User:Gamaliel/Special desk/FoP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue



FoP

European Parliament rejects paragraph against Freedom of Panorama, adopts report on copyright reform

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Jheald
Appropriate caption.

Need more context here; summarize everything that has happened so far before the occurrence of the vote in a first paragraph or two. What is freedom of panorama? What is it important?

A paragraph against freedom of panorama was overwhelmingly rejected by the European Parliament in voting on the Reda report on copyright reform on 9 July. (See previous Signpost coverage here, here and here).


Previously, three weeks ago, the parliament's Legal Affairs committee had voted by a three-to-one margin for a text recommending 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", in direct opposition to the principle of freedom of panorama, with unanimous support from the MEPs from the two largest groups in the parliament, the centre-right EPP and the centre-left S&D, including their representatives from countries that currently have freedom of panorama. However in the vote on Thursday, the proposition was decisively rejected, by 40 votes to 502. The remainder of the report was adopted almost unchanged from the version which emerged from the committee stage three weeks ago. The focus on copyright reform will now move from the parliament to the European Commission, which is expected to bring forward legislative proposals in the early autumn.


Photographer Nico Trinkhaus hands over a petition with 480,000 signatures supporting freedom of panorama to MEP Julia Reda.

The previous day photographer Nico Trinkhaus had presented a petition containing 480,000 signatures to Julia Reda, the MEP with responsibility for the report, supporting freedom of panorama and calling for its extension to all countries of the European Union. (The petition has since exceeded 550,000 signatures). In the debate itself (video) MEPs spoke frequently of having received hundreds of letters and emails on the subject. Organisations across Europe had also weighed in, including the National Union of Journalists and the British Photographic Council in the UK, representing a coalition of photography organisations, as well as (to give just one example) some of the highest profile museums in Catalonia. Most European-language Wikipedias had been running banner campaigns for the last week before the vote, similar to those on English Wikipedia, co-ordinated through interwiki equivalents of the page Wikipedia:Freedom of Panorama 2015, featuring blacked-out images of buildings and sculptures to warn of the threat.


Whilst there was some confidence before the debate that the Legal Affairs committee text would be removed, expectations were not high for an alternative amendment in support of freedom of panorama, submitted by the Dutch Social-Liberal MEP Marietje Schaake with a number of MEPs especially from ALDE (the group of both Ms Schaake and Jean-Marie Cavada), but also some other groups. Before the debate, the EPP had put out a press release saying that "the four big political groups in the European Parliament (EPP, S&D, ALDE and ECR) support the status quo. For them, Member States should be able to decide the rules on panorama at national level, as is currently the case." Cavada too had attacked Schaake's amendment as upsetting the "political equilibrium", while a staffer in his office "regretted that she forgot for a while that Mr. Cavada is the JURI shadow rapporteur for ALDE." One article, representing a common expectation, wondered if it would be "dead on arrival". But in the event the amendment did better than almost anyone expected, being rejected by 228 votes to 303 – needing only another 40 more MEPs to have switched for it to have succeeded.


The present map of freedom of panorama in Europe – destined to continue?
  OK, including works of art
  OK for buildings only
  OK for non-commercial use only
  Not OK
  Unknown

Following the vote, the S&D group put out a press release significantly warmer to the idea of extending freedom of panorama than that of the EPP the previous day. The release quoted Mary Honeyball MEP as saying that "Legislation differs greatly between member states on this issue and we did not believe a one-size fits all approach made sense at this time. We support freedom of panorama and European rules to extend it could be looked at in the future. However we need a thorough evaluation of existing national approaches before we do this"; while in the view of her colleague Evelyn Regner MEP "We should extend this freedom, not restrict it - public space should not be privatised."


For himself, the European Commissioner Günther Oettinger made clear his support for freedom of panorama: "We (i.e. the Commission) think the principle should be that a free Europe should also involve the freedom to take photographs of monuments and buildings. This should not be limited. I just want to calm you down on that subject, there is no restriction planned on our part." ... "For me the following principle applies: Whatever people can see with their own eyes as citizens in the public places and streets of Europe, they should be able to photograph with a camera: I make no distinction between the eye and records of the eye via a camera and pictures. So: All this excitement was, at least as the Commission is concerned, unnecessary. We do not intend to follow in this area some of the proposals from the Parliament and the Committee of Experts." Later he added that "Relatively much discussion has been taken up by the topic of freedom of panorama freedom - in my opinion, a pure phantom. We should not engage in phantom debates. Restriction of freedom of panorama was not a Commission idea. It apparently was a misunderstood idea in a specialist Parliament committee, which was not supported today by any person. So we can say here in public that it was a misunderstanding in the Committee, and never the intention of the bulk of MEPs. We do not want to restrict the existing schemes. Freedom of panorama will in future be preserved on the basis of national legislation and not limited on the European level. What that leaves is a smart marketing move by Wikipedia, granted. But from now on back to the essential issues and no more of this Phantom, which is finished with in my opinion."


This appears to be a commitment by Oettinger to stand by existing national legislation – but also to the principle of freedom of panorama, which is not assured by some existing national legislation. It remains to be seen over the next few months whether this tension will be resolved.


Regarding the report as a whole, the most detailed presentation of which can be found on Reda's website, the French collecting society for dramatic authors (SCAD) considered it had been turned into a "Reda anti-report" by the amendments of the Legal Affairs committee. CEPIC, representing European photo libraries, had earlier highlighted some of the ways the report's original proposals had been either "narrowed ... abandoned ... or put out to more evidence gathering" by the committee. SAA, representing screenwriters [1] ... more ...


... reporting round-up including older reports & the register ...


Result:

... now waiting for press coverage

Older material:

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Wikipedia talk:Gamaliel/Special desk/FoP

The Signpost needs your help putting together the next issue.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gamaliel/Special_desk/FoP&oldid=1132052617"