The current situation of freedom of panorama in the countries of Europe. The current report text would turn the map red or yellow for all EU countries. Note: this is not a map of the European Union, It is map of Europe and some of the countries shown here will not be affected by this legislation.
OK, including works of art
OK for buildings only
OK for non-commercial use only
Not OK
Unknown
Today, photos of the European Parliament are not allowed to be on Wikipedia......which is also the case for pictures of the Belgian national monument, the Atomium, but ...under the EP proposal, this would also affect the London Eye (England), ......Rotterdam Central trainstation (Netherlands), ...... El Hemisférico (Valencia, Spain) and many more...
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.)
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.
We definitely need to take action over this. Please {{ping}} me if I don't check in on any proposals, decisions or !votes. — OwenBlacker (director/trustee of Open Rights Group; Talk)
Do we know if this will also affect EFTA countries? Will Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein eventually be required to implement the revised Copyright Directive? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely for Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein! As far as I know Switzerland is not formally an EFTA country, though it does have many similar agreements with EU so it, too, may be affected. --Hordaland (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing (WMF): Is the WMF tuned into this at the broader topic level of freedom of panorama? I'm pretty sure you're the wrong person to ping but I figure it's a start. --Izno (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support According to one estimate, an issue needs at least 30 emails to an MEP, from their own local constituents, plus some follow-up phone calls, to get onto a typical MEP's radar. To get MEPs to have signed amendments by 2 July -- only ten days away now -- we need to start getting the message out, and fast. Jheald (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a matter of general concern to everyone here, and to everyone who may not edit, but uses the encycopedia. Politics directly related to our primary mission is part of our primary mission. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support smaller banners. This is an effort to enclose the commons of shared knowledge - there aren't many such efforts, but they all directly hamper the work of Wikipedia and other free knowledge projects. This is a much more direct attack on our work than SOPA was (even though SOPA might have had more far-reaching impact): it is trying to restrict a set of knowledge that is currently free, and is currently widely used and relied upon on the wikiprojects.
It might be useful to run banners on a subset of pages that might be affected (if that is possible), saying that images on that page might be removed as a result. That would clarify why this matters to readers. – SJ + 23:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a direct threat to Wikipedia's mission. Reywas92Talk 00:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly an issue that impacts Wikipedia in a real and meaningful way and en.wikipedia in particular. I'm opposed to us having banners even for great causes unless they impact how Wikipedia works in a significant way. This crosses that line quite easily. Hobit (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This EU proposal would break lots of articles. If possible, only display the banners for people accessing the projects from the European Union. The Wikimedia Foundation is already able to identify the country of the person visiting the project as fundraising banners suggest that you donate money in local currency. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This affects our core mission. Sandstein 20:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG SUPPORT - this is shocking. Much like WP advocated against SOPA by going dark, WP needs to stand up against this lunacy. If I take a photo of a statue in Yerevan or the DIsneyland Paris Hotel, the image is mine to do with as I please. These are public buildings and monuments and belong to the people. By the way, Wiki Loves Monuments brought a ton of valuable amazing images to the public domain, and I think remains one of the best Wiki projects and contribution to the world of knowledge. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be pedantic, the Disneyland Paris Hotel is not a public building; it's a private building. Many monuments are public (owned by the people through the city, state, country, etc.) but some are not. Freedom of Panorama is about protecting images of buildings and monuments that are publicly viewable. This is a key distinction that might help clarify the issue for some. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I am not in the EU; but if I was I would definitely write or call my MP about this. This is a shocking and extremely detrimental expansion of IP laws that won't just hurt Wikipedia, but is a blow to freedom of the press. I told my husband, who is a journalist about this and he was shocked; thinking about how if he lived in a place with a law like that, how hard it would be to do his job reporting the news. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a non-EU resident; as others have said above this has a direct and profound impact on Wikipedia's mission, thus per WP:IAR. Ivanvector (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - First of all, this influences a lot of our work, as Wikipedia is a global project and we need as much access to material globally as we can get. It is currently quite problematic for, let's say, Armenian Wikipedia to show Estonian cultural heritage due to lack of FoP in Estonia. Secondly, although English Wikipedia is more global than any other language version (several of which can be seen as more or less local), this is the most widespread one for readers with any first language and therefore the best channel to broadcast the issue. Third, in UK and Ireland - which are very important for en.wiki - this proposal would eventually backroll FoP that has existed since 1911, so the impact would be harsh even if we thought that en.wiki shouldn't care much about non-English speaking countries. Furthermore, legal situation in EU is influential much wider than the borders of EU. --Oop (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support also sent one email to local EU parliament MP.--MirkoS18 (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the blacked out photos, but I'd prefer old-school rectangles. The text should be much shorter, like "A proposal in the European Union would force us to delete thousands of photos of buildings".— Preceding unsigned comment added by NaBUru38 (talk • contribs) 05:10, June 25, 2015 (UTC)
Support Since this specfically affects the encyclopedia's content, editors should be notified. Gmcbjames (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I'd really like to see it everywhere, not just the EU. SOPA blacked out the entire Wikipedia, and in Asia we are facing the TPP. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is an issue that affects us directly and is only barely noticed by the general public. If possible, only display the banners for people accessing from the European Union. --Sitic (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It absolutely does have a direct effect on the project as a whole and it's integrity. Imagery is important. You of course could have "fair use" media but with limited quality and quantity, making for a potentially mighty boring and less illustrative article. Much of the time and to many people a picture is really what builds the understanding of the subject, the text is just to present the history and depth behind it. This in my opinion applies as much to buildings as it does any other subject. I support a banner encouraging activism toward preventing such an enactment, in an effort that would reach well beyond Wikipedia but still be in perfect alignment with our goals — MusikAnimaltalk 03:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought Europe was far more advanced about these matters than those of us in the corporate United States. -- llywrch (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, most definitely. //Halibutt 07:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is a scary prospect that we have to fight against. —DSGalaktos (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is an attack on both Wikipedia and common sense. GregorB (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per DGG and Sitic. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a banner is a very clear and easy way to raise awareness.Ljgua124 (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, such images are important to Wikipedia, and such a ban would have a deleterious impact on the encyclopedia. WIkipedia should run a banner campaign on this issue. Poltair (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - More or less per GregorB. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — unlike SOPA, this banner won't prevent people from reading Wikipedia. I do not support the idea suggested of removing all images that would be banned by this law, as someone else suggest; I only agree with action that notifies people of the problem without stopping them from using our site. This includes the banner proposed, NPOV additions to the Main Page (e.g. ITN item; banner; DYK hook), notifications on watchlists, [further] Signpost articles etc. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 10:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the issue is certainly going to affect Wikipedia (unless the site just ignores such a law imposing widespread censorship). I like the dark banner, which seems more eye catching and ominous, which is the point. Randy Kryn 11:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, what a nerve to tap communication of every citizen and deter the public attention by introducing protection where none is needed. -- Kku 11:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support This has to be implemented as soon as possible. Time is running out. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something needs to be said to address the arrogance of power. Openskye (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Sandstein. Show this banner to everyone, because copyright maximalism is a worldwide problem. MER-C 12:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If you don't want your building to be photographed, don't build it in a public place. --Iantresman (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A banner is important in raise awareness of the issue and I can see can if the bill would be passed there would be a significant effect on the works of Wikipedia. — TaqPoltalkcontrib 12:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support These beautiful images are of great use to Wikipedia and it is in our interests to protest against this law to protect what we do, which is completly morally legitimate. My nameisnotdave (talk/contribs) 13:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – A serious threat to the free content movement and this project, so the deployment of banners to increase public awareness of what has been an obscure issue, is justified. CT Cooper ·talk 13:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur; support. DS (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We are a free compendium of information; that is our raison d'etre. This proposed legislation is a direct threat to that, and standing up to this kind of thing should be part of what we do. Frickeg (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This proposal is in direct opposition to the principles on which Wikipedia is founded and we have a right to take a stand.KorruskiTalk 14:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Do it. Readers should know that this poses a threat to the Wikipedia they know, love, and trust. --BDD (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This could strike at the foundation of what Wikipedia is. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support with reservations Totally ridiculous and restrictive for no good reason that I can see. I am concerned however that this could set a precedent for "Banner causes" of all sorts to just fly around willy nilly. I understand that this affects wikipedia directly, but I am worried that any kind of advocacy is against the neutrality that wikipedia is meant to uphold. Manic paranoia? Perhaps. A slippery slope? Well...I don't have the answers. I'd rather people just passed sensible laws in the first place but oh well. Man Over-bored (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I would like to see a neutral banner, allowing readers to make up their own mind whether the benefits to artists are worth losing the educational value of these images and millions more. I might be overreacting, but perhaps we will no longer be able to make a video call (over a commercial phone network) in a public place, or store a photo in a commercial file-sharing service like Facebook or Flickr! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Our mission as a movement is to provide free access to all of human knowledge for all. Any law or amendment in the way of that should face our full resistance. GLobal notifications is a good way to inform the general public (our readers) to the threat poised towards our mission. I actually want this notification to be visible worldwide, not just EU countries. We should give a message to politicians worldwide that we will not idly watch their ill decisions sabotage the mission of our movement. -- A Certain White Catchi? 16:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, support. While some will invariably complain about the politics of doing this, even Wikipedia exists in real world with real interests working against it, and it will need to defend itself against those interests if it is to remain relevant. If no objections are made, Wikipedia will become less valuable to users, but most of those users will not even realize that it is due to rights having been reversed by politicians.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. To paraphrase Protodrake and others, this strikes at the core of Wikipedia's purpose. PKT(alk) 16:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Might even grab the attention to get countries with restricted freedom of panorama to open up. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the 2nd banner. --Fixuture (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support; the legislation would damage Wikipedia's core mission. Blacking out the images (for a limited time) might also be a reasonable action. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 18:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an issue that directly affects the mission of the WMF. Awareness and a call to action is not only apropos but very warranted. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Failure to bring attention to the issue will cause more harm to the project than any perceived political advocacy. Prefer the content of the second banner but the style of the first. KrakatoaKatie 18:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the first banner preferentially, the second as a backup. BethNaught (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Yes. Not only for the direct effect on wikipedia but for deeper values. Lockley (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We fought against SOPA, we should fight for freedom of panorama, and any other issue that is in tune with our values. ‑‑mjgilsonT 21:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per many different people above. Not only would this be destroying a freedom previously enjoyed by many Europeans, it would be destroying not a small number of list articles and general information articles by limiting to one the number of fair use images we could use. This would have a huge impact on Wikipedia. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I can't imagine Wikipedia without panoramas. Eman235/talk 21:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per many of the above. This is an important stance to make for the values of the project. Manxruler (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a courtesy to our readers. gobonobo+c 23:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Do we realize how seriously this will impact Wikipedia? Any photo with an artificial structure in it will be forbidden unless the author can get the owners' permission. And perhaps the owners of any structures in the background. This will eviscerate articles across Wikipedia. In addition to buildings and artwork, how about people standing in public in front of buildings, etc., etc. In addition, this unbelievable law strikes at the heart of the key WP value - the freedom of public information. If we don't stand up for our values, our rights, we have no cause to complain when they are taken away. --ChetvornoTALK 00:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Freedom of panorama is critical to Wikipedia and the broader Wikimedia community. Michael Barera (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The project should oppose initiatives that hinder its mission. postdlf (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As a Architect, I understand the role that images and pictorial representations play in education, discussion, and criticism. Any proposal that would restrict the ability to circulate images would be fundamentally detrimental to the progress of Architecture as a whole, as there would be a curtailment of discussion and criticism. Wikipedia SHOULD protest this with a banner as it is a FUNDAMENTAL restriction on criticism and open discussion of the built environment. Without these images, some aticles would be deprived of much meaning.enigma_foundry (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support; Wikimedia should be coming out against this thing swinging. —Jeremyv^_^vBori! 04:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support, this is something that would get overlooked in the media, Wikipedia has a really good chance to make an impact here – Hshook (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support I think that many users of Wikipedia will be unaware to the potential impact - worth highlighting Smirkybec (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a very urgent issue, very important, and directly relevant for the future of Wikipedia. I prefer the smaller of the two proposed banners but would support either one. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A really daft proposal from the European parliament that doesn't benefit Europeans in the slightest and is also really harmful to Wikipedia. JMiall₰ 14:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The arguments against boil down to "Wikipedia shouldn't stand up for itself," which is nuts. Richard75 (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support: Revokation of a freedom of panorama would completely gut many articles and non-English Wikipedias (and that's beside the chilling effects it will have on freedom in the EU in general). This is a big an issue as SOPA. The English Wikipedia is still often the first choice even when there is a large Wikipedia in the local language, so if we want to raise awareness, we need a banner here. Kolbasz (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (per above), the least we can do. Would prefer to keep the campaign EU-only though. FDMS 4 17:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I am uneasy with using Wikipedia as a platform for an advocacy campaign, I'll make an exception this time because the propagation of free content is part of the scope of this site and the whole Wikimedia "system", and this proposed change to freedom of panorama is clearly detrimental to this scope. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It will be very sad if this law passes and we have to delete so many photographs of beautiful 20th-century buildings that we acquired through Wiki Loves Monuments. I certainly hope we won't have to delete anything - this would be such a blow to the uploaders, but also to the people curating all of those images each year. I think we should also stop WLM in protest if the law passes. Jane (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. However I do not believe that the banner image is correct because any such changes in law may not be applied retroactively and therefore there would be no need to remove already existing images from our servers. If the amendment is enacted, it would only apply to new uploads (let's hope it doesn't come to that). — Berean Hunter(talk) 18:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the taking of a photograph that is affected, it is the use of it. As such, it doesn't matter when the photo was taken or if it's already on Wikipedia/Commons - it simply couldn't be distributed with a license allowing commercial use anymore, which means that it could no longer be hosted on Wikipedia/Commons. Kolbasz (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the photo has already been published under a certain license then it already exists under those terms. I cannot see how the proposed amendment could affect pre-existing images under said licenses. Is there any other discussions which may clarify this? Has WMF legal clarified this? — Berean Hunter(talk) 20:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot re-licence a copyrighted work with a free one if you are the copyright holder. When you snap a photo of a copyrighted 3D object, it retains its copyright fully. FoP is an exception to that copyright allowing you to claim copyright of your own work independent of the 3D object itself. Mind that we have had "public domain" works magically becoming fully copyrighted before through something as simple as case law (due to some court decision) or signing of an international treaty such as Berne Convention or URAA. Public Domain isn't always as stable as you may think it would be. -- A Certain White Catchi? 02:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Support. Whom would this law benefit? By all means let us put our collective Wikipedian oar in. Tim riley talk 19:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I didn't even know taking pictures of a building and putting them online was illegal. Not only do I oppose the proposed amendment, but I also support the repeal of all laws restricting freedom of panorama.Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 23:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Banning the ability for a wikipedia article to actually show what a building or monument looks like directly harms the project, so it's in our interest to try to oppose such a measure. --PresN 00:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Most people are not aware of laws regarding freedom of panorama, but they take it for granted. Freedom of panorama is a form of freedom of speech, and such things are central to the Wikipedia movement. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 01:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support: Not only is this law a bad one but any law restricting panorama is boneheaded. Not just bad for Wikipedia but bad for freedom and artistic expression in general. I'm very much in favor of a banner and favor either 'D' or 'E2' on the Commons page since the "Imagine" slogan is more attention-grabbing than, "Wikipedia MUST have photos of buildings." Pleonic (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per DDG, MusikAnimal, et al. I personally prefer the first banner. —zziccardi (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV do not prevent this, because there's a higher policy: WP:IAR. The proposed amendment obviously does prevent the improvement of Wikipedia. Editor abcdef (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As per Korruski, I can't say it any better: "This proposal is in direct opposition to the principles on which Wikipedia is founded". 79616gr (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support This proposed law will damage our ability to function as an encyclopedia since it will decrease the quality of our articles on European buildings and works of art. While we should almost always follow our neutrality policy, at the end of the day WP:NPOV is not a suicide pact. We are the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and should defend ourselves from anything that prevents us from fulfilling this mission. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Would help to raise awareness of the issue. I'd never heard of it until just now. Tigerboy1966 06:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Total blackout. Maybe something similar to what Blackout Congress does with the US Congress. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I did not support the SOPA protests as I thought (and still think) that that protest was too overtly political. This issue, however, is directly relevant to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement, and I think it is legitimate to take a stance here. The most effective lobbying, will be for people and organisations in the EU to write to relevant MEPs and others who help decide these matters, but drawing attention to it in this manner will also help. Carcharoth (talk) 11:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Freedom of Panorama is essential to Wikipedia. JoJan (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: To be honest, even the concept that Freedom of Panorama was not universal was a shock for me to realise, being from a country that has freedom in that area. It is my belief Wikipedia is one of the best sources of knowledge, and preservers of history, that we (humans) have dreamed up. The architectural marvels of our world are part of that knowledge and history, and having no ability to freely and publicly share that is ridiculous, and extremely damaging to Wikipedia's ability to function. JTdaleTalk~ 14:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This represents a taking from the public domain and actively impacts the project. Protonk (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Going by my gut reactions, I could easily have opposed, but going by the actual facts, I find myself supporting with the highest of enthusiasm. My gut reaction is never to like intrusive banners on Wikipedia, and to be very reluctant to see Wikipedia take sides in political disputes. Plus, I'm a big believer in Wikipedia obeying existing copyright laws. But this isn't, yet, an existing law, and advocating to legislators before a vote is a fine thing for citizens to do, and, as noted by many other editors above, this issue goes right to the core of the Wikimedia Foundation's mission. Honestly, it boggles my mind: the utter unreasonableness of someone constructing a building or locating an artwork in public, but then insisting that their intellectual property will be harmed unless the public comes, in person, to see it, precluding others in the public from seeing it via photograph. That's just wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lack of freedom of panorama has been a continuing issue for me for many years while editing articles about Belgium. The inability to include even a simple photograph of important buildings and public art-works is detrimental to the utility and quality of our articles. I'd hate to see this affect so many more articles across Europe. I feel that too many readers of wikipedia may take for granted the information we provide - this is an important issue where we need to shout about how we (and consequently the readers) are affected by such laws. I would therefore support prominent banners, especially on those pages which could be affected by this ruling. --David Edgar (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Wikipedia would be more harmed by the loss of so many photographs than by the temporary imposition of some banners. - Nellis 15:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would greatly affect me personally, as I take photos of modern buildings for Wikipedia. -- Colin°Talk 15:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is in the interests of our mission to protest these changes. AGK[•] 16:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per the above. An issue that's definitely of top concern to us. Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 16:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Issue is directly relevant to the ability of volunteers to continue improving Wikipedia. John Cross (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support With WP's goal to encourage the development of free material, the EU action to restrict what formally was free would severely hamper our project, and thus we should encourage editors to comment to their respective representatives if they can. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This type of advocacy strikes at the heart of free knowledge and free culture. It's intimately related to our work and our ability to share humanity's cultural heritage with the world. Ocaasit | c 17:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The public space is there for the public or even owned by the public. It's high time the public claims ownership of it. If people want to put items in it, they should also accept that their work becomes part of the public space. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This topic is a threat to the central mission of Wikipedia, therefore taking actions and stepping out of a passive position is justifiable in this case. Shaddim (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an issue the clearly and directly affects the quality of Wikipedia. This is an unnecessary restriction and raising a banner will definitely raise awareness of our predicament. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't understand how it is possible that even though the deadline is next Wednesday there is still no banner on the English wiki. How can you be so complacent? The proposed new legislation would directly compromise Wikipedia's mission. Most of our readers don't even know that this is going on, and I know most would be dead against it. Just look at this vote, those opposing a banner are a fringe minority. And action has to be taken immediately: it's Sunday already! Time is off the essence and this is much more urgent than the funding drive, so put that banner up now!82.139.82.82 (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - WP must sustain itself. Usually that means pledge drives, but this is a special case. We must do what we can to maintain the content that we have and ease the creation of future content. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is the interest of the goals of Wikipedia: Free access to public information. Mvg, Timelezz (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Utterly critical to Wikipedia's interests and future. The proposal has this photographer's support. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Photos/pictures are an integral part of Wikipedia articles which hundreds of people edit daily at their own will, it is a shame that something like this could happen in Europe. You have my support, act quickly. JoshNEWK1998 (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is essential to Wikipedia. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty much per what Ocaasi stated. I hear what those opposing are saying, but one of our core aims is providing access to free information. This gets in the way of that. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes! 03:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I believe we should fight for what's important to Wikipedia.--RoadTrain (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a highly critical topic. Not just for Wikipedia. --bender235 (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trying to sublimate us in their void when such frozen music has served us well enough to inspire our palimpsests on here, it's absolutely ghastly. It is public space, and such a proposal is an anathema to our creed. No. No. No. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe that what public spaces look like, including the buildings you can see from them, is public information and should be treated as such. WaggersTALK 13:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support—stop this cancer. Tony(talk) 15:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm not a free culture warrior and think the decision to generally allow commercial reuse (with limited exceptions) is already biting Wikipedia in the butt but not adverse to educational banners of this sort. Carrite (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - IMHO freedom of panorama makes no arm to architects or sculptors, and limiting it to old things is both useless and unfair.--Pampuco (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I supported the SOPA banner, and I support this (if not moreso, due to the very direct impact this legislation will cause on Wikipedia). I understand the concerns about Wikipedia not being a platform for advocacy, but I think we have the responsibility as a site to defend ourselves and our values of free/open work. ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs 20:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This proposal is very restrictive and critical. Wikipedia will probably not be the same anymore if it gets passed. It is completely useless and brings us one step closer to censorship. Ron Oliver (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the proposal does not benefit artists and patrons who in good faith placed artworks or designed structures for public view and enjoyment. A banner alert is consistent with WP educational purpose, especially in a case related to copyright which will affect right to know.sinarau (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Absolutely! I am completely against the law as is Wikipedia, and this is a great way to protest this unjust law. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Let's get this put up ASAP, hopefully this will cause enough influence to save us. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Critical Issue. Artwork and buildings in a public space belong to the public. Knulclunk (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is public space. SLBedit (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Not just an issue for Wikipedia. But very encouraging to see Wikipedia trying to make a difference in a fair and democratic way. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as this would damage Wikipedia and hinder its mission of propagating free knowledge, per arguments above. --GGT (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support including recommending an action --Trödel 15:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Fight the power.--Catlemur (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support with the recommendation. Nergaal (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support including a banner. This legislation has the potential to directly affect the quality of the encyclopedia. VQuakr (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support having some sort of banner, but the existing white banner is super annoying, the graphics make it appear way too large when using a small browser window. Suppafly (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG SUPPORT - We need to stand up & fight against this bullshit of a "law" - It's absolutely moronic and benefits no one!!, People should be allowed to take and upload images of public buildings in a public place!. –Davey2010Talk 21:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This law will damage Wikipedia. Bass-Kuroi (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SUPER EPIC STRONG SUPPORT!!! This is a completely absurd law. If this law is passed, it means we cannot even take pictures of buildings and distribute them! Not only a problem on Wikimedia projects, but for millions of photographers!!! Unlimited FAAKS given to this stupid @$$ law!!! --Fazbear7891 (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a Commons admin who's going to have a right fucking headache if this becomes law. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as an EU citizen.Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a matter of saving admin's time if not anything else. Ezrado (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support FoP is just common sense. This would affect the project as a whole and should be protested project wide (site wide). --lTopGunl (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Personally, I also think that a petition in support of FoP be created and linked from the banner. Don't just let people know about the issue...give them an opportunity to do something! AHeneen (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Censoring what is plainly in public view is Orwellian. Reify-tech (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This would be a really backward step for the EU to take. Leutha (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Who on earth would this benefit? --Anarchyte 00:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, That amendment is stupid, and would hurt Wikipedia. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 01:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Obviously. -- Visviva (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unfortunately not an EU citizen, but on-board for the banners. Zortwort (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly we should be able to freely take pictures and publish anyone standing in front of places without groveling for permissions from everything in the background (a dozen street shops, some guys' weird cars, a parade of whatever). There is no sense at all in having a law that is unwieldy and totally against custom. Wikipedia would simply be an easy low hanging target and many others would also follow suit when the various robocops squash historic and journalistic photography. --Wetdreamshere (talk) 05:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support If it were a matter of restricting new uploads, I'd be opposed to the law but also opposed to the banners. If the new law is going t retroactively make thousands of files illegal—wow. People need to know. Does this mean people who've printed books, say, using these previously free images will now be subject to lawsuits? Curly Turkey¡gobble! 11:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as an European Union citizen. Hakken (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. To those who oppose any political stance by Wikipedia, I propose the following rule, justifying this, as well as the SOPA blackout: Wikipedia may not harm itself or, through inaction, allow itself to come to harm. (Adapted from Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics) Shankar Sivarajan 14:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankarsivarajan (talk • contribs)
Strong Support. I also believe that the banners should be shown globally. The legislation might be in the EU, but the impact from it will be global, as many of the photographers will be from outside the EU and the impact on viewers will be global. --Murph9000 (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a critical issue for Wikipedia. Pichpich (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - seems justified. Rlendog (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support banners that do not advocate a particular action
I would support a banner which informed the reader rather than advocated a particular action, in other words the banner should not say "must remain" but should inform the reader of the consequences of the proposed EU legislation. The reader can decide whether they want the images to remain. --Boson (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would support that. With rare exceptions, I am against advocacy on Wikipedia but I don't think we would be fulfilling our mission properly if lots of people, including MEPs, remained uninformed on current copyright law or the implications of proposed changes. If current events make the information particularly relevant, I don't think drawing special attention to the information would cross any boundaries inappropriately. --Boson (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support this idea. On one hand, adopting this amendment as law would significantly impact Wikipedia. On the other hand, I can't endorse using Wikipedia for advocacy, even for a campaign I'm participating in. A simple, informative banner (such as the one posted by Prokonsul Piotrus would be a good compromise. --Daniel Charms (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Generally I am against unrelated advocacy actions to "save the world" via Wikipedia. But this issue is close enough to Wikipedia's interests as an encyclopedia to merit some action. However I'd prefer the informative white layout instead of the attention grabbing black one. GermanJoe (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - While I am against limiting freedom of panorama and wouldn't really mind using either banner, I feel like the white banner may be more effective. I'm a little worried that the black banner might appear to readers to "force" an opinion on them—and not necessarily one they would agree with (or care about). An informative one like the white banner is more neutral and gives readers the chance to make their own decisions without feeling the same pressure. CabbagePotato (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for political activism. Generally, Wikipedia should not be taking a political stance on any issues other than those that threaten its existence (SOPA, etc). While it is clear how this proposal would undermine the mission of the project, it is not clear that it is so significant that it warrants turning the main page into a platform for political activism for any length of time. On the other hand, I have no issues with neutrally drawing attention to an issue that affects the project with a non-obnoxious banner for a reasonable length of time. The white banner seems to fit that bill. ~ RobTalk 23:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I Support using an informative banner like the white example. This would draw attention to impending decisions with implications in Wikipedia, ensuring more people know about this, while at the same time maintaining a neutral stance. That is what an encyclopedia should be doing. On the other hand, this may not be an adequate measure, so the black banner or something similar may have to be used. Quite a lot is at stake here. Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to use the white banner first, to inform people about what is going on and what is at stake. If the ridiculous proposition moves forward then we could use the black banner. Just an idea...but whatever we do, we have to do it now. Green547 (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the white banner, but the black one is better than nothing. I think some people supporting this law do not understand the implications. (Who really understands copyright anyway?) We need to show them its impact before it hits. And this is an issue touching us directly. Even without counting the huge loss of content, the amount of volunteer time that will be needed to delete every picture affected by this, and reformat articles, will be crippling to the encyclopedia. Perhaps that should be added to the banner as well. Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support using an informative banner like the white example. This seems a thoroughly bad law that nobody has thought through and from which probably no one would benefit. Some opposers, think that ways could be found to circumvent the law, perhaps that is true, nonetheless an information campaign is apt, since I suspect that it has never occurred to most of us/EU users that any photo taken in a public space COULD be subject to copyright restrictions.Pincrete (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving from oppose in regards to post by the proposer of the amendment singling out Wikimedia. White banner looks nicer and has better wording. Winner 42Talk to me! 19:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the white banner. We can alert and inform users of the implications this impending decision has in store for Wikipedia (and other sites) without appearing to be alarmist. I think readers/editors would generally more be receptive to learning about this proposition and its potentially hazardous consequences if their attention were drawn to the matter with a sober approach that does not have the feel of a "scare tactic".--JayJasper (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I Support this section easily. White banner with good, sober information as opposed to "You must call your MEP right now!" Thanks. --Hordaland (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Assuming the "learn more" button takes the user to a page which also does not advocate a particular position. Perhaps it just takes them to the Wikipedia article on the law? (Apologies if this has been addressed but I missed it in the sea of text). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This would be the best way of protecting Wikipedia while remaining maximally NPOV. Tideflat (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose banners
Oppose While this is a possible issue, I don't think that using Wikipedia is the right step. What we need to remember is that in many countries, this is already the case. Personally, I feel that using Wikipedia to oppose a political movement is stepping outside the neutrality argument. SOPA has not set a precedent, and in some ways I'm disappointed that people keep trying to use it as such. Overall, I feel that while this is a good cause, plastering an appeal all over the top of every page is an overreaction, partly because 99% of readers will have no interest or idea what freedom of panorama is about, and are unlikely to act on it. Mdann52 (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdann52: While I'd agree on most issues, this is one that will directly affect Wikipedia — we would have to remove images from articles about buildings and other cultural works from anywhere in the EU, which includes two English-speaking countries and a population larger than the USA. I agree SOPA isn't necessarily a precedent for using Wikipedia per se, but it certainly is a precedent for "Wikipedia itself might protest political issues that affect Wikipedia". Does that change your position any or do we disagree about ever using Wikipedia to protest any issue, even if it affects Wikipedia itself? (Obviously, your position is entirely legitimate, either way... :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenBlacker: I do agree this is an issue that we will have to face - however, I disagree with the removing image points, at least on this Wiki - we can use images under fair use provisions, which can well be expanded if needed. Also, I'm unsure how this will relate to existing buildings - will copyright be restored (a questionable move), or will it, as I suspect, remain such if it was taken before the new legislation, and alter later. Additionally, I would argue that using a banner is likely to be highly unreliable in terms of results - for example, how many people just dismiss the fundraising banner without even reading it, or outright ignore it? Mdann52 (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdann52: Per current views on WP:NFC, if these images went non-free we would typically restrict to only one image allowed, restricted to an article which specifically had the building or artwork as main topic.
The situation on non English-language wikis would be worse, as they typically would not be able to show any images. (U.S. fair use isn't held to apply, as they are not primarily directed at the U.S.)
Banners can actually be quite effective in gaining attention, particularly on say 1-display-every-5th-page rotation, and if they aren't trying to separate people from their money. I believe they also usually come with a "Seen this, don't show me again" kill switch. Jheald (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That example would probably still be ok - they are different buildings, so they seem to fall under my understanding of WP:NFCC. I've asked people about this, and they all feel that they are not only uninterested in this, but they just dismiss any such banners without reading them. Also, this does not format well in mobile view, maybe take a look at that? Mdann52 (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section.
Personally, I'd prefer that we were slightly more liberal with our use of non-Free content, but the community more widely disagrees (and being a Free encyclopædia is one of the central tenets of Wikipedia, after all).
Unfortunately, "SOPA has not set a precedent" looks a lot like "politics is only permissible concerning the U.S., the rest of the world is not our concern". The same, actually, goes for the general policy of appealing to the fair use - many English-speaking countries do not have fair use, so sticking to that makes Wikipedia look even more Amerocentric than we think it is. People's lack of interest is not much of an argument, either, as most people won't care about any legal issues, unless it influences their livelihood. --Oop (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although proposed for a cause I may sympathise with, I wouldn't feel comfortable using an encyclopedia to advocate external activism. European legislation may reduce the number of freely available images from that jurisdiction but it doesn't prevent a descriptive article from coming into fruition. It also doesn't prevent those images from ever appearing; it merely requires a non-free use provision or that permission is sought before it can be uploaded here under a free license - as with most copyrighted works. Hence why I believe this is mainly a Commons issue. On an aesthetic level, I find (advertisement) banners both extremely irritating and distracting while editing. Fuebaey (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuebaey: As Jheald mentioned above, list articles, such as List of public art in the City of Westminster, would be completely decimated. And WP:NFC does not allow more than one non-Free image of a subject, and even then only on the specific article page. Non-English-language Wikipedias would also be substantially more affected. I would dispute completely that it does not affect Wikipedia. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this just reaffirms my original comment on political advocacy. Non-free content permits the use of copyrighted images, provided a justification rationale is given. It does not state that an article is limited to one NFC image nor that those images are restricted to certain articles; the caveats are "minimal usage" and to "article namespace". So, in itself, the message is misleading - it is not about a substantial loss of images, it is the perennial question of copyright and the debate surrounding that. In relation to the method of exposure, banner blindness is something to consider especially given that the proposition requires not only support, but reader action. Personally, I'm more responsive to short descriptive watchpage messages rather than big intrusive graphics. Fuebaey (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuebaey: This is not just about "copyright and the debate surrounding" it; this is about removing a whole category of possible images from becoming Free. Importantly, as User:Stefan2 points out below, wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy states that an Exemption Doctrine Policy must be in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed. That would include the United Kingdom and Ireland, which will both be constrained by any revised Copyright Directive removing our existing FoP exeptions. Even without any change to WP:NFC policies, though, your analysis is contradicted by WP:NFLISTS, as I replied to Mdann52 earlier:
In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section.
Personally, I'd prefer that we were slightly more liberal with our use of non-Free content, but the community more widely disagrees (and being a Free encyclopædia is one of the central tenets of Wikipedia, after all).
Certainly it's worth us worrying about banner blindness, but watchlist notices won't catch everyone either — this is not an issue that solely affects editors, but also readers; either way, not even all editors will see watchlist notices. We should definitely consider as many options as possible, though. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The pragmatist in me doesn't parse the hypothetical removing a whole category of possible images from becoming Free well. Correct me if I am wrong, but are you simply trying to say that you are against copyrighted images? Because I really don't think this is the best forum to debate that. Both countries mentioned have fair dealing doctrines, so not sure what the point was there. Also, I don't see how citing WP:NFLISTS contradicts my analysis on WP:NFC, considering there was no mention of any lists. But since it has been brought up, please note that "inadvisable" is not synonymous with "prohibited". Fuebaey (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuebaey: Sorry, that was an update relatively late in my evening; let me try again: a whole category of images (any image of modern buildings, buildings updated in modern times or modern works of public art) would no longer be Free and Free images could no longer be created of these.
No, I am not against copyrighted images, though that is partly tangential to this issue — this is about photographs of the public space becoming non-Free because they include buildings or artworks that are still in copyright, and removing existing such images from the commons. Indeed, the photographs themselves would still be under the photographer's copyright unless the photographer releases them to the commons; this copyright is one that is, to my mind, plainly reasonable, even if there might be debate (irrelevant to this discussion) over the optimum term of that copyright.
You mentioned It does not state that an article is limited to one NFC image nor that those images are restricted to certain articles; the caveats are "minimal usage" and to "article namespace". and it is this statement that is contradicted by WP:NFLISTS — while articles are not limited only to one NFC image, the policy is that we must minimise use of non-Free content and that it is inadvisable to have a non-Free image against each item in a list. While "inadvisable" and "prohibited" are not synonymous, such use of non-Free content is frequently removed from Wikipedia. And that is even if we ignore that WMF's position on Exemption Doctrine Policies may well preclude such use of these newly non-Free images, as I also mentioned.
And all of this discussion ignoring that it behoves the English Wikipedia to support the other Wikimedia projects (Commons, 77 every other Wikipedias for languages based in the EU, associated Wikinews, Wikisource, Wiktionary projects etc), which would not (apart from Portuguese and possibly Spanish) be able to claim that their predominant userbase is outside the EU. If we care about creating a great encyclopædia, surely we care about it being accessible to readers of other languages also? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 07:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For some odd reason, this discussion has descended into a debate over whether NFC applies to a subdivision of articles here. If we can backtrack a bit and take a look at the original issue:
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;
Given that we already host numerous images of works in public places from countries without freedom of panorama, does this actually prevent European photographs from appearing on Wikipedia? An example would be the former European parliament building, the Palace of Europe, in France - a country with no freedom of panorama yet with an image readily available in its article.
I prefer to be presented with an neutral overview of an issue and allowed to discover my own position on the subject. Given the skewed proposal above, I cannot assuredly assume that every image under freedom of panorama will be unavailable. And for that reason, I am not as passionate about this cause as others here might be. Fuebaey (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, the current practice of having images of copyrighted art on Wikipedia without the authors' consent does not make it legal. We may say this is not a problem but basically, any author or authors' organization would be justified to demand a takedown once this proposal would make it through the European Parliament, possibly also initiating a lawsuit to get compensation for damages. In most cases, legality stems from laws, not practice, at least in European continental law. Second, although this may depend a lot on the exact implementation, there are precedents for changes in copyright influencing earlier works, so it may have much wider influence on our picture base than just limiting the amount of possible new images. --Oop (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'd rather not have to reargue responses that fail to address the substance of my comments, and instead is used as a pretext to espouse their own tangential opinions on copyright (please note that the support section is above and the discussion section below). Don't get me wrong, it's a great political tactic - crowding out the opposition and reiterating an opinion to influence the undecided - but it is something I dislike about advocacy, and I neither have the time or the inclination to continue.
Oppose. No. No more huge, ugly banner ads on Wikipedia for real-world political campaigns. This is an encyclopedia, not a petition site. We've got The Signpost for news and announcements. We should redirect all these petitions to them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: That limits the audience to a tiny minority of expert editors, rather than bringing an issue that will affect almost all Wikipedia users to the attention to almost all Wikipedia users. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this limits the audience to people who care about such topics, I don't think that's such a bad thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: I would suggest that Signpost readers and "people who care about such topics" are probably quite different, if overlapping, sets. I agree with your principle of limiting something like this to the smallest group that will include the overwhelming majority of interested users, but I don't think posting this to Signpost (which has already been done, incidentally) would achieve that. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 07:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: What gives you the right to decide who gets to learn about this? You are priviliged: you saw this discussion. 99.9|% of editors did not, because they don't read Signpost. Ditto for 100% of our readers. They have the right to learn about a law that can gut images on this project, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is in a quite unique situation, as it has taken a much more influential position in the global society than any other encyclopedia in history. Hence, we should also consider our own responsibility for our readers. This change is going to influence not only our own little hobby, but a huge amount of people who depend on Wikipedia as a public service - many of them even relying on it for making a livelihood. Therefore, we should at least give them a chance to get information before they will find it out in a very unpleasant way afterwards. --Oop (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy on any topic. Nyttend (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: As I said earlier, while I'd agree on most issues, this is one that will directly affect Wikipedia — we would have to remove images from articles about buildings and other cultural works from anywhere in the EU, which includes two English-speaking countries and a population larger than the USA. I agree SOPA isn't necessarily a precedent for using Wikipedia per se, but it certainly is a precedent for "Wikipedia itself might protest political issues that affect Wikipedia". Does that change your position any or do we disagree about ever using Wikipedia to protest any issue, even if it affects Wikipedia itself? (Obviously, your position is entirely legitimate, either way... :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who says that we'll have to remove images from articles? We already ignore non-US local law on one issue. Moreover, does this proposed legislation have some sort of ex post facto provision? These images are hosted legally on US-based servers, which aren't answerable to European copyright legislation, and since they've already been uploaded legally, is there really a threat that European photographers will be punishable in the future for copyright infringement when the photo-taking and photo-uploading was legal? And finally, to answer your question, it doesn't. This legislation wouldn't affect me, since I'm in the USA, but if there were such a proposal in the US Congress, I would still oppose the idea of a banner (just as I did with the SOPA thing), because it's political advocacy. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The original uploader wouldn't be at risk. Any reuser would be at risk. As a result, current Commons process would likely remove those images. – SJ + 23:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While you were writing this, I was adding something to my comment: between "legal?" and "And", put Furthermore, even if there be some requirement that the images be removed from Commons, they can come here; they can be tagged like File:Burj Khalifa.jpg, rather than requiring fair-use justifications; I understand that this wouldn't be relevant to other language projects, but the ultimate effect on en:wp wouldn't be catastrophic. Meanwhile, if the problem is the risks to potential reusers, how would this be different from PD-Art? We already have such a situation with those images. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The situation is effectively the same as with File:Burj Khalifa.jpg, rather than PD-Art. I disagree with your position, but I can see that it is both considered and sincerely-held. Thank you for contributing it. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 07:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nyttend: See wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy: an EDP, such as WP:NFCC, must be 'in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed'. The United Kingdom seems to be a country where English Wikipedia predominantly is accessed, for example. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: This affects us, too. Images may be deleted from lists, collages, templates, etc. We could not use them on the front page. Our Featured Pictures would lose a number of images. Etc. This law means that hundreds if not thousands of hours I put into going to places and taking pictures of monuments and such will be wasted. I don't see what is there to be neutral about; this law is destroying value me and others created. By accepting it and refusing to help you are actively taking part in this vandalism, saying that our photos are worthless of saving. PS. Anyway, see the white banner I posted above, I think it is much more neutral - purely informative. Would this address your concerns? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"We already ignore non-US local law" is not actually an argument; this is taking a single bad practice as an example to be implemented as a rule. Even big American Internet companies are nowadays admitting they will have to pay attention to the rest of the world outside U.S., including the legal restrictions. It would be disastrous for Wikipedia's image as a globally beneficial project to take the opposite approach. --Oop (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on articles: Although a perfectly valid cause, political advocacy should be limited to publications such as the Wikimedia blog or the Signpost. Except for political actions that could seriously threaten Wikipedia (e.g. SOPA), such advocacy should not be shown on Wikipedia, where neutrality should be achieved. Esquivaliencet 20:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Esquivalience: I would suggest that removing most images of modern European buildings and art from the Wikipedia would qualify as a serious threat. WP:NPOV would of course apply to encyclopædic content about copyright reform, but is irrelevant to a discussion of whether or not the community considers an issue sufficiently existential to merit drawing it to the attention of readers. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest limiting it to the main page only, and in a more neutral way (listing possible consequences and the sides instead of trying to outright persuade the reader). Yes, it would be a threat to Wikipedia imagery, but not of a serious-enough nature to overlay on all articles. Overlaying this on articles goes too far, and Wikipedia is not a petition site - there may be readers that actually support limiting freedom of panaroma rights from commercial use: our goal is not to convince readers to switch to Wikimedia-held viewpoints unless it threatens Wikipedia's existence). Also, the banner should really be smaller. Esquivaliencet 03:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Esquivalience: I doubt all that many people ever see the Main Page; I don't think that would achieve anything like the same aim (to alert interested readers and editors); similarly WP:SOAPBOX is about article content (and usernames etc) and makes no mention of the site chrome around those articles; clearly advocating about an issue that the community feels represents an existential threat is very different to putting a "Vote Hillary" banner on a relevant article regarding US politics. I'd suggest an equivalent might be the restriction on political activities by charities here in the UK:
Campaigning and political activity can be legitimate and valuable activities for charities to undertake. Legal requirement: however, political campaigning, or political activity, as defined in this guidance, must be undertaken by a charity only in the context of supporting the delivery of its charitable purposes. Unlike other forms of campaigning, it must not be the continuing and sole activity of the charity. — Speaking out: guidance on campaigning and political activity by charities, Gov.uk
I would suggest that limiting freedom of panorama rights across most of Europe would be a severe threat to our ability to our claim to be an excellent and comprehensive encyclopædia (and would clearly limit the equivalent claim for the Commons). I'm sure there must be readers who support limiting the licensing of Wikipedia to prohibit commercial use, but WP:NFC explicitly states that Wikipedia's position is contrary to that; similarly WP:NFC would restrict our ability to illustrate articles about modern buildings and works of public art — 5 of the 6 main images on Brutalist architecture (and 10 of the 35 gallery thumbnails) would be affected, for example, introducing a systemic bias against modern European art, artists, architects and architecture and such articles. (I'm sympathetic to your argument on sizing ☺) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 07:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Esquivalience: This affects us, too. Images may be deleted from lists, collages, templates, etc. We could not use them on the front page. Our Featured Pictures would lose a number of images. Etc. This law means that hundreds if not thousands of hours I put into going to places and taking pictures of monuments and such will be wasted. I don't see what is there to be neutral about; this law is destroying value me and others created. By accepting it and refusing to help you are actively taking part in this vandalism, saying that our photos are worthless of saving. PS. Anyway, see the white banner I posted above, I think it is much more neutral - purely informative. Would this address your concerns? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to losing the images on lists etc, this proposal would also ruin the public impact for free culture in general that Wikipedia outreach projects have made - starting from Wiki Loves Monuments, the largest worldwide photo competition, which would basically fizzle out of existence in Europe (and most likely we'd lose a large part, if not most of the images produced via that), and ending with all the local Wikipedia projects like Monmouthpedia or Thessapedia for which it is important to have a thorough coverage in images, too. This would have a direct influence on Wikipedia, but also much, much wider. --Oop (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Wikipedia has no place for liberal advocacy, and no right to meddle in the realm of law. We must obey what laws are made, whether we like them or not. We must not interfere in matters outside our purview. The neutrality of the encylopaedia is at stake. RGloucester — ☎ 05:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester: If the lawmakers would want to pass a law abolishing free licences, you would just say "oh well, that's the law" and thank them for their hard work? This law means that hundreds if not thousands of hours I put into going to places and taking pictures of monuments and such will be wasted. I don't see what is there to be neutral about; this law is destroying value me and others created. By accepting it and refusing to help you are actively taking part in this vandalism, saying that our photos are worthless of saving. PS. Anyway, see the white banner I posted above, I think it is much more neutral - purely informative. Would this address your concerns? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have no right to contest the decisions made by your betters. I'm sorry if you are personally affected, but you must remember that you are only a small cog in a greater machine. Accept your station, and find another forum for your political views. The law is the law, and we must obey. RGloucester — ☎ 01:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this is really an unacceptable thing to say and I think violates WP:NPA. It's inappropriate to tell someone they don't have the right contest decisions made by "their betters" (who? The EU parliament? LOL) or they should "accept their station" in life. I don't know Piotrus but I don't see why he would be inferior to a bunch of politicians, nor do I see why someone should be insulted for rallying support against a law that infringes upon people's rights to own the photographs they take of public buildings and monuments. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester: In a democracy, which the EU is (albeit imperfectly), we have every right to contest the decisions made by our "betters". And this is not yet the law, we are seeking to influence the Parliamentary plenary to reject an amendment made in one subcommittee. Your logic has been widely contested by citizens of almost every country on the planet for most of the last 250 years. It is not neutral to refuse to engage on an issue that directly affects us. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 07:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is unacceptable to be so self-important. Our opinions are irrelevant. Only the ruling class may make such determinations. You must remain subjugated to the law, to the government, and to the collective. Where would it all end, if people thought they could challenge government and rule of law? No one has any right to rally against the law. The law is the law, and must be adhered to. You have no rights, not one. What is willed by God will come to pass, whether one likes it or not. He views such arrogance with disdain. Let those with station do what they are to do, and those without do what they are to do. Accept your lot, as people have done for centuries. RGloucester — ☎ 15:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually one of the best answers I've seen to this issue. "What is willed by God will come to pass, whether one likes it or not." So, if God wants us to have a banner and motivates enough people to vote for it, then you should accept it quietly, except perhaps expressing public regret for showing your arrogant disdain for those who humbly serve His will. Indeed, it is not for us to decide which ways He chooses. (On a second thought: if this is a joke, it is a very, very good one.) --Oop (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
God has spoken to you and your cause through me, and I've said what he intended in a clear manner. The placement of these banners would be an outrage. At what time did this project become a WP:SOAPBOX for liberal activism? I thought that this project did not take political views, that it was a bastion of encyclopaedic neutrality. If the law deems that we cannot use certain images, so be it. The law already deems that we cannot use certain images in certain manners, and we obey, as we must do. There is no difference. RGloucester — ☎ 21:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look, lets not take this personally, okay? Both of you. Dustin(talk) 21:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
God has spoken to us through you, RGloucester, and you are clearly informing us as to what God's intentions are? And you're telling us not to be self-important? Are you trolling or being serious? —МандичкаYO 😜 14:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester:No one has any right to rally against the law. What an utterly ludicrous — and outright untrue — position to take. The EU is a democracy in which everyone has a right to rally against the law — especially one that has not yet been passed. That's the entire point of a democracy. Absolute monarchy is quite a démodé concept since the 15th century; I would have thought you might have noticed. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester:, the view you express here is truly breathtaking. I sometimes wonder if you don't deserve to work on your very own encyclopedia. One of which God has expressly told you he approves. I really don't think your position is compatible with the basic principles of Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I sympathize very much with the cause, but I can't support advocacy. Everyking (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Everyking: What advocacy? We are simply pointing out that many of our images may be deleted if a law passes. If you think a banner should have a more neutral language, you can propose an alternative. This law means that hundreds if not thousands of hours I put into going to places and taking pictures of monuments and such will be wasted.This law is destroying value me and others created. By accepting it and refusing to help you are actively taking part in this vandalism, saying that our photos are worthless of saving. Saying that this law is problematic is not advocacy, it is simple vandalism prevention, just in the legal realm. PS. Anyway, see the white banner I posted above, I think it is much more neutral - purely informative. Would this address your concerns? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Fuebaey. Leave your politics at home. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman: This is not politics. It is an information awareness initiative. And why are you saying that my images are worthless? I spend thousands of hours making them, now they are in danger of being deleted. Why is my contribution to this project not worth your support? Or, in fact, your opposition here reads to me like you want my (and those of countless others) images to be deleted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As many above, I sympathize with the cause. First they came for the photographs, but I did not speak out - because I was not a photographer. It's an important issue. I don't think anyone is really denying that. But from the very top of Commons:Freedom of Panorama 2015, "There are two ways to stop this text becoming part of the adopted European Parliament report ...", and then it pretty much goes on to organize the campaign. That sure seems like advocacy to me, which is a lot of what Wikipedia is not, not just simple issue awareness. --Unready (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Unready: That page is a project page, not an article page. It's an appropriate place for the community to organise a campaign. (The "Commons:" prefix is the equivalent there of the "Wikipedia:" prefix here). In any case, the banner wouldn't go to the campaign coordination page on Commons, it would go to an introductory page on Meta. Jheald (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jheald: I'm aware of the difference, but the banners are part of the campaign to affect the vote, not an independent effort simply to raise awareness of the issue. --Unready (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I dislike the idea of Wikipedia taking sides in politics - even when the political issue might affect Wikipedia directly. What I could support is a call for new photographs - ie a banner asking editors to replace any photographs that might be affected by the proposed law with photographs that are not affected by the law. Blueboar (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the current problem is not with the way photographs are taken, so it can't be amended by photography. The problem is with the contents of the images - if it is not allowed to make an image of something, any image at all, there is no way to make a new photo that would be allowed. --Oop (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I misunderstand the proposed law, so let me ask a question... the relevant text reads: "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 it says "authors", is the text referring to the author of the photo (ie the photographer), or the author of the work of art (ie the artist/architect)? If it refers to the photographer, then I don't see a huge issue. Can't our fellow editors who download their pictures grant us "prior authorisation" to use those pictures? Blueboar (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: Unfortunately, it means the authors of the objects in question: architects, artists, etc. No freedom of panorama means having to get THEIR permission. And you can see how difficult that can be. And this type of law is retroactive, so many pictures we have suddenly become no-permission->illegal. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. I'm still opposed to the banner, but I better understand why people are concerned. Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Sorry, no. Does this situation impact Wikipedia? Arguably, as well as a number of other laws worldwide. So it'll be this banner, and then the next one, and then the next one ... I am, by the bye, completely disinterested in getting into it with the posters above who see fit to rebut every Oppose voter's every statement. Kindly do me the honor of accepting that my opinion is my opinion, and not readily shaken by fatuous "Are you saying my image postings are worthless???" strawmen. Ravenswing 11:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see no reason for Wikipedia to blunder yet again into advocacy positions. And I also find the badgering of oppose voters to be obnoxious at best and outright harassment at worst. Kindly respect peoples' opinions. Intothatdarkness 14:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Personally I don't like the proposed law and I hope it fails, but I think Wikipedia as a group should keep advocacy to a minimum on the encyclopedia pages, and this doesn't pass the minimum bar for me. I've no problem with the WMF advocating for this sort of thing, or with editors grouping together to contact their legislators, but I don't think this should be a site banner. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above, I don't agree with the law, but I also think one of the great strengths of Wikipedia is how it's apolitical. I understand that this issue directly affects Wikipedia, but I don't think Wikipedia as an institution should be using advocacy like this. If someone wants to make a template for users to use on their own pages then that's fine, but it should be their choice. If Wikipedia takes advocacy on this, then it's going to have to on many laws which may affect it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I strongly disagree with the law, I don't believe that Wikipedia should advocate politically unless the issue is a direct threat to its existence like in the case with SOPA. This issue, while it would have a negative impact on Wikipedia if it passes, is not worth taking an official stance on at the expense of our perceived neutrality. Winner 42Talk to me! 17:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We shouldn't set a precedent of advocating for, or opposing issues/laws. We shouldn't alienate Wikipedia users who might support the proposal, whatever the proposal might be. Even if the banners "do not advocate a particular action", this is an encyclopedia, not a news site or advocacy center. Staying out of politics altogether is the best course of action. If we get into the habit of putting up banners for things like this, it would be time consuming, and there would be way too many issues brought up for consideration.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Godsy directly above and others here. c1cada (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't support WP activism. Yes, it'd be bad to lose pics. I don't support WP activism.Smarkflea (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia not a political pressure group. I knew that SOPA protest would turn out to be the thin end of the wedge, and here we are again! I would like Wikipedia to have a reputation for being neutral and apolitical but I am clearly in a minority.--Ykraps (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are not righting any wrongs. We merely are informing the general public at the consequences of a trivial amendment at EU level affecting over two dozen countries and over two dozen language editions. Surely informing the general public would be in line with our mission, would it not? -- A Certain White Catchi? 08:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Our mission is to remain neutral and objective, not to take particular liberal political positions. RGloucester — ☎ 16:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:RGloucester, indeed we want our content to be neutral but also we want it to be free. I do not believe FOP or commercial-use is a liberal political position. It has been the definition of what is freely licensed' since this site began more or less. I do not remember us abolishing this at any point. -- A Certain White Catchi? 11:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't support the law but this is being made out to be far more of a threat than it actually is. Wikimedia isn't commercial and wouldn't be caught by it. It is not certain that the EP will back the amendment; but even if it did, it would be a non-binding resolution. It would only ever actually happen if the Commission took it up, and would then have to be approved by the European Parliament and Council of Ministers (the governments of the 28 member states). And given article 5(3)(h) of the InfoSoc Directive specifically allowed member states to provide for freedom of panorama and was the Commission's work as recently as 2001, it looks faintly silly to start a big campaign over something which is almost certainly not going to happen. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to claim commercial loss due to the way we publish it. We are mass distributing it after all. -- A Certain White Catchi? 12:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Restrictions on commercial usage means Commons can't host it (see Commons:Licensing) and an affected image would then be "non-free" under our WP:NFC policies. So Wikimedia would absolutely be "caught by it". postdlf (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also not every wiki can host non-free content. Many countries do not have the equivalent of "fair-use". US fair-use exceptions is just that, an exception which only few wikis can have. -- A Certain White Catchi? 13:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
oppose any advocacy beyound basic human rights. let wikimedia awash with monies send exemption requests. if you think wikipedia is that powerful, those who refuse to grant exemps, will get chance of bad publicity and think twice.-M.Altenmann >t 14:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose black banner; weak oppose white one. I just don't think that Wikipedia is the right platform for any kind of advocacy, even if the site itself is threatened. The white one is better, in that the advocacy is less blatant, but I'm still not sure that it's sufficient. Why will the readers (who came here to read articles) care? Also note that it would not be as devastating as some might think: images of these structures can still be included under fair use. For the record, I disagree with the law. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This entire initiative is based on false grounds. In democracies, no law is retroactive. So the pictures already on Commons are not threatened at all. But all the documents that have been written so far hide this fact and pretend the opposite. I don't support such methods nor the sacrifice of Wikipedia for political reasons. Thierry Caro (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting point. I'd argue we still have a problem, but it does make things have much less of an immediate impact. That said, I'd like confirmation from someone who deeply understands this proposed change. I'd still favor a banner, but it would need to be cleaned up. Hobit (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that is simply false; see ex post facto law. It's also irrelevant - if such a law is passed, it doesn't matter when the photos were taken, it only matters what their permission status is when served to a visitor to Wikipedia/Commons. Kolbasz (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of Panorama is not a right it is an exception to copyright meaning if I take a photo of your statue fixed in a public park, your attempt to sue me will fail due to the FOP exception. This does not mean your work is in the public domain. FOP merely gives me the exception to take photos of it. If the exception is lifted then copyright applies like it would have. We would have to pay royalties to use such content. -- A Certain White Catchi? 18:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
So much voters already and in fact nobody really knows about this one. This is a sad joke. Thierry Caro (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, this is just a proposal in the committee, so no one can talk about the exact results yet. A lot will depend on how it would be implemented in particular laws in the member states. While it is perhaps possible to apply this particular suggestion without retroactivity, in the light of how, as mentioned above, the copyright extension have been handled, I'm afraid there will be strong pressure for the retroactivity. In any case, it can be argued that true retroactivity would only apply to paper books and media which, once published, can't effectively be changed. On the Internet, a picture might have been legal once, but when it becomes illegal you can take it down - and this proposal clearly opens the door to laws and policies that would lead to massive takedowns. --Oop (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Had I been active at the time, I would have opposed the SOPA activism as well. While I don't like the proposed law(s), it is not within our purview to pressure the European Union. Wikipedia is a repository of information with the stated aim of neutrality, so its official support for any sort of protest is, to me, anathema. This is but a smell step away from the 'Google Doodle'. Beyond that, I think it would have little impact on the proposed law.-RHM22 (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wikipedia has too many banner ads now. John Nagle (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - though I think that freedom of panorama should be the law everywhere and that we should have something like the pre-1978 US law where if you didn't actively seek to assert a copyright it was public domain, I really don't like the idea of Wikipedia being politically active. Wikipedia should be a neutral encyclopedia, not an activist political organization. --B (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A politically active Wikipedia is abhorrent to me. Banedon (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I feel that the proposed law is unfair and will be writing to my MEP on the matter, Wikipedia is not a campaigning organisation, nor a political one. This issue does not affect, as some have suggested, Wikipedia's "core mission". At worst, it would mean some images on some articles would have to be changed. That's a shame, but article content is not under threat. There's also a danger, as others have already noted, that if Wikipedia starts having banners for all kinds of less-important things, it will lose impact when something really important and banner-worthy comes along. Pitipaci (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think waving a flag on Wikipedia will have any effect. I assume that it is much more effective when Wikimedia entities and individual Wikipedians start contacting their national Members of European Parliament (MEP). "The other side" will lobby the MEPs, so why don't we do the same? The Bannertalk 01:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the EU doesn't want to force people to give up their intellectual property rights then I won't either. We shouldn't force our communal interests at other people's expense. DGtal (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy on any topic as Nyttend stated. This is the dumbest idea to come out of the Foundation & Community since Sue Gardner & Jimbo's bone-headed blackout stunt. The Dissident Aggressor 17:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell? Absolutely not: We are not a political organization! This is a terrible idea. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Wikipedia should not be involved in crusading for and against causes. Not our role. Sorry. Fylbecatuloustalk 01:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure this is a "Wikipedia crusade", Fyl. It's a campaign that has the backing of leading UK politicians across the political spectrum. Would you really not mind if all our FoP images of public buildings suddenly "turned black" like the examples above? These images represent thousands of hours of volunteer time and effort. All gone at the drop of a bureaucratic hat? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Wikipedia must remain a neutral site, without banners supporting political positions. Those who live in the affected countries can and should exercise their voices to prevent this new restriction.Pete unseth (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pete unseth, I hope you do realize such people are UNAWARE of it which is why we hope to inform them with the banner. If they are OK with what will happen, then they can simply dismiss the banner. Also this affects everyone, not just those who live under EU jurisdiction. Also, mind that EEA countries such as Norway for instance do NOT get a vote on the matter. -- A Certain White Catchi? 19:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: I agree that Wikipedia must remain neutral, even when a law may negatively affect Wikipedia. When WP shut down to oppose another law, in my mind, WP failed a crucial test. It stepped outside of its role as a reporter and became a political advocacy group. This is another test of the neutrality of Wikipedia. I hope Wikipedia does not fail this test again. Objective3000 (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Wikipedia must be neutral everywhere (interface and main space). Unless it is directly concerned. If we begin with this, what will we have in the future? A banner to vote for a political party which suppports freedom of panorama ? NemesisIII (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose - (a) because we should stay out of political battleground, and (b) there is no reason why we should consider our rights to be more important than that of the artists and craftsmen involved. StAnselm (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
StAnselm, however artists (rather architects) do not go out and file lawsuits on people taking photos of their buildings even if they have the legal right as this is a costly venture. The same cannot be said about corporations. Entities such as Société d'Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel (SETE) (owned 59.99% by city of Paris) attempted to claim copyright through lawsuits that all night photos of Paris landscape showing the Eiffel Tower even from a distance fell under their copyright (Actual architect Gustave Eiffel died in 1923 some 91 years ago). Their basis of copyright is merely through the arrangement of lighting on the Eiffel tower for which they have been paid in full, they also charge the 7 million people visiting the tower on top of all that they charge for the intellectual property that will have copyright until time ends as if they run out of it they will merely have a new lighting arrangement. If France had Freedom of Panorama, such legal trickery would not work. -- A Certain White Catchi? 10:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
STRONG OPPOSE - We are not a political organisation, and our members should not be fired up into rallying against a particular political decision. Everytime something like this gets bought to the fore, someone on WP is up in arms about it, wailing and shouting as if the world itself and all hell is going to end; wholly expecting that the next thing will be that Satan is going to pop up through the floor with a venom tipped pitchfork, and stab you up the hiney with it. We had the Italian thing, SOPA, the big blackout, etc, ad nauseum. We don't even know if this is going to become law yet, the European Parliament is about as effective as a chocolate fireguard in the Sahara. For God's sake, just once in a while, find someone else to fight your flaming battles, just don't drag us into it. What does the Fish say? | Woof! 13:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No politics, please. Geogene (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The description of the issue in Europe as written by the drafters on Wikipedia, is pretty tenuous in terms of its accuracy. On those grounds alone, the reputation of Wikipedia would be threatened by such an over-reactive political ploy. Jeremy112233(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?) 18:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Photos of modern buildings could easly remain on Wikipedia even with this new european low. The Wikimedia Foundation just need to authorize Non-Commercial images and - poof- the threat disapears. Of course, the Board will never take that decision. Facebook and Google, with their intense lobbying and lucrative business, ensure this.Woodada (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This banner, like others before it ([3][4]), seems designed not to educate but to manipulate. Shame on you, Wikipedia. AndreasJN466 13:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on banners
This seems to be a rather complex, multilayered issue as opposed to a straightforward "support"-"oppose" one. There are several key issues: 1) should Wikipedia take part in political advocacy, 2) if so, what kinds of political issues should Wikipedia take part in, and 3) is the EU proposal limiting freedom of panorama a political issue worth taking part in? I'd feel more comfortable (and I feel this proposal would have more success in general) if we held a separate RfC for the first two questions before going straight into the third question. We have the SOPA initiative from several years back, but there's debate over whether that set a precedent, and if it did, to what extent. Mz7 (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia can only exist and provide knowledge if the laws of the countries around the world make this possible. I personally think that Wikipedia cannot and should not be used as political instrument, unless Wikipedia itself is at danger and at risk to have thousands of images (or articles) been removed purely because of a law that is hurting our vision to share the sum of all knowledge. WMF has shown with the SOPA initiative that if Wikipedia is really at danger, public action is justified to stay able to provide the world the knowledge in words, images, sound and video. We keep Wikipedia neutral, but we do also make our voice heard if Wikipedia is threatened.
Simple question: if someone points a gun at you with the intention to hurt you, what do you do? A. Staying neutral and silently just waiting to get hurt. B. Staying neutral and making yourself heard that you are in danger. Romaine (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's pointing a gun at WP's head. Stop being so melodromatic.Smarkflea (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why *must* these images remain on Wikipedia? I don't think that is the appropriate term to use; after all, if nothing but unfree images are available for mnay subjects, even English Wikipedia won't allow them, and we have lots of unfree images now. We would just have articles without those images, or we'd claim fair use (like we do for album covers and movie posters). I think the message is wrong, to start with. Risker (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Risker: As User:Stefan2 points out below, wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy states that an Exemption Doctrine Policy must be in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed. That would include the United Kingdom and Ireland, which will both be constrained by any revised Copyright Directive removing our existing FoP exeptions. Even without any change to WP:NFC policies, WP:NFLISTS would, prohibit many of the uses we have at the moment., as I replied to Mdann52 earlier:
In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section.
Note: Although the survey was for a main page banner, the banner appears on every page. --Unready (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question - This discussion got moved from Village Pump to article talk. Is any of this discussion about how to improve the article? --99.135.161.166 (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Oops --99.135.161.166 (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From watchlists (emphasis mine): Should Wikipedia run a site-wide banner protesting the proposed amendment to freedom of panorama laws in the EU? I'm pointing out that it does not say "informing the readership about ... in an unbiased manner". --Unready (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unready, feel free to propose a wording change. The actual banners would be more in line with what you are describing as visible in the above examples. -- A Certain White Catchi? 09:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Given some of the supporting arguments above and a comment below, I begin to wonder if the seemingly headlong abandonment of neutrality in progress is the consensus people want anyway. --Unready (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that the vast majority of opposes above seem to be opposing banners rather than opposing banners about FoP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On this occasion I entirely concur with Andy Mabbett Tim riley talk 19:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of opposes above oppose political banners. --Unready (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting to note that most of those opposed have one main common concern, and that is using WP for advocacy purposes. I don't think informing about an impending decision that could directly affect Wikipedia is advocating a political position. I'm not against using a stronger message such as the black banner, even. On the other hand, some seem to imply or act as if Wikipedia will be destroyed if this happens. That seems a bit dubious to me. Green547 (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is equally interesting to note that most of the supporters seem unable to separate the actions and positions they desire to take as individuals and the actions and positions they desire Wikipedia to take as an organization. Informing people about an issue isn't necessarily advocacy, but this initiative is born of advocacy, and many of the supporters exhort such advocacy. I think the exhortations to collective advocacy is a much more important issue to Wikipedia than FoP. It affects Wikipedia's fundamental credibility as an unbiased knowledge resource. Individuals are always free to act however they see fit, including contacting their MPs in whatever manner or on whatever side of the issue they see fit. --Unready (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unready, I do not agree. If countries pass laws that hinder our mission of "free knowledge for everyone" and we do not raise an objection, we are taking the political stance of agreeing to fail in our mission. All we do is inform the general public of whats happening. I seriously doubt EU parliament will vote differently because of the banner. MPs however will likely heed to the will of their constituents whatever their opinion may be. For all we know they may support the amendment. Maybe they feel Wikipedia should not benefit from FOP exceptions in copyright. -- A Certain White Catchi? 16:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It's interesting how most of the supporters are commenting on how this is a bad law, but not explaining why Wikipedia should violate its own principles and perform political advocacy. (Virtually) nobody here thinks this law is a good idea. But this isn't a vote on whether there should be freedom of panorama or not; it's a vote on whether we should perform political advocacy. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! This might be helpful if you want to help Wikipedia. Thierry Caro (talk) 17:03, 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.
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) 18:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good grief. As stupid an as contrary to freedom as this new law is, it is not remotely comparable to vandalism. Please see Wikipedia:How many legs does a horse have?. --B (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is not comparable: the new law is infinitely worse. At least vandalism we can revert and individual acts of vandalism tend to be localised and the results (thanks to the effort of editors) temporary. The results of the law would be widespread and probably last decades.
Note further that not putting up a banner is just as much an action as it would be to put one up. There is no neutral thing that Wikipedia can do here. We can want to be neutral and that is in itself a good thing, but in this case Wikipedia cannot actually be neutral, no matter the course of action it takes. The banner can go up, as the community wants, and Wikipedia will take a political stand (as it has done before, e.g. the SOPA action) or it can choose not to show a banner, taking a different political stand, hurting itself, and acting against the wishes of the community.
P.S. B, you probably feel very clever with your random WP:acronym link, but it has zero relevance to the discussion. 82.139.82.82 (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question regarding "modern"
Forgive me if this is the wrong place to ask this, or if the answer is out there somewhere and I've missed it, but what is the definition of "modern" buildings in this context? If these restrictions came into force, buildings up to how many years old would be affected? I am particularly interested in this because many of my articles feature images of buildings of various ages. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 21:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hassocks5489: "Modern" means not recent enough that the copyright has expired based on the locally applicable term of copyright. Commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory has a good list. For example, in Germany, it means the life of the author plus 70 years. So if a German architect designs a building and lives for another 20 years (dying in 2035), then 90 years from now (70 years after he died), we can take a photo of his building. --B (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Warning: sloppy maths ahead) So assuming the average German notable building architect born in 1885 had a life expectancy of about 60 years and designed his average building when he was about 40, that would mean on average buildings from 1925 would be entering the public domain now. Of course there's a huge spread, but I think ‘modern’ is a strange label for buildings almost a century old. 82.139.82.82 (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Modern" is good enough. Many buildings get extensions or parts replaced over time. Each of these would have some copyright. And so many modern buildings have no well known architect. Once the architect is dead, the situation actually gets worse: whereas a living architect could give permission for free, once dead their estate is either completely inactive (few of us are important enough to have anyone running our estate after death) or legally obliged to maximise profits. -- Colin°Talk 07:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's useful info. It looks like UK timescales are the same as Germany; so, working on the assumption that those timescales would be adopted if this law comes in, every building would have to be assessed separately based on the date of death of its architect, and presumably if the architect is not known assume that it is still subject to copyright unless it at least "xxx" years old (maybe 150 or more). The point about extensions/alterations also causes problems: e.g. presumably this photo would be affected because the transept structure on the left was added in the 20th century. OK, plenty to ponder ... I may post some more questions if I think of anything pertinent. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 08:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty of defining 'modern' only adds to the 'minefield' that this proposal represents. Is it obtuse to ask how 'company' ownership of the copyright affects the life+X formula?Pincrete (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. It prompts me to think about architectural firms. Take Clayton & Black of Brighton. The firm's founders died in 1917 and 1923 respectively; but their firm survived with different partners (and a slightly different name) until c. 1975. Thinking about, for example, 163 North Street, Brighton, which the founders designed jointly in 1904 ... in theory that should be "safe" from the remit of the proposed law, but would we actually need to wait until (say) 70 years after the firm was dissolved?
And another question occurs to me. I suppose the burden of proof would be on the photographer/uploader to prove that the building they have photographed is "out of copyright". Theoretical question: would we have to present evidence on the upload page that the building dates from a certain year and the architect died in a certain year? What would be considered as acceptable evidence?... What a hassle, and very much a "minefield"! Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't trivial to figure out architect of an old building. Your only method probably be to check the public records from more than 70 years ago which means spending hours to days in the archive provided you have access. It would be difficult enough that we would just not bother with it. -- A Certain White Catchi? 17:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why this is going to be such a problem. France, Greece, Italy and Ukraine apparently do not currently allow freedom of panorama, yet we have plenty of pictures of modern public buildings from those countries on Wikipedia (for example, Nouveau Stade de Bordeaux, Karaiskakis Stadium, Juventus Stadium and Arena Lviv). Number57 20:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Number 57 I think with the buildings you link, it is simply the case that nobody has nominated them for deletion yet. I believe if the building design is purely functional (a very standard house design perhaps, or a school based on the same template as every other school built in the 1970s) then it may be ok. Hassocks5489 I believe the burdern of proof always rests with the uploader and the way the proposal is drafted doesn't seem to offer a "I tried but nobody replied" option. So like orphan works for photographs, there may be many buildings for which the copyright owner is unknown, whose estate is unknown or not interested, or where the owner has better things to do than reply to emails from random people. -- Colin°Talk 20:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response from UK MEPs
I have written to all of the MEPs representing my region (Eastern). Geoffrey Van Orden (Conservative) tells me that they (the European Conservatives and Reformists group, to which the UK Conservative Party belongs) will seek removal of any reference to Freedom of Panorama. He believes that there will be enough support for this deletion to succeed. The office of Stuart Agnew (UKIP) tell me that UKIP are going to oppose the measure since they oppose more or less all new EU regulations on principle. So far, I have had no reply from the Labour Party member. SpinningSpark 16:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's indeed good to hear. Let us hope this works well. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reaction of the European Conservatives and Reformists group, decribed above, does not appear to be good news. It seems that they will not support Julia Reda's proposal to widen Freedom of Panorama (see the European Parliament news), but instead go along with Jean-Maria Cavada's defense of the status quo - or have I missed something? Apuldram (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so majority is in support. Now what?
Ok, we have ~75% 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| reply here 09:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Time to bring the banner up. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could some kind person please make an {{edit fully-protected}} request for the banner at MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice with a note pointing back to this page? Thanks in advance. Diphthong (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd oppose such a thing. Please do not protect pages. -- A Certain White Catchi? 20:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
User:とある白い猫/15 Sorry. I guess I was not explicit enough. I do not want any page protected. It looks like the community wants a banner. In order to do that we have to edit MediaWiki:Sitenotice, but that page is protected already (for obvious reasons). So we have to ask somebody to edit it for us by using Template:edit fully-protected. I was asking if somebody here could make a request at MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice using Template:edit fully-protected in order to add the banner that people here are asking for. Sorry I didn't make that more clear. Diphthong (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've already seen the banner, and I'm in the United States. Perhaps the WMF has already implemented the banner? It looks just like a fund-raising banner, in terms of its prominence. In other words, it's one of those notices that is "in your face" and you can't miss it. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, people are working on implementing the banner. They started at MediaWiki:Sitenotice but had some problems formatting. It looks like now it is being implemented at meta:Special:CentralNotice and will show up on July 1 at 3:00 GMT. Diphthong (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can't make it work and I need sleep. Either way, a question have been raised on the appropriateness of the current text for the banner. I won't be enabling the banner via CN until that is sorted out. -- KTC (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has been noticed and is been worked on. Feel free to drop by on IRC where this is currently being discussed. -- A Certain White Catchi? 22:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
What does this really mean? I am confused
So today I see the banner that says something to the effect that "Images of modern buildings must remain on Wikipedia." and we are at risk of needing to take down "thousands" of photos. I see the File:Freedom of Panorama in Europe NC.svg shows that France and Italy are among the countries that are in the "red zone" of draconian laws that prevent Wikipedia from showing pictures of public buildings, and if this new "Panorama" rule takes effect the rest of Europe will be just as badly restricted as France and Italy currently are. What the hell does this really mean? It's not like I've noticed that Wikipedia has fewer pictures of public buildings in France than it does in the UK. Just look at all the pictures in the Paris article.
Why are we able to show these "red zone" public building photos?
Can anyone provide actual links to pictures that we will be required to take down if this thing is enacted, and explain why we will need to delete them? Wbm1058 (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All those buildings copyrights are in the public domain. Winner 42Talk to me! 22:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know you can copyright books, movies, paintings, but... buildings? OK, maybe the architect's plans are copyrighted so that you can't actually build an identical copy of the building? So, we are talking about buildings that were built after 1925? Wbm1058 (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 1923 cut-off is something specific to U.S. law. In the Berne Convention it is author's date of death plus at least 50 years; individual signatory countries may extend it beyond that.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We also have pictures of modern skyscrapers such as Tour First and Tour Incity – the latter is still under construction! Why are these red-zone pictures allowed? Can you give me an example of a copyrighted French building, which Wikipedia has no pictures of? Wbm1058 (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that anything is "expected" of anyone contributing to Wikipedia. The point is that it will affect Wikipedia's ability to obtain and disseminate certain media.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I assume that, under normal WMF operating procedures, it will be left entirely up to the volunteers to determine what that "certain media" is? Heck if I know how to figure out what "certain media" is effected. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be handled the same way as all other copyright laws, yes. Media deemed unfree by WMF are removed by WMF. Media deemed unfree by the community are removed by the community/admins.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That picture came from flickr. Flickr is owned by Yahoo!, a publicly traded for-profit company. I wonder if Yahoo! is concerned about the legality of this picture, and looking to take it down? Wbm1058 (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia is the only site on the internet that routinely takes down suspect copyright material without the copyright owner requesting a takedown. SpinningSpark 23:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see: {{FoP-USonly|France}}. We can keep the pictures in English Wikipedia, as long as they are just available in the US. That's why File:Tour First - La Defense - Inauguration 6 mai 2011.jpg is stored on English Wikipedia, and not on Commons. Are these restricted from access to IP addresses based in France? Wbm1058 (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are not IP restricted, but we strive to respect the rights granted to the author in their home country.[5] Each chapter and sister project make their own decisions with regard to how they do this.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given the way that Wikipedia acted the last time that it decided to ignore its policy of neutrality, I see no reason to believe that any posts here explaining this proposed action are totally reliable. That is the lesson we must learn from the last embarrassing time that Wikipedia ventured into the realm of political advocacy instead of keeping to its stated goal of NPOV documentation. I fear WP will again fail the real test of NPOV. Pushing a POV specifically because it is related to Wikipedia itself. How can you claim to have NPOV when you push a POV? This is a test of the ability to prove that WP is a reliable source itself by resisting the urge to push a POV to avoid what it may feel is a damaging ruling. Now, WP can and should fight anything that it may consider damaging to its ability to provide information. BUT, not by coloring its own reporting. NBC may not like a law. It may fight a law. But, it would lose credibility if it used its own news programs to push an agenda that favors them. I fear WP will again abandon its basic rules and abuse its position as a neutral encyclopedia to push a political agenda that favors it. Would the Encyclopedia Britannica do such?
Resist the temptation to use the power of WP in a manner contrary to its stated goals for its own purposes. Do not again let Wikipedia fail the real test – the test that it can remain neutral in a situation that involves Wikipedia itself. The test that it can follow its own rules when they apply to WP itself. If WP fails that test, it has proved itself untrustworthy. Objective3000 (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Late to the party? Your viewpoint has already been proffered roughly one million times above.--Anders Feder (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to add my irrelevant voice. I could have avoided this faux pas if it had been explained at the top that only certain viewpoints were allowed. Objective3000 (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see the conflict between espousing a NPOV in the products that one produces and protecting one's own self interest. Failure to protect one's self interest will ultimately lead to the inability to provide the product. Plus WP and WM foundation is not describing the conflict or producing an article about it (in which case that article should be presented as neutral). I.e. the WM foundation and the WP banner is not creating an article on the subject, but notifying users of something that impacts their ability to use the product that they are now viewing. --Trödel 14:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with WP discussing the proposal and its effects in the public arena. But, it should not use an encyclopedia to push a POV. This is strictly against its own rules and makes the encyclopedia less trustworthy. I know that it makes it far less trustworthy in my mind. Objective3000 (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This illustration shows a building protected by copyright. The author or architect has rights in this image, rights under the Berne Convention, Article 2 1. Some countries do not accept the view of freedom (such as France or Belgium*), the distribution of this work is probably illegal.
Its use on Wikipedia is currently tolerated as "exception to copyright" according to the votes of the community 2006 and 2011 According to the provisions of Wikipedia:
"The importation of the french Wikipedia free photographs of recent buildings is tolerated. However, the import is prohibited in cases where rights holders have explicitly expressed their opposition."
So, it seems that French Wikipedians publish modern-building photos unless "the copyright owner requests a takedown".
I'm not sure what the big deal here is. This is feeling like the Obamacare debate's "don't pull the plug on Grandma" rhetorical hysteria. I suspect we won't really know what this law's impact will be until after it's been enacted. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or is the Foundation concerned that this might force a takedown of File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg, because its owner objected (animals don't own anything, thus the picture's owner is the owner of the animal). That might not be such a bad thing. But I guess, as that picture's on Commons, even the French and Belgians find it acceptable. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is really little doubt that this will significantly hamper Europeans' ability to legally contribute photos of modern buildings/monuments/sculptures. And the banner was actually intended to be shown to Europeans only, per the proposal above,[6] but the relevant functionality in Mediawiki does not seem to allow that at the moment.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Seems it will be "geo-targeted" once it comes back up: [7].--Anders Feder (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See fr:Wikipédia:Prise de décision/Exceptions à l'interdiction du fair-use (Wikipedia: Decision making / Exceptions to the prohibition of fair use) for the French consensus on this problem. So, what you seem to be saying is that, this will go above and beyond even the current French and Belgian restrictions, and that fr:Modèle:Bâtiment récent will no longer be a viable solution? How does this extend the impact of the current French law? Wbm1058 (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I only know what I've read here, but I am not aware that the proposed amendment will extend the impact in France. Rather, it will impact nearly all other countries in the EU, which currently do enjoy freedom of panorama in various degrees. Wikipedians in these countries currently can freely upload photos of the types of works in question, but would no longer be able to do so if the proposed amendment is enacted.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a hard time with some of the legal issues here. It is my understanding that:
There is FoP in the US and UK for buildings, but not in France.
The Berne Convention (which the US, UK and France ratified) says the copyright law applies in each country independantly of the country of origin, i.e. a photograph of a building in country X taken by a citizen of country Y can be published in country Z according to the provisions of country Z no matter what X and Y say. (Minus the fact that copyright abroad should not be extended beyond copyright at home but never mind)
The Wikimedia servers that answer web requests going to en.wikipedia.org or fr.wikipedia.org are located in the US.
From that I deduce that European (UK, FR or else) law is irrelevant, because the content is "published" in the US (internet packets come from there) and hence US law applies, which will not be directly affected by acts of the European parliament. It is possible that European users of Wikipedia or people that upload content from European countries will be affected, but the Wikimedia foundation has clean hands. I expect most users and uploaders to take the chance anyways (if only by ignorance).
Is that analysis is correct? Tigraan (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. Our procedures require that the image be available in both the US and the country of origin. There is a lot of argument about whether uploading constitutes publication in the US; obviously we do not want it to, because of the lack of freedom there. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but if that procedure was the result of a "better safe than sorry" stance, it might be worth reconsidering it if large amounts of FoP images are affected. If it is merely the logical consequence of laws, then positions of the WP community or the Board of Trustees change nothing, but otherwise the issue is still up for debate. Tigraan (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC) (Just to be clear, I am not saying we should not care about uploaders and viewers as long as serving is fine. All I am saying is that technically, the WP servers could lawfully deliver content that was uploaded unlawfully and is viewed unlawfully.)[reply]
Tigraan, FOP is an exemption from copyright it does not nullify it. FOP gives you the ability to take a photo of a 3D object (say a building) and not be required to pay royalties. You cannot however make a copy of the 3D work itself. Mind that US FOP has no application outside of US borders. With Uruguay Round Agreements Act we have to abide by the local laws as well as US laws (whichever is more restrictive). US copyright law has rule of the longer term so it is at a minimum authors life + 70 years. You also have to take the national origin of the copyright holder into account in certain conditions which can increase the length. So it isn't just a matter of our procedures. -- A Certain White Catchi? 15:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Proposed solution in case the law is adopted
I have not started a discussion at more relevant venue yet (and probably this has been proposed before), but I think in case of the worst scenario, if the law is passed anyway, we should launch a proposal to amend the copyright policy which would allow non-commercial licenses to be used in local Wikipedias (only there). If that proposal is accepted, bots would migrate all deletable Commons images to local Wikipedias where such images are used. While the voting on such a proposal would be underway, the deletion of Commons images should be procedurally put on hold. Brandmeistertalk 07:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made this point above but it was lost amid irrelevant discussion. If the EP plenary adopts the Reda report as amended, with a paragraph seeking removal of freedom of panorama in the EU member states that currently allow it, then what will happen will be nothing. It's simply advice to the European Commission.
For anything to actually happen, first the Commission would have to decide it wants to take it up - which is unlikely given it adopted a directive endorsing the right of member states to allow freedom of panorama in 2001. Then the European Council, made up of Ministers from the member state governments, would have to vote by a qualified majority in favour of a new directive - which is extremely unlikely given how many have freedom of panorama laws now. Then the member states would have to translate the new directive into national law. Only then do you have to worry about what to do on local wikipedias.
I really do not know why there should be all this fuss about a vague paragraph opposed by the rapporteur which finds its way into an obscure committee report due to the usual horsetrading among members, which is incredibly unlikely to happen ever. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis is extremely incredibly overconfident.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to know how EU Parliament works. Indeed if the amendment is enacted we will not be required to immediately enforce that decision, legally we will have time first for the EU member nations to ratify it and then have time to comply with the change. Such ratification that modify copyright tend to give time to remove content. We being the good samaritans would take the initiative to delete the files as soon as possible. Such an amendment would set a precedent for more restrictions in the future. There are (paid) groups lobbying for more restrictions, and mostly volunteers lobbying for a copyright reform to reduce such restrictions. -- A Certain White Catchi? 16:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, Sam Blacketer actually knew something about how the EU works before this debate started, and didn't just pick his knowledge up from the Wikipedia drama banner. AndreasJN466 22:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely isn't the same as impossible. There is a chance no matter how small it may be (I am taking the word of Sam Blacketer for the sake of this argument) that this may turn out for the worst. -- A Certain White Catchi? 10:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Banner wording is wrong
I've also posted this on meta (not sure where the banner on en.wiki is coming from), but the banner 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". Number57 17:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, #57, but I can't resist pointing out your own error: "...thousands of imagines on Wikipedia..."
Sorry, from another born proof-reader, Hordaland (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted! Number57 18:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only on Wikipedia such attention to spelling is so profoundly praised. :) -- A Certain White Catchi? 18:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I've changed it. -- KTC (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just be clear ...
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. AndreasJN466 22:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the law, and I oppose Wikipedia becoming a non-neutral political advocate, but we need to be clear about what the law is. For France and Italy, it doesn't mean much, but for most everyone else, it eliminates non-commercial and fair-use exceptions, so they wouldn't work anymore. If there's going to be debate, let's spend the effort on debating the right thing. --Unready (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, Unready. So, as reported in the press, for French buildings nothing would change. Now I note that in the French Wikipedia, there is a pretty picture of the fr: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. Yet on the info page the public are led to by the Wikipedia banner, the Millau Viaduct is blacked out. Isn't Wikipedia plain lying to readers here? AndreasJN466 15:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andreas, I think you're spot-on with your analysis. The real reason behind this drama-fest is that Google is at risk of no longer being allowed to use free images for commercial purposes. They just have to run their campaign through Wikipedia because otherwise everyone would see through this "we know he has weapons of mass-destruction" campaign. Wbm1058 (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andreas, I hope you do realize what "non-commercial" means. Non-commercial applies to ALL cases that cause commercial harm. Mass publication through a website such as Wikipedia would constitute as a commercial loss and a lawsuit would be a mere formality. Why? Because by making something available for free, you'd be causing a commercial loss by breaking the monopoly of that intellectual property. This is why it is called copyright. You'd not even be allowed to print text books with the images since that would constitute as a commercial use. Claiming that only Google and Facebook has something at stake is wishful thinking at best. Also mind that even the "all retrictive" fair-use does not have a non-commercial restriction. You can parody a copyrighted work and make as much commercial gain as you like - it specifically has this feature to allow commercial gain to promote parodies. I am not even beginning to discuss how non-commercial licenses make us by definition an unfree encyclopedia. -- A Certain White Catchi? 10:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, there are no text books in France and Italy because no one can afford to print them, and Wikipedia has been completely unable to cover France and Italy to date. Do the French even have Wikipedia? And I totally get why freedom is great. You're free to work for free, free to imagine yourself as freeing mankind, and Google and Facebook are free to enjoy the $$$ and commercial usage rights to everything you do – free at last, free at last; thank God almighty we're free at last. :) Enjoy your freedom fries. AndreasJN466 11:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A Certain White Cat, how come this file is on the French Wikipedia? [8] It's got a copyright notice and everything, with a special template made for that purpose. That file's been there for six years. Where is that lawsuit that you say is a "mere formality"? And that's one of the buildings blacked out on the "Learn more ..." page. Scaremongering. AndreasJN466 15:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It's one of over 1,400 images in fr:Catégorie:Image non libre de bâtiment récent (Category: Non-free image of new building). How many pictures in this category have been deleted because their copyright holders asked for them to be taken down, or threatened a lawsuit? Wbm1058 (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think all of you guys fail to understand copyright law and its ramifications. France has a very restrictive copyright law and would not be affected by the amendment. They already do NOT have any kind of FOP. The law would extend the same restriction to rest of Europe. Countries like Germany have no equivalent of "fair-use" but have FOP compatible with free licensing. I have not seen a single compelling argument what additional restrictions for commercial use would serve our mission aside from hindering it. -- A Certain White Catchi? 20:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Fuck this. The public are told that if this "restrictive copyright law" were to become standard across the EU, all those blacked out pictures of buildings would have to come off Wikipedia. And that's just been demonstrated to be a patent lie, hasn't it? AndreasJN466 23:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unable to participate in a discussion in a civil manner, please don't. -- A Certain White Catchi? 07:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
It is precisely because Wikipedia allows any use of its contributed content, commercial or non-commercial, that it has become so successful. Since there are no restrictions, anyone can use the encyclopedia anytime, whether at work or at home. There are no “do not do this” or “do not do that” restrictions that need to be imposed on the readers. Thus, this issue is indeed about protecting the strength of Wikipedia. What Google or anyone else might do with the content is insignificant to the matter.--OttoG (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but what Google does with our content is very significant to the matter. If they simply index it, that helps drive readers to our site: more readers, more potential donors to the Foundation. If they copy significant content from us, and publish it on their own site, then readers may no longer feel the need to click through to us... then we'll have fewer readers, and fewer donors. Unless Google makes up for that by donating at Koch brothers-levels, they hurt Wikipedia in that scenario. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree quite strongly with that. As long as Google provides attribution and a link to the original WP content, it's always a positive thing for them to present WP content on their sites (beyond just index search results). It doesn't matter which server sends the bytes to the end user, WP benefits from the exposure either way. As far as I'm aware, Google's use of WP content always includes an obvious attribution/link into the same content on WP. --Murph9000 (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Joking aside, I see no problem per se in Google using Wikipedia content. But you have to be cognizant of the fact that this entire economy is based on unpaid volunteer work. There comes a point where the sheer scale of the profits made from advertisements, and the propaganda machine keeping this convenient arrangement going, just become obscene. I am fairly certain that historians of the year 2100 will look back at our times and view the present arrangements around volunteer work online with the same moral horror as we today might feel looking at labour practices that were common in the 19th-century, in the early days of the industrial revolution. Users are screwed today: they work for nothing, and happily (often unwittingly) sign over all rights to benefit from their work to multi-billion-dollar companies. AndreasJN466 14:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We started and continued to be freely-licensed which allows commercial use. I do not remember us agreeing to change that. -- A Certain White Catchi? 19:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Press: "Wikipedia jumps aboard the bogus 'freedom of panorama' bandwagon", published a couple of hours ago in The Register. Note that this isn't the first time Wikipedia rhetoric has been criticised as over the top scaremongering. In the case of SOPA and the recent fundraising campaign, such criticism has even come from principled Wikimedia Foundation staff: SOPA, fundraising. AndreasJN466 14:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia embarrasses it self once again. Objective3000 (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it's embarrassing to stand up against erosion of rights on matters close to freedom of speech and expression, and other fundamental freedoms (I consider photography in public places to be somewhere within the spectrum of free speech issues and fundamental rights), then please ship me a bulk supply of embarrassment! If this campaign turns out to be a lot of worrying about nothing, at least it's worrying about a worthy overall cause. It still sends a useful message that there are a significant number of people interested in retaining personal rights around public photography. --Murph9000 (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Wikipedia has every right to stand up for whatever of its rights it thinks may be harmed in the proper arena. But, violating your own rules by blasting a POV all over an encyclopedia, in a case that appears to be a gross overreaction to a proposal that is nowhere near enactment is embarrassing. Objective3000 (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are? What point of view are we pushing? All we are explaining is the possible consequences of the amendment. -- A Certain White Catchi? 19:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, you are outright misrepresenting those possible consequences, making readers believe that French buildings for example that have been depicted in Wikipedia for years could no longer be so depicted. That's just made up, designed to mislead gullible readers. AndreasJN466 00:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly blasting a POV all over WP. The notice is dismissible, so only has to be viewed once by people who are disinterested in it. It's also not really a POV as such, as it just seems to be explaining a proposed piece of legislation and the negative impact that it could have on WP. That seems an entirely valid and important thing to highlight to visitors who would very likely be unaware of the legislation. I agree that WP should generally avoid political activism, and try to stay neutral on political issues. There is one major exception to that, however, where the activism is directly related to preserving or supporting the core mission of WP. In this case, the activism was quite justified as the proposed legislation had direct negative consequences for WP. That it was a long way from enactment is mostly irrelevant. What is relevant is that it was being proposed, and it can sometimes be easier to get these things changed or stopped by getting involved at the earliest possible point, before the proposals pass certain procedural points of no return. --Murph9000 (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like: "A POV is OK if it's 'correct'." Objective3000 (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just be clear. We always made full use of laws that benefited our mission. Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) was formed as a "non-profit" NGO to have tax deductible donations. We have had Wikimedia chapters come out to existence to fill in the role of WMF at a local level while offering the same "tax deductible" framework at the local level. No NGO can be immune from influencing and/or being affected by politics when they operate at a global level even if they completely maintain a non-involvement policy towards anything political. For instance simply providing free access to all human knowledge has significant political consequences as the electorate will now be voting in a more informed manner which will have an influence on their decision when casting their votes.
Mind that I agree with the notion that we are NOT a political lobby group and should neither act or pretend to be one. However, as frustrating this may sound, not taking a side is often siding with the worse option in many cases. Consider the SOPA legislation which suggested faster speeds to entities paying and slower speeds to entities that aren't. This would have global ramifications as most of our servers are in the US. Along with many other websites whom some normally aren't even politically active at all decided to black out their site. Why did this happen? Why would websites close shop and cut-off their own livelyhood for a full day? It is because the law threatened their existence.
The amendment to the EU legislation vote does NOT threaten our existence. The idea here is to prevent gradual erosion of our content with small changes to the legislation. The amendment does however limit the use of content from EU countries by making existing photographs of statues and buildings still in copyright (meaning you cannot make a 3D copy) non-commercial which makes them unusable on our project as non-commercial works are not considered free. This fine consequence of the law is unknown to the general public and with the banner we merely informed the electorate of this by stating that "photos of modern buildings must remain on Wikipedia, a proposal in the European Parliament puts thousands of images on Wikipedia in danger". The banner links to a page asking our readers to contact their MPs. Given the consequences, the electorate may contact their MPs in support of the amendment as well as against it. MPs should serve the interests of the people they represent.
non-commercial which makes them unusable on our project as non-commercial works are not considered free: There you go again talking absolute piffle. Non-free content is not unusable on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia contains over 150,000 non-free album covers alone, along with hundreds of thousands of movie stills, newspaper pages, company logos, book covers and God knows what, none of which come with a licence allowing commercial reuse by Wikipedia readers. Wikipedia banner campaigns have two problems: one is that they are a violation of NPOV, the second one is that many people feel the information provided to the public is extremely dodgy and tendentious. [9][10] One could perhaps talk about the first problem, if the second one were addressed first. ;) AndreasJN466 12:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair-use is acceptable if used in a limited manner. Of the non-free content, how many are in a high resolution for example? The banner is not part of the sites content hence I cannot imagine how neutral point of view is involved. The banner is factually accurate too, it isn't even an opinion. We WILL delete files that lack the four freedoms we require. We did this before when public domain works became copyrighted when a law was passed restoring their copyright. -- A Certain White Catchi? 13:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
You told a blatant untruth. Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of non-free images, hosted under fair use where justifiable for an educational purpose, and that is just as it should be. Fair use is acceptable where it serves a legitimate educational purpose, and there is no need to whine about file resolutions. There is no conceivable educational need for an album cover or book cover image file to be in a high enough resolution for someone to print copies that are indistinguishable from the original. Right? AndreasJN466 13:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if you'd cease insisting that I am (somehow) trying to mislead the community. For starters you are talking about the US legal system where the concept of fair use and educational use exists. This isn't the case in many countries such as Germany which however has FOP unlike say France or Belgium. Moreover German courts found CC-by-NC to be only usable for personal use. This was over a case where a CC-BY-NC photo was used on the Web site of a non-commercial broadcaster/organization. If you want a more detaild sicussion on the matter there is this pdf. As for your second point, there is a conceivable educational value in being able to have high resolution images of FOP works to get the fine detail. We would be forced to use a low resolution copies if FOP is removed. Mind that we do not allow unfree images of buildings and statues on articles so if FOP does not allow a photo we do not have a photo in the article unless local law allows us some other way to feature the image such as the case with fr:Viaduc de Millau photos taken from a distance. Mind that I find this kind of usage questionable at best but that's merely my opinion. -- A Certain White Catchi? 09:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Coming late to the fray, but I feel I have to slip a word here.
Wikipedia's content is licensed in a way that allows commercial use. Maybe it is a bad thing, but that is the way it has been until now. While one might rant about Gogol, Fussbuk et. al. taking a free ride on content created by hard-working altruist Wikipedians, banning FoP would change that only insofar as WP would have less content, so they could freeload on less. Bleeding the patient to make them less tasty for vampires is quite a counterproductive policy IMO.
As many people of the libre community, I consider my edits to WP as a gift (of mediocre value) to humanity, that is free in the two meanings (libre and gratis). I would oppose any attempt to restrict the use of WP content by Gogol, Fussbuk, Jack the Reaper or <insert bad guy here>, even if it was technically and legally possible, on philosophical grounds. While my position may represent only a tiny minority, that is not self-evident and I would not appreciate such action to be taken with a rationale of 'duh, of course everyone wants this'.
Tigraan, if you are trying to create the absolutely false impression that Wikipedia contains no non-free content, then please stop. Just stop. I don't know whether album cover images for example (all copyrighted) are stripped from CD versions of Wikipedia, but it is very clear that there is no problem including non-free content in Wikipedia, and that it is quite possible to satisfy and respect both owners' and readers' needs and rights. As for your vampire simile, if I were to accept those terms, then all I am saying is, don't make yourself the vampire's PR agent. They can do their own PR. AndreasJN466 12:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andreas, what about wikis without any non-free content (or uploads for that matter)? non-free content is an exception not a rule. We have diminished our non-free content over the years. I have experienced this. Fair use content was restricted to content space. A "fair use rationale" was added where users of non-free content were required to explain why they are using non-free content, this also restricted the number of uses of an image. Fair use images were required to have a lower resolution. We used to have "list of episode" articles with per episode screen captures. This decorative use was abolished too. Articles featuring buildings and statues without FOP got their images taken down as this was not deemed acceptable non-free content use. In the non-distant future we may decide to restrict non-free content more. So why do you think it is a good idea to promote unfree content at this point? -- A Certain White Catchi? 12:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it is a good idea to promote unfree content. I think it is a bad idea for Wikipedia to exaggerate or tell lies in order to arrive at more effective rhetoric. Wikim/pedia claims that its educational purpose is jeopardised if it can't grant full commercial reusability to all images it hosts. That isn't the case, is it? Wikipedia's educational purpose is protected by fair use provisions. If there were a whole category of images that Wikimedia could only host with non-commercial licences, a separate central project analogous to Commons could be set up to serve educational purposes in the various wikis. This is all academic now anyway: there was never any significant likelihood of countries like the UK and Germany giving up their freedom of panorama, and there is zero likelihood of that now, given Oettinger's recent statement on Twitter. AndreasJN466 13:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe English Wikipedia could manage with fair use through the use of low resolution files of otherwise high-res FOP files. We do not allow such files currently though so more consensus on the matter is needed. Non-commercial licenses are more restrictive than you think. I mentioned this twice before today but German courts found CC-by-NC to be only usable for personal use. Hence German edition of Wikipedia that has no fair-use content has no incentive to use non-commercial content. -- A Certain White Catchi? 09:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The fact that we do not allow free but non-commercial licences hurts us badly. It is precisely what opens us up to the widespread charge that Wikipedia is a tool of American corporate interests. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with Andreas. It would be far more straightforward to change Commons licensing to force Non-Commercial use, by organising a survey with all Wikipedia users for examples. The justifications of DVD/CD/Book sells are just bullshits. Facebook and Google are the main scroungers of Wikipedia's work. By the way, the banner wording above can clearly be seen as a sort of propaganda, because it completely avoids the main concern which is : "to prohibit commercial use". Not sure if ordinary users would see all this stuff as a freedom threat with a correct wording.Woodada (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Woodada, I hope you do understand what non-commercial means. Non-commercial does not JUST mean "don't make money out of it". It also applies to any actions that cause financial loss to the owner. Us putting such content on Commons and Wikipedia with a non-commercial license would constitute a commercial financial loss as we are mass publishing their works for free and fewer people would have an incentive to pay to buy their copies & photos and therefore would seek take-downs and we would not be able to host such files.
I hope you are also aware that Wikipedia is sold to countries with bad internet coverage through programs like One Laptop per Child to cover the cost of the hardware. As you mentioned, our content is also used by websites such as Google, Answers.com or Ask.com whom from time to time sponsor our activities which makes some of our activity possible through their sponsorship and donations. Wikipedia exists in the public space for the use of everyone freely. You can make free copies of it, you can modify it, as long as you provide attribution you can pretty much do whatever you like with it without worrying if you will be sued for your activity! All this is possible because of our free license and I see no compelling argument for us to abandon it.
A Certain White Cat I definitely don't see how the owner of an image released under CC-BY-NC could use the law to attack an organisation like Wikipedia which would only use that image on some articles, without making money from it. Can you give me an example of such a trial? Can you quote the laws which give the right to a CC-BY-NC image owner (i.e. non commercial, non profit, no money AND open) to ask for a compensation for financial loss if no money is made from it???? By the way, the program One Laptop per Child is not commercial, so not concerned. Google, Answers.com or Ask.com could simply use Wikipedia's content without making money from it, or use a filter to ignore NC content.Woodada (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For one, we do get donations - sizable ones - from corporations such as google that use our content. These companies are not stupid, they do not want to see Wikipedia fail hence why they donate so as not to lose existence of our content even if it is available for free. WMF does need staff and hardware to keep things running after all. Mind that it is not trivial to constantly dodge content with exclusive NC particularly when dealing with large amount of data particularly if you distribute that content to multiple data centers with cached data.
One Laptop per Child (OLPC) laptops are sold /for profit/ during fundraising events where if you buy a laptop (which comes with Wikipedia) you donate one as well. OLPC also sells these laptops to governments whom distribute them, not for profit mind you - just the cost of the hardware and shipping but that is the type of activity an NC clause would prevent regardless of the intention. It is the same as selling Wikipedia on a DVD. So if we introduce a NC element, we are effectively robbing OLPC recipient children of Wikipedia in their possibly internet-less communities. Of course another alternative is for OLPC to hire more staff at added cost (meaning fewer laptops for the recipients) to remove NC content.
NC licenses have a catch, they are intended for limited use hence why we do not consider them free. When we say limited use here, we mean limited viewership as well so if a popular site uses the files they can be subject to take-down notices for that reason alone. By giving something away for free, you hurt its commercial value. How do you think piracy related lawsuits go so high? It is not because copyright is violated, it is more about the financial impact. We would be restricted by the NC nature of the new FOP laws themselves that would be drafted on top of the amendment itself which may make CC-BY-NC insufficient. There already was talk about the supporters of the amendment to restrict resolution to low for example. Doing a quick google search I came up with this interesting blog post which asks the question how non-commercial CC-BY-NC really is and gives an example scenario of a teacher using NC content in a class the students are paying for it? Creative Commons researched something similar and found that their test subjects were unsure of what NC supposedly is so I completely understand why this is confusing for everybody, myself included. Moreover German courts found CC-by-NC to be only usable for personal use. This was over a case where a CC-BY-NC photo was used on the Web site of a non-commercial broadcaster/organization. If you want a more detaild sicussion on the matter there is this pdf.
In a nutshell NC complicates things unnecessarily and we should delete any content non-compliant with a free license.
In a nutshell, NC equals free. The idea that we have to use low-resolution for free images is rubbish. Low resolution is only required when we are using non-free images under fair use. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do not overlook the potential effects on tourism
The commercial use of pictures of skylines and distinctive buildings is essential for promoting tourism, which is a good thing to keep in mind when discussing the matter.
Just look around to see what kind of imagery airlines, hotels, tour organizers and others in the tourism and conferencing sector tend to use. Photos and drawings of famous structures are everywhere. The official tourism boards of cities and regions—as well as large corporations—might be able to take the time and effort to contact every copyright holder to get permission, but for small and medium-sized businesses, it will be easier to just drop the use of photos of anything but really old buildings.
With tourism becoming an ever more important part of the European economy, this argument should appeal to many citizens. We need the best promotion possible in order to stay on top in the global competition for visitors. Also, the advertising we see around us would plainly be more boring if there were no commercial freedom of panorama.--OttoG (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more interested in talking to MPs. -- A Certain White Catchi? 20:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand why the owner of any commercial real estate wouldn't want us to publish a photo of their buildings. It's free publicity to them. For example, I believe that Brandywine Realty Trust, the owner of the former Bell Atlantic Tower, now called Three Logan Square, actively encouraged us to update the name of the building (see Talk:Three Logan Square). They are in the business of renting office space, and Wikipedia pages about their buildings amount to free advertising for them. It's just not plausible that any such building owner would ever demand the take-down of pictures of their buildings. Even the architects could say, look at these fantastic buildings we've designed for others. Let us design another great office tower for you! Wbm1058 (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're entirely correct that it makes absolutely no sense for commercial building owners and managers to try to prevent public (taken from public areas/locations) photography and publication of that photography. Despite that, there have been many cases of building management making false claims, including police involvement, against photographers. The usual justification is that it's prohibited due to security concerns (despite there being no provision in law allowing them to prohibit photography from public spaces). Usually, these days, the police are siding with the photographers and telling the building managers to stop wasting police time, but historically there has been improper behaviour by the police as well (up to and including unlawful destruction of evidence (or private property, namely the photographs, depending on your perspective) without judicial oversight). That history makes me think that it is quite naive to believe that it is unlikely that there will be problems arising from this ill-conceived legislation.
The really daft thing, for me, is that the actions don't even make any real sense in security terms, since it is trivial in the 21st century to conduct covert surveillance using devices concealed about the person (in a very James Bond way). It amounts to nothing more than "security through obscurity", which is always a dreadful and fundamentally flawed approach to security. If your security will be compromised by having images available, you've got quite fundamental security problems that will not be solved by trying to limit photography. I.e. stopping legitimate photography by people openly using cameras will not stop the "bad guys" getting all the imagery they need, it won't even really slow them down. N.B. I realise that the intended purpose of this legislation has nothing to do with security, but I predict it being widely abused in the name of security by idiots who are too incompetent to know how to implement real security.
The point is not the potential refusal, nor any potential income to rights-holders - there won't be any. It's the deadening effect of having to either ignore the law or go to huge hassle to research and obtain clearances. Ever notice how film and tv street scenes filmed in France only ever show streets with old buildings? It's not just the tourism authorities. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: we won; stand down banners.
User:dimi_z, WP's person on the spot in Brussels, has just emailed and posted the following diff to the co-ordination page on Commons.
The tl;dr is: we won. Cavada is now recommending deletion of his own text. The immediate threat is over, so it's time to suspend the banner campaign.
Here's the full text of Dimi's post:
UPDATE:
We have managed to find enough MEPs from various groups to file a positive amendment affirming Freedom of Panorama. The signatures were collected with the help of mainly the Dutch, German and Estonian ALDE members.
As a result of the big pressure we exercised and the fact that his own group publicly opposed him on this, Mr. Cavada has now called everyone in the European Parliament to vote to delete his wording, but also to oppose the amendment, as a compromise. It looks like there is a solid majority for this compromise.
Delegations form the second largest group, the S&D, have taken public positions against the Cavada text. They have however also let us know, that they wouldn't appreciate being cornered into voting for new (ALDE) amendment. The reasons they cite are mainly of procedural nature.
It would take a lot of pressure to get the positive amendment through. Such an aggressive campaign pushing for the absolute maximum this early on in the legislative process could, I am afraid, hurt our standing. Especially banners are only effective if they are used conservatively and there is an imminent threat. This threat is not given any longer, which we should all congratulate ourselves for. This is something we achieved! I want to personally thank each and every single one of the hundreds of people who worked on this.
We can still push for the positive amendment by ALDE! We can do this by writing and calling our MEPs personally and ask them to vote for it. We can also do this by joining the www.change.org/p/european-parliament-save-the-freedom-of-photography-savefop-europarl-en petition, which will ask all its signatories to to do the same.
What we can and should do now is invest in the contacts we established with MEPs and their assistants. Thank the ones who answered and promised to help! Invite them to a Wikipedia meet-up! Offer you expertise! Ask them to help you with FoP on the national level if you have none!
Maintaining contacts is also important, as the copyright reform dossier will come to the European Parliament sometime next year. If we make friends now, it will make our lives much easier next time around.
The vote on 9 July will go down as follows: First the positive amendment by ALDE will be voted on, then after that the "split" (meaning deletion) of the FoP paragraph. If the positive amendment passes, we would need the deletion to be rejected. If the positive amendment is rejected, we need the deletion to get a majority.
And what about the lies Wikipedia told in the process, suggesting to readers that French buildings etc., which have been depicted in Wikipedia for years with those selfsame freedom of panorama restrictions already in force, would in future have to be blacked out? Should Wikipedians be proud of those as well? AndreasJN466 00:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is evil, you know, we are even proud of having you here ranting around and we are proud of granting you to let us learn your Weltanschauung, which in very few other places, don't know why, could be visible in such evidence. Do we stop, the both of us, or shall I go into depth? Enough is enough now, everybody got your message, you did it, thanks and so long --g (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you methodically tell lies and see nothing wrong with it, you are indeed evil, aren't you? Let's recap: Wikipedia just told several hundred million people that under legislation like that presently in force in countries like France, it would be unable to host images of buildings like the Millau viaduct, that "Absence of full Freedom of Panorama means we can't illustrate Wikipedia properly", when images of said viaduct and many other such buildings have in fact sat unmolested in Wikipedia for years, with their copyright status duly noted. So do please go into depth as to why misrepresenting that state of affairs is and was okay. AndreasJN466 00:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One must learn from one’s mistakes. It appears some at WP learned little from the embarrassing shutdown to protest SOPA that did NOTHING but harm untold numbers of users depending on this wonderful resource – as well as harming the reputation of the project itself. Respected references like the OED, the Encyclopedia Britannica, have managed to last centuries without coloring their content with their own beliefs or self-serving actions. WP must learn that the integrity of the project must never be compromised by the POV of the editors. Objective3000 (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the sake of precision, when Murray and Bradley were in trouble with Gell, and the OED's project was facing the risk of failure, they made a call to the public opinion to support them and let them end their job. The contexts were very different, but I believe that this could be called a self-serving action; as for the Britannica, given what we write in the last paragraph of this section, I'm quite glad, indeed, that they kept quiet in this field :-) --g (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, there is nothing wrong with self-serving actions. Just keep them out of an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are out of the encyclopedia, it's the wiki movement protesting, not the editors: we keep on making articles just like we always did. With more pictures they would be better, this is what an editor could say, no more than that ;-) --g (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the "wiki movement" could protest somewhere else than the encyclopedia, then. AndreasJN466 00:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that Meta should be the one and best place to discuss similar instances, unless there are local particular situations that require local communities to prepare at their best convenience how to have their particular say. With FoP this would be the case of the countries in which there is no FoP at all. But the protest is not into the articles neither here nor in those Projects. After we have saved our edits, we are people in the world and sometimes we do communicate on "our" wikis with people who share our same vision and adhere to our same mission. And we all know this, perfectly --g (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And that all happened because Wikipedia put up a banner? Powerful stuff these banners. Right, who's for lobbying the White House over the draconian laws in the USA, which prevent Wikipedia from publishing thousands of pictures of modern sculptures?[11] Banners out, boys!--Ykraps (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who is saying "this has nothing to do with Wikipedia/encyclopedia mission" should just look at thousands of pictures already deleted in commons:Category:FOP-related deletion requests. Our articles are already hurt by lack of international FoP. It is in our encyclopedic-coverage interest to support all initiatives to expand FoP, and oppose those that try to limit it. It's simple: encyclopedias need illustrations. Laws that support that deserve our endorsement, and vice versa. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there no end to the shameless misdirection? That is Commons. There are thousands and thousands of non-free files hosted on individual Wikipedias, from record covers and book covers to shots of buildings and sculptures with local freedom-of-panorama issues. In fact, the Millau viaduct file on the French Wikipedia contains a note specifically pointing out that it should not be transferred to Commons, but is perfectly fine on the French Wikipedia to illustrate the relevant article. AndreasJN466 10:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andreas, are you really advocating that we should prefer non-free content over free content? Can you show me the list of non-free use images on German Wikipedia? Or how about Spanish Wikipedia which has no local uploads whatsoever? While at it why not list other wikis that allow FOP files but otherwise do not have any non-free content that would be affected by the amendment? I really cannot understand your fascination with fr.wikipedia's non-free content since France would not be affected by the FOP amendment as France has no FOP to begin with. Mind that even en.wikipedia would be affected by the amendment as non-free content policy would require us to use lower resolution images in the absence of a FOP exception. -- A Certain White Catchi? 11:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The Millau Viaduct. Illustrated in Wikipedia, despite the absence of commercial freedom of panorama. See also the image on the French Wikipedia and the German Wikipedia.I am advocating that the Wikipedia movement not tell lies in order to get its way. Is that too much to ask? You say Wikipedia couldn't show pictures of buildings like the Millau Viaduct without commercial freedom of panorama. Yet Wikipedia – all language versions of it – clearly can, and do. Is it so hard to stick to the truth? (Apparently.) As for whether free content should be preferable to non-free content, that clearly depends. The US freedom of panorama provisions for example protect works of art – photos of those are not allowed on Commons – and I think that is correct: the interests of the artists legitimately take precedence. Y'all are sounding like spoilt teenagers shouting "Me, me, me", without a care in the world for anyone else's rights. And lying, just like teenagers wanting to pull a fast one. AndreasJN466 12:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to nominate it for deletion. We take copyright violations very seriously on commons. I noticed that commons category is quite problematic itself. I may perform a batch deletion notification myself in the recent future unless you beat me to it. This is independent of the amendment mind you since the outcome would not change the status of Millau Viaduct (also have you noticed how we don't have fair use images in this article?). -- A Certain White Catchi? 15:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
By all means delete the category. It won't inconvenience the Wikipedia reader, contrary to what the banner message says: the pictures will simply be replaced by fair-use uploads here in en:WP. AndreasJN466 12:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are under the assumption that nothing will change. This is incorrect. We do NOT allow fair use to be used on the site in the manner you are suggesting. We remove such uses of non-free content regularly. -- A Certain White Catchi? 13:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I would think it is too early to "declare victory". It ain't over till its over (as explained in 8th item too). Waiting till the 9th would only take 7 days, our discussion to remove them probably longer. -- A Certain White Catchi? 07:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Should we review and correct the Freedom of panorama article? It seems too brief, poorly cited, and has some apparent errors. --Light show (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's time to stand down the banners we should never have put up in the first place. I have made it quite clear both now, and in the past, that I do not believe that Wikipedia is, or should be, a political firing ground for stepping in on everything which seems to come creeping up to our door. Each and every single person on WP has their own mind, their own free will and their own choices. Why should we all be sucked into fighting a campaign that quite a fair number of us, I would imagine (as noted by the 1/3 of members who voted oppose to banners in the first place), actually don't give a flying $!&£ about this? This would be European law, and as I have also stated, the EU and its parliament are very ineffectual and have great difficulty in doing anything. Whatever may arise in the future, Wikipedia AND the WMF as a whole should not get themselves involved in it, unless it happens to be a direct threat to close us down. God preserve us all. What does the Fish say? | Woof! 13:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done — OwenBlacker (Talk) 07:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
_(5).JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:ViaducdeMillau.jpg){kind=link}
