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 <[email protected]>: > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >>> [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
