[Advocacy Advisors] InfoSoc Own-Initiative Report Vote Today
Stevie Benton
stevie.benton at wikimedia.org.uk
Tue Jun 16 10:05:24 UTC 2015
Here's a page for us to work through some things and sketch out a general
strategy and plan of action. We can also collaborate on any other materials
we need.
https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/User:Stevie_Benton_(WMUK)/Sandbox/Challenging_the_Cavada_Amendment
Such a stupid amendment!
Stevie
On 16 June 2015 at 11:02, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <
dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, trying to think constructively this is the advantage of GESAC being
> to greedy.
>
> Cavada himself was going around telling everyone that he does not want to
> restrict rights in other countries, just to preserve French culture. Well,
> what happened is that they passed language copying bad practices to 15 EU
> countries will a full FoP exception. It is an own initiative report and not
> even the last word on it was spoken, but the general tendency to vote for
> any AMs that restrict use was obvious.
>
> In order to fix this in plenary (6th of July I believe), we would need
> three things now:
> 1. A sensible text for an amendment to table in for the plenary vote that
> attracts very little opposition.
> 2. Getting many rather prominent MEPs from all groups to table this new
> amendment.
> 3. Some media fuzz in the countries that currently have a full exception.
>
> D
>
>
> 2015-06-16 11:44 GMT+02:00 James Heald <j.heald at ucl.ac.uk>:
>
>> One advantage is it gives us something very hard and concrete to kick
>> against -- a real threat we can e.g. try to get on the front page of Metro
>>
>> Sometimes it can be an advantage if people can see the bogeyman in full
>> stark reality.
>>
>> -- James.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 16/06/2015 10:39, Stevie Benton wrote:
>>
>>> This is terrible.
>>>
>>> I will start a page on the UK wiki where we can throw something
>>> together
>>> On 16 Jun 2015 10:37, "James Heald" <j.heald at ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think we should go the full Daily Mail.
>>>>
>>>> Talk about books being pulped, blacked out photos of the buildings at
>>>> Canary Wharf, etc, etc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Did anyone spot how Honeyball voted on the Wikstrom amendment (good) and
>>>> the Cavada amendment (bad) ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- James.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 16/06/2015 10:12, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So, the French visual artists collecting society got their preferred
>>>>> amendment through (Cavada). Unfortunately this is the worst possible
>>>>> for
>>>>> us. It says:
>>>>>
>>>>> 16.
>>>>> Considers 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
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to consider if we'll try to further amend it in plenary in
>>>>> several
>>>>> weeks or we just concentrate on the Commission.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dimi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2015-06-16 5:35 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <
>>>>> dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov at gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in a few hours the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) will vote on the
>>>>>> own-initiative report (not a legal instrument, but rather a
>>>>>> recommendation)
>>>>>> by Julia Reda.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The full name of the document is Report on the Implementation of
>>>>>> Directive
>>>>>> 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and
>>>>>> related
>>>>>> rights in the information society. It is about the implementation of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> current copyright framework and how it could be updated. It is also a
>>>>>> very
>>>>>> first step in the process that will continue with the Commission
>>>>>> proposing
>>>>>> a reform text before the end of the year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's in it for us?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - *Freedom of Panorama* is looking good as it stands, but there
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> high chance of "non-commercial" being added to it. There was no
>>>>>> compromise
>>>>>> on this, so we tried everything we could in the past week.
>>>>>> - In order for Freedom of Panorama to be preserved or even
>>>>>> extended,
>>>>>> following amendments need to be rejected:
>>>>>> 414/415/417/420/422/423/424/426
>>>>>> - *Compromise Amendment 5* will call for "lowering the barriers
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> Public Sector Information".
>>>>>> - *Compromise Amendment 6* will say that it "urges the
>>>>>> Commission to
>>>>>> clarify
>>>>>> that once a work is in the public domain, any digitisation of the
>>>>>> work
>>>>>> which does not constitute a new, transformative work, stays in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> public
>>>>>> domain."
>>>>>> - *Compromise Amendment 6 *will also call the Commission to
>>>>>> examine
>>>>>> "whether rightholders may be given the right to dedicate their
>>>>>> works
>>>>>> to the
>>>>>> public domain, in whole or in part".
>>>>>> - *Compromise Amendment 7* will explicitly call on the
>>>>>> Commission to
>>>>>> refrain from further copyright term extentions.
>>>>>> - While very watered down, *Compromise Amendments 10 and 11*
>>>>>> call for
>>>>>> at least some harmonisation by mentioning "minimum standards
>>>>>> across
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> exceptions and limitations".
>>>>>> - *Compromise Amendments 13 and 14* try to propose introduce an
>>>>>> "open
>>>>>> norm" to EU copyright, but are so watered down, that the initial
>>>>>> intention
>>>>>> is almost gone. Still OK to have.
>>>>>> - *Compromise Amendment 18* on Text and Data Mining is rather
>>>>>> weak,
>>>>>> but at least it doesn't do any harm.
>>>>>> - The paragraph on linking liability is completely off, which is
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> welcomed, since it would have gone in the wrong direction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All in all, I am very happy and excited about Compromises 6 and 7.
>>>>>> Compromise 5 is a step in the right direction, although not as clear
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> wanted it. Freedom of Panorama remains a major worry. In a worst case
>>>>>> scenario we might just want to kill it in a later stage of the
>>>>>> legislative
>>>>>> process to guard the status quo if the the "non-commercial" fixation
>>>>>> remains this sticky.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Voting should begin around 10:30.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Live stream:
>>>>>> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video…
>>>>>> <
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20150616-0900-COMMITTEE-JURI
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Voting list: https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/
>>>>>> …/03/voting_list.pdf
>>>>>> <https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/voting_list.pdf>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>
>
--
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.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20150616/658071f8/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Advocacy_Advisors
mailing list