Are WMF and the European affiliates allowed to lobby regarding this issue?

Actually, considering how effective the blackout was for SOPA, I think another action based on the most prominent images we stand to lose would be in order. So the take on the London Eye and maybe some popular buildings, art and bridges in Euro-FoP countries?

I don't know if you could rig a java script to flag these with a red lightbox that links to the Commons page, but that would probably be more effective than any other lobbying efforts On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Sam Klein &lt;sjklein(a)hcs.harvard.edu&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 22 Jun 2015, at 20:02, Michael Maggs &lt;Michael(a)maggs.name&gt; wrote: This has been mentioned before by Dimi, but bears repeating. While we may all think it's *outrageous* that tens of thousands of images may have to be deleted from Commons, we do have to make sure we have messages that will resonate with those who don't agree with us or who don't care. If our only message is that open content will be harmed, we have no answer to those who reply 'so what?' In countries such as France and Belgium, that currently have no Freedom of Panorama, we need to address arguments like these: 1. Why should people be allowed to make money by using an architect's intellectual property without permission? 2. Why does Wikipedia, a hobbyist website, think it's OK to steal other people's rights? 3. Non-commercial use won't be affected, so this is not an issue of freedom at all. It just stops people making money from someone else's creative work. 4. If Wikipedia holds itself out as non-commercial, it can and should accept non-commercial licences. The argument that 'images will have to be deleted' is based on your private internal rule which could easily be changed. Remember that in some countries there is a long history of supporting rights holders, that millions of people don't know what 'open' means, don't care, and won't be persuadable by any sort of argument based on freedom to view. To them, freedom of panorama is just a way of illicitly taking away an artist's right to protect his or her own creative work. Probably most of us reading this will say that these arguments hold no water, but we need to tackle them head-on. Michael _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Michael Peel &lt;email(a)mikepeel.net&gt; wrote: Retroactively as in “you used this photograph three years ago, so pay us”? Obviously not. But “if you want to use this photograph you took three years ago in a book you are publishing next month, you have to pay us”? That is not retroactivity, that’s just not having a grandfather clause. (Which means continued public availability of these photographs on Commons without permission from the copyright holders author would fall under the new law.) -- Petr Kadlec / Mormegil

Carcharoth <mailto:carcharothwp@googlemail.com> 28 June 2015 12:28 These are excellent points raised by Michael Maggs. The bit about non-commercial licenses in particular. That has always been difficult to explain to people who are quite happy for Wikipedia to use their images or images of their works, but don't want people to profit commercially from those images or their works. It can be hard to explain that Wikipedia is free ('gratis'), but we want people to be able to reuse and repackage the material (including images) and create commercial products from them. Some people quite rightly back away from that when they realise what they would be allowing people to do with the images. Freedom of panorama (or rather, lack of it) has particularly unfortunate effects, in that people who are unaware of these provisions think they can upload their photography to Commons and are then very often discouraged and de-motivated when they are told that the images they contributed will be deleted. It is this motivational aspect that I think is overlooked by those who want to encourage people to contribute to Wikipedia and Commons and other Wikimedia projects. My feeling is that vast numbers of potential and current contributors decide Wikipedia is not for them when this happens, and they walk away and we lose out when that happens. The effect is magnified when this happens to photos that have been *used with no problems for many years*. Potentially photos that people uploaded to Commons many years ago may get retrospectively deleted. If this does run into the tens and hundreds of thousands, the motivational effect on those who uploaded pictures or use them to illustrate their articles, could be immense. If these changes take effect (and that is a big if) and if Commons (as seems likely) goes on a big deletion spree, then the practical effect is likely to be to discourage large numbers of (in some cases) highly active contributors to the point where they may even cease contributing. That is something that should be considered, IMO. Can anyone here think of any way to mitigate the impact on people who may not understand why their images are being deleted, if it does come to that eventually? Carcharoth <snip> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> Michael Maggs <mailto:Michael@maggs.name> 22 June 2015 20:02 This has been mentioned before by Dimi, but bears repeating. While we may all think it's *outrageous* that tens of thousands of images may have to be deleted from Commons, we do have to make sure we have messages that will resonate with those who don't agree with us or who don't care. If our only message is that open content will be harmed, we have no answer to those who reply 'so what?' In countries such as France and Belgium, that currently have no Freedom of Panorama, we need to address arguments like these: 1. Why should people be allowed to make money by using an architect's intellectual property without permission? 2. Why does Wikipedia, a hobbyist website, think it's OK to steal other people's rights? 3. Non-commercial use won't be affected, so this is not an issue of freedom at all. It just stops people making money from someone else's creative work. 4. If Wikipedia holds itself out as non-commercial, it can and should accept non-commercial licences. The argument that 'images will have to be deleted' is based on your private internal rule which could easily be changed. Remember that in some countries there is a long history of supporting rights holders, that millions of people don't know what 'open' means, don't care, and won't be persuadable by any sort of argument based on freedom to view. To them, freedom of panorama is just a way of illicitly taking away an artist's right to protect his or her own creative work. Probably most of us reading this will say that these arguments hold no water, but we need to tackle them head-on. Michael _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> Sam Klein <mailto:sjklein@hcs.harvard.edu> 22 June 2015 17:41 On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Jane Darnell&lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: This is a beautiful idea. Jane Darnell <mailto:jane023@gmail.com> 22 June 2015 08:21 Actually, considering how effective the blackout was for SOPA, I think another action based on the most prominent images we stand to lose would be in order. So the take on the London Eye and maybe some popular buildings, art and bridges in Euro-FoP countries? I don't know if you could rig a java script to flag these with a red lightbox that links to the Commons page, but that would probably be more effective than any other lobbying efforts _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> Sam Klein <mailto:sjklein@hcs.harvard.edu> 21 June 2015 23:39 The WMF could lobby or support lobbying on such an issue. It is eligible to spend up to $1M per year tax-free on lobbying. But I don't believe it has directly engaged in anything of the sort, since the SOPA action. Sam _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> Pine W <mailto:wiki.pine@gmail.com> 21 June 2015 16:47 Are WMF and the European affiliates allowed to lobby regarding this issue? If so, what are they doing? Thanks, Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> Romaine Wiki <mailto:romaine.wiki@gmail.com> 21 June 2015 14:02 Hi all, This concerns all the editors and readers in the European Union and those in other European countries as well (copying is possible). *Subject* Copyrights reform in Europe going in the wrong direction, damaging Wikipedia. *What is going on?* In the European Parliament currently a proposal (amendment) is submitted that will restrict Freedom of Panorama in Europe. This means: you will be no longer allowed to upload images from modern buildings and works of public art on Commons and not allowed to use those images on Wikipedia. Also if Freedom of Panorama is only allowed for Non Commercial purposes only, this is a problem for Wikipedia! *Some details*? It concerns the amendment AM421 proposed by Cavada and passed in the JURI committee. *When is the voting about the amendment?* Thursday 9th July But we have one chance only! *What can we do about this?* - Forward this e-mail to anyone who should know about this. - Talk to the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) in your country. Especially the members of the EPP, S&D and ALDE groups. -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_European_Parliament,_2… - Communicate this issue to users in your local community. - Publicise a press release about this, write about it on your website/blog, talk to the media how this can damage Wikipedia, etc. - Use social media: Twitter, Facebook, and so on... - Twitter about it and retweet them. Suggestions: https://twitter.com/Wikimedia_BE/status/611000943908384768 - https://twitter.com/Wikimedia_BE/status/610984311853064193 - https://twitter.com/dimi_z/status/610792189631811584 - Twitter also directly to the Members of the European Parliament directly and ask them if they want to turn Wikipedia into black. Also there will be a CentralNotice banner to inform our readers. The CentralNotice banner will lead to a landing page, which is at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_in_2015 More information will be on: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_in_2015/Learn… A FAQ will be on: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_in_2015/FAQ (or combined with the Learn more page) *How can I help with the campaign?* Go to: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama_2015/Propose… and help with getting the texts of the banner, landing page and Learn more page ready. 1. Banner: * What should the text be of the title? * What should the text be of the underline? 2. Landing page: * What information should be on the landing page? * What Twitter/Facebook/Google+ links do we place? 3. Learn more page: * What information should be mentioned on the *Learn more* page? * What actions would we recommend readers to take? * Anything else? If the banner, landing page and Learn more page are ready, they can be translated on Tuesday 23 June to the various European languages. Also local Wikipedia pages can be created for it. *Where is the coordination?* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama_2015 To have an overview it would be handy if you sign up for your country/area. Collect here also your actions like press releases, tweets, Facebook posts, etc. Those can be useful to read and to see where some action is missing or needed. *You need more information?* Read the Signpost article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-06-17/Three… *Other suggestions?* Let us know! Add suggestions at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama_2015 Thanks! Romaine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>