Actually, we don't have to define 'panorama', because it is usually not in the copyright laws, neither on its own nor in the phrase 'freedom of panorama'.
That said, most laws establishing FoP cause problems because they don't determine its scope clearly enough, or use unclear, or unexpectedly wide wording for exceptions from FoP. E.g., there's a difference between "museums and galleries" and "museums and exhibitions". Most likely, there are differences between "public space/area" and "publicly accessible ...", although these are seen differently. Often (yet not always) the relevant terms have been defined in other laws - that's a factor usually omitted in simplified overviews like the one on Commons' FoP page. And sometimes one has to consider the psychological factors, providing unnecessary safeguards or avoiding some terms because of their cultural baggage. For Estonia, we chose the most clear and straightforward wording that seemed enforcable under current circumstances. For some, it still isn't enough, but some people can't be helped. I think we actually haven't provided an official English translation yet, and I don't have these documents on my phone right now. But whatever wording one chooses, it should rise from the following principles: 1) clarity and conciseness; 2) aptitude in legal context; 3) social and political realism. An Estonian philosopher once said, "Even the best god cannot give a revelation to someone who is not ready to take it"; the same goes for laws. Raul P.S. The current state of affairs: Ministry of Justice decided they'd like to wait _because_ of the European consultation, as the Wise Men of Europe will make some decision that will solve all problems in the autumn; we said "screw you" and will most likely present the case to a more sympathetic audience in the Parliamentary Committee of European Affairs next week. I like politicians who are vain enough to want to score points by doing the (occasional) right thing. On 1 Jun 2016 17:32, "L.Gelauff" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Raul, > > Changing the topic, as this becomes a quite specific discussion. > > What would be the better definition in your opinion? The burden of proof > is always on the copyright holder, I'd think. But somehow, you need to > define what is this 'panorama'. What you could see from a public space, is > one definition. What is yours? > > Lodewijk > > 2016-06-01 14:20 GMT+02:00 Raul Veede <[email protected]>: > >> Hi. >> >> Has there been any discussion about possibly (re)opening the question of >> the clause limiting FoP that demands that the pictures should be taken >> _from_ a public place? It could be argued this creates complications for >> businesses (as clearly demonstrated by the Hundertwasser case) and has >> potential for unlimited amount of uncertainty (the place where the >> photographer stood usually remains unseen on the picture itself, so the >> legality is hard to determine afterwords, especially on the Internet, e.g. >> on Commons). Most jurisdictions with FoP can get very well by without such >> a clause, and it is hard to see what benefit it creates for the public, or >> actually even for any private rightsholders. >> >> Best, >> >> Raul, >> working on FoP in Estonia >> >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:57 PM, John Hendrik Weitzmann < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> @Jens: Thx for the warm welcome. The settling in is not quite done yet. >>> I'm still watching/learning and trying to tend to urgent things on the way. >>> The justice ministry is high on the meeting agenda, a direct contact to the >>> head of their copyright unit exists. Their ideas and initiatives around >>> exceptions & limitations definitely touch on Wikiprojects. Any concrete >>> suggestions welcome. Main items on this year's WMDE work plan regarding >>> lawmaking are public works, freedom of panorama, database directive and >>> ancillary publichers right, the three last of which happen mainly on the EU >>> level as yet. >>> >>> Best >>> John >>> >>> >>> 2016-06-01 8:01 GMT+02:00 Mathias Schindler <[email protected] >>> >: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Jens Best <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > I heard that the German ministry of justice is reevaluating the >>>> > "Schrankenregeln" (kind of the German version of fair use) as one >>>> aspect of >>>> > this year's copyright laws reevaluation. Wouldn't that be a possible >>>> focus >>>> > which relates to the volunteer work of the Wikiprojects? >>>> >>>> a more precise translation of Schrankenregeln is "limitations and >>>> exceptions" in copyright. EU member states can implement exceptions >>>> listed in the InfoSoc Directive, they are not allowed to implement >>>> exceptions not listed there. The current German government has >>>> announced to adjust certain exceptions dealing with education. Other >>>> than that, the introduction of a fair use clause in German copyright >>>> would require some legislation on the EU level* >>>> >>>> Mathias >>>> >>>> >>>> * (Martin Senftleben is slightly more optimistic here >>>> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1959554) >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Publicpolicy mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Referent für Politik und Recht >>> Legal and Policy Advisor >>> >>> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin >>> Tel. +49 (0)30 219 158 26-0 >>> http://wikimedia.de >>> >>> Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen >>> Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! >>> http://spenden.wikimedia.de/ >>> >>> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. >>> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter >>> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für >>> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Publicpolicy mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Publicpolicy mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy > >
_______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
