3 ms·

So since this is widely misreported currently, here is how I understand the situation: * Freedom of panorama is the freedom to take a picture of a building or

So since this is widely misreported currently, here is how I understand the situation: * Freedom of panorama is the freedom to take a picture of a building or environment that might be copyrighted. The EU currently allows countries to restrict this right because of historical context. * There are a handful of countries that restrict that usage (France, Belgium etc.) * They now want to add a new rule in place that allows to make a distinction between commercial and noncommercial usage. * There is no push to reduce the Freedom of Panorama in countries that do not have it restricted.

icebraining 11y ago
If the EU currently allows country to restrict this, why would a new rule be needed to allow to make a distinction between commercial and noncommercial usage?
- the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
  > If the EU currently allows country to restrict this, why would a new rule be needed to allow to make a distinction between commercial and noncommercial usage? Because it's very annoying to have to consult local laws to figure out if you can use a picture or not. The idea is that you end up with three levels: free to use, free to use for non commercial use, restricted. A country would then no longer be permitted to add special excemptions other than those (for instance it would be not permitted to say "restricted but free for professional magazines" or something like that)
  - icebraining 11y ago
    A country would then no longer be permitted to add special excemptions other than those Ah, I didn't get that from your earlier post.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    > A country would then no longer be permitted to add special excemptions other than those A country would no longer be permitted to allow commercial use, period. EU law does not allow member states to add additional copyright exemptions.
TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
> There is no push to reduce the Freedom of Panorama in countries that do not have it restricted. This is not true. European copyright law would not allow individual member states to introduce exceptions beyond what it explicitly permits. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_in_2015/Learn_more https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europ... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_2015_EVA_GESAC https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_2015_EVA... > They now want to add a new rule in place that allows to make a distinction between commercial and noncommercial usage. Yes, but "non-commercial usage" and "commercial usage" are poorly-defined terms, particularly in the Internet age.
- the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
  > This is not true. European copyright law would not allow individual member states to introduce exceptions beyond what it explicitly permits. Maybe I did not make myself clear: a country that does not have a restriction on freedom of panorama will not have a restriction after those rules. This only tries to harmonize the restrictions between the countries that have such restrictions already.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    > Maybe I did not make myself clear: a country that does not have a restriction on freedom of panorama will not have a restriction after those rules. No, existing member states will have a restriction. It will only have Freedom of Panorama for non-commercial use. Member states are NOT allowed to have freedoms beyond those in the directive: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_2015_EVA_GESAC#Will_the_provision_adopted_by_the_JURI_Committee_rule_out_the_exceptions_that_are_in_place_in_some_Member_States.3F https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_2015_EVA...
  - kuschku 11y ago
    That’s wrong! The new law would add those restrictions for ALL the countries. That’s why everyone is in such an uproar. The changed proposal would make it illegal for a nation to allow the freedom of panorama. Read the blog of the MEP who wrote the original proposal (which had a clause saying that the Freedom of panorama should apply everywhere): https://juliareda.eu/2015/06/fop-under-threat/ https://juliareda.eu/2015/06/fop-under-threat/

icebraining 11y ago

If the EU currently allows country to restrict this, why would a new rule be needed to allow to make a distinction between commercial and noncommercial usage?

the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
> If the EU currently allows country to restrict this, why would a new rule be needed to allow to make a distinction between commercial and noncommercial usage? Because it's very annoying to have to consult local laws to figure out if you can use a picture or not. The idea is that you end up with three levels: free to use, free to use for non commercial use, restricted. A country would then no longer be permitted to add special excemptions other than those (for instance it would be not permitted to say "restricted but free for professional magazines" or something like that)
- icebraining 11y ago
  A country would then no longer be permitted to add special excemptions other than those Ah, I didn't get that from your earlier post.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  > A country would then no longer be permitted to add special excemptions other than those A country would no longer be permitted to allow commercial use, period. EU law does not allow member states to add additional copyright exemptions.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

> There is no push to reduce the Freedom of Panorama in countries that do not have it restricted. This is not true. European copyright law would not allow individual member states to introduce exceptions beyond what it explicitly permits. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_in_2015/Learn_more https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europ... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_2015_EVA_GESAC https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_2015_EVA... > They now want to add a new rule in place that allows to make a distinction between commercial and noncommercial usage. Yes, but "non-commercial usage" and "commercial usage" are poorly-defined terms, particularly in the Internet age.

the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
> This is not true. European copyright law would not allow individual member states to introduce exceptions beyond what it explicitly permits. Maybe I did not make myself clear: a country that does not have a restriction on freedom of panorama will not have a restriction after those rules. This only tries to harmonize the restrictions between the countries that have such restrictions already.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  > Maybe I did not make myself clear: a country that does not have a restriction on freedom of panorama will not have a restriction after those rules. No, existing member states will have a restriction. It will only have Freedom of Panorama for non-commercial use. Member states are NOT allowed to have freedoms beyond those in the directive: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_2015_EVA_GESAC#Will_the_provision_adopted_by_the_JURI_Committee_rule_out_the_exceptions_that_are_in_place_in_some_Member_States.3F https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama_2015_EVA...
- kuschku 11y ago
  That’s wrong! The new law would add those restrictions for ALL the countries. That’s why everyone is in such an uproar. The changed proposal would make it illegal for a nation to allow the freedom of panorama. Read the blog of the MEP who wrote the original proposal (which had a clause saying that the Freedom of panorama should apply everywhere): https://juliareda.eu/2015/06/fop-under-threat/ https://juliareda.eu/2015/06/fop-under-threat/