Dimi,
What's your assessment of where the balance in the plenary might be on this?
Is there any chance the plenary (with people from ITRE etc, and not such an over-representation of the French) might go for something more like Wikstrom's amendment ?
Or something close to the compromise AM that was supposedly being worked on ?
-- J.
On 16/06/2015 12:02, Marcin Cieslak wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote:
@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 agree. Let's not only forget that so called media are the party
to this discussion and not necessarily a friendly one. But I agree
we need to wor with them.
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*.
How do you understand "should always be permitted"? - that kind of
~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