Hi Jan, Raul, all, As Freedom of Panorama is something Wikimedia cares very deeply about, I’m very curious on what you think about the Panorama study Teresa did for Portugal. As she wrote, we published it this morning: http://www.communia-association.org/2016/06/07/freedom-panorama-bcs-copyright/ <http://www.communia-association.org/2016/06/07/freedom-panorama-bcs-copyright/>
Any thoughts? Cheers, Lisette -- Kennisland | www.kennisland.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31613943237 | @lnkalshoven | skype: lisette.kalshoven > On 08 Jun 2016, at 12:54, Teresa Nobre <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Jan! > We just released the FoP study: > http://www.communia-association.org/2016/06/07/freedom-panorama-bcs-copyright/ > > <http://www.communia-association.org/2016/06/07/freedom-panorama-bcs-copyright/> > > Best, > Teresa > > > > 2016-06-07 9:41 GMT+01:00 Jan Gerlach <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>: > Hi Lisette and Teresa > > Congratulations on a great campaign and thanks for sharing it on this list! I > really like the approach and am very curious about the forthcoming case > studies. > I appreciate that you set expectations right ("EU copyright reform won’t fix > it all.") and give best practice examples of norms that are actually in > effect. > > Best, > Jan > > == > > > Jan Gerlach > Public Policy Manager > Wikimedia Foundation > 149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor > San Francisco, CA 94105 > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Teresa Nobre <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > 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] > <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[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 <http://www.kennisland.nl/> | t +31205756720 > <tel:%2B31205756720> | m +31613943237 <tel:%2B31613943237> | @lnkalshoven | > skype: lisette.kalshoven > >> On 06 Jun 2016, at 15:46, Raul Veede <[email protected] >> <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[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 <http://www.kennisland.nl/> | t +31205756720 >> <tel:%2B31205756720> | m +31613943237 <tel:%2B31613943237> | @lnkalshoven | >> skype: lisette.kalshoven >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Publicpolicy mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Publicpolicy mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy> > > > _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy > <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
