 10:39, Stevie Benton wrote:
This is terrible.
I will start a page on the UK wiki where we can throw something together On 16 Jun 2015 10:37, "James Heald" j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
I think we should go the full Daily Mail.
Talk about books being pulped, blacked out photos of the buildings at Canary Wharf, etc, etc
Did anyone spot how Honeyball voted on the Wikstrom amendment (good) and the Cavada amendment (bad) ?
-- James.On 16/06/2015 10:12, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote:
So, the French visual artists collecting society got their preferred
amendment through (Cavada). Unfortunately this is the worst possible for us. It says:
Considers that the commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them
We need to consider if we'll try to further amend it in plenary in several weeks or we just concentrate on the Commission.
Dimi
2015-06-16 5:35 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com>:
Hi,
> > in a few hours the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) will vote on the > own-initiative report (not a legal instrument, but rather a > recommendation) > by Julia Reda. > > The full name of the document is Report on the Implementation of > Directive > 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and > related > rights in the information society. It is about the implementation of > the > current copyright framework and how it could be updated. It is also a > very > first step in the process that will continue with the Commission > proposing > a reform text before the end of the year. > > What's in it for us? > > - *Freedom of Panorama* is looking good as it stands, but there > is > high chance of "non-commercial" being added to it. There was no > compromise > on this, so we tried everything we could in the past week. > - In order for Freedom of Panorama to be preserved or even > extended, > following amendments need to be rejected: > 414/415/417/420/422/423/424/426 > - *Compromise Amendment 5* will call for "lowering the barriers > to > Public Sector Information". > - *Compromise Amendment 6* will say that it "urges the > Commission to > clarify > that once a work is in the public domain, any digitisation of > the > work > which does not constitute a new, transformative work, stays in > the > public > domain." > - *Compromise Amendment 6 *will also call the Commission to > examine > "whether rightholders may be given the right to dedicate their > works > to the > public domain, in whole or in part". > - *Compromise Amendment 7* will explicitly call on the > Commission to > refrain from further copyright term extentions. > - While very watered down, *Compromise Amendments 10 and 11* > call for > at least some harmonisation by mentioning "minimum standards > across > the > exceptions and limitations". > - *Compromise Amendments 13 and 14* try to propose introduce an > "open > norm" to EU copyright, but are so watered down, that the initial > intention > is almost gone. Still OK to have. > - *Compromise Amendment 18* on Text and Data Mining is rather > weak, > but at least it doesn't do any harm. > - The paragraph on linking liability is completely off, which > is to > be > welcomed, since it would have gone in the wrong direction. > > All in all, I am very happy and excited about Compromises 6 and 7. > Compromise 5 is a step in the right direction, although not as clear > as > we > wanted it. Freedom of Panorama remains a major worry. In a worst > case > scenario we might just want to kill it in a later stage of the > legislative > process to guard the status quo if the the "non-commercial" fixation > remains this sticky. > > Voting should begin around 10:30. > > Live stream: > http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video%E2%80%A6 > < > > http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20150616-090... > >> >> Voting list: https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/ > …/03/voting_list.pdf > https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/voting_list.pdf > > Dimi > > >
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
--
Stevie Benton Head of External Relations Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors