Dear Wikimedians, Today at Communia we’re launching the Best Case Scenarios for Copyright <http://www.communia-association.org/bcs-copyright/> series, to promote great solutions such as user-friendly copyright limitations. They work in some EU countries and we want to talk about making them (and other good ones) mandatory for the whole EU. It would be great if you could promote the message via social media and any other communication with your partners. Today we introduce the idea for the campaign and on Wednesday we will publish the first case. Today’s post may be found here <http://www.communia-association.org/2016/06/06/bcs-copyright/> and Communia TT is here <https://twitter.com/communia_eu/status/739782579952443392>. Best wishes, Lisette Kalshoven -- Kennisland | www.kennisland.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31613943237 | @lnkalshoven | skype: lisette.kalshoven _______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy

Hi Raul, If you wait 2 more days, you can read the 10-page report that I prepared on the Portuguese study. As you will see, public interiors is not an issue in Portugal, because we have a broad definition of public space elsewhere in the Portuguese Copyright Code. The fact that this is a relatively abstract norm (with a wording very similar to the InfoSoc), only raises interpretation issues with regards to the purposes. But the fact that the norm doesn't exclude a priory commercial purposes can only be seen as a positive thing. The rest of the concepts (e.g. "use", "works") are defined in other norms, so they are not vague at all. Thanks, Teresa 2016-06-06 15:01 GMT+01:00 Raul Veede &lt;raul.veede(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: > Well, Estonian FoP was today discussed in the Parliamentary Committee > of Culture, and we're hoping to present the case in the Committee of > European Affairs in close days. > > The Portuguese scenario has at least three weaknesses I can identify > (I've written about it in short in a comment on your blog post, and in > length to Teresa Nobre personally; to count quickly, it leaves unclear the > situations with public interiors and several types of works, and prescribes > provisions so vague that every politician would be proud to include such > language in their election program) and if it were adopted in Estonia, we > would actually lose some territory that is currently covered by NC FoP and > by the draft bill I wrote would become also free commercially. > > So please excuse me but we're in a bit of a hurry here yet would still > be greatly interested in reasons for going backwards. > > Also, my experience shows it is hard to get Communia to respond to > anything. You don't exactly try to communicate with people who comment on > your blog or FB, and your posts have a constant lack of references and > analysis. If you're saying you are recommending the best scenarios without > having any analysis to back up your recommendations yet, it sounds, > unfortunately, believable. Care to disprove my cynicism? > > All the best, > > Raul > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Lisette Kalshoven &lt;lk(a)kl.nl&gt; wrote: > >> >> Hi Raul, >> >> The supporting documents (with full legal analysis) will be published >> when we share the individual scenario’s over the next 3-4 weeks. This is >> just us announcing the series. So stay tuned :) >> >> With kind regards >> >> Lisette >> >> -- >> Kennisland | www.kennisland.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31613943237 | >> @lnkalshoven | skype: lisette.kalshoven >> >> On 06 Jun 2016, at 15:46, Raul Veede &lt;raul.veede(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >> Your proposal of the Portuguese scenario as a good example for >> adopting across Europe made me wondering what might be the reasoning >> behind that. In the piece published today you only count the examples but >> do not offer any analysis, proof, or legal reasons. Would you be so nice >> and expand it beyond pure rhetorics? >> >> All the best >> >> Raul >> >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Lisette Kalshoven &lt;lk(a)kl.nl&gt; wrote: >> >>> Dear Wikimedians, >>> >>> Today at Communia we’re launching the Best Case Scenarios for >>> Copyright <http://www.communia-association.org/bcs-copyright/> series, >>> to promote great solutions such as user-friendly copyright limitations. >>> They work in some EU countries and we want to talk about making them (and >>> other good ones) mandatory for the whole EU. It would be great if you could >>> promote the message via social media and any other communication with your >>> partners. >>> >>> Today we introduce the idea for the campaign and on Wednesday we >>> will publish the first case. Today’s post may be found here >>> <http://www.communia-association.org/2016/06/06/bcs-copyright/> and >>> Communia TT is here >>> <https://twitter.com/communia_eu/status/739782579952443392>. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Lisette Kalshoven >>> >>> -- >>> Kennisland | www.kennisland.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31613943237 | >>> @lnkalshoven | skype: lisette.kalshoven >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Publicpolicy mailing list >>> Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Publicpolicy mailing list >> Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Publicpolicy mailing list >> Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list > Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy > > _______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy

Hi Jan, Raul, all, As Freedom of Panorama is something Wikimedia cares very deeply about, I’m very curious on what you think about the Panorama study Teresa did for Portugal. As she wrote, we published it this morning: http://www.communia-association.org/2016/06/07/freedom-panorama-bcs-copyrig… Any thoughts? Cheers, Lisette -- Kennisland | www.kennisland.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31613943237 | @lnkalshoven | skype: lisette.kalshoven On 08 Jun 2016, at 12:54, Teresa Nobre &lt;teresaraposonobre(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Thanks Jan! We just released the FoP study: http://www.communia-association.org/2016/06/07/freedom-panorama-bcs-copyrig… Best, Teresa 2016-06-07 9:41 GMT+01:00 Jan Gerlach &lt;jgerlach(a)wikimedia.org&gt;rg>: > Hi Lisette and Teresa > > Congratulations on a great campaign and thanks for sharing it on this > list! I really like the approach and am very curious about the forthcoming > case studies. > I appreciate that you set expectations right ("EU copyright reform > won’t fix it all.") and give best practice examples of norms that are > actually in effect. > > Best, > Jan > > == > > > Jan Gerlach > Public Policy Manager > Wikimedia Foundation > 149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor > San Francisco, CA 94105 > jgerlach(a)wikimedia.org > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Teresa Nobre < > teresaraposonobre(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> Hi Raul, >> >> If you wait 2 more days, you can read the 10-page report that I >> prepared on the Portuguese study. >> As you will see, public interiors is not an issue in Portugal, >> because we have a broad definition of public space elsewhere in the >> Portuguese Copyright Code. The fact that this is a relatively abstract norm >> (with a wording very similar to the InfoSoc), only raises interpretation >> issues with regards to the purposes. But the fact that the norm doesn't >> exclude a priory commercial purposes can only be seen as a positive thing. >> The rest of the concepts (e.g. "use", "works") are defined in other norms, >> so they are not vague at all. >> >> Thanks, >> Teresa >> >> >> 2016-06-06 15:01 GMT+01:00 Raul Veede &lt;raul.veede(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: >> >>> Well, Estonian FoP was today discussed in the Parliamentary >>> Committee of Culture, and we're hoping to present the case in the Committee >>> of European Affairs in close days. >>> >>> The Portuguese scenario has at least three weaknesses I can identify >>> (I've written about it in short in a comment on your blog post, and in >>> length to Teresa Nobre personally; to count quickly, it leaves unclear the >>> situations with public interiors and several types of works, and prescribes >>> provisions so vague that every politician would be proud to include such >>> language in their election program) and if it were adopted in Estonia, we >>> would actually lose some territory that is currently covered by NC FoP and >>> by the draft bill I wrote would become also free commercially. >>> >>> So please excuse me but we're in a bit of a hurry here yet would >>> still be greatly interested in reasons for going backwards. >>> >>> Also, my experience shows it is hard to get Communia to respond to >>> anything. You don't exactly try to communicate with people who comment on >>> your blog or FB, and your posts have a constant lack of references and >>> analysis. If you're saying you are recommending the best scenarios without >>> having any analysis to back up your recommendations yet, it sounds, >>> unfortunately, believable. Care to disprove my cynicism? >>> >>> All the best, >>> >>> Raul >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Lisette Kalshoven &lt;lk(a)kl.nl&gt; wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi Raul, >>>> >>>> The supporting documents (with full legal analysis) will be >>>> published when we share the individual scenario’s over the next 3-4 weeks. >>>> This is just us announcing the series. So stay tuned :) >>>> >>>> With kind regards >>>> >>>> Lisette >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Kennisland | www.kennisland.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31613943237 | >>>> @lnkalshoven | skype: lisette.kalshoven >>>> >>>> On 06 Jun 2016, at 15:46, Raul Veede &lt;raul.veede(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>> Your proposal of the Portuguese scenario as a good example for >>>> adopting across Europe made me wondering what might be the reasoning >>>> behind that. In the piece published today you only count the examples but >>>> do not offer any analysis, proof, or legal reasons. Would you be so nice >>>> and expand it beyond pure rhetorics? >>>> >>>> All the best >>>> >>>> Raul >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Lisette Kalshoven &lt;lk(a)kl.nl&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Wikimedians, >>>>> >>>>> Today at Communia we’re launching the Best Case Scenarios for >>>>> Copyright <http://www.communia-association.org/bcs-copyright/> series, >>>>> to promote great solutions such as user-friendly copyright limitations. >>>>> They work in some EU countries and we want to talk about making them (and >>>>> other good ones) mandatory for the whole EU. It would be great if you could >>>>> promote the message via social media and any other communication with your >>>>> partners. >>>>> >>>>> Today we introduce the idea for the campaign and on Wednesday we >>>>> will publish the first case. Today’s post may be found here >>>>> <http://www.communia-association.org/2016/06/06/bcs-copyright/> and >>>>> Communia TT is here >>>>> <https://twitter.com/communia_eu/status/739782579952443392>. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> Lisette Kalshoven >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Kennisland | www.kennisland.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31613943237 >>>>> | @lnkalshoven | skype: lisette.kalshoven >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Publicpolicy mailing list >>>>> Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Publicpolicy mailing list >>>> Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Publicpolicy mailing list >>>> Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Publicpolicy mailing list >>> Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Publicpolicy mailing list >> Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list > Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy > > _______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy _______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy