content licenses is also crucial for the sharing of knowledge. For public actors as licensors of such content, however, the question arises here as to whether the publication of content under free licenses can be a relevant process under competition law. As a follow-up to the first roundtable on "Releases of Public Broadcasting Content for Knowledge Projects" on July 04, 2018, we commissioned an expert opinion on this question from Prof. Dr. Roland Broemel and Prof. Dr. Hans-Heinrich Trute. Prof. Dr. Roland Broemel, Maîtrise en Droit has been Professor of Public Law, Economic and Monetary Law, Financial Market Regulation and Legal Theory at Goethe University Frankfurt since July 2018. Prof. Dr. Hans-Heinrich Trute has been Professor of Public Law, Media and Telecommunications Law at the University of Hamburg since October 2001. The expert opinion question was: "Does the release of public broadcasters' content to the general public, specifically under an everyman license such as CC BY, which also allows commercial uses, constitute an impermissible subsidy?" The key findings are: In principle, the granting of a CC BY license does not favor any particular company or industry. In individual cases, a so-called de facto selectivity may exist. An indication against this would be the separation of the production decision from the CC licensing decision. De facto selectivity would be permissible in the context of a cooperation. This regularly requires, among other things, a telemedia concept tested in the so-called 3-step test. In detail: The granting of rights within the framework of CC BY takes place free of charge, while the uses of protected content according to market conditions suggest a paid license, at least in a commercial context. The CC BY can thus be understood as an advantage relevant under state aid law. However, since the licensing is not for the benefit of a specific company but in general, the granting of a CC BY license does not favor a specific company or a specific sector of the economy. In the absence of selectivity, it is therefore in any case generally permissible to make content available to the general public for use under a CC BY license. However, the selectivity of a benefit can arise from the circumstances of the individual case despite the formally general nature of the benefit (so-called de facto selectivity). Thus, a targeted production of the subsequently licensed content with a view to the needs of Wikimedia in the context of a cooperation will have to be rated as de facto selective aid. As a result, it can be stated that releases by public broadcasters under a CC BY license are in principle permissible under state aid law if they lack selectivity. At the same time, the granting of non-selective licenses to the general public is compatible with the regulatory objective of the so-called state aid compromise, which led to changes in the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty regarding the regulations on telemedia of public broadcasters. However, they violate the prohibition of state aid if they have a predictably distorting effect due to de facto selectivity. A permanent publication of content under a CC BY license may also violate some broadcasting law provisions currently still in force, in particular the requirements for so-called telemedia concepts and the time limit still applicable to publication. Thus, the use of CC licenses in a field in which corresponding content has previously only been offered under market licensing conditions can have significant effects, and this should be taken into account accordingly in the 3-step test. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Op 13 mrt. 2021, om 22:56 heeft Ciell Wikipedia &lt;ciell.wikipedia(a)gmail.com&gt; het volgende geschreven: Hi Bernd, We have several years of broadcasts of DWDD, of populair daily show on Dutch national tv (public service) available on Commons - and a lot of derived stills from all the guests. Until at one point, they stopped using the free license on YT, so maybe this was per mistake? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:De_Wereld_Draait_Door Yes, I had contact with them and it was by accident, but their legal team was not unwilling. However, the Dutch public broadcasting organisation NPO doesn’t allow publications under Creative Commons. Reason is that it is produced with public money and therefore the public broadcasting organisations viewpoint is that it is unethical to give it away for free... Another reason is that they need permission for each work by the Dutch government to publish it under a free license as it can be seen as a ‘commercial activity’ (distribution of content that might economical disturb other video content providers). Public broadcasters in the Netherlands are not allowed to have commercial activities unless they have a permission for such exception case by case by the national government. Universiteit van Nederland (on YT and now also on Spotify), seems like the same story: new content is only available for NC-restrictions. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos_from_the_Universiteit_va… they switched from cc-by to youtube license as they said a third party was misusing their content. The Dutch institute for Sound and Vision <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Open_Beelden> donated a lot of old news broadcasts in 2014 already: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Polygoonjournaal They only donated the public domain ones. Hannolans (in cc:) is a frequent importer of Dutch language videos from YT to Commons: maybe he knows about present day projects. We have Drugslab, published by BNNVARA on youtube that is published under CC-BY Vriendelijke groet, Ciell Op vr 12 mrt. 2021 om 17:31 schreef Bernd Fiedler < bernd.fiedler(a)wikimedia.de&gt;gt;: -- Hanno Lans Middenweg 73 2024 XA Haarlem hanno(a)hannolans.nl +31-626076205 @hanno _______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy

Thank you for starting this discussion. This NL paper is great as well as examples above and I would use it once in position to advocate in Croatia. Maybe this particular incentive is something to coordinate with both CreativeCommons and Open Knowledge Foundation? Are representatives or members of those organizations in the list? Best Z. Blace On 3/14/21, Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland &lt;rientjes(a)wikimedia.nl&gt; wrote: (biggest https://wikimediapolicy.medium.com/broadcast-by-the-public-for-the-public-a… https://pro.europeana.eu/files/Europeana_Professional/Publications/Democrat… _______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy

Hm... In all honesty - I am surprised that these 3 organizations still do not have explicit and continuous relations and shared point of contact. Maybe it is an issue of professionalization of work (not fitting anyone's job description) or something else, but I think it should be worked on now (and maybe over this issue). My contacts are now just a few old friends (bottom up) for now so I advise also for you just approaching German representatives? Best Z. Blace On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:53 AM Bernd Fiedler &lt;bernd.fiedler(a)wikimedia.de&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy