Hi Raul,
Changing the topic, as this becomes a quite specific discussion.
What would be the better definition in your opinion? The burden of proof is always on the copyright holder, I'd think. But somehow, you need to define what is this 'panorama'. What you could see from a public space, is one definition. What is yours?
Lodewijk
2016-06-01 14:20 GMT+02:00 Raul Veede raul.veede@gmail.com:
Hi.
Has there been any discussion about possibly (re)opening the question of the clause limiting FoP that demands that the pictures should be taken _from_ a public place? It could be argued this creates complications for businesses (as clearly demonstrated by the Hundertwasser case) and has potential for unlimited amount of uncertainty (the place where the photographer stood usually remains unseen on the picture itself, so the legality is hard to determine afterwords, especially on the Internet, e.g. on Commons). Most jurisdictions with FoP can get very well by without such a clause, and it is hard to see what benefit it creates for the public, or actually even for any private rightsholders.
Best,
Raul, working on FoP in Estonia
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:57 PM, John Hendrik Weitzmann < john.weitzmann@wikimedia.de> wrote:
Hi all,
@Jens: Thx for the warm welcome. The settling in is not quite done yet. I'm still watching/learning and trying to tend to urgent things on the way. The justice ministry is high on the meeting agenda, a direct contact to the head of their copyright unit exists. Their ideas and initiatives around exceptions & limitations definitely touch on Wikiprojects. Any concrete suggestions welcome. Main items on this year's WMDE work plan regarding lawmaking are public works, freedom of panorama, database directive and ancillary publichers right, the three last of which happen mainly on the EU level as yet.
Best John
2016-06-01 8:01 GMT+02:00 Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com :
Hi,
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Jens Best best.jens@gmail.com wrote:
I heard that the German ministry of justice is reevaluating the "Schrankenregeln" (kind of the German version of fair use) as one
aspect of
this year's copyright laws reevaluation. Wouldn't that be a possible
focus
which relates to the volunteer work of the Wikiprojects?
a more precise translation of Schrankenregeln is "limitations and exceptions" in copyright. EU member states can implement exceptions listed in the InfoSoc Directive, they are not allowed to implement exceptions not listed there. The current German government has announced to adjust certain exceptions dealing with education. Other than that, the introduction of a fair use clause in German copyright would require some legislation on the EU level*
Mathias
- (Martin Senftleben is slightly more optimistic here
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1959554)
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
-- Referent für Politik und Recht Legal and Policy Advisor
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49 (0)30 219 158 26-0 http://wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Hello, everybody!
I personally don't see this particular wording in German law as very problematic. Sure, it would be nice to have it written otherwise, but is it a priority issue? Definitely not!
If we ever got the chance it without a fight, I would simply go for changing the perspective to the one of the building. Something like buildings/plots/statutes that are permanently located in/at parks, streets and squares. This way drones or pictures from aircrafts won't be problematic.
Of course "parks, streets and squares" is not exhaustive enough, but you get my point.
Dimi
2016-06-01 16:31 GMT+02:00 L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com:
Hi Raul,
Changing the topic, as this becomes a quite specific discussion.
What would be the better definition in your opinion? The burden of proof is always on the copyright holder, I'd think. But somehow, you need to define what is this 'panorama'. What you could see from a public space, is one definition. What is yours?
Lodewijk
2016-06-01 14:20 GMT+02:00 Raul Veede raul.veede@gmail.com:
Hi.
Has there been any discussion about possibly (re)opening the question of the clause limiting FoP that demands that the pictures should be taken _from_ a public place? It could be argued this creates complications for businesses (as clearly demonstrated by the Hundertwasser case) and has potential for unlimited amount of uncertainty (the place where the photographer stood usually remains unseen on the picture itself, so the legality is hard to determine afterwords, especially on the Internet, e.g. on Commons). Most jurisdictions with FoP can get very well by without such a clause, and it is hard to see what benefit it creates for the public, or actually even for any private rightsholders.
Best,
Raul, working on FoP in Estonia
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:57 PM, John Hendrik Weitzmann < john.weitzmann@wikimedia.de> wrote:
Hi all,
@Jens: Thx for the warm welcome. The settling in is not quite done yet. I'm still watching/learning and trying to tend to urgent things on the way. The justice ministry is high on the meeting agenda, a direct contact to the head of their copyright unit exists. Their ideas and initiatives around exceptions & limitations definitely touch on Wikiprojects. Any concrete suggestions welcome. Main items on this year's WMDE work plan regarding lawmaking are public works, freedom of panorama, database directive and ancillary publichers right, the three last of which happen mainly on the EU level as yet.
Best John
2016-06-01 8:01 GMT+02:00 Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler@gmail.com
:
Hi,
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Jens Best best.jens@gmail.com wrote:
I heard that the German ministry of justice is reevaluating the "Schrankenregeln" (kind of the German version of fair use) as one
aspect of
this year's copyright laws reevaluation. Wouldn't that be a possible
focus
which relates to the volunteer work of the Wikiprojects?
a more precise translation of Schrankenregeln is "limitations and exceptions" in copyright. EU member states can implement exceptions listed in the InfoSoc Directive, they are not allowed to implement exceptions not listed there. The current German government has announced to adjust certain exceptions dealing with education. Other than that, the introduction of a fair use clause in German copyright would require some legislation on the EU level*
Mathias
- (Martin Senftleben is slightly more optimistic here
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1959554)
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
-- Referent für Politik und Recht Legal and Policy Advisor
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49 (0)30 219 158 26-0 http://wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Well, that is my worry. I don't really see a better definition out there that is unambiguous. I'm not so much asking because of the German situation - I totally agree it would be odd to go in strong for what is in the end a detail - but it might be helpful when working in other countries, what are the best practices, what ideal FoP would look like.
If you put the building at the center, which part of the building? And which buildings? You say located at a street, but what if there's a garden (field of grass) in between? Or a low building?
The only better definition I could think of, is to apply it to all architecture. But whether that is realistic?
Lodewijk
2016-06-01 17:04 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com>:
Hello, everybody!
I personally don't see this particular wording in German law as very problematic. Sure, it would be nice to have it written otherwise, but is it a priority issue? Definitely not!
If we ever got the chance it without a fight, I would simply go for changing the perspective to the one of the building. Something like buildings/plots/statutes that are permanently located in/at parks, streets and squares. This way drones or pictures from aircrafts won't be problematic.
Of course "parks, streets and squares" is not exhaustive enough, but you get my point.
Dimi
2016-06-01 16:31 GMT+02:00 L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com:
Hi Raul,
Changing the topic, as this becomes a quite specific discussion.
What would be the better definition in your opinion? The burden of proof is always on the copyright holder, I'd think. But somehow, you need to define what is this 'panorama'. What you could see from a public space, is one definition. What is yours?
Lodewijk
2016-06-01 14:20 GMT+02:00 Raul Veede raul.veede@gmail.com:
Hi.
Has there been any discussion about possibly (re)opening the question of the clause limiting FoP that demands that the pictures should be taken _from_ a public place? It could be argued this creates complications for businesses (as clearly demonstrated by the Hundertwasser case) and has potential for unlimited amount of uncertainty (the place where the photographer stood usually remains unseen on the picture itself, so the legality is hard to determine afterwords, especially on the Internet, e.g. on Commons). Most jurisdictions with FoP can get very well by without such a clause, and it is hard to see what benefit it creates for the public, or actually even for any private rightsholders.
Best,
Raul, working on FoP in Estonia
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:57 PM, John Hendrik Weitzmann < john.weitzmann@wikimedia.de> wrote:
Hi all,
@Jens: Thx for the warm welcome. The settling in is not quite done yet. I'm still watching/learning and trying to tend to urgent things on the way. The justice ministry is high on the meeting agenda, a direct contact to the head of their copyright unit exists. Their ideas and initiatives around exceptions & limitations definitely touch on Wikiprojects. Any concrete suggestions welcome. Main items on this year's WMDE work plan regarding lawmaking are public works, freedom of panorama, database directive and ancillary publichers right, the three last of which happen mainly on the EU level as yet.
Best John
2016-06-01 8:01 GMT+02:00 Mathias Schindler < mathias.schindler@gmail.com>:
Hi,
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Jens Best best.jens@gmail.com wrote:
I heard that the German ministry of justice is reevaluating the "Schrankenregeln" (kind of the German version of fair use) as one
aspect of
this year's copyright laws reevaluation. Wouldn't that be a possible
focus
which relates to the volunteer work of the Wikiprojects?
a more precise translation of Schrankenregeln is "limitations and exceptions" in copyright. EU member states can implement exceptions listed in the InfoSoc Directive, they are not allowed to implement exceptions not listed there. The current German government has announced to adjust certain exceptions dealing with education. Other than that, the introduction of a fair use clause in German copyright would require some legislation on the EU level*
Mathias
- (Martin Senftleben is slightly more optimistic here
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1959554)
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
-- Referent für Politik und Recht Legal and Policy Advisor
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49 (0)30 219 158 26-0 http://wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
To be fair, the clearest definition is the one in Germany. Most other European countries just put the building in the centre and apparently refrain from asking the questions you just did.
But yes, theoretically in Austrian or Spanish law for instance, if a building is not right at the street/path it might not be covered by the copyright exception. I am not aware of this ever having been a real problem, though.
Dimi
2016-06-01 17:11 GMT+02:00 L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com:
Well, that is my worry. I don't really see a better definition out there that is unambiguous. I'm not so much asking because of the German situation
- I totally agree it would be odd to go in strong for what is in the end a
detail - but it might be helpful when working in other countries, what are the best practices, what ideal FoP would look like.
If you put the building at the center, which part of the building? And which buildings? You say located at a street, but what if there's a garden (field of grass) in between? Or a low building?
The only better definition I could think of, is to apply it to all architecture. But whether that is realistic?
Lodewijk
2016-06-01 17:04 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com>:
Hello, everybody!
I personally don't see this particular wording in German law as very problematic. Sure, it would be nice to have it written otherwise, but is it a priority issue? Definitely not!
If we ever got the chance it without a fight, I would simply go for changing the perspective to the one of the building. Something like buildings/plots/statutes that are permanently located in/at parks, streets and squares. This way drones or pictures from aircrafts won't be problematic.
Of course "parks, streets and squares" is not exhaustive enough, but you get my point.
Dimi
2016-06-01 16:31 GMT+02:00 L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com:
Hi Raul,
Changing the topic, as this becomes a quite specific discussion.
What would be the better definition in your opinion? The burden of proof is always on the copyright holder, I'd think. But somehow, you need to define what is this 'panorama'. What you could see from a public space, is one definition. What is yours?
Lodewijk
2016-06-01 14:20 GMT+02:00 Raul Veede raul.veede@gmail.com:
Hi.
Has there been any discussion about possibly (re)opening the question of the clause limiting FoP that demands that the pictures should be taken _from_ a public place? It could be argued this creates complications for businesses (as clearly demonstrated by the Hundertwasser case) and has potential for unlimited amount of uncertainty (the place where the photographer stood usually remains unseen on the picture itself, so the legality is hard to determine afterwords, especially on the Internet, e.g. on Commons). Most jurisdictions with FoP can get very well by without such a clause, and it is hard to see what benefit it creates for the public, or actually even for any private rightsholders.
Best,
Raul, working on FoP in Estonia
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:57 PM, John Hendrik Weitzmann < john.weitzmann@wikimedia.de> wrote:
Hi all,
@Jens: Thx for the warm welcome. The settling in is not quite done yet. I'm still watching/learning and trying to tend to urgent things on the way. The justice ministry is high on the meeting agenda, a direct contact to the head of their copyright unit exists. Their ideas and initiatives around exceptions & limitations definitely touch on Wikiprojects. Any concrete suggestions welcome. Main items on this year's WMDE work plan regarding lawmaking are public works, freedom of panorama, database directive and ancillary publichers right, the three last of which happen mainly on the EU level as yet.
Best John
2016-06-01 8:01 GMT+02:00 Mathias Schindler < mathias.schindler@gmail.com>:
Hi,
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Jens Best best.jens@gmail.com wrote:
> I heard that the German ministry of justice is reevaluating the > "Schrankenregeln" (kind of the German version of fair use) as one aspect of > this year's copyright laws reevaluation. Wouldn't that be a possible focus > which relates to the volunteer work of the Wikiprojects?
a more precise translation of Schrankenregeln is "limitations and exceptions" in copyright. EU member states can implement exceptions listed in the InfoSoc Directive, they are not allowed to implement exceptions not listed there. The current German government has announced to adjust certain exceptions dealing with education. Other than that, the introduction of a fair use clause in German copyright would require some legislation on the EU level*
Mathias
- (Martin Senftleben is slightly more optimistic here
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1959554)
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
-- Referent für Politik und Recht Legal and Policy Advisor
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49 (0)30 219 158 26-0 http://wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
In most cases, it is just "art permanently located in publicly accessible space". Is everyone allowed to approach it, with or without a fee, for most of the time? It's free. I'm not aware of any cases where someone would have claimed a house not being freely depictable because of a lawn. One could do it, but most likely it wouldn't make sense, and common sense is actually an important legal principle in applying the text of the laws. Of course drones are bringing quite a new perspective into this issue, both physically and metaphorically (sorry for a lousy pun), and our current legal frameworks are as badly suited for drones as they are for phone cameras and the Internet.
r On 1 Jun 2016 18:17, "Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov" < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
To be fair, the clearest definition is the one in Germany. Most other European countries just put the building in the centre and apparently refrain from asking the questions you just did.
But yes, theoretically in Austrian or Spanish law for instance, if a building is not right at the street/path it might not be covered by the copyright exception. I am not aware of this ever having been a real problem, though.
Dimi
2016-06-01 17:11 GMT+02:00 L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com:
Well, that is my worry. I don't really see a better definition out there that is unambiguous. I'm not so much asking because of the German situation
- I totally agree it would be odd to go in strong for what is in the end a
detail - but it might be helpful when working in other countries, what are the best practices, what ideal FoP would look like.
If you put the building at the center, which part of the building? And which buildings? You say located at a street, but what if there's a garden (field of grass) in between? Or a low building?
The only better definition I could think of, is to apply it to all architecture. But whether that is realistic?
Lodewijk
2016-06-01 17:04 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com>:
Hello, everybody!
I personally don't see this particular wording in German law as very problematic. Sure, it would be nice to have it written otherwise, but is it a priority issue? Definitely not!
If we ever got the chance it without a fight, I would simply go for changing the perspective to the one of the building. Something like buildings/plots/statutes that are permanently located in/at parks, streets and squares. This way drones or pictures from aircrafts won't be problematic.
Of course "parks, streets and squares" is not exhaustive enough, but you get my point.
Dimi
2016-06-01 16:31 GMT+02:00 L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com:
Hi Raul,
Changing the topic, as this becomes a quite specific discussion.
What would be the better definition in your opinion? The burden of proof is always on the copyright holder, I'd think. But somehow, you need to define what is this 'panorama'. What you could see from a public space, is one definition. What is yours?
Lodewijk
2016-06-01 14:20 GMT+02:00 Raul Veede raul.veede@gmail.com:
Hi.
Has there been any discussion about possibly (re)opening the question of the clause limiting FoP that demands that the pictures should be taken _from_ a public place? It could be argued this creates complications for businesses (as clearly demonstrated by the Hundertwasser case) and has potential for unlimited amount of uncertainty (the place where the photographer stood usually remains unseen on the picture itself, so the legality is hard to determine afterwords, especially on the Internet, e.g. on Commons). Most jurisdictions with FoP can get very well by without such a clause, and it is hard to see what benefit it creates for the public, or actually even for any private rightsholders.
Best,
Raul, working on FoP in Estonia
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:57 PM, John Hendrik Weitzmann < john.weitzmann@wikimedia.de> wrote:
Hi all,
@Jens: Thx for the warm welcome. The settling in is not quite done yet. I'm still watching/learning and trying to tend to urgent things on the way. The justice ministry is high on the meeting agenda, a direct contact to the head of their copyright unit exists. Their ideas and initiatives around exceptions & limitations definitely touch on Wikiprojects. Any concrete suggestions welcome. Main items on this year's WMDE work plan regarding lawmaking are public works, freedom of panorama, database directive and ancillary publichers right, the three last of which happen mainly on the EU level as yet.
Best John
2016-06-01 8:01 GMT+02:00 Mathias Schindler < mathias.schindler@gmail.com>:
> Hi, > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Jens Best best.jens@gmail.com > wrote: > > > I heard that the German ministry of justice is reevaluating the > > "Schrankenregeln" (kind of the German version of fair use) as one > aspect of > > this year's copyright laws reevaluation. Wouldn't that be a > possible focus > > which relates to the volunteer work of the Wikiprojects? > > a more precise translation of Schrankenregeln is "limitations and > exceptions" in copyright. EU member states can implement exceptions > listed in the InfoSoc Directive, they are not allowed to implement > exceptions not listed there. The current German government has > announced to adjust certain exceptions dealing with education. Other > than that, the introduction of a fair use clause in German copyright > would require some legislation on the EU level* > > Mathias > > > * (Martin Senftleben is slightly more optimistic here > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1959554) > > _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list > Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >
-- Referent für Politik und Recht Legal and Policy Advisor
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49 (0)30 219 158 26-0 http://wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
The UK law (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/62) applies to
(a) buildings, and
(b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.
-- which seems plain enough.
It applies to all buildings, regardless of where the photograph or drawing is taken from.
Clause (a) is considered to also include gardens.
The Irish law is similar.
-- James.
On 01/06/2016 17:08, Raul Veede wrote:
In most cases, it is just "art permanently located in publicly accessible space". Is everyone allowed to approach it, with or without a fee, for most of the time? It's free. I'm not aware of any cases where someone would have claimed a house not being freely depictable because of a lawn. One could do it, but most likely it wouldn't make sense, and common sense is actually an important legal principle in applying the text of the laws. Of course drones are bringing quite a new perspective into this issue, both physically and metaphorically (sorry for a lousy pun), and our current legal frameworks are as badly suited for drones as they are for phone cameras and the Internet.
r On 1 Jun 2016 18:17, "Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov" < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
To be fair, the clearest definition is the one in Germany. Most other European countries just put the building in the centre and apparently refrain from asking the questions you just did.
But yes, theoretically in Austrian or Spanish law for instance, if a building is not right at the street/path it might not be covered by the copyright exception. I am not aware of this ever having been a real problem, though.
Dimi
2016-06-01 17:11 GMT+02:00 L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com:
Well, that is my worry. I don't really see a better definition out there that is unambiguous. I'm not so much asking because of the German situation
- I totally agree it would be odd to go in strong for what is in the end a
detail - but it might be helpful when working in other countries, what are the best practices, what ideal FoP would look like.
If you put the building at the center, which part of the building? And which buildings? You say located at a street, but what if there's a garden (field of grass) in between? Or a low building?
The only better definition I could think of, is to apply it to all architecture. But whether that is realistic?
Lodewijk
2016-06-01 17:04 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com>:
Hello, everybody!
I personally don't see this particular wording in German law as very problematic. Sure, it would be nice to have it written otherwise, but is it a priority issue? Definitely not!
If we ever got the chance it without a fight, I would simply go for changing the perspective to the one of the building. Something like buildings/plots/statutes that are permanently located in/at parks, streets and squares. This way drones or pictures from aircrafts won't be problematic.
Of course "parks, streets and squares" is not exhaustive enough, but you get my point.
Dimi
2016-06-01 16:31 GMT+02:00 L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com:
Hi Raul,
Changing the topic, as this becomes a quite specific discussion.
What would be the better definition in your opinion? The burden of proof is always on the copyright holder, I'd think. But somehow, you need to define what is this 'panorama'. What you could see from a public space, is one definition. What is yours?
Lodewijk
2016-06-01 14:20 GMT+02:00 Raul Veede raul.veede@gmail.com:
Hi.
Has there been any discussion about possibly (re)opening the question of the clause limiting FoP that demands that the pictures should be taken _from_ a public place? It could be argued this creates complications for businesses (as clearly demonstrated by the Hundertwasser case) and has potential for unlimited amount of uncertainty (the place where the photographer stood usually remains unseen on the picture itself, so the legality is hard to determine afterwords, especially on the Internet, e.g. on Commons). Most jurisdictions with FoP can get very well by without such a clause, and it is hard to see what benefit it creates for the public, or actually even for any private rightsholders.
Best,
Raul, working on FoP in Estonia
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:57 PM, John Hendrik Weitzmann < john.weitzmann@wikimedia.de> wrote:
> Hi all, > > @Jens: Thx for the warm welcome. The settling in is not quite done > yet. I'm still watching/learning and trying to tend to urgent things on the > way. The justice ministry is high on the meeting agenda, a direct contact > to the head of their copyright unit exists. Their ideas and initiatives > around exceptions & limitations definitely touch on Wikiprojects. Any > concrete suggestions welcome. Main items on this year's WMDE work plan > regarding lawmaking are public works, freedom of panorama, database > directive and ancillary publichers right, the three last of which happen > mainly on the EU level as yet. > > Best > John > > > 2016-06-01 8:01 GMT+02:00 Mathias Schindler < > mathias.schindler@gmail.com>: > >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Jens Best best.jens@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> I heard that the German ministry of justice is reevaluating the >>> "Schrankenregeln" (kind of the German version of fair use) as one >> aspect of >>> this year's copyright laws reevaluation. Wouldn't that be a >> possible focus >>> which relates to the volunteer work of the Wikiprojects? >> >> a more precise translation of Schrankenregeln is "limitations and >> exceptions" in copyright. EU member states can implement exceptions >> listed in the InfoSoc Directive, they are not allowed to implement >> exceptions not listed there. The current German government has >> announced to adjust certain exceptions dealing with education. Other >> than that, the introduction of a fair use clause in German copyright >> would require some legislation on the EU level* >> >> Mathias >> >> >> * (Martin Senftleben is slightly more optimistic here >> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1959554) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Publicpolicy mailing list >> Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >> > > > > -- > Referent für Politik und Recht > Legal and Policy Advisor > > Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin > Tel. +49 (0)30 219 158 26-0 > http://wikimedia.de > > Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge > allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! > http://spenden.wikimedia.de/ > > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. > V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg > unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt > für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. > > _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list > Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy > >
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Hi James,
Thanks for explaining. So a piece of art (say, sculpture) that is not displayed *in* a public space, but visible *from* a public space, wouldn't be covered under that definition, right? For example, a decorated fountain or a statue in a garden near, but not on, the public road.
Nice to see though that all 'buildings' are covered, no matter where they are located or visible!
Lodewijk
2016-06-01 18:49 GMT+02:00 James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk:
The UK law (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/62) applies to
(a) buildings, and
(b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.
-- which seems plain enough.
It applies to all buildings, regardless of where the photograph or drawing is taken from.
Clause (a) is considered to also include gardens.
The Irish law is similar.
-- James.
On 01/06/2016 17:08, Raul Veede wrote:
In most cases, it is just "art permanently located in publicly accessible space". Is everyone allowed to approach it, with or without a fee, for most of the time? It's free. I'm not aware of any cases where someone would have claimed a house not being freely depictable because of a lawn. One could do it, but most likely it wouldn't make sense, and common sense is actually an important legal principle in applying the text of the laws. Of course drones are bringing quite a new perspective into this issue, both physically and metaphorically (sorry for a lousy pun), and our current legal frameworks are as badly suited for drones as they are for phone cameras and the Internet.
r On 1 Jun 2016 18:17, "Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov" < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
To be fair, the clearest definition is the one in Germany. Most other
European countries just put the building in the centre and apparently refrain from asking the questions you just did.
But yes, theoretically in Austrian or Spanish law for instance, if a building is not right at the street/path it might not be covered by the copyright exception. I am not aware of this ever having been a real problem, though.
Dimi
2016-06-01 17:11 GMT+02:00 L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com:
Well, that is my worry. I don't really see a better definition out there
that is unambiguous. I'm not so much asking because of the German situation
- I totally agree it would be odd to go in strong for what is in the
end a detail - but it might be helpful when working in other countries, what are the best practices, what ideal FoP would look like.
If you put the building at the center, which part of the building? And which buildings? You say located at a street, but what if there's a garden (field of grass) in between? Or a low building?
The only better definition I could think of, is to apply it to all architecture. But whether that is realistic?
Lodewijk
2016-06-01 17:04 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com>:
Hello, everybody!
I personally don't see this particular wording in German law as very problematic. Sure, it would be nice to have it written otherwise, but is it a priority issue? Definitely not!
If we ever got the chance it without a fight, I would simply go for changing the perspective to the one of the building. Something like buildings/plots/statutes that are permanently located in/at parks, streets and squares. This way drones or pictures from aircrafts won't be problematic.
Of course "parks, streets and squares" is not exhaustive enough, but you get my point.
Dimi
2016-06-01 16:31 GMT+02:00 L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com:
Hi Raul,
Changing the topic, as this becomes a quite specific discussion.
What would be the better definition in your opinion? The burden of proof is always on the copyright holder, I'd think. But somehow, you need to define what is this 'panorama'. What you could see from a public space, is one definition. What is yours?
Lodewijk
2016-06-01 14:20 GMT+02:00 Raul Veede raul.veede@gmail.com:
Hi. > > Has there been any discussion about possibly (re)opening the question > of the clause limiting FoP that demands that the pictures should be > taken > _from_ a public place? It could be argued this creates complications > for > businesses (as clearly demonstrated by the Hundertwasser case) and > has > potential for unlimited amount of uncertainty (the place where the > photographer stood usually remains unseen on the picture itself, so > the > legality is hard to determine afterwords, especially on the > Internet, e.g. > on Commons). Most jurisdictions with FoP can get very well by > without such > a clause, and it is hard to see what benefit it creates for the > public, or > actually even for any private rightsholders. > > Best, > > Raul, > working on FoP in Estonia > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:57 PM, John Hendrik Weitzmann < > john.weitzmann@wikimedia.de> wrote: > > Hi all, >> >> @Jens: Thx for the warm welcome. The settling in is not quite done >> yet. I'm still watching/learning and trying to tend to urgent >> things on the >> way. The justice ministry is high on the meeting agenda, a direct >> contact >> to the head of their copyright unit exists. Their ideas and >> initiatives >> around exceptions & limitations definitely touch on Wikiprojects. >> Any >> concrete suggestions welcome. Main items on this year's WMDE work >> plan >> regarding lawmaking are public works, freedom of panorama, database >> directive and ancillary publichers right, the three last of which >> happen >> mainly on the EU level as yet. >> >> Best >> John >> >> >> 2016-06-01 8:01 GMT+02:00 Mathias Schindler < >> mathias.schindler@gmail.com>: >> >> Hi, >>> >>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Jens Best best.jens@gmail.com >>> wrote: >>> >>> I heard that the German ministry of justice is reevaluating the >>>> "Schrankenregeln" (kind of the German version of fair use) as one >>>> >>> aspect of >>> >>>> this year's copyright laws reevaluation. Wouldn't that be a >>>> >>> possible focus >>> >>>> which relates to the volunteer work of the Wikiprojects? >>>> >>> >>> a more precise translation of Schrankenregeln is "limitations and >>> exceptions" in copyright. EU member states can implement exceptions >>> listed in the InfoSoc Directive, they are not allowed to implement >>> exceptions not listed there. The current German government has >>> announced to adjust certain exceptions dealing with education. >>> Other >>> than that, the introduction of a fair use clause in German >>> copyright >>> would require some legislation on the EU level* >>> >>> Mathias >>> >>> >>> * (Martin Senftleben is slightly more optimistic here >>> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1959554) >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Publicpolicy mailing list >>> Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Referent für Politik und Recht >> Legal and Policy Advisor >> >> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin >> Tel. +49 (0)30 219 158 26-0 >> http://wikimedia.de >> >> Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge >> allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! >> http://spenden.wikimedia.de/ >> >> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. >> V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts >> Berlin-Charlottenburg >> unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das >> Finanzamt >> für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Publicpolicy mailing list >> Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list > Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy > > > _______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Actually, we don't have to define 'panorama', because it is usually not in the copyright laws, neither on its own nor in the phrase 'freedom of panorama'.
That said, most laws establishing FoP cause problems because they don't determine its scope clearly enough, or use unclear, or unexpectedly wide wording for exceptions from FoP. E.g., there's a difference between "museums and galleries" and "museums and exhibitions". Most likely, there are differences between "public space/area" and "publicly accessible ...", although these are seen differently. Often (yet not always) the relevant terms have been defined in other laws - that's a factor usually omitted in simplified overviews like the one on Commons' FoP page. And sometimes one has to consider the psychological factors, providing unnecessary safeguards or avoiding some terms because of their cultural baggage.
For Estonia, we chose the most clear and straightforward wording that seemed enforcable under current circumstances. For some, it still isn't enough, but some people can't be helped. I think we actually haven't provided an official English translation yet, and I don't have these documents on my phone right now. But whatever wording one chooses, it should rise from the following principles: 1) clarity and conciseness; 2) aptitude in legal context; 3) social and political realism. An Estonian philosopher once said, "Even the best god cannot give a revelation to someone who is not ready to take it"; the same goes for laws.
Raul
P.S. The current state of affairs: Ministry of Justice decided they'd like to wait _because_ of the European consultation, as the Wise Men of Europe will make some decision that will solve all problems in the autumn; we said "screw you" and will most likely present the case to a more sympathetic audience in the Parliamentary Committee of European Affairs next week. I like politicians who are vain enough to want to score points by doing the (occasional) right thing. On 1 Jun 2016 17:32, "L.Gelauff" lgelauff@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Raul,
Changing the topic, as this becomes a quite specific discussion.
What would be the better definition in your opinion? The burden of proof is always on the copyright holder, I'd think. But somehow, you need to define what is this 'panorama'. What you could see from a public space, is one definition. What is yours?
Lodewijk
2016-06-01 14:20 GMT+02:00 Raul Veede raul.veede@gmail.com:
Hi.
Has there been any discussion about possibly (re)opening the question of the clause limiting FoP that demands that the pictures should be taken _from_ a public place? It could be argued this creates complications for businesses (as clearly demonstrated by the Hundertwasser case) and has potential for unlimited amount of uncertainty (the place where the photographer stood usually remains unseen on the picture itself, so the legality is hard to determine afterwords, especially on the Internet, e.g. on Commons). Most jurisdictions with FoP can get very well by without such a clause, and it is hard to see what benefit it creates for the public, or actually even for any private rightsholders.
Best,
Raul, working on FoP in Estonia
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:57 PM, John Hendrik Weitzmann < john.weitzmann@wikimedia.de> wrote:
Hi all,
@Jens: Thx for the warm welcome. The settling in is not quite done yet. I'm still watching/learning and trying to tend to urgent things on the way. The justice ministry is high on the meeting agenda, a direct contact to the head of their copyright unit exists. Their ideas and initiatives around exceptions & limitations definitely touch on Wikiprojects. Any concrete suggestions welcome. Main items on this year's WMDE work plan regarding lawmaking are public works, freedom of panorama, database directive and ancillary publichers right, the three last of which happen mainly on the EU level as yet.
Best John
2016-06-01 8:01 GMT+02:00 Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler@gmail.com
:
Hi,
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Jens Best best.jens@gmail.com wrote:
I heard that the German ministry of justice is reevaluating the "Schrankenregeln" (kind of the German version of fair use) as one
aspect of
this year's copyright laws reevaluation. Wouldn't that be a possible
focus
which relates to the volunteer work of the Wikiprojects?
a more precise translation of Schrankenregeln is "limitations and exceptions" in copyright. EU member states can implement exceptions listed in the InfoSoc Directive, they are not allowed to implement exceptions not listed there. The current German government has announced to adjust certain exceptions dealing with education. Other than that, the introduction of a fair use clause in German copyright would require some legislation on the EU level*
Mathias
- (Martin Senftleben is slightly more optimistic here
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1959554)
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
-- Referent für Politik und Recht Legal and Policy Advisor
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49 (0)30 219 158 26-0 http://wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org