I've emailed all of them. So far the only answer is from Tania GONZÁLEZ PEÑAS. It says that will take our views into account. B25es (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've sent a second mail to Jordi SEBASTIÀ. As he was mayor of Burjassot I have insisted on the many aspects of this city that wouldn't be available should the norm be passed. B25es (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC). Mr Sebastià has answered with a complete support to Freedom of Panorama. B25es (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've mailed to all of them too. I've received three responses at that time:
Tania González said that they will take our views into account.
Pablo Zalba simply thanked me.
Gabriel Mato told me three extrange points:
"The different political groups of EP are studying delete point 45 and don't substitute it for an amendment."
"This is a report to value the application of a Directive. It's approval don't will have binding effects over member states."
"Besides, members from Legal Issue Commision from EP told me that the point 45 don't will concern Wikipedia, nor social networks like Flickr and Facebook".
I don't agree with the two last points but I'm not sure about that because I'm not a legal especialist. Could somebody comment that points to try to make a response? Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When the European Parliament adopts the proposal, it indeed will not have a direct influence. But after it has passed the European Parliament, the European Commission will have a look at it. If they want to change it, they have to come with good arguments. I am not sure what point 45 is, but if it is the Freedom of Panorama point, then it is something that will have effect on Wikipedia (if implemented). Flickr and Facebook are considered commercial websites, and if Freedom of Panorama is only allowed for non-commercial purposes, they will face the consequences. Wikipedia at itself is perhaps non-commercial, the license we publicize under is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) which allows commercial usage and all photos must be able to be used for commercial purposes. There is a booklet at this page that describes the situation perfectly. In 6 countries of the European Union (Baltic states, Bulgaria, Romania, and Slovenia), there is currently Freedom of Panorama for non-commercial use only, and this already results in that we are not allowed to use the images of public places with buildings an art works. A misconception we often see is that people see Wikipedia as a non-commercial website because we have no advertisements and such, and thus conclude that images for non-commercial usage can be used. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and is thus published according the Definition of Free Cultural Works. That definition does not accept non-commercial. Romaine (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've received today response from Izaskun Bilbao: they will take our views into account. --Elisardojm (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've receive response from José Blanco that said "the amendment 45 will be removed in the next plenary session because it crash with the legislation of many member states." He adds that this is only a report to Parliament and not a legal proposal, the Commision will present his legislative proposal about intellectual property at the end of the year. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MPE Soledad CABEZÓN, tolds me some similar to José Blanco. --Elisardojm (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Copyrights reform in Europe going in the wrong direction, damaging Wikipedia. This means: you are no longer allowed to upload images from modern buildings and works of public art on Commons and not allowed to use those images on Wikipedia.
Also if Freedom of Panorama is only allowed for Non Commercial purposes only, this is a problem for Wikipedia!
All parties here seem to think it is hugely important and the Commission is paying close attention to it.
Reda Report is considered like the basic compromise future legislation will be based on. And the text is not ambiguous leaving room for interpretation
This new reform affects everyone in our lives: Flickr, blogs, social media, touristic guides, ...
This new reform will lower the quality of Wikipedia
Russia just recently introduced FOP. Does the EU really want to be less free than Russia?
Absence of (a full) Freedom of Panorama results #Wikipedia in this...
Absence of Freedom of Panorama in Europe = we can't illustrate #Wikipedia properly. NonCommercial breaks Wikipedia too.
All of Europe to be blacked out online according to @TheProgressives & @EPPGroup who voted to restrict FoP in 15 MS
Deadline: Thursday 9th July. But we have one chance only!
Translation into Spanish (with minor adaptations)
La reforma europea del derecho de autor puede dañar a Wikipedia. Ya no podrás subir a Commons ni usar en Wikipedia imágenes de edificios recientes o de obras de arte en la vía pública.
Esta reforma reducirá la calidad de Wikipedia. No podremos ilustrar los artículos adecuadamente.
¡Incluso si se permite la libertad de panorama para usos no comerciales, las imágenes no serán válidas para Wikipedia!
La "libertad restringida" a usos comerciales no es libertad y rompe Wikipedia de la misma manera.
Todas las partes parecen convencidas de que el informe Reda es muy importante y la Comisión Europea está prestándole mucha atención.
El informe Reda se considera el compromiso sobre el que se basará la legislación futura.
Esta reforma impacta a mucho más que Wikipedia: guías turísticas, Flickr, blogs, redes sociales...
Hace poco tiempo, Rusia introdujo la libertad de panorama en su legislación. ¿De verdad la Unión Europea quiere pasar a ser menos libre que Rusia?
Fecha límite: jueves, 9 de julio. ¡Solo tenemos una oportunidad!
Done
Support según Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama_2015/cat#MEPs
_censored.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)