This might be good to get social out for, since it would directly affect us.

I'm not sure if it's the kind of thing we normally post since it's quite political, so would be good to hear opinions!

Joe

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk Date: 24 June 2015 at 08:34 Subject: [Wmfcc-l] Fwd: Times (law section): "How ‘absurd’ EU copyright law threatens to censor holiday snaps " To: Communications Committee wmfcc-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Hello everyone,

The campaign to save freedom of panorama in Europe (#SaveFoP) is really beginning to get some traction. The above is apparently in The Times today after their reporter in Brussels spoke with some Wikiimedia folks.

We have some other things ready to go later in the week and I know other European chapters are working on this too. Will keep you all posted.

Stevie

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk Date: 23 June 2015 at 22:21 Subject: Times (law section): "How ‘absurd’ EU copyright law threatens to censor holiday snaps " To: Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com Cc: federicoleva@tiscali.it, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk, Michael Maggs michaelmaggs@fastmail.com, Karl Sigfrid < karlsigfrid@gmail.com>, Jan Engelmann jan.engelmann@wikimedia.de

How ‘absurd’ EU copyright law threatens to censor holiday snaps

[Picture of blacked out Atomium]

Kaya Burgess

If you have ever taken a photograph of the London Eye, the Angel of the North or any other modern landmark, beware of posting it on your website — or even on Facebook — if you do not want to end up facing a legal action.

Lawyers and industry experts have hit out at “absurd” proposals put forward in the EU, under which photographers could be punished for breach of copyright if they publish or sell images of buildings and works of art that are still under copyright.

In the UK, an exemption within copyright law allows people to take photographs of modern buildings or permanent public artworks and use them however they wish, for personal or commercial reasons. This is known as the “freedom of panorama”.

This freedom is enjoyed in the UK and also in EU countries such as Germany and Spain, but is severely restricted in other countries, including France and Belgium. Photographs of the Atomium in Brussels appear blacked out on Wikipedia because of the restrictions.

In France, it is legal to publish photographs of the Eiffel Tower taken during the day — because it is old enough to be out of copyright — but it is illegal to publish those taken at night, because the lighting array is a modern installation and still protected by copyright.

A proposed reform to copyright law could now lead to these restrictions being introduced in the UK for commercial usage. If passed by the EU, the change would primarily affect professional photographers providing photos for use in postcards, in books or on professional or corporate websites, but lawyers have warned of a significant “grey area” that could affect personal images posted on Facebook or on websites or blogs that bring in any advertising revenue or have any commercial purpose.

Julia Reda, a German MEP for the Pirate party, initially proposed reforms to extend the freedoms enjoyed in the UK to the rest of the EU, but an amendment has been added by the European parliament proposing 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.”

Charles Swan, a director of the Association of Photographers and an intellectual property lawyer, described the proposal as “absurd” and “a complete invasion of our freedom of expression”. He said: “Why on earth shouldn’t you take pictures of the landscape or skyline and do what you want with them? It would be fairly disastrous and most of the British public, not just photographers, would think this was pretty horrific. The only people it would be good news for might be architects.”

The Royal Institute of British Architects also opposes the law change and a spokesman said: “We are concerned that the well-intentioned proposals to ensure that architects are paid for the use of images of their work by commercial publishers and broadcasters would instead have negative implications, and represent a potentially damaging restriction of the debate about architecture and public space.”

Nick Phillips, a copyright lawyer with Edwin Coe, said: “It would be very confusing. If you’re just taking a holiday snap of the Angel of the North, that’s going to be non-commercial and so will be fine, but it becomes a grey area if, say, Facebook’s terms and conditions give Facebook a licence to use your photograph for any purposes they like.”