Okay, but where exactly did you see this - "it says" and "official information on the EC's website"? All I have seen is something that was written on Facebook by someone to whom I had to explain architecture is covered by copyright and who after that still wasn't sure how to write "architecture" (no, really). Could you give a link?
I digged a little on their photo base and under photos like this - http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/photo/photoDetails.cfm?ref=P-031014/00-05&sitelang=en&refPhoto=P031014/00-05#0 - there is no reference to the architects at all. I would suspect the asistants of assistants who usually have to deal with such unimportant things as making sure an institution does nto break the law - still never cleared any rights or contacted anyone, they just cleared most of the clear pictures of the building as a whole and hoped that's it. That's how bureaucracy usually works in these questions (I've been a bureaucrat, I know). Raul On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < [email protected]> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > From what I read (never had this question coming up in meeting with the > Commission) they are aware of the issue and thus don't tell you that you > can just take pictures of the building. What it says is that they cleared > the rights for some pictures. > > Having in mind that this is the official information on the EC's website, > perhaps you can ask the office in Tallinn about it. If they ask the > question internally, the reply might come quicker. > > Dimi > > 2016-06-05 0:20 GMT+02:00 Bence Damokos <[email protected]>: > >> Obviously, different people will have different levels of understanding >> of copyright, there are some MEPs who are very well versed in copyright. >> But your goal is to get your contacts to get you to the right people or to >> get the info from the right people. >> >> (The people working at the EC office are likely recruited following a >> competitive exam that does not select for the understanding of copyrights, >> and MEPs are elected by the citizens (usually not on the basis of their >> copyright knowledge), but as a whole both the EC and EP will have people >> responsible for either knowing copyright or making decisions around >> copyright - you just have to find them. ) >> >> Raul Veede <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2016. jún. 4., Szo, >> 23:58): >> >>> Well, recalling all the cases with MEPs posing here and there with >>> absolutely no idea whether copyright is an animal or a mineral... I'd say >>> you're an optimist. >>> >>> I already told the local Rep I'll let them know when I'm available to >>> explain them the basics of copyright. Gave them links to our materials on >>> the web, but naturally, nobody ever reads those. >>> >>> Raul >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Bence Damokos <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I would imagine the EC did come to some sort of agreement regarding >>>> their own headquarters' copyright. (Based on this, they are aware of the >>>> issue, yet they still carry images of the Berlaymont: >>>> http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/help/index.cfm?sitelang=en#94 ). >>>> >>>> If you are already in contact with their representation in Tallinn, you >>>> could ask them to follow up on the issue and clarify if the EC has made any >>>> special agreements on copyright. >>>> (You also have the right to request the relevant documents that might >>>> contain the information you need, see for example, asktheeu.org, >>>> though I would recommend simply going through the EC Rep and explaining to >>>> them that the issue might be more complicated than they realise and that >>>> you would appreciate if they consulted their colleagues in the relevant >>>> units.) >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Bence >>>> >>>> Raul Veede <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2016. jún. 4., >>>> Szo, 22:55): >>>> >>>>> I could very well ask about it officially, but who would understand >>>>> the question? >>>>> >>>>> Raul >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:00 PM, L.Gelauff <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> As they use it in logo's etc, it might very well be that for this >>>>>> particular case, they acquired permissions etc. But it's all guessing, >>>>>> couldn't find a reliable source.. >>>>>> >>>>>> Lodewijk >>>>>> >>>>>> 2016-06-04 15:25 GMT+02:00 Raul Veede <[email protected]>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It would surprise me, actually, if they thought about the copyright >>>>>>> of the building and solved the problem in time, smoothly. I've talked to >>>>>>> many officials in EU, states, municipalities, etc, and whenever they >>>>>>> state >>>>>>> something about copyright, it is usually just lorem ipsum, they have no >>>>>>> idea what they are talking about. Any kind of explanation will have to >>>>>>> start from the basics and it will take a lot of time. There are >>>>>>> exceptions >>>>>>> but they're truly rare, especially when it concerns FoP. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Raul >>>>>>> On 4 Jun 2016 16:07, "Owen Blacker" <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Belgium doesn't have freedom of panorama, so certainly someone owns >>>>>>>> the copyright. It wouldn't surprise me if the Commission did. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 4 Jun 2016, 12:34 Raul Veede, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Estonian office of European Commission is trying to convince >>>>>>>>> me the copyright of the Berlaymont building in Brussels belongs to >>>>>>>>> the EC. >>>>>>>>> While I think it might be possible that someone might have asked for >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> architect's permit to spread photos of the building, I have seen no >>>>>>>>> proof >>>>>>>>> of it. Can anyone prove or disprove that claim? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Raul >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy > >
_______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
