[Advocacy Advisors] InfoSoc Own-Initiative Report Vote Today

[Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov]

It doesn't say that. It says:

16. Considers that the use of photographs, video footage or other images of
works which are permanently located in physical public places should be
permitted.

I guess there was some formatting that came our wrong on the other end.

2015-06-16 13:02 GMT+02:00 Marcin Cieslak <saper at saper.info>:

> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote:
>
> > @Marcin, in this case, anything that flies with the media and helps us
> > change the text would work. The report that was adopted already calls for
> > minimum standards for exceptions. We're not getting more, but we might
> get
> > less.
>
> I agree. Let's not only forget that so called media are the party
> to this discussion and not necessarily a friendly one. But I agree
> we need to wor with them.
>
> > I think we should work on a very neutral, non-scary text as an amendment
> > for the plenary. Perhaps something along the lines of:
> >
> > 16. Invites the EU legislator to recognise that the use of photographs,
> > video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in
> > public places is permitted.
> >
> > Otherwise, working on the original Cavada text, we could go for:
> >
> > 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 *permitted* *subject to prior authorisation
> from
> > the authors or any proxy acting for them*.
>
> How do you understand "should always be permitted"? - that kind of
>
> ~Marcin
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150616/8d31483c/attachment.html>