Well, Belgian architecture 😉 Seriously, though, congratulations everyone!
Owen On Thu, 16 Jun 2016, 20:28 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov, < [email protected]> wrote: > Just passing by to say cheers and expect a WMBE calender 2017 with great > architecture ;) > > На четвъртък, 16 юни 2016 г. Robin Pepermans <[email protected]> > написа: > > Great news! > > > > The Belgian Chamber of Representatives just approved the freedom of > panorama bill, with 85 votes in favour (government majority), 42 against > (socialists and other opposition) and 12 abstentions (Greens most likely). > The exact voting behaviour will be published later. > > > > An amendment by PS and cdH to restrict it to purely non-commercial use > was rejected, 57 in favour, 81 against and one abstention. > > > > It'll be signed by the King soon, published in the Staatsblad/Moniteur, > and then 10 days later it's law! > > > > Regards, > > Robin > > > > > > 2016-06-14 13:38 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < > [email protected]>: > >> > >> 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 > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >
_______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
