Hi,
in a few hours the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) will vote on the own-initiative report (not a legal instrument, but rather a recommendation) by Julia Reda.
The full name of the document is Report on the Implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. It is about the implementation of the current copyright framework and how it could be updated. It is also a very first step in the process that will continue with the Commission proposing a reform text before the end of the year.
What's in it for us?
- *Freedom of Panorama* is looking good as it stands, but there is high chance of "non-commercial" being added to it. There was no compromise on this, so we tried everything we could in the past week. - In order for Freedom of Panorama to be preserved or even extended, following amendments need to be rejected: 414/415/417/420/422/423/424/426 - *Compromise Amendment 5* will call for "lowering the barriers to Public Sector Information". - *Compromise Amendment 6* will say that it "urges the Commission to clarify that once a work is in the public domain, any digitisation of the work which does not constitute a new, transformative work, stays in the public domain." - *Compromise Amendment 6 *will also call the Commission to examine "whether rightholders may be given the right to dedicate their works to the public domain, in whole or in part". - *Compromise Amendment 7* will explicitly call on the Commission to refrain from further copyright term extentions. - While very watered down, *Compromise Amendments 10 and 11* call for at least some harmonisation by mentioning "minimum standards across the exceptions and limitations". - *Compromise Amendments 13 and 14* try to propose introduce an "open norm" to EU copyright, but are so watered down, that the initial intention is almost gone. Still OK to have. - *Compromise Amendment 18* on Text and Data Mining is rather weak, but at least it doesn't do any harm. - The paragraph on linking liability is completely off, which is to be welcomed, since it would have gone in the wrong direction.
All in all, I am very happy and excited about Compromises 6 and 7. Compromise 5 is a step in the right direction, although not as clear as we wanted it. Freedom of Panorama remains a major worry. In a worst case scenario we might just want to kill it in a later stage of the legislative process to guard the status quo if the the "non-commercial" fixation remains this sticky.
Voting should begin around 10:30.
Live stream: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video%E2%80%A6 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20150616-0900-COMMITTEE-JURI Voting list: https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/%E2%80%A6/03/voting_list.pdf https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/voting_list.pdf
Dimi
So, the French visual artists collecting society got their preferred amendment through (Cavada). Unfortunately this is the worst possible for us. It says:
16. Considers that the commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them
We need to consider if we'll try to further amend it in plenary in several weeks or we just concentrate on the Commission.
Dimi
2015-06-16 5:35 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com>:
Hi,
in a few hours the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) will vote on the own-initiative report (not a legal instrument, but rather a recommendation) by Julia Reda.
The full name of the document is Report on the Implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. It is about the implementation of the current copyright framework and how it could be updated. It is also a very first step in the process that will continue with the Commission proposing a reform text before the end of the year.
What's in it for us?
- *Freedom of Panorama* is looking good as it stands, but there is
high chance of "non-commercial" being added to it. There was no compromise on this, so we tried everything we could in the past week.
- In order for Freedom of Panorama to be preserved or even extended,
following amendments need to be rejected: 414/415/417/420/422/423/424/426
- *Compromise Amendment 5* will call for "lowering the barriers to
Public Sector Information".
- *Compromise Amendment 6* will say that it "urges the Commission to clarify
that once a work is in the public domain, any digitisation of the work which does not constitute a new, transformative work, stays in the public domain."
- *Compromise Amendment 6 *will also call the Commission to examine
"whether rightholders may be given the right to dedicate their works to the public domain, in whole or in part".
- *Compromise Amendment 7* will explicitly call on the Commission to
refrain from further copyright term extentions.
- While very watered down, *Compromise Amendments 10 and 11* call for
at least some harmonisation by mentioning "minimum standards across the exceptions and limitations".
- *Compromise Amendments 13 and 14* try to propose introduce an "open
norm" to EU copyright, but are so watered down, that the initial intention is almost gone. Still OK to have.
- *Compromise Amendment 18* on Text and Data Mining is rather weak,
but at least it doesn't do any harm.
- The paragraph on linking liability is completely off, which is to be
welcomed, since it would have gone in the wrong direction.
All in all, I am very happy and excited about Compromises 6 and 7. Compromise 5 is a step in the right direction, although not as clear as we wanted it. Freedom of Panorama remains a major worry. In a worst case scenario we might just want to kill it in a later stage of the legislative process to guard the status quo if the the "non-commercial" fixation remains this sticky.
Voting should begin around 10:30.
Live stream: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video%E2%80%A6 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20150616-0900-COMMITTEE-JURI Voting list: https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/%E2%80%A6/03/voting_list.pdf https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/voting_list.pdf
Dimi
I think we should go the full Daily Mail.
Talk about books being pulped, blacked out photos of the buildings at Canary Wharf, etc, etc
Did anyone spot how Honeyball voted on the Wikstrom amendment (good) and the Cavada amendment (bad) ?
-- James.
On 16/06/2015 10:12, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote:
So, the French visual artists collecting society got their preferred amendment through (Cavada). Unfortunately this is the worst possible for us. It says:
Considers that the commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them
We need to consider if we'll try to further amend it in plenary in several weeks or we just concentrate on the Commission.
Dimi
2015-06-16 5:35 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com>:
Hi,
in a few hours the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) will vote on the own-initiative report (not a legal instrument, but rather a recommendation) by Julia Reda.
The full name of the document is Report on the Implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. It is about the implementation of the current copyright framework and how it could be updated. It is also a very first step in the process that will continue with the Commission proposing a reform text before the end of the year.
What's in it for us?
- *Freedom of Panorama* is looking good as it stands, but there is high chance of "non-commercial" being added to it. There was no compromise on this, so we tried everything we could in the past week. - In order for Freedom of Panorama to be preserved or even extended, following amendments need to be rejected: 414/415/417/420/422/423/424/426 - *Compromise Amendment 5* will call for "lowering the barriers to Public Sector Information". - *Compromise Amendment 6* will say that it "urges the Commission to clarify that once a work is in the public domain, any digitisation of the work which does not constitute a new, transformative work, stays in the public domain." - *Compromise Amendment 6 *will also call the Commission to examine "whether rightholders may be given the right to dedicate their works to the public domain, in whole or in part". - *Compromise Amendment 7* will explicitly call on the Commission to refrain from further copyright term extentions. - While very watered down, *Compromise Amendments 10 and 11* call for at least some harmonisation by mentioning "minimum standards across the exceptions and limitations". - *Compromise Amendments 13 and 14* try to propose introduce an "open norm" to EU copyright, but are so watered down, that the initial intention is almost gone. Still OK to have. - *Compromise Amendment 18* on Text and Data Mining is rather weak, but at least it doesn't do any harm. - The paragraph on linking liability is completely off, which is to be welcomed, since it would have gone in the wrong direction.All in all, I am very happy and excited about Compromises 6 and 7. Compromise 5 is a step in the right direction, although not as clear as we wanted it. Freedom of Panorama remains a major worry. In a worst case scenario we might just want to kill it in a later stage of the legislative process to guard the status quo if the the "non-commercial" fixation remains this sticky.
Voting should begin around 10:30.
Live stream: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video%E2%80%A6 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20150616-0900-COMMITTEE-JURI Voting list: https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/%E2%80%A6/03/voting_list.pdf https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/voting_list.pdf
Dimi
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
This is terrible.
I will start a page on the UK wiki where we can throw something together On 16 Jun 2015 10:37, "James Heald" j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
I think we should go the full Daily Mail.
Talk about books being pulped, blacked out photos of the buildings at Canary Wharf, etc, etc
Did anyone spot how Honeyball voted on the Wikstrom amendment (good) and the Cavada amendment (bad) ?
-- James.
On 16/06/2015 10:12, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote:
So, the French visual artists collecting society got their preferred amendment through (Cavada). Unfortunately this is the worst possible for us. It says:
Considers that the commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them
We need to consider if we'll try to further amend it in plenary in several weeks or we just concentrate on the Commission.
Dimi
2015-06-16 5:35 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com>:
Hi,
in a few hours the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) will vote on the own-initiative report (not a legal instrument, but rather a recommendation) by Julia Reda.
The full name of the document is Report on the Implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. It is about the implementation of the current copyright framework and how it could be updated. It is also a very first step in the process that will continue with the Commission proposing a reform text before the end of the year.
What's in it for us?
- *Freedom of Panorama* is looking good as it stands, but there is high chance of "non-commercial" being added to it. There was nocompromise on this, so we tried everything we could in the past week. - In order for Freedom of Panorama to be preserved or even extended, following amendments need to be rejected: 414/415/417/420/422/423/424/426 - *Compromise Amendment 5* will call for "lowering the barriers to Public Sector Information". - *Compromise Amendment 6* will say that it "urges the Commission to clarify that once a work is in the public domain, any digitisation of the work which does not constitute a new, transformative work, stays in the public domain." - *Compromise Amendment 6 *will also call the Commission to examine "whether rightholders may be given the right to dedicate their works to the public domain, in whole or in part". - *Compromise Amendment 7* will explicitly call on the Commission to refrain from further copyright term extentions. - While very watered down, *Compromise Amendments 10 and 11* call for at least some harmonisation by mentioning "minimum standards across the exceptions and limitations". - *Compromise Amendments 13 and 14* try to propose introduce an "open norm" to EU copyright, but are so watered down, that the initial intention is almost gone. Still OK to have. - *Compromise Amendment 18* on Text and Data Mining is rather weak, but at least it doesn't do any harm. - The paragraph on linking liability is completely off, which is to be welcomed, since it would have gone in the wrong direction.
All in all, I am very happy and excited about Compromises 6 and 7. Compromise 5 is a step in the right direction, although not as clear as we wanted it. Freedom of Panorama remains a major worry. In a worst case scenario we might just want to kill it in a later stage of the legislative process to guard the status quo if the the "non-commercial" fixation remains this sticky.
Voting should begin around 10:30.
Live stream: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video%E2%80%A6 < http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20150616-090...
Voting list: https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/ …/03/voting_list.pdf https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/voting_list.pdf
Dimi
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
One advantage is it gives us something very hard and concrete to kick against -- a real threat we can e.g. try to get on the front page of Metro
Sometimes it can be an advantage if people can see the bogeyman in full stark reality.
-- James.
On 16/06/2015 10:39, Stevie Benton wrote:
This is terrible.
I will start a page on the UK wiki where we can throw something together On 16 Jun 2015 10:37, "James Heald" j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
I think we should go the full Daily Mail.
Talk about books being pulped, blacked out photos of the buildings at Canary Wharf, etc, etc
Did anyone spot how Honeyball voted on the Wikstrom amendment (good) and the Cavada amendment (bad) ?
-- James.On 16/06/2015 10:12, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote:
So, the French visual artists collecting society got their preferred amendment through (Cavada). Unfortunately this is the worst possible for us. It says:
Considers that the commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them
We need to consider if we'll try to further amend it in plenary in several weeks or we just concentrate on the Commission.
Dimi
2015-06-16 5:35 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com>:
Hi,
in a few hours the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) will vote on the own-initiative report (not a legal instrument, but rather a recommendation) by Julia Reda.
The full name of the document is Report on the Implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. It is about the implementation of the current copyright framework and how it could be updated. It is also a very first step in the process that will continue with the Commission proposing a reform text before the end of the year.
What's in it for us?
- *Freedom of Panorama* is looking good as it stands, but there is high chance of "non-commercial" being added to it. There was nocompromise on this, so we tried everything we could in the past week. - In order for Freedom of Panorama to be preserved or even extended, following amendments need to be rejected: 414/415/417/420/422/423/424/426 - *Compromise Amendment 5* will call for "lowering the barriers to Public Sector Information". - *Compromise Amendment 6* will say that it "urges the Commission to clarify that once a work is in the public domain, any digitisation of the work which does not constitute a new, transformative work, stays in the public domain." - *Compromise Amendment 6 *will also call the Commission to examine "whether rightholders may be given the right to dedicate their works to the public domain, in whole or in part". - *Compromise Amendment 7* will explicitly call on the Commission to refrain from further copyright term extentions. - While very watered down, *Compromise Amendments 10 and 11* call for at least some harmonisation by mentioning "minimum standards across the exceptions and limitations". - *Compromise Amendments 13 and 14* try to propose introduce an "open norm" to EU copyright, but are so watered down, that the initial intention is almost gone. Still OK to have. - *Compromise Amendment 18* on Text and Data Mining is rather weak, but at least it doesn't do any harm. - The paragraph on linking liability is completely off, which is to be welcomed, since it would have gone in the wrong direction.
All in all, I am very happy and excited about Compromises 6 and 7. Compromise 5 is a step in the right direction, although not as clear as we wanted it. Freedom of Panorama remains a major worry. In a worst case scenario we might just want to kill it in a later stage of the legislative process to guard the status quo if the the "non-commercial" fixation remains this sticky.
Voting should begin around 10:30.
Live stream: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video%E2%80%A6 < http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20150616-090...
Voting list: https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/ …/03/voting_list.pdf https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/voting_list.pdf
Dimi
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Yes, trying to think constructively this is the advantage of GESAC being to greedy.
Cavada himself was going around telling everyone that he does not want to restrict rights in other countries, just to preserve French culture. Well, what happened is that they passed language copying bad practices to 15 EU countries will a full FoP exception. It is an own initiative report and not even the last word on it was spoken, but the general tendency to vote for any AMs that restrict use was obvious.
In order to fix this in plenary (6th of July I believe), we would need three things now: 1. A sensible text for an amendment to table in for the plenary vote that attracts very little opposition. 2. Getting many rather prominent MEPs from all groups to table this new amendment. 3. Some media fuzz in the countries that currently have a full exception.
D
2015-06-16 11:44 GMT+02:00 James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk:
One advantage is it gives us something very hard and concrete to kick against -- a real threat we can e.g. try to get on the front page of Metro
Sometimes it can be an advantage if people can see the bogeyman in full stark reality.
-- James.
On 16/06/2015 10:39, Stevie Benton wrote:
This is terrible.
I will start a page on the UK wiki where we can throw something together On 16 Jun 2015 10:37, "James Heald" j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
I think we should go the full Daily Mail.
Talk about books being pulped, blacked out photos of the buildings at Canary Wharf, etc, etc
Did anyone spot how Honeyball voted on the Wikstrom amendment (good) and the Cavada amendment (bad) ?
-- James.On 16/06/2015 10:12, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote:
So, the French visual artists collecting society got their preferred
amendment through (Cavada). Unfortunately this is the worst possible for us. It says:
Considers that the commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them
We need to consider if we'll try to further amend it in plenary in several weeks or we just concentrate on the Commission.
Dimi
2015-06-16 5:35 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com>:
Hi,
in a few hours the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) will vote on the own-initiative report (not a legal instrument, but rather a recommendation) by Julia Reda.
The full name of the document is Report on the Implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. It is about the implementation of the current copyright framework and how it could be updated. It is also a very first step in the process that will continue with the Commission proposing a reform text before the end of the year.
What's in it for us?
- *Freedom of Panorama* is looking good as it stands, but there is high chance of "non-commercial" being added to it. There was nocompromise on this, so we tried everything we could in the past week. - In order for Freedom of Panorama to be preserved or even extended, following amendments need to be rejected: 414/415/417/420/422/423/424/426 - *Compromise Amendment 5* will call for "lowering the barriers to Public Sector Information". - *Compromise Amendment 6* will say that it "urges the Commission to clarify that once a work is in the public domain, any digitisation of the work which does not constitute a new, transformative work, stays in the public domain." - *Compromise Amendment 6 *will also call the Commission to examine "whether rightholders may be given the right to dedicate their works to the public domain, in whole or in part". - *Compromise Amendment 7* will explicitly call on the Commission to refrain from further copyright term extentions. - While very watered down, *Compromise Amendments 10 and 11* call for at least some harmonisation by mentioning "minimum standards across the exceptions and limitations". - *Compromise Amendments 13 and 14* try to propose introduce an "open norm" to EU copyright, but are so watered down, that the initial intention is almost gone. Still OK to have. - *Compromise Amendment 18* on Text and Data Mining is rather weak, but at least it doesn't do any harm. - The paragraph on linking liability is completely off, which is to be welcomed, since it would have gone in the wrong direction.
All in all, I am very happy and excited about Compromises 6 and 7. Compromise 5 is a step in the right direction, although not as clear as we wanted it. Freedom of Panorama remains a major worry. In a worst case scenario we might just want to kill it in a later stage of the legislative process to guard the status quo if the the "non-commercial" fixation remains this sticky.
Voting should begin around 10:30.
Live stream: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video … <
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20150616-090...
Voting list: https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/
…/03/voting_list.pdf https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/voting_list.pdf
Dimi
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Here's a page for us to work through some things and sketch out a general strategy and plan of action. We can also collaborate on any other materials we need.
https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/User:Stevie_Benton_(WMUK)/Sandbox/Challenging_...
Such a stupid amendment!
Stevie
On 16 June 2015 at 11:02, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, trying to think constructively this is the advantage of GESAC being to greedy.
Cavada himself was going around telling everyone that he does not want to restrict rights in other countries, just to preserve French culture. Well, what happened is that they passed language copying bad practices to 15 EU countries will a full FoP exception. It is an own initiative report and not even the last word on it was spoken, but the general tendency to vote for any AMs that restrict use was obvious.
In order to fix this in plenary (6th of July I believe), we would need three things now:
- A sensible text for an amendment to table in for the plenary vote that
attracts very little opposition. 2. Getting many rather prominent MEPs from all groups to table this new amendment. 3. Some media fuzz in the countries that currently have a full exception.
D
2015-06-16 11:44 GMT+02:00 James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk:
One advantage is it gives us something very hard and concrete to kick against -- a real threat we can e.g. try to get on the front page of Metro
Sometimes it can be an advantage if people can see the bogeyman in full stark reality.
-- James.
On 16/06/2015 10:39, Stevie Benton wrote:
This is terrible.
I will start a page on the UK wiki where we can throw something together On 16 Jun 2015 10:37, "James Heald" j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
I think we should go the full Daily Mail.
Talk about books being pulped, blacked out photos of the buildings at Canary Wharf, etc, etc
Did anyone spot how Honeyball voted on the Wikstrom amendment (good) and the Cavada amendment (bad) ?
-- James.On 16/06/2015 10:12, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote:
So, the French visual artists collecting society got their preferred
amendment through (Cavada). Unfortunately this is the worst possible for us. It says:
Considers that the commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them
We need to consider if we'll try to further amend it in plenary in several weeks or we just concentrate on the Commission.
Dimi
2015-06-16 5:35 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com>:
Hi,
in a few hours the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) will vote on the own-initiative report (not a legal instrument, but rather a recommendation) by Julia Reda.
The full name of the document is Report on the Implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. It is about the implementation of the current copyright framework and how it could be updated. It is also a very first step in the process that will continue with the Commission proposing a reform text before the end of the year.
What's in it for us?
- *Freedom of Panorama* is looking good as it stands, but thereis high chance of "non-commercial" being added to it. There was no compromise on this, so we tried everything we could in the past week. - In order for Freedom of Panorama to be preserved or even extended, following amendments need to be rejected: 414/415/417/420/422/423/424/426 - *Compromise Amendment 5* will call for "lowering the barriers to Public Sector Information". - *Compromise Amendment 6* will say that it "urges the Commission to clarify that once a work is in the public domain, any digitisation of the work which does not constitute a new, transformative work, stays in the public domain." - *Compromise Amendment 6 *will also call the Commission to examine "whether rightholders may be given the right to dedicate their works to the public domain, in whole or in part". - *Compromise Amendment 7* will explicitly call on the Commission to refrain from further copyright term extentions. - While very watered down, *Compromise Amendments 10 and 11* call for at least some harmonisation by mentioning "minimum standards across the exceptions and limitations". - *Compromise Amendments 13 and 14* try to propose introduce an "open norm" to EU copyright, but are so watered down, that the initial intention is almost gone. Still OK to have. - *Compromise Amendment 18* on Text and Data Mining is rather weak, but at least it doesn't do any harm. - The paragraph on linking liability is completely off, which is to be welcomed, since it would have gone in the wrong direction.
All in all, I am very happy and excited about Compromises 6 and 7. Compromise 5 is a step in the right direction, although not as clear as we wanted it. Freedom of Panorama remains a major worry. In a worst case scenario we might just want to kill it in a later stage of the legislative process to guard the status quo if the the "non-commercial" fixation remains this sticky.
Voting should begin around 10:30.
Live stream: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video%E2%80%A6 <
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20150616-090...
> > Voting list: https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/ …/03/voting_list.pdf https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/voting_list.pdf
Dimi
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
A quick report on the other things:
*A call to positively safeguard the public domain (once PD remains PD, i.e. digitisations) passed. *A call to make it legally possible for authors to dedicate their work to the PD passed. *Explicit wording against further copyright term extension passed. *The linking liability was mostly taken out, although some ISP liability was voted in. *A call to lower obstacles to the re-use of PSI passed. *A proposal for ancillary copyright didn't pass.
And now we start thinking about what our media strategy should be before the plenary. I will start making a list of MEPs who I think could or should be convinced to co-sign.
Dimi
2015-06-16 12:05 GMT+02:00 Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk:
Here's a page for us to work through some things and sketch out a general strategy and plan of action. We can also collaborate on any other materials we need.
https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/User:Stevie_Benton_(WMUK)/Sandbox/Challenging_...
Such a stupid amendment!
Stevie
On 16 June 2015 at 11:02, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, trying to think constructively this is the advantage of GESAC being to greedy.
Cavada himself was going around telling everyone that he does not want to restrict rights in other countries, just to preserve French culture. Well, what happened is that they passed language copying bad practices to 15 EU countries will a full FoP exception. It is an own initiative report and not even the last word on it was spoken, but the general tendency to vote for any AMs that restrict use was obvious.
In order to fix this in plenary (6th of July I believe), we would need three things now:
- A sensible text for an amendment to table in for the plenary vote that
attracts very little opposition. 2. Getting many rather prominent MEPs from all groups to table this new amendment. 3. Some media fuzz in the countries that currently have a full exception.
D
2015-06-16 11:44 GMT+02:00 James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk:
One advantage is it gives us something very hard and concrete to kick against -- a real threat we can e.g. try to get on the front page of Metro
Sometimes it can be an advantage if people can see the bogeyman in full stark reality.
-- James.
On 16/06/2015 10:39, Stevie Benton wrote:
This is terrible.
I will start a page on the UK wiki where we can throw something together On 16 Jun 2015 10:37, "James Heald" j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
I think we should go the full Daily Mail.
Talk about books being pulped, blacked out photos of the buildings at Canary Wharf, etc, etc
Did anyone spot how Honeyball voted on the Wikstrom amendment (good) and the Cavada amendment (bad) ?
-- James.On 16/06/2015 10:12, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote:
So, the French visual artists collecting society got their preferred
amendment through (Cavada). Unfortunately this is the worst possible for us. It says:
Considers that the commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them
We need to consider if we'll try to further amend it in plenary in several weeks or we just concentrate on the Commission.
Dimi
2015-06-16 5:35 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com>:
Hi,
> > in a few hours the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) will vote on the > own-initiative report (not a legal instrument, but rather a > recommendation) > by Julia Reda. > > The full name of the document is Report on the Implementation of > Directive > 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and > related > rights in the information society. It is about the implementation of > the > current copyright framework and how it could be updated. It is also a > very > first step in the process that will continue with the Commission > proposing > a reform text before the end of the year. > > What's in it for us? > > - *Freedom of Panorama* is looking good as it stands, but there > is > high chance of "non-commercial" being added to it. There was no > compromise > on this, so we tried everything we could in the past week. > - In order for Freedom of Panorama to be preserved or even > extended, > following amendments need to be rejected: > 414/415/417/420/422/423/424/426 > - *Compromise Amendment 5* will call for "lowering the barriers > to > Public Sector Information". > - *Compromise Amendment 6* will say that it "urges the > Commission to > clarify > that once a work is in the public domain, any digitisation of > the > work > which does not constitute a new, transformative work, stays in > the > public > domain." > - *Compromise Amendment 6 *will also call the Commission to > examine > "whether rightholders may be given the right to dedicate their > works > to the > public domain, in whole or in part". > - *Compromise Amendment 7* will explicitly call on the > Commission to > refrain from further copyright term extentions. > - While very watered down, *Compromise Amendments 10 and 11* > call for > at least some harmonisation by mentioning "minimum standards > across > the > exceptions and limitations". > - *Compromise Amendments 13 and 14* try to propose introduce an > "open > norm" to EU copyright, but are so watered down, that the initial > intention > is almost gone. Still OK to have. > - *Compromise Amendment 18* on Text and Data Mining is rather > weak, > but at least it doesn't do any harm. > - The paragraph on linking liability is completely off, which > is to > be > welcomed, since it would have gone in the wrong direction. > > All in all, I am very happy and excited about Compromises 6 and 7. > Compromise 5 is a step in the right direction, although not as clear > as > we > wanted it. Freedom of Panorama remains a major worry. In a worst > case > scenario we might just want to kill it in a later stage of the > legislative > process to guard the status quo if the the "non-commercial" fixation > remains this sticky. > > Voting should begin around 10:30. > > Live stream: > http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video%E2%80%A6 > < > > http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20150616-090... > >> >> Voting list: https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/ > …/03/voting_list.pdf > https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/voting_list.pdf > > Dimi > > >
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
--
Stevie Benton Head of External Relations Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Pitching this to the media is a wise idea. I will work out a media strategy for Sweden, and before the plenary vote we should try to activate all countries which would be directly affected by a NC condition. It is also good if we can make national governments pay attention since the council is already discussing the Digital Single Market Strategy, which this is a (very small) part of.
Even if it's only an own-initiative report that the Legal Affairs Committee voted on, there's a risk that the issue due to it's narrow nature will not get enough attention from those who are our natural allies and thus be taken over by collecting societies and the likes.
While the result of the vote is disappointing, I agree that it's fuel for the media, and we might want to shift our strategy to focus more on getting this threat out in the open.
Karl
Stevie Benton wrote on 6/16/2015 11:39 AM:
This is terrible.
I will start a page on the UK wiki where we can throw something together
On 16 Jun 2015 10:37, "James Heald" <j.heald@ucl.ac.uk mailto:j.heald@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
I think we should go the full Daily Mail. Talk about books being pulped, blacked out photos of the buildings at Canary Wharf, etc, etc Did anyone spot how Honeyball voted on the Wikstrom amendment (good) and the Cavada amendment (bad) ? -- James. On 16/06/2015 10:12, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote: So, the French visual artists collecting society got their preferred amendment through (Cavada). Unfortunately this is the worst possible for us. It says: 16. Considers that the commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them We need to consider if we'll try to further amend it in plenary in several weeks or we just concentrate on the Commission. Dimi 2015-06-16 5:35 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com <mailto:dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com>>: Hi, in a few hours the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) will vote on the own-initiative report (not a legal instrument, but rather a recommendation) by Julia Reda. The full name of the document is Report on the Implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. It is about the implementation of the current copyright framework and how it could be updated. It is also a very first step in the process that will continue with the Commission proposing a reform text before the end of the year. What's in it for us? - *Freedom of Panorama* is looking good as it stands, but there is high chance of "non-commercial" being added to it. There was no compromise on this, so we tried everything we could in the past week. - In order for Freedom of Panorama to be preserved or even extended, following amendments need to be rejected: 414/415/417/420/422/423/424/426 - *Compromise Amendment 5* will call for "lowering the barriers to Public Sector Information". - *Compromise Amendment 6* will say that it "urges the Commission to clarify that once a work is in the public domain, any digitisation of the work which does not constitute a new, transformative work, stays in the public domain." - *Compromise Amendment 6 *will also call the Commission to examine "whether rightholders may be given the right to dedicate their works to the public domain, in whole or in part". - *Compromise Amendment 7* will explicitly call on the Commission to refrain from further copyright term extentions. - While very watered down, *Compromise Amendments 10 and 11* call for at least some harmonisation by mentioning "minimum standards across the exceptions and limitations". - *Compromise Amendments 13 and 14* try to propose introduce an "open norm" to EU copyright, but are so watered down, that the initial intention is almost gone. Still OK to have. - *Compromise Amendment 18* on Text and Data Mining is rather weak, but at least it doesn't do any harm. - The paragraph on linking liability is completely off, which is to be welcomed, since it would have gone in the wrong direction. All in all, I am very happy and excited about Compromises 6 and 7. Compromise 5 is a step in the right direction, although not as clear as we wanted it. Freedom of Panorama remains a major worry. In a worst case scenario we might just want to kill it in a later stage of the legislative process to guard the status quo if the the "non-commercial" fixation remains this sticky. Voting should begin around 10:30. Live stream: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video… <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20150616-0900-COMMITTEE-JURI> Voting list: https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/…/03/voting_list.pdf <https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/voting_list.pdf> Dimi _______________________________________________ Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors _______________________________________________ Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
I see this as a "Euro-sausage" issue -- a case of the EU threatening to interfere with UK laws, and make lots of good things illegal.
Papers like the Express, the Mail, the Telegraph, and Metro could go wild for it.
Images of prominent UK buildings and sculptures blacked out could have a lot of resonance.
-- J.
On 16/06/2015 11:00, Karl Sigfrid wrote:
Pitching this to the media is a wise idea. I will work out a media strategy for Sweden, and before the plenary vote we should try to activate all countries which would be directly affected by a NC condition. It is also good if we can make national governments pay attention since the council is already discussing the Digital Single Market Strategy, which this is a (very small) part of.
Even if it's only an own-initiative report that the Legal Affairs Committee voted on, there's a risk that the issue due to it's narrow nature will not get enough attention from those who are our natural allies and thus be taken over by collecting societies and the likes.
While the result of the vote is disappointing, I agree that it's fuel for the media, and we might want to shift our strategy to focus more on getting this threat out in the open.
Karl
Stevie Benton wrote on 6/16/2015 11:39 AM:
This is terrible.
I will start a page on the UK wiki where we can throw something together
On 16 Jun 2015 10:37, "James Heald" <j.heald@ucl.ac.uk mailto:j.heald@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
I think we should go the full Daily Mail. Talk about books being pulped, blacked out photos of the buildings at Canary Wharf, etc, etc Did anyone spot how Honeyball voted on the Wikstrom amendment (good) and the Cavada amendment (bad) ? -- James. On 16/06/2015 10:12, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote: So, the French visual artists collecting society got their preferred amendment through (Cavada). Unfortunately this is the worst possible for us. It says: 16. Considers that the commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them We need to consider if we'll try to further amend it in plenary in several weeks or we just concentrate on the Commission. Dimi 2015-06-16 5:35 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com <mailto:dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com>>: Hi, in a few hours the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) will vote on the own-initiative report (not a legal instrument, but rather a recommendation) by Julia Reda. The full name of the document is Report on the Implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. It is about the implementation of the current copyright framework and how it could be updated. It is also a very first step in the process that will continue with the Commission proposing a reform text before the end of the year. What's in it for us? - *Freedom of Panorama* is looking good as it stands, but there is high chance of "non-commercial" being added to it. There was no compromise on this, so we tried everything we could in the pastweek. - In order for Freedom of Panorama to be preserved or even extended, following amendments need to be rejected: 414/415/417/420/422/423/424/426 - *Compromise Amendment 5* will call for "lowering the barriers to Public Sector Information". - *Compromise Amendment 6* will say that it "urges the Commission to clarify that once a work is in the public domain, any digitisation of the work which does not constitute a new, transformative work, stays in the public domain." - *Compromise Amendment 6 *will also call the Commission to examine "whether rightholders may be given the right to dedicate their works to the public domain, in whole or in part". - *Compromise Amendment 7* will explicitly call on the Commission to refrain from further copyright term extentions. - While very watered down, *Compromise Amendments 10 and 11* call for at least some harmonisation by mentioning "minimum standards across the exceptions and limitations". - *Compromise Amendments 13 and 14* try to propose introduce an "open norm" to EU copyright, but are so watered down, that the initial intention is almost gone. Still OK to have. - *Compromise Amendment 18* on Text and Data Mining is rather weak, but at least it doesn't do any harm. - The paragraph on linking liability is completely off, which is to be welcomed, since it would have gone in the wrong direction.
All in all, I am very happy and excited about Compromises 6 and 7. Compromise 5 is a step in the right direction, although not as clear as we wanted it. Freedom of Panorama remains a major worry. In a worst case scenario we might just want to kill it in a later stage of the legislative process to guard the status quo if the the "non-commercial" fixation remains this sticky. Voting should begin around 10:30. Live stream: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video…http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20150616-0900-COMMITTEE-JURI
Voting list: https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/…/03/voting_list.pdfhttps://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/voting_list.pdf
Dimi _______________________________________________ Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors _______________________________________________ Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, James Heald wrote:
I see this as a "Euro-sausage" issue -- a case of the EU threatening to interfere with UK laws, and make lots of good things illegal.
Well, but this goes against the general idea of broad, harmonized copyright exceptions which we support I think?
~Marcin
@Marcin, in this case, anything that flies with the media and helps us change the text would work. The report that was adopted already calls for minimum standards for exceptions. We're not getting more, but we might get less.
I think we should work on a very neutral, non-scary text as an amendment for the plenary. Perhaps something along the lines of:
16. Invites the EU legislator to recognise that the use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in public places is permitted.
Otherwise, working on the original Cavada text, we could go for:
16. Considers that the *commercial* use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should *always* be *permitted* *subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them*.
Which one is likely to attract less opposition?
Dimi
2015-06-16 12:31 GMT+02:00 Marcin Cieslak saper@saper.info:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, James Heald wrote:
I see this as a "Euro-sausage" issue -- a case of the EU threatening to interfere with UK laws, and make lots of good things illegal.
Well, but this goes against the general idea of broad, harmonized copyright exceptions which we support I think?
~Marcin
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
I think the first is probably preferable as it sounds quite soft. I especially like "invites" as it is completely non-confrontational.
Not sure which one will attract less opposition though...
Stevie
On 16 June 2015 at 11:39, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
@Marcin, in this case, anything that flies with the media and helps us change the text would work. The report that was adopted already calls for minimum standards for exceptions. We're not getting more, but we might get less.
I think we should work on a very neutral, non-scary text as an amendment for the plenary. Perhaps something along the lines of:
- Invites the EU legislator to recognise that the use of photographs,
video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in public places is permitted.
Otherwise, working on the original Cavada text, we could go for:
- Considers that the *commercial* use of photographs, video footage or
other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should *always* be *permitted* *subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them*.
Which one is likely to attract less opposition?
Dimi
2015-06-16 12:31 GMT+02:00 Marcin Cieslak saper@saper.info:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, James Heald wrote:
I see this as a "Euro-sausage" issue -- a case of the EU threatening to interfere with UK laws, and make lots of good things illegal.
Well, but this goes against the general idea of broad, harmonized copyright exceptions which we support I think?
~Marcin
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote:
@Marcin, in this case, anything that flies with the media and helps us change the text would work. The report that was adopted already calls for minimum standards for exceptions. We're not getting more, but we might get less.
I agree. Let's not only forget that so called media are the party to this discussion and not necessarily a friendly one. But I agree we need to wor with them.
I think we should work on a very neutral, non-scary text as an amendment for the plenary. Perhaps something along the lines of:
- Invites the EU legislator to recognise that the use of photographs,
video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in public places is permitted.
Otherwise, working on the original Cavada text, we could go for:
- Considers that the *commercial* use of photographs, video footage or
other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should *always* be *permitted* *subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them*.
How do you understand "should always be permitted"? - that kind of
~Marcin
Dimi,
What's your assessment of where the balance in the plenary might be on this?
Is there any chance the plenary (with people from ITRE etc, and not such an over-representation of the French) might go for something more like Wikstrom's amendment ?
Or something close to the compromise AM that was supposedly being worked on ?
-- J.
On 16/06/2015 12:02, Marcin Cieslak wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote:
@Marcin, in this case, anything that flies with the media and helps us change the text would work. The report that was adopted already calls for minimum standards for exceptions. We're not getting more, but we might get less.
I agree. Let's not only forget that so called media are the party to this discussion and not necessarily a friendly one. But I agree we need to wor with them.
I think we should work on a very neutral, non-scary text as an amendment for the plenary. Perhaps something along the lines of:
- Invites the EU legislator to recognise that the use of photographs,
video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in public places is permitted.
Otherwise, working on the original Cavada text, we could go for:
- Considers that the *commercial* use of photographs, video footage or
other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should *always* be *permitted* *subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them*.
How do you understand "should always be permitted"? - that kind of
~Marcin
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Well, the overrepresentation of French MEPs in JURI surely wasn't helpful. (4 French MEPs vs. 2 German, for instance). They were also very vocal from the start, while no one else seemed to really care enough.
Some soft wording that could make us claim that we wouldn't impose anything on anyone would be helpful. The Wikström AM is seen as too much off the centre. The ECR compromise proposal might be better. Just saying that the UK Conservatives proposed it might be helpful.Longer compromises are good, because they let you make everyone feel like they contributed. Maybe going for the CAM proposed by the UK Conservatives would work. On the other hand a short text makes people less afraid you're trying to sneak something past them.
Dimi
2015-06-16 13:07 GMT+02:00 James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk:
Dimi,
What's your assessment of where the balance in the plenary might be on this?
Is there any chance the plenary (with people from ITRE etc, and not such an over-representation of the French) might go for something more like Wikstrom's amendment ?
Or something close to the compromise AM that was supposedly being worked on ?
-- J.
On 16/06/2015 12:02, Marcin Cieslak wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote:
@Marcin, in this case, anything that flies with the media and helps us
change the text would work. The report that was adopted already calls for minimum standards for exceptions. We're not getting more, but we might get less.
I agree. Let's not only forget that so called media are the party to this discussion and not necessarily a friendly one. But I agree we need to wor with them.
I think we should work on a very neutral, non-scary text as an amendment
for the plenary. Perhaps something along the lines of:
- Invites the EU legislator to recognise that the use of photographs,
video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in public places is permitted.
Otherwise, working on the original Cavada text, we could go for:
- Considers that the *commercial* use of photographs, video footage or
other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should *always* be *permitted* *subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them*.
How do you understand "should always be permitted"? - that kind of
~Marcin
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
It doesn't say that. It says:
16. Considers that the use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should be permitted.
I guess there was some formatting that came our wrong on the other end.
2015-06-16 13:02 GMT+02:00 Marcin Cieslak saper@saper.info:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote:
@Marcin, in this case, anything that flies with the media and helps us change the text would work. The report that was adopted already calls for minimum standards for exceptions. We're not getting more, but we might
get
less.
I agree. Let's not only forget that so called media are the party to this discussion and not necessarily a friendly one. But I agree we need to wor with them.
I think we should work on a very neutral, non-scary text as an amendment for the plenary. Perhaps something along the lines of:
- Invites the EU legislator to recognise that the use of photographs,
video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in public places is permitted.
Otherwise, working on the original Cavada text, we could go for:
- Considers that the *commercial* use of photographs, video footage or
other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should *always* be *permitted* *subject to prior authorisation
from
the authors or any proxy acting for them*.
How do you understand "should always be permitted"? - that kind of
~Marcin
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote:
It doesn't say that. It says:
- Considers that the use of photographs, video footage or other images of
works which are permanently located in physical public places should be permitted.
I guess there was some formatting that came our wrong on the other end.
This is taken from the plain text part of your mail:
- Considers that the *commercial* use of photographs, video footage or
other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should *always* be *permitted* *subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them*.
Looks like using HTML <strike> does not work well for the plain text formatting...
~Marcin
I have a different question - alas I could not watch the debate today - what is the current status of harmonization of access to the official (government) works?
I think AM250 and AM354 (both by Julia Reda) were covering this...
~Marcin
No. We only got "further lower the barriers to PSI works".
2015-06-16 13:09 GMT+02:00 Marcin Cieslak saper@saper.info:
I have a different question - alas I could not watch the debate today - what is the current status of harmonization of access to the official (government) works?
I think AM250 and AM354 (both by Julia Reda) were covering this...
~Marcin
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Here's an article about the vote. It briefly mentions the FoP NC amendment.
http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/06/european-parliament-committee-a...
Karl
Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote on 6/16/2015 5:35 AM:
Hi,
in a few hours the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) will vote on the own-initiative report (not a legal instrument, but rather a recommendation) by Julia Reda.
The full name of the document is Report on the Implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. It is about the implementation of the current copyright framework and how it could be updated. It is also a very first step in the process that will continue with the Commission proposing a reform text before the end of the year.
What's in it for us?
- *Freedom of Panorama* is looking good as it stands, but there is high chance of "non-commercial" being added to it. There was no compromise on this, so we tried everything we could in the past week.
- In order for Freedom of Panorama to be preserved or even extended, following amendments need to be rejected: 414/415/417/420/422/423/424/426
- *Compromise Amendment 5* will call for "lowering the barriers to Public Sector Information".
- *Compromise Amendment 6* will say that it "urges the Commission to/**/clarify that once a work is in the public domain, any digitisation of the work which does not constitute a new, transformative work, stays in the public domain."
- *Compromise Amendment 6 *will also call the Commission to examine "whether rightholders may be given the right to dedicate their works to the public domain, in whole or in part".
- *Compromise Amendment 7* will explicitly call on the Commission to refrain from further copyright term extentions.
- While very watered down, *Compromise Amendments 10 and 11* call for at least some harmonisation by mentioning "minimum standards across the exceptions and limitations".
- *Compromise Amendments 13 and 14* try to propose introduce an "open norm" to EU copyright, but are so watered down, that the initial intention is almost gone. Still OK to have.
- *Compromise Amendment 18* on Text and Data Mining is rather weak, but at least it doesn't do any harm.
- The paragraph on linking liability is completely off, which is to be welcomed, since it would have gone in the wrong direction.
All in all, I am very happy and excited about Compromises 6 and 7. Compromise 5 is a step in the right direction, although not as clear as we wanted it. Freedom of Panorama remains a major worry. In a worst case scenario we might just want to kill it in a later stage of the legislative process to guard the status quo if the the "non-commercial" fixation remains this sticky.
Voting should begin around 10:30.
Live stream: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video%E2%80%A6 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20150616-0900-COMMITTEE-JURI Voting list: https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/%E2%80%A6/03/voting_list.pdf https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/voting_list.pdf
Dimi
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
And here's Julia Reda's account of what was adopted and what wasn't:
https://juliareda.eu/2015/06/reda-report-adopted-a-turning-point-in-the-copy...
Tanel
2015-06-16 18:16 GMT+03:00 Karl Sigfrid karl@wikimedia.be:
Here's an article about the vote. It briefly mentions the FoP NC amendment.
http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/06/european-parliament-committee-a...
Karl
Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote on 6/16/2015 5:35 AM:
Hi,
in a few hours the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) will vote on the own-initiative report (not a legal instrument, but rather a recommendation) by Julia Reda.
The full name of the document is Report on the Implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. It is about the implementation of the current copyright framework and how it could be updated. It is also a very first step in the process that will continue with the Commission proposing a reform text before the end of the year.
What's in it for us?
- *Freedom of Panorama* is looking good as it stands, but there is
high chance of "non-commercial" being added to it. There was no compromise on this, so we tried everything we could in the past week.
- In order for Freedom of Panorama to be preserved or even extended,
following amendments need to be rejected: 414/415/417/420/422/423/424/426
- *Compromise Amendment 5* will call for "lowering the barriers to
Public Sector Information".
- *Compromise Amendment 6* will say that it "urges the Commission to clarify
that once a work is in the public domain, any digitisation of the work which does not constitute a new, transformative work, stays in the public domain."
- *Compromise Amendment 6 *will also call the Commission to examine
"whether rightholders may be given the right to dedicate their works to the public domain, in whole or in part".
- *Compromise Amendment 7* will explicitly call on the Commission to
refrain from further copyright term extentions.
- While very watered down, *Compromise Amendments 10 and 11* call for
at least some harmonisation by mentioning "minimum standards across the exceptions and limitations". - *Compromise Amendments 13 and 14* try to propose introduce an "open norm" to EU copyright, but are so watered down, that the initial intention is almost gone. Still OK to have.
- *Compromise Amendment 18* on Text and Data Mining is rather weak,
but at least it doesn't do any harm. - The paragraph on linking liability is completely off, which is to be welcomed, since it would have gone in the wrong direction.
All in all, I am very happy and excited about Compromises 6 and 7. Compromise 5 is a step in the right direction, although not as clear as we wanted it. Freedom of Panorama remains a major worry. In a worst case scenario we might just want to kill it in a later stage of the legislative process to guard the status quo if the the "non-commercial" fixation remains this sticky.
Voting should begin around 10:30.
Live stream: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video%E2%80%A6 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20150616-0900-COMMITTEE-JURI Voting list: https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/%E2%80%A6/03/voting_list.pdf https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/voting_list.pdf
Dimi
Advocacy_Advisors mailing listAdvocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
-- Karl Sigfrid+32 487 94 76 30karl@wikimedia.be
Rue du Trone 51 1000 Brussels
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org