Offtopic on Belgian architecture: While it is true that this <http://uglybelgianhouses.tumblr.com/> and this <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brusselization> exist (I know :D), we also have Victor Horta <http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1005/gallery/> who I can't wait to get on Wikipedia ;)
D 2016-06-17 18:36 GMT+02:00 Owen Blacker <[email protected]>: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
