[Advocacy Advisors] InfoSoc Own-Initiative Report Vote Today

[h4uk3]

How about
Recognising that the use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are
permanently located in physical public are an indispensable part of cultural heritage and the free press and should  therefore be permitted. 
Best 
Hauke 

-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov at gmail.com> 
Datum: 16.06.2015  13:07  (GMT+01:00) 
An: Advocacy Advisory Group for Wikimedia <advocacy_advisors at lists.wikimedia.org> 
Betreff: Re: [Advocacy Advisors] InfoSoc Own-Initiative Report Vote Today 

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/20150617/ec378250/attachment-0001.html>