[Advocacy Advisors] Wikimedia EU Monitoring Report March 2015

Wikimedia and the EU March 2015 Report tl;dr Two of our main goals, Freedom of Panorama and Government Works in the Public Domain have been proposed in the draft report on the Implementation of the InfoSoc Directive (a.k.a. “Copyright Directive”). However a large number of the tabled amendments aim at limiting or removing the original paragraphs. This and past reports: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor ToC 1. InfoSoc Implementation Draft Report Amendment Proposals Published 2. IMCO Committee Vote on Opinion for InfoSoc Implementation Report 3. Commission Hates Geo-Blocking and/or Alarm Clocks 4.NYU/HEC EU Regulatory Clinic Work on Freedom of Panorama ----------------- ----------------- #fixcopyright #DSM #FoP #PDGov 1. InfoSoc Implementation Draft Report - Amendment Proposals Published Why is this relevant? The Report on the Implementation of the Information Society Directive is an own-initiative report by the European Parliament. [1] This means that it is not legally binding, but it nonetheless tells the European Commission what reform proposals the EP expects and is likely to approve. After the rapporteur Julia Reda (Pirate Party, Greens/EFA Group, DE) proposed a draft text [2] in the Legal Affairs Committee, other MEPs are now allowed to put forward amendment proposals [3][4] before the rapporteur and her shadow rapporteurs (one from each political group) look for compromises. What happened? The presented draft report included both our core issues – Freedom of Panorama (FoP) and Government Works in the Public Domain (PDGov). Both were however fiercely attacked by many MEPs. A group of more than 23 members from the Socialists (S&D) and People’s Party (EPP) Groups, the two largest blocks, want to delete PDGov altogether. Another group of 16 members, mainly made up of EPP MEPs, want to include a “non-commercial” restriction to European Freedom of Panorama. A shout-out goes to Mr. Jean-Marie Cavada [5], French MEP and shadow rapporteur for the Liberal (ALDE) Group. Not only did he propose to include “non-commercial” in FoP, but when asked about it, his directrice de cabinet Colette Bouckaert stated that “Wikipedia is stealing from authors because we give information away for free”. Interestingly enough, Mr. Cavada does have picture of the European Parliament building in Strasbourg on his official website. [6][7] What’s next? Our two main goals right now are to get rid the FoP NC condition and to keep PDGov in the report. We are discussing the FoP NC condition primarily with the EPP group. To strengthen public domain, we will focus on the S&D. Should we succeed in getting S&D support, there is a better chance of getting the other large groups on board. We also have some traction within the S&D from their Austrian, Polish and Romanian delegations. The largest delegation is the Italian one. Federico Leva from WMIT is coming to Brussel mid-April as a first “Visiting Weasel” to help with this. Currently active Wikimedia chapters, user groups and individuals on these efforts are from Belgium, Netherlands, France, UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, Malta, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Czech Republic, Austria, Poland and Sweden (ordered by an imaginary line drawn in my head, not by merits). If you want to join, please respond on or off list. Some information unfortunately cannot be shared on a public mailing list at this point. ----------------- ----------------- #fixcopyright #DigitalSingleMarket 2. IMCO Committee Vote on Opinion for InfoSoc Implementation Report Why is this relevant? Next to the lead committee, which in this case is Legal Affairs (JURI), other EP bodies get to voice an opinion, too. In this case these are the Internal Market (IMCO), Industry (ITRE) and Culture (CULT) Committees. Their opinions aren’t binding even to JURI, but give a somewhat more global picture of what the Parliament thinks and need to be taken into account. What happened? IMCO is the first committee that voted and adopted its opinion on the copyright report. [8] An opinion in this case reads like a list of different thoughts and amendment proposals. In this case the IMCO opinion says a little bit of all. It says that authors’ rights and income are important, that users’ expectations aren’t met and that it sees the fragmented market both a necessary and as an obstacle. It also claims that re-opening the directives dealing with enforcement is a must. The opinion finally calls on the Commission to find a balanced way to solve all these contradictions. There’s really nothing too offensive in this, except for welcoming the horribly failed “Licenses 4 Europe” stakeholder dialogue. The move to cross this particular paragraph off was lost by 1 vote. What’s next? We especially note the part of the IMCO report that “urges the Commission and the Member States to promote a higher level of harmonisation and a balanced framework for exceptions and limitations that does not cause any harm to right holders, conforms with consumer expectations, fosters both creativity and innovation, and adapts to the technology advances in the digital environment;” We will point out that FoP and PDGov are the exception to copyright that don’t hurt right holders in any significant way. This makes them compatible with the IMCO opinion. ----------------- ----------------- #Ansip #Oettinger #DSM #fixcopyright 3. Commission Hates Geo-Blocking and/or Alarm Clocks Why is this relevant? The Commission is hammering away on the actual legal text on copyright reform so it is important to keep an eye on them and try to keep our demands afloat. They are expected to publish their proposal around summer this year. What happened? Both responsible Commissioners – Vice-President Ansip and Commissioner Oettinger – talked about their visions for digital reforms. While the former wants to abolish geo-blocking and literally said “I hate geo-blocking”, the latter commented that he hates his “alarm clock in the morning at five o’clock” and that we shouldn’t be so quick about getting rid of it. [9][10] Apart from that, Mr. Oettinger also reconfirmed that he continues to be a big fan of ancillary copyright, which already failed the on-road test in Germany and is about to crash other EU countries. The more visionary statement came from Mr. Ansip, who talked about harmonizing exceptions at least for libraries and disabled people and guaranteeing that text and data mining would be legal. [11] What’s next? Wikimedia had a meeting with the European Commission copyright unit last week, presenting the fourth FoP analysis we produced (see below) and trying to feel out the Commission's position. They seem to be struggling to find a coherent strategy as internal struggles have deadlocked certain parts of the proposal. The message that the Copyright Unit would look for political leadership, including from the European Parliament, was very clearly communicated. ----------------- ----------------- #FoP 4. NYU/HEC EU Regulatory Clinic Work on Freedom of Panorama Why is this relevant? While studies and analyses are often biased in Brussels, having them is fundamental to any point you want to make, if you want it to have a chance of sounding credible. Academic analyses work as door-openers and give your views extra attention. What happened? The New York University and the Haute Ecole des Commerces run a EU Regulatory Law Clinic in Brussels [12], which produced an analysis [13] of the the currently fragmented Freedom of Panorama situation in Europe. This was presented by the participants to the European Commission (Jaime Mendoza from the Copyright Unit) and the European Parliament (JURI chair Pavel Svoboda and InfoSoc rapporteur Julia Reda). The conclusion presented was that harmonising Freedom of Panorama to include commercial and derivative uses is the optimal way. Two interesting questions were raised. Jaime Mendoza asked us if we need to define the commercial use of FoP positively or it would be enough to omit the word “noncommercial” into the text. The answer given was that positively defining that any use is allowed would be the best way to go. Pavel Svoboda wondered if a chocolate model of building and its subsequent sale would and should be permitted under the FoP exception. The answer given was that not limiting FoP to 2D reproductions would be wise in light of future technological developments as 3D TV. What’s next? The finalised version of the report will be circulated among EP and the European Commission decision-makers. This should give us an excuse to contact everyone again, remind them of our issue and demonstrate the seriousness of our work. ----------------- ----------------- [1] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2014/… [2] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL… [3] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL… [4] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL… [5]http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/28206/JEAN-MARIE_CAVADA_home.html [6]http://jeanmariecavada.eu/ [7]https://twitter.com/dimi_z/status/573415046300209152 [8] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0QRHCpjYWN2Ym95cGpNSmg3STA/view?usp=shari… [9]https://euobserver.com/digital/128194 [10] https://www.newday.mk/digital-commissioner-oettinger-against-rapid-abolitio… [11] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6c53690e-d2f1-11e4-a792-00144feab7de.html#axzz3Vy… [12]http://www.law.nyu.edu/global/globalopportunities/nyulawabroad/paris [13] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0QRHCpjYWN2LXZsR1JmSTBlTmM/view?usp=shari…