Jump to content

Talk:Freedom of Panorama in Europe in 2015

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Colin Rowat in topic Replies from MEPs


Coordination of this page took place at Freedom of Panorama 2015, discussed with legal team. Romaine (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Mobile view[edit]

When I test the mobile view (with Chrome on a laptop) I get the text up to "read more" and the gallery, but not the "contact a MEP" link and the SaveFoP links. BTW, the new MEP-pages with a clickable map created by Romaine are great. Otherwise, if the text is now in essence ready some translations would be good. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure how to solve this. Romaine (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have the same problem on computer. There is even less of text if I reduce window width. Sugestion: I would keep just ordinary information page without black background. In fact, I even don't like the enlarged (rasterized) wikipedia logo on the top. --Mirefek (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I like the layout. Fixing the PNG "should" be easy, how about File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en-text.svg? –Be..anyone (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Steinsplitter's fix for Firefox is a clue, with height:950px instead of 940px I can now see the "contact MEP" link with the "mobile view", but the "SaveFop" links are still hidden by overflow:hidden. How about no absolute height at all, and also no overflow:hidden? –Be..anyone (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
This should fix the mobile stuff. --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
As of now, I cannot see this banner correctly neither in Chrome for Android nor in Firefox for Android in a couple of mobile phones. I think this is unnaceptable given the number of mobile users in Europe. Unfortunately I am not technically savvy enough to know how to fix it :( Barcex (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Fixed it for me with a decent width, ignoring a big unused black bottom for monobook, but at some point with a really small width it fails. And removing the absolute height or overflow:hidden would make it worse, the relative positions with -500px etc. end up nowhere. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
OK, it is fixed for me now, so I am OK with it. --Mirefek (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Despite your efforts it is not well displayed in all mobile browsers. I have several devices (5.0inch, 7.0 inch, 8.4 inches) and only in the 8.4 it works. This is an intrinsic problem: the page is created with absolute pixels. So I took a bold decision in eswiki: I rewrote the entire page. It is a bit less attractive, but it renders well on desktop and mobile devices because id does not count pixels at all. Take a look es:Wikipedia:Libertad_de_panorama_en_Europa_en_2015 Barcex (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

HTML of this page[edit]

The HTML used in the banner of this page is more than sick. In particular, it cannot be displayed on mobile devices. Can somebody fix it and put notifications on translated pages (e.g. de:Wikipedia:Initiative für die Panoramafreiheit/start). Thanx. --WolfgangRieger (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not displaying correctly[edit]

Screenshot of FOP Page

Not sure what's going up. 100% zoom on a chromebook. Ocaasi (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

CSS from hell, see above. I've changed the absolute height to 999px, does that help? Please revert if it doesn't help, it's ugly on other devices (huge empty black area at the bottom before the gallery). –Be..anyone (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I changed the css construction to something that doesn't require a height value. I don't see how a pixel value can ever really work across devices and browsers. Julian Herzog (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Brilliant, thanks. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply


Why the date is "25 July 2015"?--Davidpar (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Done Fixed - Romaine (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply


Why it is not a translatable page? -Geraki TL 15:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

It is probably better if the translations are written on the local Wikipedia itself. Therefore users have translated this page on their own wiki. See Q20200822. More pages will follow soon. Romaine (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Not really, most of us have our local efforts coordinated at commons. See commons:Commons:Freedom of Panorama 2015/pl for instance. Halibutt (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Messy. --Nemo 10:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
There is a difference between a coordination page and a landing page for the public. Thank you for creating pl:Wikipedia:Wolność panoramy 2015! :-) Romaine (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
AWOL among others: cy eu fy oc –Be..anyone (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Project specific sub-pages[edit]

How did we get blind-sighted by this issue?[edit]

This seems to come out of nowhere. Have legislators worked on this in secret, or what happened? Abolishing freedom of panorama wasn't even a thing, there has been nothing in the news indicating that people or organisations wanted this, yet suddenly this crops up? How did all this happen? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

The Report on the review of EU copyright rules as proposed by Julia Reda called for harmonization of European rules on Freedom of Panorama in the most liberal way, permitting both non-commercial and commercial use of "holiday snapshots" featuring both copyrighted buildings and sculptures, as is now the case in most of Europe (including my Croatia). However, an amendment by the member of the Liberal group Jean-Marie Cavada turned that on its head, calling for the freedom to be restricted to non-commercial use only Union-wide. So, we were not alerted, because the intention by Ms. Reda's proposal was as it should be. --Bonzi (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
For years we run on Wikipedia and on our media database (Commons) into issues on copyright, and we are not alone in this. Therefore it is not strange that the EU likes to harmonize it in the various member states. For a more detailed background, I can recommend you to read this Signpost article: en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-06-17/In focus. Romaine (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Judging from publicly available information, the main promoters of this catastrophic mistake by the JURI committee are Marie Anne Ferry-Fall, President of European Visual Artists (EVA) and Director of ADAGP and Jean-Marie Cavada. ADAGP is trying to defend some thousands euro they get in bureaucracy fees, Cavada we don't know. --Nemo 10:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
It's a bad "compromise" in the http://copywrongs.eu debate about general copyright reforms, the "minor" amendment for a "non-commercial FoP" instead of an ordinary FoP was recently added to the reform package. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
That's incorrect. This was not a compromise. It was an amendment by a single MEP which managed to pass with the votes of two groups and made all the competing amendments fall. --Nemo 10:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Links to actual text of the proposed law?[edit]

Where are the links to the proposed legislation. For that matter, what's the formal name of the proposal? 06:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please read for more information in the article en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-06-17/In focus and follow the mentioned links. Romaine (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
If I have synthesized the information correctly (and it required more than just that Signpost link), it is Amendment 421 by MEP Jean-Marie Cavada (adopted 16 June 2015 by the members of the Legal Affairs Committee) which changes "paragraph" 16 on "Copyright-free public space" of the Reda Report. Effectively the amendment reversed the intended effect of the paragraph. I think more direct information should go in the banner. 08:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC) EDIT: Clarity fix. 10:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
https://juliareda.eu/copyright-evaluation-report/full/#46 is a handy link; preferably to be read in context with article 5 of http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:HTML --Nemo 22:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

No law is retroactive[edit]

So there is no threat on pictures already on Commons. No monument is going to be covered with black. This page is totally misleading about that. That's a shame. Thierry Caro (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

It is not retroactive, it will not forbid any past usage. However, it will forbid any future usage, even if the picture was taken in the past/before this law became active. This law does not endanger taking pictures, but using them. That's why nothing here is misleading. -- Milad A380 (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
https://juliareda.eu/2015/06/fop-under-threat/ deals with this as well, for what it's worth. --Nemo 21:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Neutrality of Wikipedia[edit]

This is my contribution to this debate. Thierry Caro (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

What happens if a vandal vandalises a page on Wikipedia? You take action or you create awareness so it gets fixed. If a government has the intention to vandalise (like censorship, or other things that directly hurt the mission of Wikipedia), there are no admin buttons to be used. Then the only thing that is possible is creating awareness. And that is the only thing that should be done: providing knowledge. Providing knowledge in the form of articles, but also providing knowledge how Wikipedia works and how quality is secured/arranged.
If Wikipedia gets damaged by a certain law, Wikipedia is no longer neutral, but becomes biased. Then Wikipedia lost.
But I disagree with you, we should not debate, that is not our task and this is not the place for debate about politics. Please keep the politics outside Wikipedia. Thank you. Romaine (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
We have a Vision and we have a Mission, we are not neutral in having them and we wrote them expecting them to have a meaning. --g (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
This is very mush the place to debate politics if it endangers the very existence of Wikipedia. --Bonzi (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Blacked out images, scope[edit]

The blacked out images currently only shows photos of works located in Europe, but per this discussion I strongly suspect that the law would also apply to works located outside Europe made by European architects/artists, such as the Sydney Opera House. In fact it would probably apply to all works which were either erected anywhere in the Berne Convention area or by a national of any Berne Convention signatory country. Does anyone else agree with that interpretation, and if so should we include blacked out images of such works in the page?--Anders Feder (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

User:Anders Feder: It is irrelevant where the architect comes from. What matters is where the picture is used. See de:Hundertwasserentscheidung. One problem with images on the Internet is that images on the Internet are available in all countries concurrently. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Stefan2: Why would it be "irrelevant" where the architect comes from? What is you basis for this statement? Are you formally educated in law, or just guessing?--Anders Feder (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
As I wrote: See de:Hundertwasserentscheidung. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
What is there to see? What does it have to with the question I asked?--Anders Feder (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
The answer to your question is given there, as you would have noticed if you had read the page. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
No it isn't.--Anders Feder (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Fairness of the debate[edit]

The French MEP Jean-Marie Cavada published on his blog his position of the FoP issue. He describes Wikipedia's protest in terms of «tentatives délibérées d’échapper au paiement des droits aux auteurs, aux ayants droits ou aux sociétés de gestion collective» (deliberate attempts to avoid the payment of the rights of authors, entitled subjects or collective collectors). Mr. Cavada says other things too, but at the moment I was impressed by such a definition, which offends me as a European citizen and a European wikipedian since it comes from a member of my Parliament. However we have to presume good faith, and this is easy to do only when you are complimented, it's always unpleasant in all the other cases, but it's only in those cases that you need to adopt this presumption. So I believe that good faith has to be presumed until a clear opposite evidence forces you to stop presuming it. In this spirit I wrote my comment on his blog (no rant, just some... fine-tunings), but it hasn't yet been published and I don't know if it will. I saved my comment here in case it could help. --g (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I personally got the impression that Cavada doesn't understand the principle of une encyclopédie libre, open content.
An interesting detail is that Mr Cavada took part in the 2014 project Wiki Loves Parliaments to get pictures of MEPs on Wikipedia. See his picture: File:Cavada, J. M.-2518.jpg. Romaine (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm afraid he completely mistook Wikipedia's spirit and habits, maybe he was thinking of someone else he's more used to; he wouldn't be the first politician to make such a confusion, though. In Italy, at the times of the second attempt of a SOPA-like act after our black-out, we had a Senator who wrote on our Village Pump to describe us, with a strange metaphor, like people escaping from police in order to avoid being fined for speeding; now he's not a Senator any more. And just one week ago, when we were received at our Parliament, we had some very little but important things to point out; but this time, instead, there wasn't any offensive hostility.
Looking at it in real-time, Cavada's destiny seems currently undefined: right now Nemo passed me this link from Le Figaro which says that Mr. Cavada just left his party (Nous Citoyens - 13.800 militants), to create some new political entity. It seems it brings bad luck to be bad to Wikipedia ;-))) --g (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Farewell, neutrality[edit]

  • Signed, Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • Sorry, but we try to defend our values. If you consider neutrality of articles as the only value, while you forget that Wikipedia is more than that, then Wikipedia already has lost. By the way, the act of creating a free licensed open content encyclopedia, is not a neutral act. The aim of Wikipedia is to provide knowledge. Providing knowledge in the form of articles, but also providing knowledge how Wikipedia works and how quality is secured/arranged. And if Wikipedia gets damaged by a certain law, Wikipedia is no longer neutral, but becomes biased. Then Wikipedia lost. To prevent Wikipedia to becomes biased by a law, we are here working on informing people. If we ridiculing a serious treat, then Wikipedia loses. If we do not provide knowledge, Wikipedia gets sacrificed, and its neutrality gets sacrificed. Our only job is to provide knowledge, that is what this project should do as well only. Romaine (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • I agree that this article is biased and does not follow requirements of common Wikipedia articles. At least using a blog of a single MEP as the main information source looks strange. But the fundrasing adverts are not neutral either. If I understand the issue, the report is so far preliminary recommendation for member states so impact is not quite clear. Will member states follow the recommendation? Will it hold retrospectively? No one can deny it... I consider the feeling of threat as legitimate. It is reasonable for Wikipedia to make a statement about an issue which is directly related to it. Perhaps just for the future Wikipedia should be aware before being a tool of Pirate Party. --Mirefek (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply


Why should I contact or even reveal my association (really, sign by my country?, my MEP is an existing concept? (I don't even have one)). What did Jimbo say recently, apart from supporting Israel? -DePiep (talk)

Right And Liberty, Free and Obligation[edit]



Don’t all rights(display rights) from a building transfers to the new owner or buyer? or are those rights exception to ownership of geological, rights, obligations, and enter as a tax from fees due to local municipality? (Faster and better organisation that i think of, if we considerate all EU Agreeing to putting the red light all over the right to use public space free of charge).

Is there a limit of what ressources or capital can buy?

Suppose an artist (architect) and a businessman, if both parties are pleased with the exchanged values and giving all the rights under conditions in certain situations or not by the artist to the businessman, in a pre-determined contract or a complete official statement of ownership of the object recognize at the full extended laws protecting that transaction, and by choice once owned in the metadata (as in photography) of these buildings allowing free use guaranteeing free royalty fees from owners( and/or architects willing to share free information), couldn't we just do as what's already related in arts in that matter and ask them about for a special permission?

Or even granting exclusion rights for entities like Wikipedia in a new act for academic institution and/or personal (that is not profiting from commercial values but from free sharing articles and on or impartially charging fees for a greater need such as universities charging student), for the sake of advancement of international knowledge sharing project, in a politicly international effort to contribute to the free licensed information pushing forward individual diplomatic share of interest, a great planetary project that is primordial to our future world of tomorrow keeping Wikipedia and others from being biased and from getting poor of any kind of data in form of articles and such, that is essential to the learning process unless you are blind or is that not a feasible idea?

Cordialement Merci,

P.S if in any case this topic doesn't belong here or else please feel free to contact me

With respect

-Twoxu (talk)

  1. If a law gives special rights for fee-charging universities (I think the Berne Convention does), how can you sell DVDs with Wikipedia on it, or print a calendar that includes a streetscape from Commons, or give Wikipedia away free with a phone? People still miss out on free knowledge.
  2. You can apply to an architect or sculptor (or their agents or successors) for 1 or 2 things in a photo, but how could you publish File:London skyline.jpg? Even if you had enough money to buy the rights, or everyone wanted to give them away without charge, how would you contact everyone to get permission?
--Hroðulf (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Let's put private property rights on fresh air, and allow the owners to charge a fee every time someone takes a breath, because there are no limits to what capital can buy.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yeah. $70 billion a year buys a lot of propaganda, and more than a few "grassroots movements". Pity the story doesn't always add up. Andreas JN466 12:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply


I just spotted the banner on English Wikipedia, and it is not written in correct English; instead of "A proposal in the European Parliament brings thousands of imagines on Wikipedia in danger", it should be "puts". It might be even better to say "A proposal in the European Parliament means thousands of images on Wikipedia are in danger". Number 57 (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I drew User:KTC's attention to your point. --Hroðulf (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Totally stupid restriction should be ignored[edit]

I have never heard of anything so totally stupid in all my life as this "freedom of panorama" nonsense. I hope very much that the headline "Images of modern buildings must remain on Wikipedia" means that Wikipedia intends to completely ignore this totally stupid, absurd and ridiculous restriction, should it come into force. I hope Wikipedia will go further and refuse to observe all other similar stupid and ridiculous restrictions in all regions of the world. 21:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

please remember that the Wiki Community respects the law of the Countries with which it interacts; we are here to share knowledge, not to break any law. There could be, indeed, rules, acts or other juridical tools and means which we would not respect, but this regards other fields totally unrelated with a principle of civil law. We respect copyright, this is why it is so important that such an act is not adopted: because we should have to respect it, and we would. We would remove any related image (leaving the rest of the world wonder why they thought Europe was the land of intelligence and brilliance), we wouldn't keep any one, because we don't buy anything. If this "intelligent and brilliant" act is adopted. We all believe it would be better not. --g (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Let's just be clear ...[edit]

that this campaign is about the commercial interests of downstream users like Google and Facebook, rather than about the interests of ordinary users. Commons and Wikipedia could use non-commercial licences and/or fair-use rationales, and the entire "threat to Wikipedia" would -- poof! -- disappear. But there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth from downstream commercial users who've built billion-dollar businesses on the back of Wikimedia volunteers' work!

Like the SOPA protest, in a way this action ain't bad: it exposes Wikipedia for what it is. --Andreas JN466 22:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ridiculous comment, due to ignorance of Wikipedia's origins. The requirement that truly open content must not preclude commercial use[1] has been around since before Wikipedia even existed.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
(confl.) good grief, you exposed us! But... do it all, please, finish the game up: try to find the secret plot we follow together with Google and Facebook in this page, you are so keen that -- poof! -- you'll find it in a second, let's say a second and a half :-) Those boys should pay for searching with BigG, or chatting in FB; there's only Wikipedia, instead, that asked to be readable for free. And WP doesn't sell anything to them.
Just a minute after you won, give yourself a gift: start hoping, together with us, that something of what we produce here can really help those boys in an effective way, and ask yourself whether you'd help them only partially, or you would give them really free tools to try to grow better men in a better society, perhaps by making some money with something we give them. Your answer will be the gift you deserve ;-) Just to be clear, me too.. :-) --g (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
So Wikipedia Zero is much better than net neutrality?[2] It's fine, just keep patting yourself on the back. Andreas JN466 12:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
No one makes billions off wikimedia content. From Google's POV we are a net negative since we don't have google adwords and yet people insist on spending time here. Facebook does or at least did localy mirrror our pages but I suspect that has more to do with trying to prevent people leaving facebook rather than making money off them.Geni (talk) 07:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Sure. Google's interest in using Wikidata and Wikipedia as engines for the Knowledge Graph panel is totally selfless, eh? [3] Andreas JN466 12:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Why don't you go whine to your self-help group on Wikipediocracy? No one here cares about your delusions.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
It's sick enough that Wikipedia is used as a political campaigning and lobbying tool. What's even sicker is that the number of occasions where Wikipedia ends up using over-the-top rhetoric in the service of such campaigns is increasing, to the point where this is even pointed out by Wikimedia Foundation staff in possession of a conscience: SOPA, fundraising. Andreas JN466 15:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Given that you can't copyright data I fail to see why that would be a concern. In any case your failure to back your billions claim is noted.Geni (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
It's trivially common knowledge that Google has annual revenue well in excess of $60 billion, most of which is from ads. Google's search engine dominates the market in many parts of the world, and the Knowledge Graph has become a major component of it. Bing has a similar feature that also includes a Wikipedia-based timeline: compare [4] vs. [5]. That Wikipedia content adding bells-and-whistles appeal to those billion-dollar search engines was written by unpaid volunteers. Andreas JN466 00:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Two more "just to be clear" questions:

- Is there something in Wikimedia/Wikipedia charter or other "founding document" which precludes use of, say, photos licensed under "Creative Commons noncommercial" license?
- France and Italy have no Freedom of Panorama provision in their copyright laws at all, and yet I see plenty of photographs of, say, La Défense here. I even see them on Facebook, where users grant commercial use of their photos. How is that?
--Bonzi (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear Andreas, not every country has non-commercial freedoms or fair use, for example in my country. If Uruguayan laws were applied strictly, there would be very few photos remaining on Commons, because very buildings were made by people dead for more than 50 years. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply


  • It looks like that this proposed new law will affect not only direct images of building X, but also images of other things (people, animals, traffic, weather, street incidents, etc) that happen to include all or part of building X.
    This looks like also affecting newspapers and published books and periodicals etc that include such images.
    Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply


This page, and the others linked from here, should be semiprotected due persistent vandalism. Could any admin of meta do that? Thanks in advance.--Elisardojm (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Done by Glaisher. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

The EU Parliament has written a report not passed a law[edit]

I don't think there's any need to worry unduly - the Parliament is only making suggestions in a report. The European Parliament can't initiate legislation - that's up to the Commission. The Council of Ministers (who represent individual states) would also need to approve any new law. 13:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh, don't insert reality into this discussion ... you'll spoil the party. "Wikipedia jumps aboard the bogus 'freedom of panorama' bandwagon". Andreas JN466 13:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • If people are not wary, those suggestions may all too quickly become law while the public are not watching. This nearly happened with a plan to pass a law restricting scuba diving in California, but the public were told in time and made such a big public fuss that the planned law was cancelled. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Replies from MEPs[edit]

Labour (UK) (S&D)[edit]

"The amendment made was to an own-initiative report that is simply an examination by an MEP of the state of play in the implementation of the 2001 Information Society Directive. Therefore the current document has no legal effect, but I fully understand your concerns. The Labour Party will vote against any amendment which negatively affects the current UK provisions on Freedom of Panorama.

The European Commission will propose a wide-ranging copyright reform by the end of this year, and the European Parliament has been at the forefront of keeping the debate going on the Freedom of Panorama and other issues.

Labour MEPs are committed to ensuring that the Commission, when proposing its copyright reform, takes on board the views of creators, industry and consumers so that we can take forward a copyright system which works fairly for all. This includes enhanced rights for creators of cultural content, and increased possibility for portability of services and access to cross-border content." I have withheld the name of the MEP as I am uncertain about whether I should state it here. Truthordare (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

By the Freedom of Information act, e-mails from MEPs are effectively public in any case, so you can certainly state it. --Gerrit (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I've received the same reply from my Labour MEP Colin Rowat (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Green (UK) (Greens-EFA)[edit]

"Greens support the principle of ‘freedom of panorama’ and believe the law should uphold the right of photographers to reproduce pictures of public spaces.

"Julia Reda, a German MEP who is a member of the Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament, recently drafted an ‘own-initiative’ report to evaluate copyright in the EU ahead of proposed changes to the Information Society Directive (2001/21/EC). This report made a number of key recommendations, including extending freedom of panorama across the EU.

"For more information, please visit https://juliareda.eu/copyright-evaluation-report/

"Unfortunately, other members of the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs (JURI) Committee voted to amend this report so that it would have the opposite effect – changing the current law so that commercial reproductions of works in public spaces would require the express permission of copyright holders.

"My Green colleagues and I oppose this amendment and will vote against it on 9th July."

Colin Rowat (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just to point out that Julia Reda is a member of the Piratenpartei Deutschland (German Pirate Party). 13:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Conservatives (UK) (ECR)[edit]

"While some Member States allow photos of public buildings/statues/sculptures/landmarks to be taken without permission by the author as long as the use is for non-commercial purposes, other Member States also allow commercial use of such photos/videos without the need to request any permission. While the Green rapporteur on Reda tried to gather support for the 'Freedom of Panorama' being mandatory across all EU Member States, which would effectively ban permission being required for commercial use, a majority for this solution could not be found in the committee vote due to the large number of Member States where permission is required for commercial use.

"Subsequently an amendment was then adopted in the committee vote (paragraph 46 of the report), which calls for prior-authorisation for the use of imagery in various formats for works that are permanently situated in public places if used for commercial purposes. Please note that there is therefore no threat to citizens posting pictures on their private Facebook pages or taking photographs of famous buildings in public places while on their holidays as the only matter being discussed concerns commercial use!

"Due to the fact that Member States decide to tackle Freedom of Panorama differently and the creative sector views on this issue vary in Member States, the ECR does not think an EU solution or recommendation is appropriate and will therefore request deletion of paragraph 46. This will ensure there is no mention of the issue of Freedom of Panorama in this non-legislative report."

Colin Rowat (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I received the same response from my local Conservative MEP, with the following header:
"Thank you for writing to me on the Reda report on 'Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society', and about your concerns on 'Freedom of Panorama'. Please note that the Reda report is non-legislative so there will be no changes to laws on copyright as a result on this issue. I also should indicate that Freedom of Panorama is allowed in the UK even for commercial use under current copyright law. However, I have been in touch with my colleague who is following this dossier for my political group."
Deryck C. 20:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

UK Independence Party (UK) (EFDD)[edit]

Thank you for writing to me about this, I am aware of it, and indeed made a press statement last week. This is a particularly idiotic example of proposed EU legislation. If and when it comes before the Parliament I, and my UKIP colleagues, will vote against.

Deryck C. 10:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

First let me say that UKIP MEPs voted against this. ... you should know that while the amendment on panorama was defeated the report as a whole was passed by 445 for and 65 against.

The Reda Report is what is known as an 'Own Initiative Report'. Such reports have no legislative effect and are merely wish-lists of what MEPs would like to legislate on if they had the chance - bearing in mind that the European Parliament does not have the power to propose legislation or repeal legislation.

I hope that this will help you decide how you will vote in the proposed referendum on EU membership and that you will decide to vote to leave.

Colin Rowat (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Millau viaduct[edit]

According to press reports, France today already lacks the freedom of panorama concession. Now I note that in the French Wikipedia, there is a pretty picture of the Viaduc de Millau (there is one in the English Wikipedia too, of course). It's been like that for years. If that pic can be shown now, then obviously it could still be shown in the (extremely unlikely) event that other European countries were to adopt the French standard, because nothing would change for France. Yet on the info page the public are led to by the Wikipedia banner, the Millau Viaduct is blacked out. What's the reasoning for this? Andreas JN466 15:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Typical wikipedia ill informed childish tosh. All of which reminds me of this nonsense which if memory serves garnered some 100,000 signatures from idiots. Looks like a new home has been found. John lilburne (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
So Wikipedia is just plain lying then about not being able to show a picture of the Millau viaduct without freedom of panorama, isn't it? [6] Andreas JN466 10:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Or it's made a mistake in keeping it? I don't know, I don't understand how it has been allowed to be kept.. Do you? Diliff (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
My opinion is that Wikipedia administrators are not able to perfectly cover all such copyright violation although it does not mean they are not trying to. But I would appreciate an expression of attitude from one. --Mirefek (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
No. Look at the templates on the file's page. The French Wikipedia has a long-established fair-use rationale for such images, based on two community votes. I see no problem with this arrangement. Andreas JN466 12:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
A community vote doesn't mean they aren't breaking French law though... Consensus doesn't always mean legally correct. How is Wikipedia exempt from French law under fair use? Diliff (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
It's all very complicated. For example, pictures of the Eiffel Tower are not copyright when photographed in daylight, but at night, when illuminated, it's all different, apparently. 15:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I understand that. If you can accept that putting some lights on an old building makes it a new copyrighted design, fine. But that's completely different to what I've asked about above, which is why the Millau Viaduct, which is copyrighted in a country without FoP, can have an image of it on the French Wikipedia under fair use. Diliff (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
The rule is very simple: wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy states that an EDP must be compatible with 'the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed'. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I expect that if the architects of the bridge wanted to, they could enforce copyright of the images in a French court. It's probably not worth their while though - I imagine they're happy that pictures of their bridge are widely distributed as it serves to to advertise their design abilities. 12:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Cavada's proposal dead and buried[edit]

https://twitter.com/GOettingerEU/status/616896242489102336 --Nemo 18:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

But Schaake's positive amendment still running, it seems:
http://www.politico.eu/article/aldes-panorama-drama-reda-copyright-report/ -- Jheald (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Bad Examples[edit]

According to the Wikipedia article about Freedom of panorama there currently is no freedom of panorama in Belgium and France, so why are there pictures of the Atomium and the above mentioned Millau Viaduct among the examples that should go black in the future? In the same article it says that in Denmark freedom of panorama is only valid for buildings. Since the statue of the Little Mermaid isn't a building, it shouldn't be among the examples either. --Martijn Verwijmeren

Okay, I'll try an explanation.
  1. "Freedom of Panorama" depends on the countries: Some countries incl. France have no FoP, others incl. Denmark have it only for buildings, and in some countries FoP covers buildings and sculptures. That's what the colours in the map are about. And red, yellow, light-green, or dark-green is already a simplification. The little mermaid is an example for Denmark.
  2. The English Wikipedia (enwiki) permits "fair use" for images hosted on enwiki with a fair use rationale. These images are not free, they can't be uploaded on commons, and they can't be used or uploaded on other Wikimedia projects without a similar rule. Likewise the French Wikipedia (frwiki) has its own rule wrt FoP, they allow images which can't be uploaded on commons or other Wikimedia projects without a similar rule.
  3. Check out c:Category:FOP-related deletion requests/deleted for examples of deleted pictures. It's only the tip of the iceberg, not all FoP deletions are tracked, but you can find c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Copenhagen - the little mermaid statue - 2013.jpg or c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:1._Atomium._Laeken-Bruksela_01.jpg among others.
Be..anyone (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Besides, per C-170/12, even if there is no FOP in Belgium, ~15 countries with FOP means ~15 countries where one can't sue you for usage of an Atomium photo (insofar you respected the photographer's licence of course). --Nemo 08:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply


Cried the American Wikipedia. 23:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

We don't really have an American wikipedia.Geni (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

What do you think of a section: "Further actions in the Internet"?[edit]


many Greetings --Molgreen (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Use of Buildings in Television & Movies[edit]

If I understand correctly, under these proposals people will have to pay to use images of buildings, or else they could be sued?

So what does that mean for television shows, movies, even local news reports?

I know it's a bit of a reductio absurdiam or whatever it's called (yes my Latin sucks), but do we we seriously think that a local news crew interviewing a man on the street in rural Cambridgeshire might have to pay monies to all the architects whose buildings feature in the background? That's madness! Think how much the costs of filming will skyrocket, as production companies budget for being sued by architects!

If MGM were to re-issue 'Skyfall' on DVD or Blu-Ray, the resulting disc would cost like £1000 per disc rather than £20, just because it would take so much time and money to clear up the rights in all the buildings it features in the background. Seriously?

If suddenly commercial companies had to pay (or could face legal action) every time they had a random building in shot (famous or non-famous) it would just be a nightmare.

Or am I reading it all wrong?


Random IP Man. 21:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Panorama is free![edit]

The text is longing to appear online, but the press release gives the first official confirmation: EU will not cancel FoP.
I'm tempted to say that Wikipedia, together with others, won: it is undoubtedly true that we won, and this is another important step on the way to our mission. But today, rather, it was a victory of the common sense, and when this happens, it's more important to consider that the all of us won. Together :-)
I believe that really many people must be thanked for their support and help, and that we should express our gratitude to those who came to help us from "outside". Living in a Country in which there is no FoP, I have a moral obligation, but beyond that I personally wish to thank the Members of the Italian Parliament and Government that we (with Wikimedia Italia) met in a recent occasion. Tomorrow we will start to fight again, like we always do, but today, honestly, I owe them a grateful salute :-) (and I also believe that they are not the only ones who deserve it, feel free to add similar credits)
Then: it's free, let's use it, let's make good use of the free panorama that any European can edit photograph :-) --g (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Voting: outcomes[edit]

Today the European Parliament voted about

  • The negative text by Cavada (Freedom of Panorama only non-commercial in whole EU) was dropped by 502 to 40.
  • The positive text by Schaake (full Freedom of Panorama in whole EU) didn't pass by 228 to 303.
  • The report as a whole was accepted with 445 to 65 with 32 abstentions.

Thanks everyone, we almost manage to achieve a full swing, which is a very tough feat to get done in 3 weeks. Romaine (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Jimmy Wales' Guardian op-ed[edit]

There is an interesting correction appended to Wales' July 3rd op-ed in The Guardian calling on people to contact their MEPs: before / after. The correction reads,

  • "This article was amended on 8 July 2015. An earlier version said that the European parliament is currently engaged in the adoption of some copyright reforms, which, if accepted, would mean that the freedom of panorama would be restricted throughout all EU states. In addition it also said that “this is the last chance” to stop the proposal becoming law. This has been corrected."

The Guardian considered the italicised passages misleading enough to make that correction (even if a bit late!). That's a pretty rare event in an op-ed.

And you can't accuse The Guardian of historically having been hostile to Wikipedia, either. That's a role played by The Register in the UK; this is what their writer made of it: [7]. Scathing doesn't begin to describe it.

And as noted there, the Guardian missed another clanger: Wales said (my emphasis),

  • Freedom of panorama is the unrestricted right to use photographs of public spaces, without infringing the rights of the architect or the visual artist. Wikipedia only uses freely licensed images. Therefore, this valuable exception to copyright is necessary in order to allow Wikipedia to freely depict public spaces on relevant articles. Most European Union countries enjoy full freedom of panorama. However, in some European countries, such as Belgium and France, this freedom is restricted.

Wikipedia only uses freely licensed images is completely untrue. We have already pointed out the well-stocked category for non-free images of recent buildings in the French Wikipedia, and there are obviously hundreds of thousands of non-free (fair-use) files in the English Wikipedia. Other Wikipedias apply their own countries' freedom-of-panorama rules (which they're legally entitled to), so they can (and do) simply ignore the rules in France, Belgium etc. and host those files on their own projects. Put simply, the info page was designed to create panic, rather than to impart reliable information. Everyone can work out for themselves whether that is compatible with the professed ideals of Wikipedia. Andreas JN466 20:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

While easily misleading and IMHO better avoided, the "last chance" bit was not incorrect in a political sense: as someone said in the European Parliament plenary, this own-initiative report has been the first (and possibly last) democratic review of EU copyright in decades. The next step will be dominated by the European Commission proposals, hence the Parliament (and by extension the people) will probably have way less leeway to set the direction. --Nemo 23:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
See [8] for an outline of the actual legislative process this would have involved and why it was never likely to happen (it would, even if it had by some miracle passed through all the other stages, at last have been up to the national parliaments, which last I looked were also democratic institutions with the right to determine freedom of panorama in their own territories). If you don't trust that source, see [9][10][11] from former en:WP arbitrator (and Labour councillor) Sam Blacketer. This was simply an exercise in chest-banging and sheep-herding. Andreas JN466 04:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I know the process way better than any of your links, thanks. My point stands. --Nemo 10:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Fine. I gather we seem to be in agreement that the phrase "This is the last chance to stop this devastating proposal from becoming European law" was misleading as written. Andreas JN466 12:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please continue the campaign so the European Union guarantees Freedom of Panorama across all countries of the European Union[edit]

France still does not have Freedom of Panorama, please continue the campaign until a law is proposed to have Freedom of Panorama in all the countries of the European Union

I don't think that it's something what Wikimedia Communinity can change. --Stryn (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
If that is not something the Wikimedia Community can change why did you start the previous campaign? You are being too negative.
Its fair easier to maintain the status quo than get change in the direction of copyright liberalisation. Any change in france would need to be internal to have any chance of getting anywhere.Geni (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Reply