Commons talk:Freedom of Panorama 2015

Two weeks to save freedom of panorama in Europe

Content moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous).

Hi all,

What is going on?

In the European Parliament a proposal (amendment) has been submitted to limit the Freedom of Panorama in Europe. The proposal is part of a larger plan to harmonize the copyright law in the various countries of the European Union.

If this proposal is adopted and implemented, it will mean that users on Wikipedia are no longer allowed to upload photographs of modern buildings or public works of art and use them in Wikipedia.

Even if freedom of panorama is allowed only for non-commercial purposes, this is an issue for Wikipedia. The current license under which we write Wikipedia, CC-BY-SA, is not compatible with non-commercial licenses, as they would restrict the re-use of the content.

Freedom of panorama?

Photos of modern buildings and public art currently may be uploaded on Commons / Wikipedia and used in articles, only if those pictures were taken in a country that currently has freedom of panorama (FoP), at this moment 16 of the 28 EU countries.

EU countries with freedom of panorama: Austria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark*, Finland*, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden*, and the United Kingdom. (* = only for buildings)
EU countries without freedom of panorama: Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Romania, and Slovenia.

In countries without freedom of panorama, the creator of a creative work (one permanently placed in a public space, such as a building, monument or other 'public art') needs to authorize the release of the photo, even if you have taken the photo yourself.

Which proposal involved?

It concerns clause 16 of the Reda Report on copyright reform.

Under the text approved by the EP legal affairs committee, which now goes forward to the full parliament, the parliament ...

16. Considers that the commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them;

When is the vote on this report?

Thursday 9 July.

Can we do something against it?

Yes! By making known what impact this amendment has to Wikipedia and what damage it can cause to Wikipedia. In recent years it has come to our attention that many politicians do not even know that it is forbidden to publish on their website a photo of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, without the prior permission of the architect. So in the first place creating awareness is important.

Therefore a CentralNotice banner is prepared and a landing page. This CentralNotice banner is planned to be shown only in countries of the European Union. If you like, you can create a landing page, just like sv:Wikipedia:Panoramafrihet or de:Wikipedia:Initiative für die Panoramafreiheit. (Just as had been done with SOPA in 2012.)

What can I do?

Send an e-mail to one or more Members of the European Parliament from your country/area (list of members on Wikipedia and list of the members on the site of the European Parliament (on the page of each member is the e-mail address linked)).
Send a tweet to one or more Members of the European Parliament from your country/area (or re-tweet) in your language. Ask them for example if they really want Wikipedia to be backed-out or stripped of thousands of images. Or send a tweet to political groups in the parliament or a general tweet about the subject. Examples: 1, 2, 3.

Where is the coordination?

Commons:Freedom of Panorama 2015

Here, press releases, media reports, and more matters can be reported / added / suggested.

Feedback for the suggested banner text and landing page can be provided here: Commons:Freedom of Panorama 2015/Proposed messages.

Where can I read more information?

Read the article in the Signpost at: Three weeks to save freedom of panorama in Europe

Thanks! Romaine (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Banner

Looks good. Did you intentionally omit to mention other forms of art (could be labelled "street art" or "public art"), in order to keep it short and simple? --Túrelio (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created the text in the banner, and as I am not having enough inspiration today, I had put the less worst text in it I could imagine. So there was no intention of leaving public art out of it. So the question is: should we mention public art in the banner or not? Romaine (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in order to keep it short and simple, we don't necessarily need to mention the full range of images affected by FOP. Also, if the banner aims mainly at the general public, it might be enough to mention just 1 kind of images. If the banner is directed mainly at the MEPs, full coverage might be better. Depending on the duration of the campaign, we might also create alternating banner-versions, for example, one mentioning "modern buildings", another mentioning "street art" or "public art", etc. --Túrelio (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ..Photos of modern buildings and monuments... --FocalPoint (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking out Images?

In addition to any banner, I would suggest blanking out images. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure do! It think it would be good to have from each EU country about 3 (or more) modern buildings that are blacked-out. Preferable are these buildings landmarks: remarkable buildings with a shape almost all citizens in a country can recognize. If you create such image, add it to this category: Category:Censored by lack of FOP (image from country without FOP) or Category:Blacked out versions of images relying on CDPA s62 (image from country currently with FOP). I created an overview of existing images on Commons_talk:Freedom_of_Panorama_2015#Blanking_out_Images. Romaine (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Idea

I've found one problem with emailing images (or text including them) to MEPs. Their email system seems to eliminate images when using their direct email links. I think that if we copy the adress on the email program images will be sent but then eliminated on arrival (I cannot be sure, I'm not an MEP). I think that emailing pictures that are going to be "outlawed" would be a good way to make clear what we mean. B25es (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What we can do is to send them a link to a page that has this information (I have created a draft at Commons talk:Freedom of Panorama 2015/Proposed messages/SpainGateImageMessage. Also, one could simply print it and snail-mail it. I did some c/e on the caption there; we should also link AM421 and create a blacked out version of this for it like Category:Blacked out versions of images relying on FoP. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hashtag

It would be good to include the hashtag #saveFoP. Jheald (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To collect hashtags and tweets, see: Commons:Freedom of Panorama 2015/Tweets. Romaine (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All black, or featuring blacked-out images ?

Do we think that all-black banners are best, or ones featuring blacked out images ?

I would tend towards banners featuring blacked-out images, since I think they communicate more precisely the issue. But all-black maimpact, at the top of a page. What do people think? 17:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Blacked out images would transmit more clearly our message IMHO Platonides (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geo-targeting

For en-wiki, are we intending to target only readers in countries in Europe, or the whole world?

If the CentralNotice banner is used, it would be targeted to readers in countries in the European Union only. Romaine (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WMF and community approval

I think the banners are absolutely the right way to go.

But I think they will need to make sure they have approval both from WMF, and from the community on en-wiki.

But good to get the prototype together first, so people can see and understand -- and as soon as possible. Jheald (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either there should be an approval per project the banner is shown on, or there is one single approval on commmons (or meta). Having enwiki approve or disapprove of CentralNotice messages that will affect other projects is not the way to go. Ainali (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you want to organise community approval? Romaine (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually by an ad-hoc poll, such as the one started on :de today: de:Wikipedia:Umfragen/Aktion zur Einschränkung der Panoramafreiheit in der EU. However, this requires local manpower. --Túrelio (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how are CentralNotices usually done? I cannot remember a poll on svwiki for the CentralNotice for Wiki Loves monuments. Just do it as it has been done before, but be extra responsive for complaints of removing it. Ainali (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we should not use banners for political activism. Wikipedia should be neutral so activism doesn't belong there. Even is we believe that the cause is just. Natuur12 (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Romaine, Túrelio, and Ainali: Starting to look as if en-wiki may not give us banners on en-wiki: see en:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Proposal:_Banner_alert_campaign :-( Jheald (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression the banners would only be shown on Commons. Woodcutterty (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if en-wiki doesn't want to get involved (they feel comfortable with their fair use provision), that's no reason not to perform the Blacking in other Wikipedias. Commons is the repository where images are stored, but the articles that would miss those contents are those of Wikipedia. Platonides (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We helped Americans defeat SOPA through the use of en-wiki, they should help us in return. Anyway, it doesn't matter which Wikipedia is used, the point is that all viewers from EU should be affected by them. If American wants to see German Wikipedia, they should not see the banner, but if a German wants to use English Wikipedia, they should see it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jheald: The problem maybe is that the subject is only relevant for users from the UK, while the users from other English speaking countries aren't that interested. But I in whatever it direction it goes there, I think the number of people reaction is too low there. Romaine (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black out all projects, but only if the page is accessed using an European Union IP address. For example, English Wikipedia would ideally be blacked out if a British or Irish IP address is used, but not if an Asian or North American IP address is used. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan4: I hope you realize that this is an extremely invasive course of action, and that it would require explicit, wide-ranging consensus from every language community affected; if you truly mean all projects, then this requires a poll on Meta that would best be advertised through CentralNotice banners to get as wide reach as possible. odder (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. In Catalan Wikipedia, it seems there is consensus in the community. --Davidpar (disc.) 13:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At Galician wikipedia there is consensus too. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sad state on :en, but not really a surprise — despite the impressive Signpost article by Jheald.

On :de, the ad-hoc poll was closed today and a black banner was put up on every page of :de Wikipedia. The poll provided majority-support for a community-action, for a banner-action, for an open letter to MEPs (already collecting signatures[1]), for blackening of FOP-images and (with lesser support) for blackening the mainpage. --Túrelio (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of images by country

So we have Category:Censored by lack of FOP. How about creating a gallery where we list those images by country? This will be helpful for designing banners that target people per country with their landmarks, and for any other tools that we want to create to target specific audiences with their high-impact images. Here's a start: Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama_2015/Proposed_messages#Resources_for_localized_banners_and_messages --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page merge

To keep things centralized, how about merging this page to Commons talk:Freedom of Panorama 2015 and creating a redirect? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it could be useful, I admit that at any times I don't know where the talks of what are. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contents of Commons talk:Freedom of Panorama 2015/Proposed messages have been merged above. Let's keep the discussion on one page, please. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 9th vote

I think that it's important to make absolutely clear what the upcoming vote of July 9th is about. I understand the final section of Julia Reda comments on the adopted report (here) to say that this is only one step in many before this actually turns into legislature. We have to be realistic about this; if there are options after this vote, then we must be open about that in our campaign as well. Not doing so may turn against us later. It would be good if anyone with a good understanding of EU policy making can chime in and explain here (or better, on the Commons page that Romaine linked to) which step this is, and how many (if any) options there are to change this after this particular vote has passed.--AWossink (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AWossink: Okay, so this is sort-of covered in the very last paragraph of the Signpost article. The Reda report itself is advisory, a statement of the Parliament's opinion, not legislative. However, a legislative proposal is currently being finalised by the European Commission, which it will present in September. As we understand it, the Commission would currently like to propose a good text, if they think it would have support from the Parliament. But if instead the Parliament has voted for non-commercial use only, the Commission may decide that that is an appropriate harmonisation -- and would certainly be being lobbied so, by the same publishers' associations, collecting societies, picture libraries and such groups that have just been so successful in the Legal Affairs committee.

Whatever happens, July 9th will not be the end of the road. However, it may be the decisive tipping point. The EU legislative process is involved, and actual legislation would still need to be approved by both the parliament and a super-majority of member states -- typically requiring two further full rounds of decision making, for the legislation to evolve towards a final text agreed by the Commission and the parliament and the member states. However, if "non-commercial" seems to go through the parliament now with little apparent outcry, it may be difficult to persuade the parliament to come to a different view later, and member states may also be disinclined to resist it. Better to make the case now, and to win it. Jheald (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be useful to know what exactly are we asking MEPs to do at this stage, and going forward. I have a letter drafted, with a sentence "I am writing to ask you to...xxx...on July 9th" - I guess I could go look up what the process is, but if anyone can answer is the request to vote against the report? Against the amendment? To raise a counter amendment? It would also be useful to understand what happens in the run up to September and if requesting MEP action on that would help. Sjgknight (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Via Dimi on twitter, "A group of 75 MEPs can table another amendment to change/delete the accepted one. We're now looking for them. Deadline July 1", otherwise I think it's to vote against the report. Sjgknight (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't vote against the report. But ask them to change or delete this clause.

A good approach is to ask them to transmit your concern to the MEP co-ordinating their party position on this, and to ask that MEP to confirm that the party will not be allow the clause to go through in its present form, but will try to delete or amend it. Jheald (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation

And what has to say the Wikimedia Foundation? I know that some chapters are working in that issue, but what is doing WMF? Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Maybe Slaporte (WMF) could help in this issue. --Millars (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone actually asked 1) WMF for an official statement of their stance in that issue (what will be their reaction if this proposal turbs into a law across EU, will they publicly support Wikipedians and affiliated organizations working on this, etc) 2) WMF lawyers for an unofficial comment (might be quicker and give us a clue)? WMEE could do both quickly, if anyone hasn't. --Oop (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand

At that document you can view the previous text of ¿article? 16:

"Calls on the EU legislator to ensure that the use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in public places is permitted",

but there are more than 10 different amendment!!, some are better and other are worts than actual. How works that? Why are you centerede only on Amendment 421 from Jean-Marie Cavada?? I don't know how EU creation of laws works... Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page; but the answer is worth adding here too.

So, the document that you linked to contained the amendments for the committee vote on Tuesday. The committee went through voting on the amendments until they approved the one by Cavada. So that text becomes the definitive and unique proposal which now goes to the full parliament.

So that is the text that will be voted on by the parliament on 9th July. We don't yet know what amendments may be proposed for the full parliament vote; but there will certainly be at least one amendment to either delete the clause, or to replace it with something more favourable.

At the moment, the message we can send to MEPs is that the current clause is horrible, and must be either stopped or amended. Jheald (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Opinion" by Committee for Culture and Education?

I noticed that in the “Procedure File” by the EU there are 3 Committees associated with the report in the section “Committee for opinion”:

Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE)
Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO)
Culture and Education (CULT)

The first two of them each have already published an "opinion" (scroll down right to the bottom of the page to download the pdfs). However, for some reason, CULT has not published such an opinion. From this page I gather that they at least have not decided not to deliver an opinion (yet?). Might be worth to investigate further … --El Grafo (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@El Grafo: . So the procedure is that ITRE, IMCO and CULT formulated advisory opinions, that JURI is then supposed to have have taken into account. However it is the text as amended by the "responsible committee" -- in this case the Legal Affairs committee JURI -- which is the text that then goes forward to the full parliament.

The European Parliament has a lot of different members from a lot of different political groups with a lot of different political views; and on each committee each group will have different uncrossable "red lines" as to what it thinks is unacceptable. What may have happened on CULT is that such a range of different amendments was passed, that both liberalising and non-liberalising groups thought that their redlines had been crossed, and therefore voted not to let their committee's consolidated text go forward to JURI.

In contrast, due to the negotiations that were done between Reda and the other groups on JURI, most groups on JURI felt they had got most of what they wanted, even though they might not have got everything, and so the report as a whole was adopted by 23 votes to two. With these compromises in place, this is likely to reflect the view of the whole parliament on the report as a whole when it comes to plenary. However, that still leaves us with the problem of needing to persuade a majority of MEPs to change clause 16. Jheald (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer, I've struck my idea at the front page … --El Grafo (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steps

I think that we need some organization. First we all need to understand the problem and how to act to solve it, and then we need to reflect it in the page to show an explain it to all the communities.

Then, when the objective is clear, we can plan steps/actions to do. What do you think? Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why we need commercial use?

Instead of campaigning we should think about why our images need a commercial use. It's in general not neccessary for picturing articles in Wikipedia.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is free, not only open. So, you can print it and sell if you want, or you can make a DVD of off-line Wikipedia and sell it for the amount it costed to you. Or you could use Wikimedia Commons images in a book you wrote. Without the commercial permision you can't do it. --Millars (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand, it is a good thing to have as less restrictions as you can for uploaded images. But why it is not allowed to upload on Commons with cc-by-nc? If you can make a DVD or postcard with the content and sell it, fine, but it is not really neccessary for reading an wikipedia article on the screen, so restrictions on freedom of panorama should not affect us (if you don't have commercial interests).--Sinuhe20 (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it's the free encyclopedia, so the content should be free, not only open. It's a issue of principles at the end. --Millars (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The most important answer to the question above is: Wikipedia articles, and therefore also Wikimedia images, are used very extensively on commercial websites, eg Facebook and Google. If the recommended laws were introduced, these commercial websites would be effectively unable to continue using Wikimedia images of modern European buildings and open air artworks, and so to a very large extent, images of Europe would simply vanish from commercial websites - hardly something that would be in the interests of European Union members and their citizens. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From a practical standpoint, there is a difference between what you would initially perceive as commercial use and what is actually, legally, regarded as commercial use. Almost everything is either commercial or unclear even to lawyers. There is even a debate whether a website that is run by a non-profit organisation without ads is non-commercial (at least here in Germany). In other words: A non-commercial license is nearly useless in all practical applications. — Julian H.^✈ 08:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In either case, Wikipedia seems to be a commercial website, since there are requests for donations on the website once in a while. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a valid an frequently asked question. Consult the following pages for a more complete reply I would ever be able to provide:

If anyone, after the lecture as specific questions, please ask them here! -- Rillke^(q?) 21:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the links were very helpful to answer my question, but they didn't convinced me much. The statement "mostly this will have a short-term aesthetic effect (i.e., we will not have a few photographs that we might otherwise have)" cannot be applied anymore, if almost all images of modern european buildings and artworks have to be deleted. Maybe Jimmy Wales will then change his mind.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Say, we use NC-licensed photos in an article that is -By-SA licensed. It would basically impose restrictions over the article that are not compatible with the -By-SA license. A complicated matter, we could evaluate if we really have to. Also we do not have to ask Mr. Wales, we probably have to convince the majority of the m:Board of trustees but more importantly, gather community consensus for such a fundamental change at first. You may start a discussion at COM:VPC and of course you may invite Jimbo. -- Rillke^(q?) 20:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But how is it possible that fair use material is compatible with -By-SA licence in english wikipedia? Fair use seems also to be a restriction to the total free use of an article.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. I suggest you start a discussion on the village punp or the copyright village pump; as long as we can possibly prevent the upcoming change we should at least try that. -- Rillke^(q?) 21:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We de facto allow NC, Rillke, as you can see here. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 18:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Effect on existing works

What will be the effect of a change of law on existing works? Is that dependent on the specific implementation, or can we already tell with certainty whether existing photos profiting from FOP will become illegal or not? I would expect that they stay protected, but I can't base this expectation on anything. — Julian H.^✈ 08:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely it will but it may depend on each country's way they adopt it. Auf jeden Fall erzeugt es wieder haufenweise Bürokratie und eine neue Verwertungsgesellschaft wie die GEMA. Eine GEMA ist mir genug. -- Rillke^(q?) 21:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a lot will depend on the actual implementation, but most likely, if FoP will not provide further protection for a photograph's free reuse, it will have to be removed. (There is an analogy with the U.S. material that was recovered by copyright after the extension of the terms.) All the pictures with an author's permission confirmed by OTRS should be okay, though. --Oop (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protest Campaign

As the proposed changes to the copyright laws pose a serious threat to our modus operandi, i suggest that we start a protest campaign similar to the campaign against SOPA/PIPA. I'd consider it appropriate to blank all the images for a week with a small banner that informs the readers about the consequences, but allows the circumvention if a longer information after the reader reads a longer information. --LH-ist-unterwegs (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. However, that requires the consent of the wikis where the images would be blanked-out. --Túrelio (talk) 08:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree — and said much the same on the page yesterday. While it will take work to get agreement from the other wikis, that is definitely something we should try to get. The SOPA/PIPA campaign was amazingly effective (and gained much news coverage). — OwenBlacker | talk 22:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Davidpar (disc.) 22:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What it makes more complicated in this case is that harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society is generally wanted, needed and there are a lot of good things to come (although not for us). So we should probably suggest an alternative form member countries could agree with, like Considers that the non-commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should not be subject to prior authorisation from the authors;. This would allow countries implementing a broader FoP to keep their laws like they are and countries like France that are likely not inclined to agree to anything else, to sign it off. Personally, I don't think it is necessary to force a broad FoP over every member country. We should also point out the serve issue with the currently suggested wording by Jean-Marie CAVADA: It is a restriction and not permission as it doesn't say anything about non-commercial use. In essence, it may happen that France sticks at no FoP at all and other member countries are forced to narrow their FoP. -- Rillke^(q?) 22:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the legal definition of "noncommercial", the Wikipedia may not be noncommercial itself. CC-NC-Licenses are problematic due to a number of legal reasons and are not compitable with our current licenses. An exemption of non-commercial uses therefore does not suit our needs. The vote will be held on the 9th of July. We will not have time to make any alternative prosposals. We also should not focus on the introduction of FoP in other countries - we will have to fight against the evil plan of abandonning FoP in the countries in which in currently exists. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, public support from currently FoP-less countries and countries outside EU (with or without FoP) could still add influence to our protest, so it has its value. But concerning "Wikipedia may not be noncommercial itself", I'd like to see any links to concrete cases and arguments you might have - we're working hard on a legal proposal for FoP in Estonia, and all such information would be extremely useful. (Btw: as far as I know, an alternative proposal will be made in the commission, support by MEPs is currently being organized. Of course, we do not know what preparations are made by the other side.) --Oop (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Texts for banner and Meta page

Hello! We are planning to create a CentralNotice banner and a landing page on Meta which the banner is linked to. Also from e-mails, Tweets, etc we can link to this Meta page. The Meta page will be located at Freedom of Panorama in Europe in 2015. This Meta page will (when the English text is ready) be translated to the various European languages, and these translations can be put on a local language Wikipedia.

To work on the texts of the banner and landing page, I have created Commons:Freedom of Panorama 2015/Proposed messages. Please go there and give suggestions/comments on the texts, give suggestions for improvements and rewrite the texts yourself. Romaine (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal of email to send to MEPs

Some spanish users started made a proposal of email to send to MEPs here, it's in spanish but could be useful add to it the transate tool for translate to other languages. You can change and add your comments there. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to a subpage. -- Rillke^(q?) 19:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

numbers

In order to get an estimate how many FOP-affected image files from EU countries we have on Commons, I've counted - with the help of Fae - those which are tagged with a FOP-template:

FoP-Austria: 1.225
FoP-Croatia: 313
FoP-Cyprus: 4
FoP-Czech Republic: 959
FoP-Denmark: 31
FoP-Finland: 38
FoP-Germany: 21.525
FoP-Hungary: 466
FoP-Ireland: 752
FoP-Jersey: 23
FoP-Liechtenstein: 8
FoP-Macedonia: 24
FoP-Malta: 59
FoP-Netherlands: 1.867
FoP-Norway: 9
FoP-Poland: 2.717
FoP-Portugal: 328
FoP-Slovakia: 1.019
FoP-Spain: 6.063
FoP-Sweden: 2.621
FoP-Switzerland: 3.484
FoP-United Kingdom: 1.843

Overall this amounts to more than 40000 images.
Note that these numbers are an underestimate because a lot of images, which are legal only per FOP, are actually not tagged with any FOP-template. So, the true number is higher. --Túrelio (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMO these numbers are way to small because almost nobody uses the {{FoP}} in each and every image, where it might be reasonable. I personally suspect that this law might affect a high 6-digit-number of files. // Martin K. (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Martin K., almost all images from cities and municipalities of Spain are under FoP but I only know a little of them using the template. I think that the number of images under FoP could be some millions of photos... Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a small fraction, almost certainly. I have uploaded and viewed many photos under FoP in Germany, and until now didn't know that there is such a template. — Julian H.^✈ 18:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. We likely have over a million of such images. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, you don't need to re-confirm what I had already written in my own comment, ;-). Instead, please use your sparetime to add the appropriate FOP-template to all your own (or other's) FOP-requiring images. I've done that today for 100+ images from other users. --Túrelio (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, too troublesome. Plus, if the law changes, not having this template will give my images at least some saving grace before copyright nazi-paranoics get to them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about we add those numbers to Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama_2015/Proposed_messages#Resources_for_localized_banners_and_messages? To centralize all by-country useful info? Ping User:Túrelio, User:Elisardojm, User:Julian_Herzog, User:Fae. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on how far off they are, I'm not sure they support our side of the case. — Julian H.^✈ 05:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Julian. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing to see how many people are worried about the possible loss of FoP: now you know how we Italians feel. I am tempted not do do anything and let the whole EU fall into no-FOP, just to stop listening to some saying that no-FOP "is a problems of yours". -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 14:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS Addendum: why nobody moved a finger when 10,000+ files of Italy were deleted? Why no one did lobby for extending FoP here? Are Italian sons of a lesser wikiGod?

As a citizen who was used to enjoy Freedom of Panorama, I do of course protest against its restriction or removal. Was there a time in Italy with a FoP? If not, it is extremely important that there is a move by the Italian population to demand FoP. It just feels strange or wrong if a foreigner asks for FoP. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the slight tangent of national viewpoints, as a statistic, this just tells us that 0.16% of images on Commons might be affected by a change in law. As I mentioned when I pulled some of these numbers off the wiki database, it is reasonable to believe this is a magnitude less that a possible true figure, however that still makes a guesstimate as low as 1% or 2%.

We can say that we estimate that "hundreds of thousands" of images may need to be removed from Commons, however quoting numbers of any kind may boomerang on us, and it is probably better to highlight key valued images that you think would have to be removed. For the general public this is more effective that estimated numbers. --Fæ (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rillke, I was not clear. I read the figures about the files that might be deleted and sensed that they are seen like an unbearable loss. It certainly is. But Commons has already had an unberarable loss: Italian files, most of which were senselessly put in deletion. Some users moved even war to {{PD-Italy}}. No one cared. Now that 20,000 files from a single country are to be deleted if no-FoP is extended to that country, now is the loss relevant? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 22:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loss is always relevant. In this matter, chances are at least not that unlikely that we are successful because we protest against removal of an existing freedom. It is entirely your decision whether you join. And something else changed, too: We now have a sense for stuff we can/want to stop and we know that we are heard after the SOPA protests. -- Rillke^(q?) 23:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are an enormous number of photos reliant on FoP that are not tagged as such. Now might be a good time to do that? Could we get a bot to tag every photo in every post 1945 subcategory of Category:Architecture of Country X with FoP with an appropriate template? It would help us get the count right. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking out Images

Add your backed-out images of the country below. If you know a good remarkable building/structure in a country with little/no examples: add the name of the object below. If you are able to create an image: please do, and add it below.

Add an image also to the Category:Censored by lack of FOP (if image from country without FOP) or Category:Blacked out versions of images relying on FoP (if image from country currently with FOP). Romaine (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the latter category only applies to the UK. Is this intentional? — Julian H.^✈ 11:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Than it is probably better to rename the category. Romaine (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. — Julian H.^✈ 11:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before I saw this, I created my own list at Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama_2015/Proposed_messages#Resources_for_localized_banners_and_messages, how about we merge yours there? From the talk page to the main page for more visibility. Ping User:Romaine, User:Julian_Herzog. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these two should be merged. Romaine (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody translate to english the texts of this cartoons, File:Panorama- Freiheit - so wird das nichts!.jpg + File:Panorama- Freiheit (Kompromiss).jpg, I could make versions in spanish and english. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Austria

Wien Hauptbahnhof: see category here (hundreds of images)
...
...

Belgium

Bulgaria

National Palace of Culture: File:Bulgaria-Sofia-01-blackout.jpg
...
...

Croatia

...
...
...

Cyprus

...
...
...

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Tigutorn (Snail Tower List of tallest buildings in_Estonia) in Tartu File:Tigutorn_ja_ahhaa_must.jpg
Tallinn Song Festival Grounds: File:Laulukaar_must.jpg

Finland

...
...
...

France

Seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg (Louise Weiss building): File:Censored - European Parliament as result of no Freedom of Panorama.PNG
Grande Arche of La Defense: File:Censored-Arche de la Défense-Paris.PNG
Louvre Pyramid: File:Louvre at night centered censored.jpg
Eiffel Tower at night: File:Puhane Eiffelturm Nacht-censored.jpg + File:Eiffel tower and the seine at night-censored.jpg
Millau Viaduct: File:MillauViaductServices8358-censored.jpg
it might be fun to blank-out part of the background of one of these images 1 or 2 showing EP president Martin Schulz

Like this? --Elisardojm (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Elisardojm: But what about the mosaic floor? ;o) — OwenBlacker (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Germany

Also: cartoons

File:Panorama- Freiheit - so wird das nichts!.jpg + File:Panorama- Freiheit (Kompromiss).jpg

Greece

...
...
...

Hungary

Ireland

...
...
...

Italy

...
...
...

Latvia

...
...
...

Lithuania

...
...
...

Luxembourg

...
...
...

Malta

...
...
...

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

...
...
...

Romania

...
...
...

Slovakia

...
...
...

Slovenia

...
...
...

Spain

L'Hemisfèric: File:El Hemisférico, Ciudad de las Artes y las Ciencias, Valencia, España-versión censurada.jpg
Les quatre barres de la senyera catalana: File:Blacket out Les quatre barres de la senyera catalana by Ricardo Bofill.jpg
Dona i Ocell: File:Blacket out Dona i Ocell by Miró.jpg
John Hejduk towers: File:2013. Torres Hejduk. Cidade da Cultura. Santiago de Compostela - Galiza-2-censored.jpg
Domus of A Coruña: File:Domus censurado.jpg
Cidade da Cultura of Santiago de Compostela: File:2013. Cidade da Cultura. Santiago de Compostela - Galiza-10-censurada.jpg

Sweden

...
...
...

United Kingdom

Other point of view

I want to explore other point of view not centered on Wikipedia: How that could affect to mass media companies? Newspapers and TVs couldn't use that images without permission?? Anyboy knows how that change could affect negatively to other groups? We could add that issues to our texts...--Elisardojm (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should focus on our issues with the text. Mass media companies probably have an own audience they could share their concerns with. They'll be likely also be able to clear all necessary fees. -- Rillke^(q?) 19:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For classical mass media there is often a press privilege. --Túrelio (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

old media have paid distribution channels, that commons is perceived to threaten. hence the "pirates" and "wikipedia amendment" name calling. commercial photographers have bought into the pay to play, not freemium model; commons has by and large lost the argument with them. 98.163.68.171 03:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In most countries, there is a special exception in the copyright laws for the news coverage. Also, large media organizations tend to have agreements with the authors' organizations, arranging payments for all sorts of artwork shown in the media. Usually, there are similar exceptions for the museums and art galleries, educational facilities, scientific work etc (the wording may vary across countries), so most of the large players do not actually care about FoP that much. --Oop (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you are right about that exception, but news programs frequently do use commons images because they are cheaper/easier than sending someone to take a photo or buying one. If pictures of building X or statue y are not available online with a Creative Commons license because lack of FoP makes them copyright violations, where will they get their free copyright cleared photographs? I've seen commons images used in print media fairly frequently, especially in free dailies. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That one's correct. I see Commons images everywhere, and would see much more if they were attributed correctly. We could engage media on our side as far as they admit using Commons as an image bank (some of them might say it is irrelevant, especially if they have their own commercial image databases). --Oop (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wonder how it should work for Google Maps for example (or Panopramio?) where you can see the images of millions of buildings, while you are browsing in Street view mode? I can view a building from all sides from example - even better than a 2D picture. --Vodnokon4e (talk) 05:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually: has anyone tried to contact Google and ask for their stance on this proposal? Legally, it should influence their Street View quite extensively, to put it mildly. Also, have any social networks had anything to say? Could we lure a supporting statement out of them? After all, it's their users that are at a legal risk here. --Oop (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FoP and small-scale businesses

I was thinking that this change must not only hurt the WM movement. It was mentioned above that large companies could likely buy off the royalties, but what if you're just a one-person business in photography or film-making? This would hurt your ability to work in public space, since it's unlikely that you're going to get all the authorizations (and in time), since that would likely be a day job. And what if you took pictures for your personal portfolio and posted them on, say FB, to advertise for your business, would you then breach FB's terms of service which state that 5.1 "You will not post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes or violates someone else's rights or otherwise violates the law."? I'm bringing this up because it might be good for our cause if we can bring in groups from the other side of the pond, i.e. people who usually have another view on copyright than the WM movement.--AWossink (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about pages like Facebook or Flickr themselves? Sure, private users are not using their holiday snaps of the Eiffel Tower at night commercially, but the sites do. Afair there have been (privacy-related) rulings against Facebook, forcing them to follow EU (or was it German/UK?) law. But then again I'm not sure if siding with Facebook for anything legal would send a good message to the public … --El Grafo (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook has a large data centre in Luleå, Sweden. No idea to what extent Swedish laws apply to that data centre. In Sweden there is also another FOP problem. The Swedish copyright law states that you have the right to 'depict' works in certain situations, and this right to 'depict' works includes FOP. Some people claim that the right to 'depict' works doesn't include the right to post pictures to the Internet. There is currently an ongoing legal dispute between the Swedish Wikimedia chapter and an organisation representing sculptors about pictures of sculptures appearing on a WMSE website, which will have to be sorted out by the Swedish supreme court at some point. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a link to that dispute? We're working on a FoP proposal in Estonia and all kinds of information would be very much appreciated. --Oop (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed some claims on various Internet pages that Swedish FOP does not apply on the Internet. For example, here is information material from an organisation (sv:BUS) which represents artists which states that FOP does not apply on the Internet (at the bottom of page 2). Others, such as Commons, reject this position (see COM:FOP#Sweden for example). From what I have understood, the position that FOP does not apply on the Internet mainly seems to be held by people who would benefit from there being no FOP, but the exact legal meaning of the word 'depict' is apparently unclear. WMSE created a website, http://offentligkonst.se/, which contains information about public artworks and pictures of many of the artworks. This website was created without seeking permission from the sculptors and other artists. BUS, holding the position that FOP does not apply on the Internet, decided to sue WMSE in June 2014. The legal system is very slow and there does not seem to be any court ruling available yet. You can find information about the website hosting the images at wmse:Offentligkonst.se/English and about the lawsuit at wmse:Offentligkonst.se/Stämning (only available in Swedish). If you're asking for specific information about the case, then I suggest that you ask someone from WMSE since I don't know more than what is available on these pages at the chapter wiki. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

News from Italy

This afternoon we were at the Italian Parliament for an already scheduled event which engaged Wikimedia Italia, some MPs and the UnderSecretary for Culture, and we mostly talked about FOP and other similar subjects. A video about the entire event is available here (click on the link "download", end of page on the right - appr. 500Mb in .mp4 - of course, it's only in Italian). The event ended with both an important MP and the said UnderSecretay ensuring they will act at a European level in order to avoid such an act to be enforced through the help of European MPs. And actually they started acting.
I believe that, at this stage, this endorsement should be known across the Projects (the sooner the better) so that other states' MPs can be informed that we obtained this engagement by the Italian representatives. So I hope you can help us in spreading the news, it would really be very important. Thank you in advance --g (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please upload the video on archive.org. --Nemo 07:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that should the Italian attempt succeed, the situation would be the same as now: Italy still wouldn't have FoP and the rest of Europe would have. Thus is Italy which is fighting for keep granting to the other countries a right it doesn't have. I expect for the countries that have FoP to lobby in EU for extending FoP to EU countries which currently DO NOT HAVE it, instead. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 14:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio, the first step is to avoid that the modification is enabled. That would cancel FOP in other Countries too, giving as a result a EU completely without FOP, i.e.: those Countries which now enjoy FOP, would lose that freedom. (g not logged in) --87.29.240.98 15:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, Gianfranco. I just would point out that we Italians are in first line fighting a battle that should see our European colleagues in front :) -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 17:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Italy was/is not the only place in Europe where people are actively talking to politicians to promote FOP. This include France, Belgium and others. Romaine (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Video coming up at https://archive.org/details/barcamp-montecitorio-2015-06-22 --Nemo 07:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, Romaine. Incidentally, France is another country with no-FOP like Italy. I expect that people from countries with FOP are in first row, because are they who have to lose most if no-FoP is extended to the whole EU. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 21:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about EU countries without FoP? Aren't we forgetting about their side?

We are focusing here on the danger of losing FoP in countries which have it. But as I understand it, the law could also swing the other way - enforce FoP in countries which were missing it. Shouldn't we design a banner and information page variants for those countries, too? They have nothing to save, but FoP to gain instead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I live in one of those countries. In Estonia, we have been lately working on raising the issue with the ultimate goal to present a bill to the Parliament for changing our copyright law and establishing FoP, in one way or another. Current events put all our work in danger. So, we're actively participating in WMCEE cooperation to spread the information, coordinate efforts and make a joint declaration by as many affiliated organizations as we can get. Concerning different groups of countries, it might be prudent to prepare three messages and three banners: 1) for countries who would lose FoP; 2) for countries who do not have it currently but might now lose their chances in the future, too; 3) for countries that are not (currently) in EU but support us, as EU should set a standard in free culture for the other countries, instead of a bad example (some of those already have FoP, like Armenia and Russia; some are interested in joining EU one day). --Oop (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Reda's initial idea was to introduce FoP across the EU, but it backfired completely and lead to the amendment we are now facing. Few people know what is going on inside the European parliament, but Reda's original wording died in committee and I find it unlikely that 376 MEPs can agree on a new wording that both saves FoP for those who have it and extends it to the entire union. The only real option would be to strike that paragraph altogether, which would mean that FoP remains an issue that is devolved to the members states. Basically, if we "win" it's status quo.

That said, we will need all the support we can get. The countries that have FoP at the moment may be in the majority, but many of their MEPs are very wobbly on this issue. I've read some worrying things, particularly from S&D and EPP members. So support from opposition MEPs from non-FoP countries can be helpful. Väsk (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to bring architects into trouble who possibly calculated with the income from license royalties when they issued the invoice to public authorities. If it had my support, it would be some non-commercial-must-be-allowed-clause or allowance of photos of buildings erected after 2020 or similar. Of course the legislator is allowed to change laws but I believe laws are like a contract between parties and they should not change in a way one party will be disadvantaged over others. -- Rillke^(q?) 21:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly talking, Rillke, I never saw any architect from a country which allows FoP sitting in a corner while extending a begging bowl. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 13:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and you are missing that experience :P? I know that architects belong the the group with highest incomes, still it would be like taking a portion of food away from a supermarket and suddenly declaring it as common property. -- Rillke^(q?) 14:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong example. An architect's work ends once the building they built is given to its legitimate propertor. Once you own the building you own the building, you aren't simply having a licence of using it for your personal use like a book or a CD. Once you destroy the building there's no longer a building. Once you destroy a CD or a book there is still the opera. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 14:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rillke, that's a wrong argument. Architects do not earn their living from a copyright, but for selling buildings. Apart very rare exceptions, revenue from selling license of their work is non-existent for architects. That's the fundamental difference between architects and photographers or film makers. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Architects may, artists possibly do not (Christo and Jeanne-Claude claim they required the income from license fees for re-funding their action). -- Rillke^(q?) 23:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rillke, I deeply respect the architects' right to keep a copyright upon their works; but a bi-dimensional work like a photograph can never be competitive in the economical exploitation of the creative impulse which results, as a sole and alone outcome, in a three-dimensional work. I.e., if you're an architect yourself, let's say a plagiarist one, just go try to sell to a would-be customer of yours a picture of someone else's house, try then presenting it to your local Authorities instead of a technical building project, pretending that it should be sufficient: since the no-FoP act says it's the same thing, if they don't realise it's a plagiarism, you should be consequently allowed to build a house with a simple pic instead of a technical plan...
Moreover, a building can be plagiarised only by another architect (or similar professional); but when I am that evil architect, I don't need a picture to copy another's work (its facades, no more, I could copy from a picture), I can go to the local cadaster where I can see the work's technical documents, after which I'm immediately able to copy the whole structure, knowing where to put the pillars and where to let the sewage pass, and other details that it's impossible to discover from a picture. Indeed, I never heard of a trial for architectural plagiarism through photographic pictures.
Where and how can you plagiarise an architect with a simple picture? And if you can't plagiarise him, because you simply cannot, why has the architect's copyright to be protected with unrelated prohibitions directed to unrelated citizens? --g (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rillke, Christo is a special, and very controversial case. Yann (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rillke: In this, I agree with Yann: It's likely that in most cases, architects in fact welcome FoP, as the dissemination of images of their buildings is good publicity for them, and may help them to get more building contracts - and this is what makes money for them; except maybe some cases of very famous buildings, photo licensing fees certainly aren't a good source of income for architects. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While we are talking

The German Wikipedia has implemented its own banner and a vote, now with almost 2,000 people signing a letter to the EU parliament at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Offener_Brief_an_die_Mitglieder_des_Europ%C3%A4ischen_Parlaments_zur_Erhaltung_der_Panoramafreiheit . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a place for us to vote on whether we should use a banner or not

Please see my proposed section at Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama_2015/Proposed_messages#Vote_for_whether_to_implement_the_banner_or_not. Feel free to refine it, but within 24h we should post it in the Village Pump and other places, and try to reach a consensus within 72h after that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Freedom of Panorama world map.png

Hi, It is quite time to create a SVG version. That would help for translations. See Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop#Freedom of Panorama through out the world. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True. I'm doing that, but it might take a while. So if someone is faster, please go ahead (just leave a note here, preferably). — Julian H.^✈ 16:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First result here:

— Julian H.^✈ 15:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Julian Herzog: What's the difference between

OK for buildings only

and

OK for buildings and some public interiors

? Please compare also File:Panoramafreiheit in Europa (Karte).png--Kopiersperre (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is based on Commons:Freedom of panorama#Netherlands. — Julian H.^✈ 13:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NoW

This page is very useful to anyone that want to help Wikipedia. Thierry Caro (talk) 16:57, 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.

And by the way, "Please think twice.'" is not enough. Matters like this needs to be thought through much more times. Romaine (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: 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) 18:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea, contacts on Flickr

I had sent an email explaining the problem and asking for support to all my contacts on Flickr. Perhaps others could do the same to spread the word. I'm thinking in creating a group on Flickr showing opposition to that problem, then Flickr users could join to it to support the Freedom of Panorama, what do you think? Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea, through it's worth keeping in mind Flickr never cared about FoP. Frankly, Wikipedia sites are the only ones I know that enforce such rules. Our copyright-paranoia-nazi-police has no equals, for better or worse. In theory, Flicr and its users should care, but in practice, since their photos have never, to my knowledge, been affected (except some exceptional cases), and nobody deletes FoP-vios wholesale from their site, I am not sure if they can be convinced it's a real issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Galician tale

At Galician wikipedia we started in year 2008 a project: get at least one photo for our 313 Galician municipalities. A lot of users worked very much, travelling to some municipalities without photo, contacting with users from Flickr and Panoramio to change their licences, etc, and at year 2013 we reached our goal. But then we started two new projects: get a photo of all town houses of the Galician municipalities, and get a photo of all the Galician parishes! But all that hard work could be destroyed if EU remove Freedom of Panorama... We want show to the world our land, cities, and people: EU, let us do it! Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed law eliminating FoP is BECAUSE of Wikipedia?

User:Odder posted an interesting comment at en:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Limiting_the_monopoly_of_Wikimedia. Has this been translated? Can anyone translate parts relevant to Wikipedia? It would be quite interesting if indeed some people want to kill FoP because of us. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't translate it as usual, I would keep this page safe and far from the risk of a copyright issue... :-| However, in a nutshell he says that:

M.mme Reda is fighting, pretending she wants free access to public domain works, to allow instead american monopolies like Facebook and Wikimedia to shirk, elude, circumvent the fees they should pay for the rights of authors.
Why [Cavada asks] should the american monopolies be protected at the people's cost? Because, this way, they [FB & WP] could keep on using the European patrimony in order to manipulate consumers ("manipuler les consommateurs").

(let me skip FB)

Wikimedia, when negotiating with authors, always asks for unacceptable conditions such as high definition, editability, commercial license. It's an attempt to escape from the payment of rights (tentatives délibérées d’échapper au paiement des droits aux auteurs, aux ayants droits ou aux sociétés de gestion collective). This is the true reason [don't forget it's Cavada speaking] for this campaign by our opponents.
The amendments by Mrs Reda are liberticides (freedom killers) and those two service providers [FB &WP] would be the only ones to - totally unpunished - benefit from them, damaging all the European culture and creativity.
[...]
My scope is to protect creators and consumers, FB & WP, as well as Instagram and Flickr, have nothing of philantropic societies, they started by making themselves unreachable, then they created an addiction in their readers, so that they can avoid paying for the authors' rights.

(I regret this translation can be too close or too far from the original, but had Mr. Cavada released it with a public license, his thoughts would have been rendered with the utmost loyalty, also because this would have helped us more than a hundred campaigns)
Some of us (me too) tried to write him here some comments, which haven't been published yet. Tonight we learnt that (fr) Cavada had to leave his party and it is not known what will he do tomorrow. --g (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cavada is a dinosaur who is looking at his slow death. People like him used to have a monopoly on creating content, and with the Web 2.0, it has gone. He represented the man of knowledge, so obviously WP is killing him in the same way as Britannica and others. He is so out of touch with the reality... Curiously (or not), this species can be found in the whole political spectrum, from the extreme left to the extreme right. But I don't think one can find such an opinion in the next generation. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so majority is in support. Now what?

Ok, we have ~100% support for using the banner, so I think it's time for some people to be bold like on the German Wikipedia, and implement the banner before it is too late. Few more days of voting won't change the picture much, but make this entire exercise worthless. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's a fail... everyone is waiting for *someone else* to take action. or no admin is watching this. Oh well, English Wikipedia (to my surprise) implemented the banner, which means a much higher impact that Commons would have. Would have been nice to educate some fellow Commoners, but,.. oh well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid question, you can check what happened on Meta. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe here, actually I have no clue how, but I know where it's managed.

–Be..anyone (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus and Be..anyone, in gl.wiki, ca.wiki and es.wiki, the banner was implemented 2 or 3 of July by CentralNotice, and 3 of July we received that advice and now I think that it's deactivated, then I think that the time is out for Commons... Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile

I think the point needs to be made that the mobile-version of this banner does not display well... Firstly a) I acknowledge that no design-staff were involved in the implementation of the banner and b) I fully support the banner itself, and the idea that we should use this location to advocate for this topic (as long as it's geo-targeted to the relevant place). However, I think that the banner in the mobile-view suffers from some of the things that, if the WMF-fundraising team did them, we would be very angry about it. Specifically:

the banner covers the whole screen, you have to scroll down before you 'find' any normal content.
the 'x' dismiss button is very small,
the design is not made for mobile, but squeezes the desktop content into a mobile shape (making awkward font sizes and image alignment).

If these things can be fixed before the end of the campaign, that would be excellent. If not, then 'how will this display on mobile?' should become a specific question that is addressed before we do anything like this again in the future. Wittylama (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vote in parliament

The European Parliament has rejected today both the original proposal of Cavada MEP to limit freedom of panorama to non-commercial use (note that he called on MEPs to vote against his proposal), and the amendment of Schaake MEP et al. to reinstate Reda's original proposal to extend freedom of panorama to the whole of the European Union. This means parliament's position is to preserve the status quo. Woodcutterty (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]