[Advocacy Advisors] Freedom of Panorama Compromise Amendment Off

[Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov]

Yes, it is completely gone. We're back to original text plus original
amendments. I don't want to speculate about the reasons on a public mailing
list, but let's just say that many MEPs feel insecure when it comes to
copyright and the collecting societies are lobbying for NC.

The important thing now is that many MEPs vote against AMs 415/417/422/423
(identical) and the original text stands.

2015-06-10 10:12 GMT+02:00 <aktron at centrum.cz>:

> Dimi,
>
>
>
> What do you mean by being it off now? Does this mean that the last Shadow
> meeting put it off the table? And why?
>
>
>
> Jan
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> > Od: Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov at gmail.com>
> > Komu: Advocacy Advisory Group for WMF LCA <
> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Datum: 10.06.2015 08:51
> > Předmět: [Advocacy Advisors] Freedom of Panorama Compromise Amendment Off
> >
>     Good morning, everybody!
>
>  The Freedom of Panorama compromise amendment that we were working on for
> the past months and that looked like a very likely scenario is off now.
> This isn't good news. At the end, even the UK Conservatives tried to save
> it. This is somewhat positive. However, not enough shadows signed off on
> it.
>
>  This means that now we're back to the original text of the report, which
> reads:
>
>  #16
>  Calls on the EU legislator to ensure that the use of photographs, video
> footage or other images of works which are permanently located in public
> places is permitted;
>  The risk is that amendments filed by a number of MEPs from the largest
> groups will be voted on. These include "non-commercial":
>
>  AM 415/422/423 (identical)
> #16
> *Invites* the EU legislator to *recognise* that the use of photographs,
> video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in
> *physical* public places is permitted *and should be considered to be in
> the public domain, where that use is for a non-commercial purpose or scale;*
>
>  The legal affairs committee (JURI) has 24 voting members, which means we
> need 12 people against to be sure they won't pass and the original text
> stands. Counting abstentions probably even fewer than 12 no votes will be
> enough, but let's aim for the full dozen.
>
>  The vote is next Tuesday. The fact that the AM is legally incoherent
> should help us bring up some additional good arguments against. I will be
> contacting the Europeans among you with more specific briefs on who to call
> and what to say.
>
>  Cheers,
> Dimi
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20150610/35c296a6/attachment-0001.html>