Hello, Can I get some more info on this (English presumably will be ok). Or just to shorten it, Is there a FoP for commercial use in Belgium being currently proposed? And will it be voted? Thanks Aktron ______________________________________________________________
Od: Robin Pepermans robinp.1273@gmail.com Komu: Publicpolicy Group for Wikimedia publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org Datum: 12.05.2016 09:29 Předmět: Re: [Publicpolicy] Selfies at the Atomium soon legally
There will apparently be a second reading in committee on the request of PS (Parti Socialiste). No information on when that would be, but we'll contact MPs to try to find out.
The media expects this bill to pass very easily though, given the cross-party political support.RegardsSPQRobin 2016-05-11 15:59 GMT+02:00 Jan Gerlach <jgerlach@wikimedia.org jgerlach@wikimedia.org>: This is great, Romaine!When would you expect the vote in Parliament?Best,Jan On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Romaine Wiki <romaine.wiki@gmail.com romaine.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:Hi all,
"Selfies at the Atomium soon legally" was the title of an article of 11 May of De Redactie at: http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/politiek/1.2652533 http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/politiek/1.2652533
A quote translated: The Parliamentary Committee for Economy is almost finished with the introduction of the so-called "freedom of panorama".
It seems the next step has been taken!Romaine _______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
_______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
----------
_______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Yes, it is full FoP for architecture and sculpture. The only restriction being that images should be permanent in public places and that they need to be "in their natural environment". This exists also in Dutch law if I am not mistaken. Not sure how to interpret it exactly - I guess you must always see at least a little bit of background.
Dimi
2016-05-12 11:54 GMT+02:00 aktron@centrum.cz:
Hello,
Can I get some more info on this (English presumably will be ok). Or just to shorten it, Is there a FoP for commercial use in Belgium being currently proposed? And will it be voted?
Thanks
Aktron
Od: Robin Pepermans robinp.1273@gmail.com Komu: Publicpolicy Group for Wikimedia <publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org
Datum: 12.05.2016 09:29 Předmět: Re: [Publicpolicy] Selfies at the Atomium soon legally
There will apparently be a second reading in committee on the request of PS (Parti Socialiste). No information on when that would be, but we'll contact MPs to try to find out.
The media expects this bill to pass very easily though, given the cross-party political support. Regards SPQRobin
2016-05-11 15:59 GMT+02:00 Jan Gerlach jgerlach@wikimedia.org:
This is great, Romaine! When would you expect the vote in Parliament? Best, Jan
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
"Selfies at the Atomium soon legally" was the title of an article of 11 May of De Redactie at: http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/politiek/1.2652533
A quote translated: The Parliamentary Committee for Economy is almost finished with the introduction of the so-called "freedom of panorama".
It seems the next step has been taken! Romaine _______________________________________________ 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
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Whenever there'll be a discussion of the actual wording for FoP in EU, I'd say it'd be best if we explained why it is a very, very bad idea to include any such foggy clauses - this "natural environment", references to the 3-step test, the German-Czech exception, anything "fair", estimations by the amount of creativeness in a work, etc. The only positive effect of such clauses is they provide some emotional comfort to their supporters, while they also bring legal unclarity, court battles and repressed creative initiative for decades to come. Good laws are as clear and concise as possible.
Raul
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, it is full FoP for architecture and sculpture. The only restriction being that images should be permanent in public places and that they need to be "in their natural environment". This exists also in Dutch law if I am not mistaken. Not sure how to interpret it exactly - I guess you must always see at least a little bit of background.
Dimi
2016-05-12 11:54 GMT+02:00 aktron@centrum.cz:
Hello,
Can I get some more info on this (English presumably will be ok). Or just to shorten it, Is there a FoP for commercial use in Belgium being currently proposed? And will it be voted?
Thanks
Aktron
Od: Robin Pepermans robinp.1273@gmail.com Komu: Publicpolicy Group for Wikimedia <
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org>
Datum: 12.05.2016 09:29 Předmět: Re: [Publicpolicy] Selfies at the Atomium soon legally
There will apparently be a second reading in committee on the request of PS (Parti Socialiste). No information on when that would be, but we'll contact MPs to try to find out.
The media expects this bill to pass very easily though, given the cross-party political support. Regards SPQRobin
2016-05-11 15:59 GMT+02:00 Jan Gerlach jgerlach@wikimedia.org:
This is great, Romaine! When would you expect the vote in Parliament? Best, Jan
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
"Selfies at the Atomium soon legally" was the title of an article of 11 May of De Redactie at: http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/politiek/1.2652533
A quote translated: The Parliamentary Committee for Economy is almost finished with the introduction of the so-called "freedom of panorama".
It seems the next step has been taken! Romaine _______________________________________________ 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
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
Yup, it also exists in Dutch law, although I'm uncertain if the phrasing is exactly the same. The result of it, was I think only one case where was decided in favour of the author (architect): the Erasmus bridge in Rotterdam. Someone tried to take a cutout of the bridge (the shape) and use it as a logo. That was not a permitted use according to the judges, as it was explicitely taking everything out of context. Also, a piece of art in the public space (a couch in Enschede) was used in the design of a newspaper, which was also not permitted. Apparently, it is also not permitted to make a 'compilation of all works of a single architect'.
So yeah, exceptions make life tough - but some might be acceptable if that makes the change in law more likely to actually happen.
Lodewijk
2016-05-12 12:13 GMT+02:00 Raul Veede raul.veede@gmail.com:
Whenever there'll be a discussion of the actual wording for FoP in EU, I'd say it'd be best if we explained why it is a very, very bad idea to include any such foggy clauses - this "natural environment", references to the 3-step test, the German-Czech exception, anything "fair", estimations by the amount of creativeness in a work, etc. The only positive effect of such clauses is they provide some emotional comfort to their supporters, while they also bring legal unclarity, court battles and repressed creative initiative for decades to come. Good laws are as clear and concise as possible.
Raul
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, it is full FoP for architecture and sculpture. The only restriction being that images should be permanent in public places and that they need to be "in their natural environment". This exists also in Dutch law if I am not mistaken. Not sure how to interpret it exactly - I guess you must always see at least a little bit of background.
Dimi
2016-05-12 11:54 GMT+02:00 aktron@centrum.cz:
Hello,
Can I get some more info on this (English presumably will be ok). Or just to shorten it, Is there a FoP for commercial use in Belgium being currently proposed? And will it be voted?
Thanks
Aktron
Od: Robin Pepermans robinp.1273@gmail.com Komu: Publicpolicy Group for Wikimedia <
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org>
Datum: 12.05.2016 09:29 Předmět: Re: [Publicpolicy] Selfies at the Atomium soon legally
There will apparently be a second reading in committee on the request of PS (Parti Socialiste). No information on when that would be, but we'll contact MPs to try to find out.
The media expects this bill to pass very easily though, given the cross-party political support. Regards SPQRobin
2016-05-11 15:59 GMT+02:00 Jan Gerlach jgerlach@wikimedia.org:
This is great, Romaine! When would you expect the vote in Parliament? Best, Jan
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
"Selfies at the Atomium soon legally" was the title of an article of 11 May of De Redactie at: http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/politiek/1.2652533
A quote translated: The Parliamentary Committee for Economy is almost finished with the introduction of the so-called "freedom of panorama".
It seems the next step has been taken! Romaine _______________________________________________ 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
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
I agree with Raul generally, but the context/actual setting thing seems to be one of the lesser evil specimens of only slightly unclear wording. After all: It's the freedom of _panorama_ and not a carte blanche to do whatever with works sitting in public places :)
2016-05-12 18:24 GMT+02:00 L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com:
Yup, it also exists in Dutch law, although I'm uncertain if the phrasing is exactly the same. The result of it, was I think only one case where was decided in favour of the author (architect): the Erasmus bridge in Rotterdam. Someone tried to take a cutout of the bridge (the shape) and use it as a logo. That was not a permitted use according to the judges, as it was explicitely taking everything out of context. Also, a piece of art in the public space (a couch in Enschede) was used in the design of a newspaper, which was also not permitted. Apparently, it is also not permitted to make a 'compilation of all works of a single architect'.
So yeah, exceptions make life tough - but some might be acceptable if that makes the change in law more likely to actually happen.
Lodewijk
2016-05-12 12:13 GMT+02:00 Raul Veede raul.veede@gmail.com:
Whenever there'll be a discussion of the actual wording for FoP in EU, I'd say it'd be best if we explained why it is a very, very bad idea to include any such foggy clauses - this "natural environment", references to the 3-step test, the German-Czech exception, anything "fair", estimations by the amount of creativeness in a work, etc. The only positive effect of such clauses is they provide some emotional comfort to their supporters, while they also bring legal unclarity, court battles and repressed creative initiative for decades to come. Good laws are as clear and concise as possible.
Raul
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, it is full FoP for architecture and sculpture. The only restriction being that images should be permanent in public places and that they need to be "in their natural environment". This exists also in Dutch law if I am not mistaken. Not sure how to interpret it exactly - I guess you must always see at least a little bit of background.
Dimi
2016-05-12 11:54 GMT+02:00 aktron@centrum.cz:
Hello,
Can I get some more info on this (English presumably will be ok). Or just to shorten it, Is there a FoP for commercial use in Belgium being currently proposed? And will it be voted?
Thanks
Aktron
Od: Robin Pepermans robinp.1273@gmail.com Komu: Publicpolicy Group for Wikimedia <
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org>
Datum: 12.05.2016 09:29 Předmět: Re: [Publicpolicy] Selfies at the Atomium soon legally
There will apparently be a second reading in committee on the request of PS (Parti Socialiste). No information on when that would be, but we'll contact MPs to try to find out.
The media expects this bill to pass very easily though, given the cross-party political support. Regards SPQRobin
2016-05-11 15:59 GMT+02:00 Jan Gerlach jgerlach@wikimedia.org:
This is great, Romaine! When would you expect the vote in Parliament? Best, Jan
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
"Selfies at the Atomium soon legally" was the title of an article of 11 May of De Redactie at: http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/politiek/1.2652533
A quote translated: The Parliamentary Committee for Economy is almost finished with the introduction of the so-called "freedom of panorama".
It seems the next step has been taken! Romaine _______________________________________________ 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
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
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org