Home

Workspace: Public policy

From public policy mailing list:

French freedom of Panorama

Wikimédia France launched a petition to convince the French Senate to amend the current proposal and adopt a full Freedom of Panorama exception.
Any help with the petition welcome: https://www.change.org/p/s%C3%A9nat-pour-une-libert%C3%A9-de-panorama-claire-et-sans-restriction
In parallel they built up a comprehensive campaign site: http://libertedepanorama.fr/
On the occasion of the drafting of the Digital republic bill - which you may have heard of - Wikimedia France has been involved, for the past 8 months, in raising awareness among politicians on the concept of freedom of panorama, which would allow many recent buildings to be illustrated on Wikipedia and Commons, especially. Currently, the text of the bill is being studied in the Senate. For now, the amendment proposed integrates a non commercial restriction, which is in contradiction with the licenses used on our projects. It is therefore necessary for the bill to be modified. We need to show that such a debate mobilizes the public opinion : you can support our action by signing our online petition [1] and spreading the word as much as possible ! Thank you for your help ! Anne-Laure On behalf of Wikimedia France
[1] https://www.change.org/p/s%C3%A9nat-pour-une-libert%C3%A9-de-panorama-claire-et-sans-restriction

FOP map of Europe: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_Commons_and_the_public_space.pdf&page=22

Designated official by EU

See https://twitter.com/zoyashef/status/709781163951439872
Reda on this topic: https://twitter.com/Senficon/status/709758419465543682
Something about a designated official on this topic

Unfortunate Swedish high court decision

http://www.thelocal.se/20160404/wikimedia-breaks-copyright-laws-with-pics-of-public-art
bad news. The Swedish Supreme Court ruled according to the will of the Visual Copyright Society in Sweden, regarding images of public art online, more specifically in the case of our service Offentligkonst.se, a service of ours that is using images from Wikimedia Commons. This interpretation means that Freedom of Panorama became restricted and that the public space shrunk. It is a great loss for our projects. Next we will talk to our lawyers and see what our remaining legal options are. Intensive efforts to influence our elected officials to change the outdated and problematic clauses in the law are likely to be initiated during the year. We appreciate any lessons learned that exist regarding the work you guys have done in your countries. Some useful links (in Swedish):
The legal argumentation from the court: http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgoranden/2016/2016-04-04%20%C3%96%20849-15%20Beslut.pdf
Our press release: http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/pressreleases/hoegsta-domstolen-vaeljer-att-krympa-det-offentliga-rummet-istaellet-foer-att-gaa-paa-wikimedia-sveriges-linje-1360834
A time-line of what has happened: https://se.wikimedia.org/wiki/Offentligkonst.se/St%C3%A4mning

It seems that the decision is unusually terrible, and also somewhat strange legally ; a public-policy-list discussion on April 4 gets into the details more.

Some coverage in Swedish: http://feber.se/webb/art/346833/offentligkonstse_bryter_mot_up/ http://www.svt.se/kultur/konst/brottsligt-sprida-bilder-av-offentligt-konst-pa-natet http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/lag-och-ratt/hd-dom-olagligt-att-publicera-bilder.htm http://www.friatider.se/wikipedia-f-r-inte-visa-bilder-p-konstverk http://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/konst-form/hd-brottsligt-att-sprida-bilder-av-offentlig-konst-pa-natet/ http://www.kamerabild.se/nyheter/foto/hd-beslut-olagligt-att-avbilda-konst-f-r-spridning-p-n-tet

One particular piece of news in translation, demonstrating the journalist's depth of comprehension, starting with the headline "Copyright of outdoor art also applies online": https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsverigesradio.se%2Fsida%2Fartikel.aspx%3Fprogramid%3D478%26artikel%3D6403634&edit-text=

Right to be forgotten

paper on the Right to be Forgotten in the EU (via RedLatAm mailinglist): http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2627383 -- Jan Gerlach, Public Policy Manager, WMF, 149 New Montgomery Street

EU on intellectual property rights April 15

Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov via lists.wikimedia.org , Mar 23 to Publicpolicy
The European Commission's consultation on the enforcement of intellectual property rights is due on 15 April. [1] The main goal for us here will be to avoid increasing a platform’s responsibility to monitor and remove UCG.
We are currently starting to work on our responses [2], which will be in line with the answers submitted to the related "Platforms Consultation".
One question is, however, which category Wikimedia fits in. The Commission wants everyone to chose one of the following roles applying to them: “citizens, consumers and civil society”, "rightsholder", "member of judiciary or lawyer", “intermediary” or "public authority". Depending on the hat you pick you get a slightly different set of questions. It seems apparent that we could fit into at least two or even three of the these.
We had a similar puzzle last time and solved it by having the FKAGEU submitting [3] as civil society and the WMF sending in a registered letter emphasising the importance of intermediary protection. Such an approach is also possible this time around, but I wanted to check back with the group on what your thoughts are. Having several movement entities playing different roles might actually be an advantage here.
we're still waiting for the consultation that will include copyright exceptions. This is not it.
[1]http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8580&lang=en
[2]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/IPRED_Consultation
[3]https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Answers_Consultation_FKAGEU.pdf
[4]https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF_Comments_on_EU_Platforms_Consultation%281%29.pdf

WM DE new policy atty

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 9:38 AM, John Hendrik Weitzmann <john.weitzmann@wikimedia.de> wrote: I'd like to introduce myself to all of you in my new role Legal and Policy Advisor at Wikimedia Deutschland, reporting to Christian Rickerts.

he was at CC before

"News on consultation" re FoP

From Dimi, March and April 2016

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/commission-seeks-views-neighbouring-rights-and-panorama-exception-eu-copyright?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=panoramaconsult&utm_campaign=copyright
a link to the "draft answers" (from Dimi?): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/FoP_Consultation
The Commission is calling it "panorama exception" in the documents, but can't stay away from "Freedom of Panorama" on social media: https://twitter.com/DSMeu/status/712598903942733824

EU proposals Dimi aticipates

Geoblocking, May 2016, Possibly a mixture of legislative and non-legislative measures. Could include E-Commerce Directive.
Audiovisual Media Services Directive , May 2016, Idea of applying national/minority programming quotas that exist for broadcasters and cinemas to online platforms.
Satellite and Cable Directive, July 2016, Extending scope of "country of origin principle" to the internet. This principle allows content to be broadcast EU-wide by cable or satellite, even if rights have been cleared only in home country, as long as only the home market is "actively targeted".
Information Society (Copyright) Directive, July 2016, Copyright exceptions and limitations including, hopefully, Freedom of Panorama.
IPR Enforcement Directive, July 2016, Extending the "communication to the public" definition to internet to internet platforms.
E-Privacy Directive, September 2016, Everything that has to do with online data protection and online privacy and is not covered by the General Data Protection Regulation.

Major recurring reports by Dimi

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor