To be fair, the clearest definition is the one in Germany. Most other European countries just put the building in the centre and apparently refrain from asking the questions you just did.

But yes, theoretically in Austrian or Spanish law for instance, if a building is not right at the street/path it might not be covered by the copyright exception. I am not aware of this ever having been a real problem, though.

Dimi



2016-06-01 17:11 GMT+02:00 L.Gelauff <lgelauff@gmail.com>:
Well, that is my worry. I don't really see a better definition out there that is unambiguous. I'm not so much asking because of the German situation - I totally agree it would be odd to go in strong for what is in the end a detail - but it might be helpful when working in other countries, what are the best practices, what ideal FoP would look like. 

If you put the building at the center, which part of the building? And which buildings? You say located at a street, but what if there's a garden (field of grass) in between? Or a low building? 

The only better definition I could think of, is to apply it to all architecture. But whether that is realistic? 

Lodewijk

2016-06-01 17:04 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com>:
Hello, everybody!

I personally don't see this particular wording in German law as very problematic. Sure, it would be nice to have it written otherwise, but is it a priority issue? Definitely not!

If we ever got the chance it without a fight, I would simply go for changing the perspective to the one of the building. Something like buildings/plots/statutes that are permanently located in/at parks, streets and squares. This way drones or pictures from aircrafts won't be problematic.

Of course "parks, streets and squares" is not exhaustive enough, but you get my point.

Dimi



2016-06-01 16:31 GMT+02:00 L.Gelauff <lgelauff@gmail.com>:
Hi Raul, 

Changing the topic, as this becomes a quite specific discussion. 

What would be the better definition in your opinion? The burden of proof is always on the copyright holder, I'd think. But somehow, you need to define what is this 'panorama'. What you could see from a public space, is one definition. What is yours? 

Lodewijk

2016-06-01 14:20 GMT+02:00 Raul Veede <raul.veede@gmail.com>:
Hi.

Has there been any discussion about possibly (re)opening the question of the clause limiting FoP that demands that the pictures should be taken _from_ a public place? It could be argued this creates complications for businesses (as clearly demonstrated by the Hundertwasser case) and has potential for unlimited amount of uncertainty (the place where the photographer stood usually remains unseen on the picture itself, so the legality is hard to determine afterwords, especially on the Internet, e.g. on Commons). Most jurisdictions with FoP can get very well by without such a clause, and it is hard to see what benefit it creates for the public, or actually even for any private rightsholders.

Best,

Raul,
working on FoP in Estonia

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:57 PM, John Hendrik Weitzmann <john.weitzmann@wikimedia.de> wrote:
Hi all,

@Jens: Thx for the warm welcome. The settling in is not quite done yet. I'm still watching/learning and trying to tend to urgent things on the way. The justice ministry is high on the meeting agenda, a direct contact to the head of their copyright unit exists. Their ideas and initiatives around exceptions & limitations definitely touch on Wikiprojects. Any concrete suggestions welcome. Main items on this year's WMDE work plan regarding lawmaking are public works, freedom of panorama, database directive and ancillary publichers right, the three last of which happen mainly on the EU level as yet.

Best
John
 

2016-06-01 8:01 GMT+02:00 Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler@gmail.com>:
Hi,

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Jens Best <best.jens@gmail.com> wrote:

> I heard that the German ministry of justice is reevaluating the
> "Schrankenregeln" (kind of the German version of fair use) as one aspect of
> this year's copyright laws reevaluation. Wouldn't that be a possible focus
> which relates to the volunteer work of the Wikiprojects?

a more precise translation of Schrankenregeln is "limitations and
exceptions" in copyright. EU member states can implement exceptions
listed in the InfoSoc Directive, they are not allowed to implement
exceptions not listed there. The current German government has
announced to adjust certain exceptions dealing with education. Other
than that, the introduction of a fair use clause in German copyright
would require some legislation on the EU level*

Mathias


* (Martin Senftleben is slightly more optimistic here
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1959554)

_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy



--
Referent für Politik und Recht
Legal and Policy Advisor

Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49 (0)30 219 158 26-0

Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.

_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy



_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy



_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy