<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body>How about<div><br></div><div>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. <div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Best </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Hauke </div></div><br><br>-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------<br>Von: Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> <br>Datum: 16.06.2015 13:07 (GMT+01:00) <br>An: Advocacy Advisory Group for Wikimedia <advocacy_advisors@lists.wikimedia.org> <br>Betreff: Re: [Advocacy Advisors] InfoSoc Own-Initiative Report Vote Today <br><br><div dir="ltr"><div>It doesn't say that. It says:<br><br>16. Considers that the use of
photographs, video footage or other images of works which are
permanently located in physical public places should <span style="text-decoration:none">be </span><span style="text-decoration:none">permitted.</span><br></div><strike><b></b></strike><div> <br></div><div>I guess there was some formatting that came our wrong on the other end. <br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-06-16 13:02 GMT+02:00 Marcin Cieslak <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:saper@saper.info" target="_blank">saper@saper.info</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote:<br>
<br>
> @Marcin, in this case, anything that flies with the media and helps us<br>
> change the text would work. The report that was adopted already calls for<br>
> minimum standards for exceptions. We're not getting more, but we might get<br>
> less.<br>
<br>
</span>I agree. Let's not only forget that so called media are the party<br>
to this discussion and not necessarily a friendly one. But I agree<br>
we need to wor with them.<br>
<span class=""><br>
> I think we should work on a very neutral, non-scary text as an amendment<br>
> for the plenary. Perhaps something along the lines of:<br>
><br>
> 16. Invites the EU legislator to recognise that the use of photographs,<br>
> video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in<br>
> public places is permitted.<br>
><br>
> Otherwise, working on the original Cavada text, we could go for:<br>
><br>
</span>> 16. Considers that the *commercial* use of photographs, video footage or<br>
<span class="">> other images of works which are permanently located in physical public<br>
</span>> places should *always* be *permitted* *subject to prior authorisation from<br>
> the authors or any proxy acting for them*.<br>
<br>
How do you understand "should always be permitted"? - that kind of<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
~Marcin<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org">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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</body></html>