Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

[Michael Maggs]

I and others have added some more arguments to the Meta page which 
addresses the points made by the proponents of 'non-commercial' only 
harmonisation:


https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_2015_EVA_GESAC#Comment

To widen our statements in support of full freedom, it would be useful 
to know of evidence that film makers and/or professional photographers 
avoid working in Italy, France, Belgium or any of the restrictice 
countries specifically because of their lack of freedom of panorama. 
Please add evidence to that page if you can.


Michael




Carcharoth 
28 June 2015 12:28
These are excellent points raised by Michael Maggs. The bit about
non-commercial licenses in particular. That has always been difficult
to explain to people who are quite happy for Wikipedia to use their
images or images of their works, but don't want people to profit
commercially from those images or their works.

It can be hard to explain that Wikipedia is free ('gratis'), but we
want people to be able to reuse and repackage the material (including
images) and create commercial products from them. Some people quite
rightly back away from that when they realise what they would be
allowing people to do with the images.

Freedom of panorama (or rather, lack of it) has particularly
unfortunate effects, in that people who are unaware of these
provisions think they can upload their photography to Commons and are
then very often discouraged and de-motivated when they are told that
the images they contributed will be deleted. It is this motivational
aspect that I think is overlooked by those who want to encourage
people to contribute to Wikipedia and Commons and other Wikimedia
projects. My feeling is that vast numbers of potential and current
contributors decide Wikipedia is not for them when this happens, and
they walk away and we lose out when that happens.

The effect is magnified when this happens to photos that have been
*used with no problems for many years*. Potentially photos that people
uploaded to Commons many years ago may get retrospectively deleted. If
this does run into the tens and hundreds of thousands, the
motivational effect on those who uploaded pictures or use them to
illustrate their articles, could be immense.

If these changes take effect (and that is a big if) and if Commons (as
seems likely) goes on a big deletion spree, then the practical effect
is likely to be to discourage large numbers of (in some cases) highly
active contributors to the point where they may even cease
contributing. That is something that should be considered, IMO.

Can anyone here think of any way to mitigate the impact on people who
may not understand why their images are being deleted, if it does come
to that eventually?

Carcharoth



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Michael Maggs 
22 June 2015 20:02
This has been mentioned before by Dimi, but bears repeating.

While we may all think it's *outrageous* that tens of thousands of 
images may have to be deleted from Commons, we do have to make sure we 
have messages that will resonate with those who don't agree with us or 
who don't care.  If our only message is that open content will be 
harmed, we have no answer to those who reply 'so what?'


In countries such as France and Belgium, that currently have no 
Freedom of Panorama, we need to address arguments like these:


1. Why should people be allowed to make money by using an architect's 
intellectual property without permission?
2. Why does Wikipedia, a hobbyist website, think it's OK to steal 
other people's rights?
3. Non-commercial use won't be affected, so this is not an issue of 
freedom at all.  It just stops people making money from someone else's 
creative work.
4. If Wikipedia holds itself out as non-commercial, it can and should 
accept non-commercial licences. The argument that 'images will have to 
be deleted' is based on your private internal rule which could easily 
be changed.


Remember that in some countries there is a long history of supporting 
rights holders, that millions of people don't know what 'open' means, 
don't care, and won't be persuadable by any sort of argument based on 
freedom to view.  To them, freedom of panorama is just a way of 
illicitly taking away an artist's right to protect his or her own 
creative work.


Probably most of us reading this will say that these arguments hold no 
water, but we need to tackle them head-on.


Michael



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

[Carcharoth]

These are excellent points raised by Michael Maggs. The bit about
non-commercial licenses in particular. That has always been difficult
to explain to people who are quite happy for Wikipedia to use their
images or images of their works, but don't want people to profit
commercially from those images or their works.

It can be hard to explain that Wikipedia is free ('gratis'), but we
want people to be able to reuse and repackage the material (including
images) and create commercial products from them. Some people quite
rightly back away from that when they realise what they would be
allowing people to do with the images.

Freedom of panorama (or rather, lack of it) has particularly
unfortunate effects, in that people who are unaware of these
provisions think they can upload their photography to Commons and are
then very often discouraged and de-motivated when they are told that
the images they contributed will be deleted. It is this motivational
aspect that I think is overlooked by those who want to encourage
people to contribute to Wikipedia and Commons and other Wikimedia
projects. My feeling is that vast numbers of potential and current
contributors decide Wikipedia is not for them when this happens, and
they walk away and we lose out when that happens.

The effect is magnified when this happens to photos that have been
*used with no problems for many years*. Potentially photos that people
uploaded to Commons many years ago may get retrospectively deleted. If
this does run into the tens and hundreds of thousands, the
motivational effect on those who uploaded pictures or use them to
illustrate their articles, could be immense.

If these changes take effect (and that is a big if) and if Commons (as
seems likely) goes on a big deletion spree, then the practical effect
is likely to be to discourage large numbers of (in some cases) highly
active contributors to the point where they may even cease
contributing. That is something that should be considered, IMO.

Can anyone here think of any way to mitigate the impact on people who
may not understand why their images are being deleted, if it does come
to that eventually?

Carcharoth

On 6/22/15, Michael Maggs  wrote:
> This has been mentioned before by Dimi, but bears repeating.
>
> While we may all think it's *outrageous* that tens of thousands of
> images may have to be deleted from Commons, we do have to make sure we
> have messages that will resonate with those who don't agree with us or
> who don't care.  If our only message is that open content will be
> harmed, we have no answer to those who reply 'so what?'
>
> In countries such as France and Belgium, that currently have no Freedom
> of Panorama, we need to address arguments like these:
>
> 1. Why should people be allowed to make money by using an architect's
> intellectual property without permission?
> 2. Why does Wikipedia, a hobbyist website, think it's OK to steal other
> people's rights?
> 3. Non-commercial use won't be affected, so this is not an issue of
> freedom at all.  It just stops people making money from someone else's
> creative work.
> 4. If Wikipedia holds itself out as non-commercial, it can and should
> accept non-commercial licences. The argument that 'images will have to
> be deleted' is based on your private internal rule which could easily be
> changed.
>
> Remember that in some countries there is a long history of supporting
> rights holders, that millions of people don't know what 'open' means,
> don't care, and won't be persuadable by any sort of argument based on
> freedom to view.  To them, freedom of panorama is just a way of
> illicitly taking away an artist's right to protect his or her own
> creative work.
>
> Probably most of us reading this will say that these arguments hold no
> water, but we need to tackle them head-on.
>
> Michael



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

[Fæ]

On 23 June 2015 at 09:00, Petr Kadlec  wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Michael Peel  wrote:
>
>> Under this new law, would images already uploaded to Commons under FOP
>> actually have to be deleted? Surely the new law wouldn't apply
>> retrospectively, but would just affect future uploads of photos?
>>
>
> Retroactively as in “you used this photograph three years ago, so pay us”?
> Obviously not. But “if you want to use this photograph you took three years
> ago in a book you are publishing next month, you have to pay us”? That is
> not retroactivity, that’s just not having a grandfather clause. (Which
> means continued public availability of these photographs on Commons without
> permission from the copyright holders author would fall under the new law.)
>
> -- Petr Kadlec / Mormegil

This may be worth teasing out on Commons at
.
The corollary would be that existing old public domain photographs
would have to be deleted if they contain artworks fitting the
criteria. However as the photographs are already published as public
domain, changes in copyright acts are not *necessarily* retrospective.
This would be an area I would expect us to seek independent legal
advice on, before taking any action to remove images.

If anyone is assessing the size of impact, keep in mind it may be
over-egging the case to automatically claim all past public domain
images containing European artworks and architecture would have to be
removed or redacted.

P.S. lots of ifs and buts behind this issue, it is highly hypothetical
without seeing specific amendments to copyright acts being proposed.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

[Petr Kadlec]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Michael Peel  wrote:

> Under this new law, would images already uploaded to Commons under FOP
> actually have to be deleted? Surely the new law wouldn't apply
> retrospectively, but would just affect future uploads of photos?
>

Retroactively as in “you used this photograph three years ago, so pay us”?
Obviously not. But “if you want to use this photograph you took three years
ago in a book you are publishing next month, you have to pay us”? That is
not retroactivity, that’s just not having a grandfather clause. (Which
means continued public availability of these photographs on Commons without
permission from the copyright holders author would fall under the new law.)

-- Petr Kadlec / Mormegil
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

[Ricordisamoa]

I introduce you FopThreat.js 
, which 
blackens Commons files whose description pages include one of the FoP 
templates .

It uses Tool Labs so it may not be properly suitable for production... ;-)

Il 22/06/2015 19:01, Sam Klein ha scritto:

You could find candidates in the most popular images and tag them by hand.

If it seems /possible/ that the image is affected, it could be faded out.
As you say, that might be enough for it to be removed.  If it is /likely/
that it is affected, it could be lightboxed or replaced.

Julia Reda, the Pirate in the European Parliament, has a fantastic blog
post summary:
https://juliareda.eu/2015/06/fop-under-threat/


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

[Anders Wennersten]

On our Village pump a not so active user states he called the office of 
Monsiuer Cavadas and talked with his secretary. And that she said the 
aim of the proposal is to keep status as it is today. That in France and 
Belgium they will keep restrictions for commercial use of panorama 
images, but that other EU countries can keep freedom for photos in their 
counties. And that the proposal should be seen as a reaction to the Reda 
report which proposed free images should be mandatory for all counties


I can not verify these statements as facts, but it could be an 
explanation of why now this proposal (still being awful)


Anders


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

[Michael Peel]

Under this new law, would images already uploaded to Commons under FOP actually 
have to be deleted? Surely the new law wouldn't apply retrospectively, but 
would just affect future uploads of photos?

Personally, I view this as a much more direct threat to our content than SOPA 
was. I found it difficult to explain why SOPA was bad, and why we blacked out 
Wikipedia articles in protest, but it would be very easy to explain why this 
directly affects us. The 'non-commercial' aspect of Michael's arguments is the 
most difficult one to address, but that has always been true (thanks to the 
existence of the CC-NC license). I'm opposed to us restricting access to 
knowledge to make a point, but there is a very good case for a large site 
banner informing users about this issue, and how they can oppose it.

Thanks,
Mike

> On 22 Jun 2015, at 20:02, Michael Maggs  wrote:
> 
> This has been mentioned before by Dimi, but bears repeating.
> 
> While we may all think it's *outrageous* that tens of thousands of images may 
> have to be deleted from Commons, we do have to make sure we have messages 
> that will resonate with those who don't agree with us or who don't care.  If 
> our only message is that open content will be harmed, we have no answer to 
> those who reply 'so what?'
> 
> In countries such as France and Belgium, that currently have no Freedom of 
> Panorama, we need to address arguments like these:
> 
> 1. Why should people be allowed to make money by using an architect's 
> intellectual property without permission?
> 2. Why does Wikipedia, a hobbyist website, think it's OK to steal other 
> people's rights?
> 3. Non-commercial use won't be affected, so this is not an issue of freedom 
> at all.  It just stops people making money from someone else's creative work.
> 4. If Wikipedia holds itself out as non-commercial, it can and should accept 
> non-commercial licences. The argument that 'images will have to be deleted' 
> is based on your private internal rule which could easily be changed.
> 
> Remember that in some countries there is a long history of supporting rights 
> holders, that millions of people don't know what 'open' means, don't care, 
> and won't be persuadable by any sort of argument based on freedom to view.  
> To them, freedom of panorama is just a way of illicitly taking away an 
> artist's right to protect his or her own creative work.
> 
> Probably most of us reading this will say that these arguments hold no water, 
> but we need to tackle them head-on.
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
>> Jane Darnell 
>> 22 June 2015 08:21
>> Actually, considering how effective the blackout was for SOPA, I think
>> another action based on the most prominent images we stand to lose would be
>> in order. So the take on the London Eye and maybe some popular buildings,
>> art and bridges in Euro-FoP countries? I don't know if you could rig a java
>> script to flag these with a red lightbox that links to the Commons page,
>> but that would probably be more effective than any other lobbying efforts
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>> 
>> Sam Klein 
>> 21 June 2015 23:39
>> 
>> The WMF could lobby or support lobbying on such an issue. It is eligible
>> to spend up to $1M per year tax-free on lobbying. But I don't believe it
>> has directly engaged in anything of the sort, since the SOPA action.
>> 
>> Sam
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>> 
>> Pine W 
>> 21 June 2015 16:47
>> Are WMF and the European affiliates allowed to lobby regarding this issue?
>> If so, what are they doing?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Pine
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>> 
>> Romaine Wiki 
>> 21 June 2015 14:02
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> This concerns all the editors and readers in the European Union and those
>> in other European countries as well (copying is possible).
>> 
>> *Subject*
>> Copyrights reform in Europe going in the wrong direction, damaging
>> Wikipedia.
>> 
>> *What is going on?*
>> In the European Parliament currently a proposal (ame

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

[Michael Maggs]

This has been mentioned before by Dimi, but bears repeating.

While we may all think it's *outrageous* that tens of thousands of 
images may have to be deleted from Commons, we do have to make sure we 
have messages that will resonate with those who don't agree with us or 
who don't care.  If our only message is that open content will be 
harmed, we have no answer to those who reply 'so what?'


In countries such as France and Belgium, that currently have no Freedom 
of Panorama, we need to address arguments like these:


1. Why should people be allowed to make money by using an architect's 
intellectual property without permission?
2. Why does Wikipedia, a hobbyist website, think it's OK to steal other 
people's rights?
3. Non-commercial use won't be affected, so this is not an issue of 
freedom at all.  It just stops people making money from someone else's 
creative work.
4. If Wikipedia holds itself out as non-commercial, it can and should 
accept non-commercial licences. The argument that 'images will have to 
be deleted' is based on your private internal rule which could easily be 
changed.


Remember that in some countries there is a long history of supporting 
rights holders, that millions of people don't know what 'open' means, 
don't care, and won't be persuadable by any sort of argument based on 
freedom to view.  To them, freedom of panorama is just a way of 
illicitly taking away an artist's right to protect his or her own 
creative work.


Probably most of us reading this will say that these arguments hold no 
water, but we need to tackle them head-on.


Michael



Jane Darnell 
22 June 2015 08:21
Actually, considering how effective the blackout was for SOPA, I think
another action based on the most prominent images we stand to lose 
would be

in order. So the take on the London Eye and maybe some popular buildings,
art and bridges in Euro-FoP countries? I don't know if you could rig a 
java

script to flag these with a red lightbox that links to the Commons page,
but that would probably be more effective than any other lobbying efforts

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Sam Klein 
21 June 2015 23:39

The WMF could lobby or support lobbying on such an issue. It is eligible
to spend up to $1M per year tax-free on lobbying. But I don't believe it
has directly engaged in anything of the sort, since the SOPA action.

Sam
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Pine W 
21 June 2015 16:47
Are WMF and the European affiliates allowed to lobby regarding this issue?
If so, what are they doing?

Thanks,

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Romaine Wiki 
21 June 2015 14:02
Hi all,

This concerns all the editors and readers in the European Union and those
in other European countries as well (copying is possible).

*Subject*
Copyrights reform in Europe going in the wrong direction, damaging
Wikipedia.

*What is going on?*
In the European Parliament currently a proposal (amendment) is submitted
that will restrict Freedom of Panorama in Europe.
This means: you will be no longer allowed to upload images from modern
buildings and works of public art on Commons and not allowed to use those
images on Wikipedia.

Also if Freedom of Panorama is only allowed for Non Commercial purposes
only, this is a problem for Wikipedia!

*Some details*?
It concerns the amendment AM421 proposed by Cavada and passed in the JURI
committee.

*When is the voting about the amendment?*
Thursday 9th July

But we have one chance only!


*What can we do about this?*

- Forward this e-mail to anyone who should know about this.
- Talk to the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) in your country.
Especially the members of the EPP, S&D and ALDE groups. ->
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_European_Parliament,_2014%E2%80%9319
- Communicate this issue to users in your local community.
- Publicise a press release about this, write about it on your
website/blog, talk to the media how this can damage Wikipedia, etc.
- Use social media: Twitter, Facebook, and so on.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

[Andrea Zanni]

FWIW, today WIkimedia Italia had a Barcamp at the Italian Parliament to
talk about Wiki Loves Monuments, FOP (which we already don't have) and
related stuff.
Several politicians were present and we discussed also this matter.
They already alerted their MEPs.
Hopefully this will contribute to the discussion.

Aubrey

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter 
wrote:

> On 2015-06-22 19:07, Gergő Tisza wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Newyorkbrad 
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Just out of curiosity, if this legislation were to pass in Europe, and
>>> (for example) an American tourist took a photograph of a covered
>>> building in Europe and posted it when he or she arrived back in the
>>> U.S., would it be deleted on the ground that the image was non-free at
>>> the site, or kept on the ground that it was free where it was posted?
>>>
>>>
>> No one knows for sure. See
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Choice_of_law
>> ___
>>
>
> Whereas this is correct in principle, in a situation Brad describes the
> photo most certainly will be deleted. Also, I do not see how the photo is
> free in the US, due to URAA provisions.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 2015-06-22 19:07, Gergő Tisza wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Newyorkbrad  
wrote:



Just out of curiosity, if this legislation were to pass in Europe, and
(for example) an American tourist took a photograph of a covered
building in Europe and posted it when he or she arrived back in the
U.S., would it be deleted on the ground that the image was non-free at
the site, or kept on the ground that it was free where it was posted?



No one knows for sure. See
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Choice_of_law
___


Whereas this is correct in principle, in a situation Brad describes the 
photo most certainly will be deleted. Also, I do not see how the photo 
is free in the US, due to URAA provisions.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

[Gergő Tisza]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Newyorkbrad  wrote:

> Just out of curiosity, if this legislation were to pass in Europe, and
> (for example) an American tourist took a photograph of a covered
> building in Europe and posted it when he or she arrived back in the
> U.S., would it be deleted on the ground that the image was non-free at
> the site, or kept on the ground that it was free where it was posted?
>

No one knows for sure. See
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Choice_of_law
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

[Sam Klein]

You could find candidates in the most popular images and tag them by hand.

If it seems /possible/ that the image is affected, it could be faded out.
As you say, that might be enough for it to be removed.  If it is /likely/
that it is affected, it could be lightboxed or replaced.

Julia Reda, the Pirate in the European Parliament, has a fantastic blog
post summary:
https://juliareda.eu/2015/06/fop-under-threat/


On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Gergő Tisza  wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:17 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > Yes I agree an example of what Wikipedia would look like if this
> > regulation passed is an excellent idea. Could we base it on the geo
> > tags?
> >
>
> It could be quite hard to figure out what exactly is affected (which is one
> of the ways in which this would harm Wikipedia, assuming the change would
> be retroactive - and copyright changes usually are - as sifting through all
> potentially affected images would be a huge undertaking). For anything
> built in the last 150 years, you would have to figure out who designed it
> and when that person died. And even if the architect has been dead for more
> than 70 years, that still does not necessarily mean the building is not
> affected Gustave Eiffel died in 1923, for example, but the Eiffel Tower is
> still not free to photograph at night.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj  w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

[Gergő Tisza]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:17 AM, James Heilman  wrote:

> Yes I agree an example of what Wikipedia would look like if this
> regulation passed is an excellent idea. Could we base it on the geo
> tags?
>

It could be quite hard to figure out what exactly is affected (which is one
of the ways in which this would harm Wikipedia, assuming the change would
be retroactive - and copyright changes usually are - as sifting through all
potentially affected images would be a huge undertaking). For anything
built in the last 150 years, you would have to figure out who designed it
and when that person died. And even if the architect has been dead for more
than 70 years, that still does not necessarily mean the building is not
affected Gustave Eiffel died in 1923, for example, but the Eiffel Tower is
still not free to photograph at night.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

[Sam Klein]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> Actually, considering how effective the blackout was for SOPA, I think
> another action based on the most prominent images we stand to lose would be
> in order. So the take on the London Eye and maybe some popular buildings,
> art and bridges in Euro-FoP countries?


This is a beautiful idea.



> I don't know if you could rig a java
> script to flag these with a red lightbox that links to the Commons page,
> but that would probably be more effective than any other lobbying efforts
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Sam Klein 
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > Are WMF and the European affiliates allowed to lobby regarding this
> > issue?
> > >
> >
> > The WMF could lobby or support lobbying on such an issue.  It is eligible
> > to spend up to $1M per year tax-free on lobbying.  But I don't believe it
> > has directly engaged in anything of the sort, since the SOPA action.
> >
> > Sam
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj  w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

[Newyorkbrad]

Just out of curiosity, if this legislation were to pass in Europe, and
(for example) an American tourist took a photograph of a covered
building in Europe and posted it when he or she arrived back in the
U.S., would it be deleted on the ground that the image was non-free at
the site, or kept on the ground that it was free where it was posted?

Newyorkbrad

On 6/22/15, Fæ  wrote:
> On 22 June 2015 at 13:17, James Heilman  wrote:
>> Yes I agree an example of what Wikipedia would look like if this
>> regulation passed is an excellent idea. Could we base it on the geo
>> tags?
>
> Geotags on their own would be haphazard apart from certain types of
> Wikipedia articles, such as those for notable buildings in Europe,
> designed in the mid 20th century onwards. It is possible to put some
> SQL queries together like this, but the resulting lists or statistics
> would only ever be a small slice of relevant articles that could be
> affected.
>
> A simple analysis for Commons can be found at
> 
> which gives a sense of size, along with relevant Freedom of Panorama
> (FoP) categories. However, as noted there, keep in mind that it is
> probable that *most* public domain photographs that in some way rely
> on European FoP provisions are not categorized in a way that we can
> current track relevance to FoP, so statistics are going to remain less
> useful than educated guesstimates.
>
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

[Fæ]

On 22 June 2015 at 13:17, James Heilman  wrote:
> Yes I agree an example of what Wikipedia would look like if this
> regulation passed is an excellent idea. Could we base it on the geo
> tags?

Geotags on their own would be haphazard apart from certain types of
Wikipedia articles, such as those for notable buildings in Europe,
designed in the mid 20th century onwards. It is possible to put some
SQL queries together like this, but the resulting lists or statistics
would only ever be a small slice of relevant articles that could be
affected.

A simple analysis for Commons can be found at

which gives a sense of size, along with relevant Freedom of Panorama
(FoP) categories. However, as noted there, keep in mind that it is
probable that *most* public domain photographs that in some way rely
on European FoP provisions are not categorized in a way that we can
current track relevance to FoP, so statistics are going to remain less
useful than educated guesstimates.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

[James Heilman]

Yes I agree an example of what Wikipedia would look like if this
regulation passed is an excellent idea. Could we base it on the geo
tags?

-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

Starting July 2015 I am a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation
My emails; however, do not represent the official position of the WMF

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

[Stevie Benton]

Owen is one of the folks who is helping to draft the letter we're writing
here in the UK (and ORG will be one of the co-signatories).

On 22 June 2015 at 10:03, David Gerard  wrote:

> Owen Blacker (Wikipedian, and Open Rights Group board member) has a
> blog post on the subject:
>
>
> https://medium.com/@owenblacker/freedom-of-panorama-is-under-attack-6cc5353b4f65
>
> On 22 June 2015 at 09:46, Stevie Benton 
> wrote:
> > Really like the idea of flagging certain images with a light box, I think
> > it's very clever.
> >
> > I know that some chapter staff and volunteers are working really hard to
> > get some traction on this important issue Wikimedia UK is leading on a
> > letter to the press which will be signed by other cultural and related
> > bodies. Should be going out early this week. I know that a volunteer has
> > written to Jimmy about this to see what publicity he can attract as well.
> >
> > Dimi, the movement's Wikimedian in Brussels, along with Karl Sigfrid and
> > others, has been working on this for months, too. There's a real
> > co-ordinated effort to push back on this.
> >
> > Stevie
> >
> > On 22 June 2015 at 08:30, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> >> Pinging Mark H. in the Multimedia Team to ask about the feasability of
> >> Jane's clever suggestion.
> >>
> >> Pine
> >> On Jun 22, 2015 12:21 AM, "Jane Darnell"  wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually, considering how effective the blackout was for SOPA, I think
> >> another action based on the most prominent images we stand to lose
> would be
> >> in order. So the take on the London Eye and maybe some popular
> buildings,
> >> art and bridges in Euro-FoP countries? I don't know if you could rig a
> java
> >> script to flag these with a red lightbox that links to the Commons page,
> >> but that would probably be more effective than any other lobbying
> efforts
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Sam Klein 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Pine W  wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Are WMF and the European affiliates allowed to lobby regarding this
> >> > issue?
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > The WMF could lobby or support lobbying on such an issue.  It is
> eligible
> >> > to spend up to $1M per year tax-free on lobbying.  But I don't
> believe it
> >> > has directly engaged in anything of the sort, since the SOPA action.
> >> >
> >> > Sam
> >> > ___
> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >> > 
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Stevie Benton
> > Head of External Relations
> > Wikimedia UK
> > +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173
> > @StevieBenton
> >
> > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
> > and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513.
> > Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
> > London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a
> > global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the
> > Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
> >
> > *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal
> > control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 

Stevie Benton
Head of External Relations
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173
@StevieBenton

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
and Wal

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

[David Gerard]

Owen Blacker (Wikipedian, and Open Rights Group board member) has a
blog post on the subject:

https://medium.com/@owenblacker/freedom-of-panorama-is-under-attack-6cc5353b4f65

On 22 June 2015 at 09:46, Stevie Benton  wrote:
> Really like the idea of flagging certain images with a light box, I think
> it's very clever.
>
> I know that some chapter staff and volunteers are working really hard to
> get some traction on this important issue Wikimedia UK is leading on a
> letter to the press which will be signed by other cultural and related
> bodies. Should be going out early this week. I know that a volunteer has
> written to Jimmy about this to see what publicity he can attract as well.
>
> Dimi, the movement's Wikimedian in Brussels, along with Karl Sigfrid and
> others, has been working on this for months, too. There's a real
> co-ordinated effort to push back on this.
>
> Stevie
>
> On 22 June 2015 at 08:30, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Pinging Mark H. in the Multimedia Team to ask about the feasability of
>> Jane's clever suggestion.
>>
>> Pine
>> On Jun 22, 2015 12:21 AM, "Jane Darnell"  wrote:
>>
>> Actually, considering how effective the blackout was for SOPA, I think
>> another action based on the most prominent images we stand to lose would be
>> in order. So the take on the London Eye and maybe some popular buildings,
>> art and bridges in Euro-FoP countries? I don't know if you could rig a java
>> script to flag these with a red lightbox that links to the Commons page,
>> but that would probably be more effective than any other lobbying efforts
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Sam Klein 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>> >
>> > > Are WMF and the European affiliates allowed to lobby regarding this
>> > issue?
>> > >
>> >
>> > The WMF could lobby or support lobbying on such an issue.  It is eligible
>> > to spend up to $1M per year tax-free on lobbying.  But I don't believe it
>> > has directly engaged in anything of the sort, since the SOPA action.
>> >
>> > Sam
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Stevie Benton
> Head of External Relations
> Wikimedia UK
> +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173
> @StevieBenton
>
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
> and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513.
> Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
> London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a
> global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the
> Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
>
> *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal
> control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

[Stevie Benton]

Really like the idea of flagging certain images with a light box, I think
it's very clever.

I know that some chapter staff and volunteers are working really hard to
get some traction on this important issue Wikimedia UK is leading on a
letter to the press which will be signed by other cultural and related
bodies. Should be going out early this week. I know that a volunteer has
written to Jimmy about this to see what publicity he can attract as well.

Dimi, the movement's Wikimedian in Brussels, along with Karl Sigfrid and
others, has been working on this for months, too. There's a real
co-ordinated effort to push back on this.

Stevie

On 22 June 2015 at 08:30, Pine W  wrote:

> Pinging Mark H. in the Multimedia Team to ask about the feasability of
> Jane's clever suggestion.
>
> Pine
> On Jun 22, 2015 12:21 AM, "Jane Darnell"  wrote:
>
> Actually, considering how effective the blackout was for SOPA, I think
> another action based on the most prominent images we stand to lose would be
> in order. So the take on the London Eye and maybe some popular buildings,
> art and bridges in Euro-FoP countries? I don't know if you could rig a java
> script to flag these with a red lightbox that links to the Commons page,
> but that would probably be more effective than any other lobbying efforts
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Sam Klein 
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > Are WMF and the European affiliates allowed to lobby regarding this
> > issue?
> > >
> >
> > The WMF could lobby or support lobbying on such an issue.  It is eligible
> > to spend up to $1M per year tax-free on lobbying.  But I don't believe it
> > has directly engaged in anything of the sort, since the SOPA action.
> >
> > Sam
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 

Stevie Benton
Head of External Relations
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173
@StevieBenton

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513.
Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a
global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the
Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal
control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

[Pine W]

Pinging Mark H. in the Multimedia Team to ask about the feasability of
Jane's clever suggestion.

Pine
On Jun 22, 2015 12:21 AM, "Jane Darnell"  wrote:

Actually, considering how effective the blackout was for SOPA, I think
another action based on the most prominent images we stand to lose would be
in order. So the take on the London Eye and maybe some popular buildings,
art and bridges in Euro-FoP countries? I don't know if you could rig a java
script to flag these with a red lightbox that links to the Commons page,
but that would probably be more effective than any other lobbying efforts

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Sam Klein  wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Are WMF and the European affiliates allowed to lobby regarding this
> issue?
> >
>
> The WMF could lobby or support lobbying on such an issue.  It is eligible
> to spend up to $1M per year tax-free on lobbying.  But I don't believe it
> has directly engaged in anything of the sort, since the SOPA action.
>
> Sam
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

[Jane Darnell]

Actually, considering how effective the blackout was for SOPA, I think
another action based on the most prominent images we stand to lose would be
in order. So the take on the London Eye and maybe some popular buildings,
art and bridges in Euro-FoP countries? I don't know if you could rig a java
script to flag these with a red lightbox that links to the Commons page,
but that would probably be more effective than any other lobbying efforts

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Sam Klein  wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Are WMF and the European affiliates allowed to lobby regarding this
> issue?
> >
>
> The WMF could lobby or support lobbying on such an issue.  It is eligible
> to spend up to $1M per year tax-free on lobbying.  But I don't believe it
> has directly engaged in anything of the sort, since the SOPA action.
>
> Sam
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

[Sam Klein]

On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> Are WMF and the European affiliates allowed to lobby regarding this issue?
>

The WMF could lobby or support lobbying on such an issue.  It is eligible
to spend up to $1M per year tax-free on lobbying.  But I don't believe it
has directly engaged in anything of the sort, since the SOPA action.

Sam
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

[Claudia Garád]

Hi Pine,

when we (European affiliates) lobby or support people who do this for us 
in Brussels (like Dimi) we use our funds that do not come from the WMF 
(FDC and the like). In Austria we assure this by having separate bank 
accounts for WMF vs other grants/funds.


More details on the activities of the European Advocacy Group can be 
found here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy


Claudia

Am 21.06.2015 um 17:47 schrieb Pine W:

Are WMF and the European affiliates allowed to lobby regarding this issue?
If so, what are they doing?

Thanks,

Pine
On Jun 21, 2015 6:03 AM, "Romaine Wiki"  wrote:


Hi all,

This concerns all the editors and readers in the European Union and those
in other European countries as well (copying is possible).

*Subject*
Copyrights reform in Europe going in the wrong direction, damaging
Wikipedia.

*What is going on?*
In the European Parliament currently a proposal (amendment) is submitted
that will restrict Freedom of Panorama in Europe.
This means: you will be no longer allowed to upload images from modern
buildings and works of public art on Commons and not allowed to use those
images on Wikipedia.

Also if Freedom of Panorama is only allowed for Non Commercial purposes
only, this is a problem for Wikipedia!

*Some details*?
It concerns the amendment AM421 proposed by Cavada and passed in the JURI
committee.

*When is the voting about the amendment?*
Thursday 9th July

But we have one chance only!


*What can we do about this?*

- Forward this e-mail to anyone who should know about this.
- Talk to the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) in your country.
Especially the members of the EPP, S&D and ALDE groups. ->

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_European_Parliament,_2014%E2%80%9319
- Communicate this issue to users in your local community.
- Publicise a press release about this, write about it on your
website/blog, talk to the media how this can damage Wikipedia, etc.
- Use social media: Twitter, Facebook, and so on...
- Twitter about it and retweet them. Suggestions:
   https://twitter.com/Wikimedia_BE/status/611000943908384768 -
   https://twitter.com/Wikimedia_BE/status/610984311853064193 -
   https://twitter.com/dimi_z/status/610792189631811584
   - Twitter also directly to the Members of the European Parliament
   directly and ask them if they want to turn Wikipedia into black.


Also there will be a CentralNotice banner to inform our readers. The
CentralNotice banner will lead to a landing page, which is at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_in_2015

More information will be on:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_in_2015/Learn_more

A FAQ will be on:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_in_2015/FAQ
(or combined with the Learn more page)


*How can I help with the campaign?*
Go to:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama_2015/Proposed_messages
and help with getting the texts of the banner, landing page and Learn more
page ready.

1. Banner:
* What should the text be of the title?
* What should the text be of the underline?
2. Landing page:
* What information should be on the landing page?
* What Twitter/Facebook/Google+ links do we place?
3. Learn more page:
* What information should be mentioned on the *Learn more* page?
* What actions would we recommend readers to take?
* Anything else?

If the banner, landing page and Learn more page are ready, they can be
translated on Tuesday 23 June to the various European languages. Also local
Wikipedia pages can be created for it.


*Where is the coordination?*
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama_2015
To have an overview it would be handy if you sign up for your country/area.

Collect here also your actions like press releases, tweets, Facebook posts,
etc. Those can be useful to read and to see where some action is missing or
needed.


*You need more information?*
Read the Signpost article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-06-17/Three_weeks_to_save_freedom_of_panorama_in_Europe


*Other suggestions?*
Let us know! Add suggestions at:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama_2015

Thanks!

Romaine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thousands of images on Wikipedia and Commons in danger, action needed

[Pine W]

Are WMF and the European affiliates allowed to lobby regarding this issue?
If so, what are they doing?

Thanks,

Pine
On Jun 21, 2015 6:03 AM, "Romaine Wiki"  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> This concerns all the editors and readers in the European Union and those
> in other European countries as well (copying is possible).
>
> *Subject*
> Copyrights reform in Europe going in the wrong direction, damaging
> Wikipedia.
>
> *What is going on?*
> In the European Parliament currently a proposal (amendment) is submitted
> that will restrict Freedom of Panorama in Europe.
> This means: you will be no longer allowed to upload images from modern
> buildings and works of public art on Commons and not allowed to use those
> images on Wikipedia.
>
> Also if Freedom of Panorama is only allowed for Non Commercial purposes
> only, this is a problem for Wikipedia!
>
> *Some details*?
> It concerns the amendment AM421 proposed by Cavada and passed in the JURI
> committee.
>
> *When is the voting about the amendment?*
> Thursday 9th July
>
> But we have one chance only!
>
>
> *What can we do about this?*
>
>- Forward this e-mail to anyone who should know about this.
>- Talk to the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) in your country.
>Especially the members of the EPP, S&D and ALDE groups. ->
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_European_Parliament,_2014%E2%80%9319
>- Communicate this issue to users in your local community.
>- Publicise a press release about this, write about it on your
>website/blog, talk to the media how this can damage Wikipedia, etc.
>- Use social media: Twitter, Facebook, and so on...
>- Twitter about it and retweet them. Suggestions:
>   https://twitter.com/Wikimedia_BE/status/611000943908384768 -
>   https://twitter.com/Wikimedia_BE/status/610984311853064193 -
>   https://twitter.com/dimi_z/status/610792189631811584
>   - Twitter also directly to the Members of the European Parliament
>   directly and ask them if they want to turn Wikipedia into black.
>
>
> Also there will be a CentralNotice banner to inform our readers. The
> CentralNotice banner will lead to a landing page, which is at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_in_2015
>
> More information will be on:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_in_2015/Learn_more
>
> A FAQ will be on:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_in_2015/FAQ
> (or combined with the Learn more page)
>
>
> *How can I help with the campaign?*
> Go to:
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama_2015/Proposed_messages
> and help with getting the texts of the banner, landing page and Learn more
> page ready.
>
> 1. Banner:
> * What should the text be of the title?
> * What should the text be of the underline?
> 2. Landing page:
> * What information should be on the landing page?
> * What Twitter/Facebook/Google+ links do we place?
> 3. Learn more page:
> * What information should be mentioned on the *Learn more* page?
> * What actions would we recommend readers to take?
> * Anything else?
>
> If the banner, landing page and Learn more page are ready, they can be
> translated on Tuesday 23 June to the various European languages. Also local
> Wikipedia pages can be created for it.
>
>
> *Where is the coordination?*
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama_2015
> To have an overview it would be handy if you sign up for your country/area.
>
> Collect here also your actions like press releases, tweets, Facebook posts,
> etc. Those can be useful to read and to see where some action is missing or
> needed.
>
>
> *You need more information?*
> Read the Signpost article:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-06-17/Three_weeks_to_save_freedom_of_panorama_in_Europe
>
>
> *Other suggestions?*
> Let us know! Add suggestions at:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama_2015
>
> Thanks!
>
> Romaine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,