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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com>
Cc: federicoleva(a)tiscali.it, Stevie Benton <stevie.benton(a)wikimedia.org.uk>uk>,
Michael Maggs <michaelmaggs(a)fastmail.com>om>, Karl Sigfrid <
karlsigfrid(a)gmail.com>gt;, Jan Engelmann <jan.engelmann(a)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.”
--
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.*
_______________________________________________
Wmfcc-l mailing list
Wmfcc-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfcc-l
--
*Joe Sutherland*
Communications Intern [remote]
m: +44 (0) 7722 916 433 | t: @jrbsu <http://twitter.com/jrbsu> | w:
JSutherland <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:JSutherland_(WMF)>