<p dir="ltr">This is terrible. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I will start a page on the UK wiki where we can throw something together </p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 16 Jun 2015 10:37, "James Heald" <<a href="mailto:j.heald@ucl.ac.uk">j.heald@ucl.ac.uk</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I think we should go the full Daily Mail.<br>
<br>
Talk about books being pulped, blacked out photos of the buildings at Canary Wharf, etc, etc<br>
<br>
<br>
Did anyone spot how Honeyball voted on the Wikstrom amendment (good) and the Cavada amendment (bad) ?<br>
<br>
<br>
-- James.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 16/06/2015 10:12, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
So, the French visual artists collecting society got their preferred<br>
amendment through (Cavada). Unfortunately this is the worst possible for<br>
us. It says:<br>
<br>
16.<br>
Considers that the commercial use of photographs, video footage or other<br>
images of works which are permanently located in physical public places<br>
should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any<br>
proxy acting for them<br>
<br>
We need to consider if we'll try to further amend it in plenary in several<br>
weeks or we just concentrate on the Commission.<br>
<br>
Dimi<br>
<br>
<br>
2015-06-16 5:35 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <<br>
<a href="mailto:dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com" target="_blank">dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi,<br>
<br>
in a few hours the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) will vote on the<br>
own-initiative report (not a legal instrument, but rather a recommendation)<br>
by Julia Reda.<br>
<br>
The full name of the document is Report on the Implementation of Directive<br>
2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related<br>
rights in the information society. It is about the implementation of the<br>
current copyright framework and how it could be updated. It is also a very<br>
first step in the process that will continue with the Commission proposing<br>
a reform text before the end of the year.<br>
<br>
What's in it for us?<br>
<br>
- *Freedom of Panorama* is looking good as it stands, but there is<br>
high chance of "non-commercial" being added to it. There was no compromise<br>
on this, so we tried everything we could in the past week.<br>
- In order for Freedom of Panorama to be preserved or even extended,<br>
following amendments need to be rejected: 414/415/417/420/422/423/424/426<br>
- *Compromise Amendment 5* will call for "lowering the barriers to<br>
Public Sector Information".<br>
- *Compromise Amendment 6* will say that it "urges the Commission to clarify<br>
that once a work is in the public domain, any digitisation of the work<br>
which does not constitute a new, transformative work, stays in the public<br>
domain."<br>
- *Compromise Amendment 6 *will also call the Commission to examine<br>
"whether rightholders may be given the right to dedicate their works to the<br>
public domain, in whole or in part".<br>
- *Compromise Amendment 7* will explicitly call on the Commission to<br>
refrain from further copyright term extentions.<br>
- While very watered down, *Compromise Amendments 10 and 11* call for<br>
at least some harmonisation by mentioning "minimum standards across the<br>
exceptions and limitations".<br>
- *Compromise Amendments 13 and 14* try to propose introduce an "open<br>
norm" to EU copyright, but are so watered down, that the initial intention<br>
is almost gone. Still OK to have.<br>
- *Compromise Amendment 18* on Text and Data Mining is rather weak,<br>
but at least it doesn't do any harm.<br>
- The paragraph on linking liability is completely off, which is to be<br>
welcomed, since it would have gone in the wrong direction.<br>
<br>
All in all, I am very happy and excited about Compromises 6 and 7.<br>
Compromise 5 is a step in the right direction, although not as clear as we<br>
wanted it. Freedom of Panorama remains a major worry. In a worst case<br>
scenario we might just want to kill it in a later stage of the legislative<br>
process to guard the status quo if the the "non-commercial" fixation<br>
remains this sticky.<br>
<br>
Voting should begin around 10:30.<br>
<br>
Live stream: <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video</a>…<br>
<<a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20150616-0900-COMMITTEE-JURI" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20150616-0900-COMMITTEE-JURI</a>><br>
Voting list: <a href="https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/</a>…/03/voting_list.pdf<br>
<<a href="https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/voting_list.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/voting_list.pdf</a>><br>
<br>
Dimi<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org" target="_blank">Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org" target="_blank">Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors</a><br>
</blockquote></div>