@Marcin, in this case, anything that flies with the media and helps us change the text would work. The report that was adopted already calls for minimum standards for exceptions. We're not getting more, but we might get less.

I think we should work on a very neutral, non-scary text as an amendment for the plenary. Perhaps something along the lines of:

16. Invites the EU legislator to recognise that the use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in public places is permitted.

Otherwise, working on the original Cavada text, we could go for:

16. 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 permitted subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them.

Which one is likely to attract less opposition?

Dimi

2015-06-16 12:31 GMT+02:00 Marcin Cieslak <saper@saper.info>:

On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, James Heald wrote:

> I see this as a "Euro-sausage" issue -- a case of the EU threatening to
> interfere with UK laws, and make lots of good things illegal.

Well, but this goes against the general idea of broad, harmonized
copyright exceptions which we support I think?

~Marcin

_______________________________________________
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