Dimi,
this raises a question: Is the Belgian architect bureau legitimate body for
legal definitions of adopted laws? Do actually individuals and institutions
trust them?
Jan
______________________________________________________________
Od: Dimi Dimitrov <[email protected]>
Komu: WMBE - Board <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Datum: 12.07.2017 10:26
Předmět: [Publicpolicy] Fwd: Freedom of Panorama
Dear WMBE, dear Public Policy list,
According to a Belgian architect bureau I have been in touch with (and the Atomium itself <http://atomium.be/AuthorsRights.aspx>), FoP in Belgium is valid only for non-commercial purposes, because of the Berne 3-Step-Test. See attachment.
I find this explanation very unconvincing, because the so-called 3-Step-Test is valid in
all EU Member States and thus would mean that FoP for commercial purposes is questionable
everywhere in the EU.Furthermore, I would argue that the "normal exploitation of a
work" in the case of architecture isn't printing it on a T-shirt and selling it.
Anyhow, this is the thesis currently circulating in Belgium among some groups. It would
be good to have our own legal expertise on this (checking with WMF legal).
Greetings,
Dimi
----------
_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
[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
