Hi Raul,
If you wait 2 more days, you can read the 10-page report that I prepared
on the Portuguese study.
As you will see, public interiors is not an issue in Portugal, because
we have a broad definition of public space elsewhere in the Portuguese
Copyright Code. The fact that this is a relatively abstract norm (with a
wording very similar to the InfoSoc), only raises interpretation issues
with regards to the purposes. But the fact that the norm doesn't exclude a
priory commercial purposes can only be seen as a positive thing. The rest
of the concepts (e.g. "use", "works") are defined in other norms, so
they
are not vague at all.
Thanks,
Teresa
2016-06-06 15:01 GMT+01:00 Raul Veede <raul.veede(a)gmail.com>om>:
Well, Estonian FoP was today discussed in the
Parliamentary Committee
of Culture, and we're hoping to present the case in the Committee of
European Affairs in close days.
The Portuguese scenario has at least three weaknesses I can identify
(I've written about it in short in a comment on your blog post, and in
length to Teresa Nobre personally; to count quickly, it leaves unclear the
situations with public interiors and several types of works, and prescribes
provisions so vague that every politician would be proud to include such
language in their election program) and if it were adopted in Estonia, we
would actually lose some territory that is currently covered by NC FoP and
by the draft bill I wrote would become also free commercially.
So please excuse me but we're in a bit of a hurry here yet would still
be greatly interested in reasons for going backwards.
Also, my experience shows it is hard to get Communia to respond to
anything. You don't exactly try to communicate with people who comment on
your blog or FB, and your posts have a constant lack of references and
analysis. If you're saying you are recommending the best scenarios without
having any analysis to back up your recommendations yet, it sounds,
unfortunately, believable. Care to disprove my cynicism?
All the best,
Raul
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Lisette Kalshoven <lk(a)kl.nl> wrote:
>
> Hi Raul,
>
> The supporting documents (with full legal analysis) will be published
> when we share the individual scenario’s over the next 3-4 weeks. This is
> just us announcing the series. So stay tuned :)
>
> With kind regards
>
> Lisette
>
> --
> Kennisland |
www.kennisland.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31613943237 |
> @lnkalshoven | skype: lisette.kalshoven
>
> On 06 Jun 2016, at 15:46, Raul Veede <raul.veede(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Your proposal of the Portuguese scenario as a good example for
> adopting across Europe made me wondering what might be the reasoning
> behind that. In the piece published today you only count the examples but
> do not offer any analysis, proof, or legal reasons. Would you be so nice
> and expand it beyond pure rhetorics?
>
> All the best
>
> Raul
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Lisette Kalshoven <lk(a)kl.nl> wrote:
>
>> Dear Wikimedians,
>>
>> Today at Communia we’re launching the Best Case Scenarios for
>> Copyright <http://www.communia-association.org/bcs-copyright/> series,
>> to promote great solutions such as user-friendly copyright limitations.
>> They work in some EU countries and we want to talk about making them (and
>> other good ones) mandatory for the whole EU. It would be great if you could
>> promote the message via social media and any other communication with your
>> partners.
>>
>> Today we introduce the idea for the campaign and on Wednesday we will
>> publish the first case. Today’s post may be found here
>> <http://www.communia-association.org/2016/06/06/bcs-copyright/> and
>> Communia TT is here
>> <https://twitter.com/communia_eu/status/739782579952443392>.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Lisette Kalshoven
>>
>> --
>> Kennisland |
www.kennisland.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31613943237 |
>> @lnkalshoven | skype: lisette.kalshoven
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Publicpolicy mailing list
>> Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Publicpolicy mailing list
> Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Publicpolicy mailing list
> Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
>
>
_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org