Hi, group! Regarding the retroactivity of copyright changes, I would assume it unless otherwise mentioned.
In the countries that didn't have Freedom of Panorama and only introduced it on the basis of the InfoSoc Directive after 2001 I am not aware of anyone, anywhere claiming that older buildings were not covered. Best, Dimi 2016-06-11 19:09 GMT+02:00 Robin Pepermans <[email protected]>: > Just FYI - the bill is already on the agenda of next week's plenary > session (Thursday 16 June), so best case scenario is that the parliament > approves it that day. The opposition will likely again propose amendements, > and might again call for a second reading (if 1/3 of the chamber's members > request this). > > Regards, > SPQRobin > > 2016-06-11 16:18 GMT+02:00 L.Gelauff <[email protected]>: > >> Awesome, thanks for the update. Thinking ahead - if this would be >> accepted as a change, how would that work with retroactivity? If it becomes >> active, I assume it will be valid for all new communications and >> reproductions, so we don't need to make a new photo to use this article, >> right? Which means practically speaking that we could undelete a lot of >> Belgian images the day it enters into force, which might be a nice PR thing >> - turning the pictures live on Wikipedia almost immediately. Is something >> like this being planned? >> >> Is there expected to be a tricky situation for a set of works because the >> change speaks of 'and as long as the reproduction does not infringe upon >> the normal exploitation of the work' (freely translated)? Is it covered >> what is meant by 'normal exploitation'? Given that the architects have >> received so much for some of the buildings, might they claim that this is >> normal exploitation now? Having this clarified in parliamentary proceedings >> by the proposers, by stating clearly that charging for a photo is not >> normal exploitation, would probably resolve this, if that didn't happen >> already. >> >> Best, >> Lodewijk >> >> 2016-06-11 15:52 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < >> [email protected]>: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> The text on Freedom of Panorama in Belgium that was adopted in committee >>> two weeks ago is finally available online (FR & NL). [1] There were only >>> minor, technical changes as compared to the version adopted in the first >>> reading. Notably, "reproduction" was replaced by "reproduction or >>> communication" in two places, which is very useful in regard to the EU's >>> legal framework. >>> >>> The Socialists and the French speaking Christian-Democrats proposed >>> again to limit the exception to non-commercial uses only, which was >>> rejected by 10-5 with one abstention. The same opposition then proposed a >>> second amendment, asking for at least compulsory attribution when the >>> images are being used commercially. This was again rejected 10-5 with one >>> abstention. [2] >>> >>> The entire text was adopted with an identical voting behaviour of 10-5 >>> with one abstention. The majority is made up of Flemish Nationalists, >>> Flemish Christian-Democrats and the Liberals from both language groups. >>> This is also the governing coalition of Belgium. The Greens, who normally >>> side with the Socialists in Belgian federal politics, abstained instead of >>> siding with the opposition which they are part of. As part of the debate >>> the Socialists kept bringing up the example of France, while the Liberals >>> and Flemish Nationalists replied, that they intentionally chose to model >>> the legislation after the Dutch and UK examples. >>> >>> The next step is a plenary vote that should happen rather soon (in >>> several weeks, depending on the workload). We have a stable majority, but >>> might still try to split the Socialists by asking parts of the group to at >>> least abstain (voting for government coalition proposals is not really a >>> political option for them at this point). After that the King has to >>> confirm the bill by signing it before it is published in the State Gazette. >>> 10 days after publication the text become legally binding in Belgium. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Dimi >>> >>> [1]http://www.lachambre.be/FLWB/PDF/54/1484/54K1484009.pdf >>> [2]http://www.lachambre.be/FLWB/PDF/54/1484/54K1484008.pdf >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
