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(a)gmail.com&gt;gt;: _______________________________________________ Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors(a)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" &lt;j.heald(a)ucl.ac.uk&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors(a)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 &lt;j.heald(a)ucl.ac.uk&gt;uk>: _______________________________________________ Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors(a)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" &lt;j.heald(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors _______________________________________________ Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors _______________________________________________ Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors(a)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.

@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 &lt;saper(a)saper.info&gt;fo>: _______________________________________________ Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors

On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote: 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. How do you understand "should always be permitted"? - that kind of ~Marcin _______________________________________________ Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors

On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote: get 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. from How do you understand "should always be permitted"? - that kind of ~Marcin _______________________________________________ Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors