The EC website (http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/help/index.cfm?sitelang=en#94) implies that they have cleared the copyright on a number of their images and deleted a bunch of others where they couldn't do that. You could conclude that they are all incompetent to answer a question relating to their own building and try to find the answer based on information publicly available:
The reality is that the history of the Berlaymont building is quite interesting to the point where there was a European Court case <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A62009CC0074> on whether the renovators were properly registered and paid the necessary social security contributions, which references the edition of the official journal that contains the call for tender for the renovation: OJ 1994 S 247, p. 107. Now there is a clue - perhaps the tender dealt with copyright in so far as the facade of the building was concerned? I can't find the relevant edition online, but the national EU archives might hold a copy (if not, it is available in Brussels). I am sure if you dig deeper you could find the original tender documents or equivalent from the time the building was originally commissioned to see if it holds any clues on copyright. If not, that would not rule out a subsequent agreement between the Commission and the architects on the matter. Alternatively, you could also ask the European Commission to look into the question for you and draw conclusions on their abilities once they answer? Best regards, Bence P.s. You might enjoy the show Rick and Morty: https://youtu.be/AsI27lrFWis?t=15 :) Raul Veede <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2016. jún. 6., H, 12:57): > Okay, but where exactly did you see this - "it says" and "official > information on the EC's website"? All I have seen is something that was > written on Facebook by someone to whom I had to explain architecture is > covered by copyright and who after that still wasn't sure how to write > "architecture" (no, really). Could you give a link? > > I digged a little on their photo base and under photos like this - > http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/photo/photoDetails.cfm?ref=P-031014/00-05&sitelang=en&refPhoto=P031014/00-05#0 > - there is no reference to the architects at all. I would suspect the > asistants of assistants who usually have to deal with such unimportant > things as making sure an institution does nto break the law - still never > cleared any rights or contacted anyone, they just cleared most of the clear > pictures of the building as a whole and hoped that's it. That's how > bureaucracy usually works in these questions (I've been a bureaucrat, I > know). > > > Raul > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello everyone, >> >> From what I read (never had this question coming up in meeting with the >> Commission) they are aware of the issue and thus don't tell you that you >> can just take pictures of the building. What it says is that they cleared >> the rights for some pictures. >> >> Having in mind that this is the official information on the EC's website, >> perhaps you can ask the office in Tallinn about it. If they ask the >> question internally, the reply might come quicker. >> >> Dimi >> >> 2016-06-05 0:20 GMT+02:00 Bence Damokos <[email protected]>: >> >>> Obviously, different people will have different levels of understanding >>> of copyright, there are some MEPs who are very well versed in copyright. >>> But your goal is to get your contacts to get you to the right people or to >>> get the info from the right people. >>> >>> (The people working at the EC office are likely recruited following a >>> competitive exam that does not select for the understanding of copyrights, >>> and MEPs are elected by the citizens (usually not on the basis of their >>> copyright knowledge), but as a whole both the EC and EP will have people >>> responsible for either knowing copyright or making decisions around >>> copyright - you just have to find them. ) >>> >>> Raul Veede <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2016. jún. 4., >>> Szo, 23:58): >>> >>>> Well, recalling all the cases with MEPs posing here and there with >>>> absolutely no idea whether copyright is an animal or a mineral... I'd say >>>> you're an optimist. >>>> >>>> I already told the local Rep I'll let them know when I'm available to >>>> explain them the basics of copyright. Gave them links to our materials on >>>> the web, but naturally, nobody ever reads those. >>>> >>>> Raul >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Bence Damokos <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I would imagine the EC did come to some sort of agreement regarding >>>>> their own headquarters' copyright. (Based on this, they are aware of the >>>>> issue, yet they still carry images of the Berlaymont: >>>>> http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/help/index.cfm?sitelang=en#94 ). >>>>> >>>>> If you are already in contact with their representation in Tallinn, >>>>> you could ask them to follow up on the issue and clarify if the EC has >>>>> made >>>>> any special agreements on copyright. >>>>> (You also have the right to request the relevant documents that might >>>>> contain the information you need, see for example, asktheeu.org, >>>>> though I would recommend simply going through the EC Rep and explaining to >>>>> them that the issue might be more complicated than they realise and that >>>>> you would appreciate if they consulted their colleagues in the relevant >>>>> units.) >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Bence >>>>> >>>>> Raul Veede <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2016. jún. 4., >>>>> Szo, 22:55): >>>>> >>>>>> I could very well ask about it officially, but who would understand >>>>>> the question? >>>>>> >>>>>> Raul >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:00 PM, L.Gelauff <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> As they use it in logo's etc, it might very well be that for this >>>>>>> particular case, they acquired permissions etc. But it's all guessing, >>>>>>> couldn't find a reliable source.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lodewijk >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2016-06-04 15:25 GMT+02:00 Raul Veede <[email protected]>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It would surprise me, actually, if they thought about the copyright >>>>>>>> of the building and solved the problem in time, smoothly. I've talked >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> many officials in EU, states, municipalities, etc, and whenever they >>>>>>>> state >>>>>>>> something about copyright, it is usually just lorem ipsum, they have no >>>>>>>> idea what they are talking about. Any kind of explanation will have to >>>>>>>> start from the basics and it will take a lot of time. There are >>>>>>>> exceptions >>>>>>>> but they're truly rare, especially when it concerns FoP. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Raul >>>>>>>> On 4 Jun 2016 16:07, "Owen Blacker" <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Belgium doesn't have freedom of panorama, so certainly someone >>>>>>>>> owns the copyright. It wouldn't surprise me if the Commission did. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 4 Jun 2016, 12:34 Raul Veede, <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The Estonian office of European Commission is trying to convince >>>>>>>>>> me the copyright of the Berlaymont building in Brussels belongs to >>>>>>>>>> the EC. >>>>>>>>>> While I think it might be possible that someone might have asked for >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> architect's permit to spread photos of the building, I have seen no >>>>>>>>>> proof >>>>>>>>>> of it. Can anyone prove or disprove that claim? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Raul >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
