[Advocacy Advisors] InfoSoc Own-Initiative Report Vote Today

[Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov]

Well, the overrepresentation of French MEPs in JURI surely wasn't helpful.
(4 French MEPs vs. 2 German, for instance). They were also very vocal from
the start, while no one else seemed to really care enough.

Some soft wording that could make us claim that we wouldn't impose anything
on anyone would be helpful. The Wikström AM is seen as too much off the
centre. The ECR compromise proposal might be better. Just saying that the
UK Conservatives proposed it might be helpful.Longer compromises are good,
because they let you make everyone feel like they contributed. Maybe going
for the CAM proposed by the UK Conservatives would work. On the other hand
a short text makes people less afraid you're trying to sneak something past
them.

Dimi


2015-06-16 13:07 GMT+02:00 James Heald <j.heald at ucl.ac.uk>:

> Dimi,
>
> What's your assessment of where the balance in the plenary might be on
> this?
>
> Is there any chance the plenary (with people from ITRE etc, and not such
> an over-representation of the French) might go for something more like
> Wikstrom's amendment ?
>
> Or something close to the compromise AM that was supposedly being worked
> on ?
>
>   -- J.
>
>
>
> On 16/06/2015 12:02, Marcin Cieslak wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150616/9bca713f/attachment.html>