This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 8 years ago17 comments8 people in discussion
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Yep, there is nothing wrong with self-serving actions. Just keep them out of an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
Maybe the "wiki movement" could protest somewhere else than the encyclopedia, then. AndreasJN466 00:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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?[1] Banners out, boys!--Ykraps (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
