[17:45:22] Hi everyone [17:45:32] Hi [17:46:38] hi [17:46:47] * Steinsplitter waves to jrogers55 [17:48:20] coucou! [17:50:05] * jrogers55 waves back at Steinsplitter [17:56:43] I assume this is the place for the IRC office hour in a few minutes? [17:56:48] Yep [17:57:00] great [17:58:21] hello! [17:58:44] who of you in this channel is enjoying Berlin right now? [17:59:42] none of the lawyers at the moment but I imagine some of the crowd :) [17:59:50] we have a lot of people traveling today or tomorrow [18:00:46] Hi all, we’re ready to get started. [18:00:57] Welcome to today’s Legal Team IRC Office Hour about Freedom of Panorama. We’re happy you’re joining us for this first event of a series of office hours which we’ll host roughly once every 3 months forward. Please keep in mind that under California law we can’t give out legal advice, so rather than giving out legal advice, we will talk about the Wikimedia Foundation’s stance on issues. [18:01:25] For our first topic, we’ve chosen to discuss the freedom of panorama (FoP), the copyright exemption that allows individuals to use images of works of architecture and sculpture permanently located in public places (most people are familiar with this, but if not, let us know!). I wanted to share a few quick thoughts, and then open this up for questions and discussion. [18:01:40] First, we believe that the ability for members of the public to photograph public monuments and landscapes is a fundamental part of free expression. It's important for conservation and archiving, and it's important for building a high quality free encyclopedia. Unfortunately, in many countries the law does not reflect the way people expect to be able to share their photos online. [18:01:49] Second, Wikimedia Chapters in France, Belgium, Estonia, and others have been working hard to introduce full Freedom of Panorama in their respective countries (and in the EU). We hope that policymakers will listen to the important points being raised by the Wikimedia community. [18:02:06] Third, this summer, some European Wikimedians and the Wikimedia Foundation plan to raise this issue to the European Commission, which has also recently opened a consultation on the matter. We will be collaborating on our response on Meta Wiki. And with this office hour we hope to start a wider discussion on what we should be doing as a community. [18:02:34] I’ll hand it over to Jamesofur to start us off [18:02:39] Thanks slaporte, I'll be helping facilitate questions if it becomes busy but for now feel free to ask questions straight into the channel (if you'd rather send privately feel free to PM me directly and I'll get you in the queue) [18:02:58] welcome tvol :) [18:03:16] * Jamesofur lets everyone read the wall of text [18:03:18] hi jamesofur [18:03:29] As usual we'll have logs of the whole chat posted at the end too [18:03:34] * Romaine is happy to read it on a normal laptop instead of phone [18:03:46] I think the main issue for WM is what to do when different laws disagree (US / other countries) [18:03:49] :) [18:04:24] Thanks yannf, I think jrogers55 is starting on that one for you :) [18:04:55] as usual if others have thoughts I encourage you to chime in as well to start a discussion :) [18:05:20] Just to introduce those who don’t know him, jrogers55 is an attorney who handles nearly all the legal threats and takedown requests that we get. [18:05:51] yannf: It's a tough question. Our position is that FoP is a good thing and one that we support and that the laws of many countries support. Because of that, we think it's an area where we're comfortable hosting different pictures under FoP and the communities can choose what policies they think are best. If WMF gets a legal request like a DMCA on a specific picture, we'll look [18:05:51] at that particular one in more detail at the time. [18:05:55] If you've ever emailed Legal@ he's who you got ;) [18:07:12] yannf: though I'll also say we think many of the FoP pictures are awesome, and we'll attempt to defend every decision to keep them as much as it's legally possible for us to do [18:07:17] As far as I have understood, at least on Commons the policy is that pictures should be legal by the copyright laws of both U.S. and the country of origin (whatever the definition). However, it will take a lot of decades before at least active users on Commons will understand and accept that. The other projects have...other policies. [18:07:28] Yes, I think the biggest issue on this subject is that US law does not recognize FoP for art (only buildings). The Commons community has conveniently ignored that issue to allow photos of artwork that is not free under US copyright law. [18:07:36] hi, why does en.wp ignore commons' lead, and allows images to be uploaded under "FoP" exemptions for buildings in the US, when the image is say from France, which doesn't have FoP. Did legal clear this? [18:08:08] Frogger16, because en.wp only considers US copyright law [18:08:30] andrew_ but the US is a member of the Berne convention, is it not? [18:08:46] Commons ignores US copyright law when they allow photos of works that are not free in the US [18:09:02] Do we have any protection from a "Betamax" style defence, that in its most significant territories an image may be non-infringing (due to a copyright exception) ? [18:09:05] example Andrew_ ? [18:09:14] just a second [18:09:30] commosn can't ignore law of the united states, Andrew_ [18:09:43] *commons [18:09:56] if one wants to look at the legal minefield, FoP is way down on the list of things, URAA is the big issue, perhaps fix that one [18:09:58] frogger16: English Wikipedia also allows fair use, so there can often be more than one legal justification for having a picutre on there. Our approach is to do our best to give the communities as much space as possible to set policies by consensus and then we step in when we get legal requests that require us to act. [18:10:00] ...even if there is no such exception in the U.S. (eg FoP picture of an artwork sited in UK) [18:10:08] can someone point me in the direction of the @wikimedia_europe page on responding to the Commission’s consulatation on FoP? [18:10:37] Indeed, en.wp's policy to allow fair use makes it actually harder for everyone else, as we have to explain the differences between local Wikipedias and the most used language version (also, it looks like we're pretending English is spoken only in U.S.) [18:10:41] See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/104 section c [18:12:00] Oop: No, English is spoken in tons of places, but the Foundation is only required to act under U.S. law. (and in this case, we think that's good because it helps give everyone really broad freedom of expression) [18:12:08] tvol just a sec. [18:12:19] i am confused though, how can one use US legal provisions for FoP buildings for photographs of a building in France? [18:12:21] I know Commons can't ignore US law, but it does...give me just a minute to find the template [18:12:33] Oop: perhaps, but one of the core desires within the movement is for as much independence between the language projects. I think it's a fair concern but a larger debate/question. [18:12:44] tvol: search in [[m:EU policy]] pages [18:12:51] jheald: I'll respond to your question, but I want to make sure I understand it first. Are you asking if we can host images because they are non-infringing in most of the world, even if they aren't non-infringing everywhere? [18:12:51] frogger16, because Commons is hosted on servers in the US [18:13:22] not only where the server is hosted, as well where the operator of the server is located. [18:13:38] and where the uploader of said material is from [18:13:55] tvol: this what you’re looking for: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/FoP_Consultation [18:14:00] tvol here's the page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/FoP_Consultation [18:14:19] excellent yes thank you varnent jgerlach [18:14:29] croslof: pretty much -- for example, an image taken of a work in the UK, okay by UK law, but there's no general FoP provision for artworks in US law [18:14:31] tvol: you’re welcome :) [18:15:42] Re:jroger Well, I'm pointing on the difference on the geographical/linguistic treatment of difference language versions. We generally accept that Russian Wiki should abide by the Russian laws, Estonian Wiki by Estonian laws, etc - by the laws of the countries these languages are spoken. These determine the allowable area of exceptions local communities can establish. Of course, it becomes much harder on Wikis that cover multip [18:16:13] ...but the English version is most notably opposite to this principle - also because this is the most read one [18:16:30] See this template: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Not-free-US-FOP Basically, Commons thinks that they can ignore US copyright...just give me a couple minutes to explain why [18:17:29] The template was a result of this long discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/Non-US_Freedom_of_Panorama_under_US_copyright_law [18:17:55] Andrew_: thanks for the link — interesting discussion [18:18:01] Oop: That's a decision of the users on those wikis. If English Wikipedia decided by consensus to switch to following UK law, they could, for example. We feel that our job as the Foundation legal department is to give you guys as broad a space as possible to decide on your policies. [18:18:56] But its hosted on servers in te US and must obey US law [18:19:16] Of course, the basic problem is built in the international treatment of copyright law, which says one can seek protection in any country by the local laws. This makes conflicts principally unavoidable - one can't abide by the laws of all countries in the world at once (there are literally impossible cases, although mostly in other areas of law) [18:19:51] jheald: Choice of law in these cases is a complicated question that depends on the facts of the individual case. So if we were to receive a complaint about a specific image we'd have to look at the particular circumstances surrounding that image. Project policies, of course, need to be able to apply more generally, and should be designed to best facilitate sharing knowledge. [18:20:21] English Wikipedia only considers US law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights Commons considers the law in the US and the country the work is from, but as the discussion linked above shows, they've chosen to ignore the implications of US law [18:20:38] Andrew... well, thats a lex loci protectionis (Schutzlandprinzip in de) cse ... but i am unable to find a court decision in usa regarding this. [18:22:13] I thought we would have a meeting/office hour here about FoP action plan for the coming months [18:22:19] Stteinsplitter: lex loci protectionis was held in Bridgeman vs Corel (not FoP, but an important image case); it's also written into Berne [18:23:15] Andrew: in de for example we have a decision from the federal court (Hundertwasserentscheidung) [18:23:21] -we [18:23:35] Romaine, thanks for raising this issue. Do you have ideas on how to proceed? [18:24:05] Do we have anybody in from Sweden, who can talk about next steps there ? [18:24:28] eg: have any Swedish politicians spoken out ? [18:24:32] we have a plan for Belgium, as we discussed it in our local team a few weeks ago [18:25:00] I am here because I like to support this idea: "We plan to raise this issue to the European Commission this summer, and need your help to let them know that it�s important." [18:25:04] do we think the Swedish supreme court decision is something that can be fixed legislatively ? [18:25:22] also as I have done some EP and EC projects [18:25:31] jheald: yes [18:25:47] this is exaclty what is an issue that comes from the diversity of European local laws [18:26:00] The US recognizes the copyright of the work that is being photographs and doesn't recognize the FoP exception. Example: The US recognizes the copyright (based on US law...17 U.S. Code § 104(b) "The works specified by sections 102 and 103, when published, are subject to protection under this title if...") an artist has in a sculpture. The country of origin might not extend copyright protection to photos of the sculpture, bu [18:26:16] jheald the European Commission has recently opened a public consultation on FoP. [18:26:19] ...the photo of the sculpture is free in the country of origin, but not in the US. [18:26:29] in general we have two thoughts: or it is ok (yes FoP), or it is not ok (no FoP), but that is likely to simplistic [18:26:47] The link, again, for the law is https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/104 [18:27:10] jheald: what exaclty are the plans concerning: "We plan to raise this issue to the European Commission this summer, and need your help to let them know that it�s important." ? [18:27:22] jheald we're planning to respond and maybe send a letter. [18:27:26] jgerlach: I'm well aware of that... I've been invited to meet the relevant UK government minister about it tomorrow morning [18:27:47] (the EC consultation) [18:27:49] jheald: yes, but I don't know how good the conditions are for WMSE to push the change of the copyright act through Swedish parliament. I know how we run our own campaign in Estonia but not everything is the same there [18:28:30] I do not want to speak for the Swedish but I think they can push for it [18:28:31] what has been the public reaction in SE ? [18:28:55] For others interested, here's the link to the EC's open public consultation - https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/public-consultation-role-publishers-copyright-value-chain-and-panorama-exception [18:29:05] seeing what happens in Estonia, Italy, France, Belgium, they sure can show the impact of certain laws to the national parliament members to inform them [18:29:09] jheald there will also be a response by volunteers, organized by FKAGEU (Dimi) [18:29:12] Section 104(c) says, in part, "No right or interest in a work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto." [18:29:18] jheald: The decision makes references to the [[Berne three-step test]] and the court decided that the website/database didn't comply with that test. I'm worried about how other countries would rule when considering that test. [18:29:24] nobody likes to be in the news for killing Wikipedia [18:29:51] jgerlach: I expected a FKAGEU meeting here [18:30:06] jheald: Do you have themes that you are planning to raise in the UK? Anything we can do to help support? [18:30:31] Andrew_: I think we're moving a bit to the policy steps, but just finishing this up, our stance is that every individual picture might have different circumstances surrounding it. So if we got a specific DMCA request, we might find that a removal is legally required under section 104. But we can't say that every picture under the tag is prohibited by U.S. law. [18:30:39] Romaine: not nobody. Cavada, at least, doesn't seem to have a problem with killing Wikipedia ;) [18:30:39] Romaine: The save FOP campaign (it was last yer?) was successfull. But i am a bit concerned what the EC plant to do now. I haven't looked into theyr stuff yet. Do you have a summary? :) [18:30:56] slaporte: I'll just be going with Dimi's talking points, and the points we made last year [18:31:03] Jheald: See [[wmse:Offentligkonst.se/Stämning]] for some media coverage. Some newspapers and others dislike the decision. [18:31:04] Romaine: Sorry if it was confusing! I think that's important but probably best to convene separately for focus [18:31:30] Oop: I was talking about national MEPs [18:31:31] (though some of it is obviously within scope here too :D ) [18:31:35] slaporte: if you want to support the UK in this FoP battle, support Brexit so that overreaching idiotic EU laws will no longer apply there [18:31:53] Romaine: Well, I hope they're better than Cavada [18:31:56] slaporte: It's a round-table meeting, about a dozen invitees, also discussing the publishers' ancillary right consultation [18:32:22] Steinsplitter: Dimi has the contacts and can give an overview [18:32:53] frogger16: If you want Europe to have more UK-like laws on FoP, do everything you can to fight for "remain" [18:33:01] we did two years ago a Wiki Loves Parliaments campaign inside the European Parliament, they are all excited about Wikipedia [18:33:22] Jamesofur: ok [18:33:52] jheald: or you could have Russia annex EU, then you can have at least some FoP in EU [18:34:31] frogger16: too simplistic, so far too simplistic [18:34:56] and we are here to build an international Wikipedia, not just a Wikipedia that covers only images from modern buildings from the UK' [18:35:14] agree [18:35:22] frogger16: if you're going to continue this kind of discussion, please confirm it now so those who are not British can leave [18:35:27] jrogers55: I just think that it would be good for the WMF to clarify this matter of law for the community, eg. by posting a WikiLegal page on this conflict of law issue. It's cause a lot of discussions in which us non-lawyers are debating the legality of photos and someone uploading the photos to Commons could be charged with copyright violation (based on US law). [18:35:50] jheald: Do Dimi's talking points address ancillary copyright? Would you like help crafting a message on that point as well? [18:36:15] AndChat173801: Re 3-step test, I don't think their analysis holds up. It's also very odd to consider "communication to the public" of FoP images breaks 3-step analysis, when it is explicitly the law in eg UK, DE; and was explicitly included as a possibility in the InfoSoc directive. [18:36:17] steinsplitter the consultation couples FoP with a new "publishers' right" (formerly known as ancillary copyright) and we're concerned that they are using FoP as leverage for that. [18:36:47] it seems to me that most of the world, including France, ignores no-FoP issues, when publishing on the Internet [18:36:49] In addition to the long discussion on Commons, there has been long discussions on the En-Wiki template: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:FoP-USonly [18:36:50] How about fair use and FOp-affected images? Does fair use (ignoring that policy doesn't allow fair use at Commons) legally allow us (you) to hoste some images of modern buildings, sculptures etc when there is no FOP-provision? [18:37:18] AFAIK, the only court cases are about things published on paper [18:37:45] which doesn't help to make a sound policy [18:37:50] Yes, fair use is permitted, but only if otherwise meets the criteria for non-free content on WP [18:38:01] croslof: input very welcome. I have seen https://docs.google.com/document/d/1itvfdy2IlPCpdpwDzL_Z_3WiyfUUEQ-vj6WEZXMGhQQ/edit & La quad https://www.laquadrature.net/files/Consultation_Panorama_Droits_Voisins.pdf [18:38:29] Andrew_: that is not what I asked. [18:38:30] Romaine, what are the activities that you hope to see? [18:38:34] croslof: Dimi is participating in drafting the first [18:38:57] yannf: overall I think most of the world ignores copyright rules in general when publishing on the internet (for example our social media channels follow the CC license much more so on SM when even the CC accounts themselves don't always (from what I can tell). Sadly it's a much larger issue there :-/ [18:39:03] as we all know from image patrolling etc [18:39:27] right [18:39:36] * Steinsplitter +1 natuur12's question [18:40:02] jgerlach"we can organise a campaign again like we did all together in June, but I think a more local approach can be helpful [18:40:04] natuur12: Steinsplitter slaporte is typing on that :) [18:40:15] :) [18:40:27] jgerlach: I think it is better to ask Dimi what he thinks of the situation as he knows what is possible and what not [18:40:32] natuur12: if you mean using fair use by U.S. laws as an excuse to upload pictures from the countries whose own laws do not allow them, then sure, you can do it. don't be surprised if you get sued in the country of origin, though [18:40:33] and what will work and what not [18:41:19] natuur12: As a legal matter, yes, fair use will permit some photos of sculptures. Under our DMCA policy, we may be able to continue to host these photos until we get a proper takedown notice from the copyright holder. At that point we’ll do a detailed analysis to see if we can legally continue to host it. [18:41:30] Andrew_: A couple thoughts. One, there are many things with legal risks because of the conflicts in international law, many of which are just unclear or undecided, so it's a policy question whether any specific project wants to host more or less types of content. Two, it's important for individual users to think about the laws of their country, but given the worldwide editor [18:41:31] community, it's not possible for us address the risks to all different users. [18:41:44] Romaine in our meeting about a month ago we agreed that we should try to develop momentum both on a national level and at the EU level. [18:41:55] good [18:42:08] Romaine but that can be re-evaluated. [18:42:13] I like to do/help that in practise where I can [18:42:38] Romaine that's great! [18:42:42] if it is possible to contact the EC and have talks, we certainly should do such imo [18:42:59] on European level, it would actually be helpful if we had at least some kind of coordination on 1) what are the exact wordings we're proposing in each country (and EU) 2) which stakeholders are taking which positions in each country and which counterarguments they're using. currently, this kind of information exhange is shabby at best, and most people do not know the copyright laws of the other countries [18:43:07] what I read in the mail was more of practical nature than the discussion now [18:43:15] You can upload files based on fair use under United States law, but uploaders located in other countries may be sued at home. [18:43:15] Romaine I think it would be important to draft a good response to the consultation together. [18:43:22] of course a discussion like this can be good, but I am not sure of this is the right time and place for it [18:43:33] jgerlach: yes [18:43:36] natuur12: When we get a DMCA notice, we’ll do a full analysis of its copyright status (to the extent we know about the copyright status) to see if it’s legal to keep up. We’ll look at fair use and other factors, where they are relevant too. [18:43:54] Romaine, you mean the legal discussion? [18:44:03] Tnx slaporte [18:44:13] jgerlach: sorry for the confusion [18:44:30] jgerlach: I mean that the two topics in this IRC channel are going through each other [18:44:51] jheald: It looks like there are some good points in that Google doc, though they're scattered around a bit. Creating a new ancillary copyright would add an additional layer of complexity and protection that would only make it harder for sharing knowledge freely. [18:45:25] Because copyright doesn't have enough complexity already [18:45:26] I think it is excellent to have both topics discussed, but if we want to come to action two discussions through each other is not really working imo [18:46:21] Actually, as I understand, Dimi is not here, the Swedes are not here, and several people have no idea what these cases are about. so, I have a little difficulty understanding what's the point of this totally unstructured discussion [18:46:33] who is Dimi? [18:46:40] q.e.d [18:46:43] Romaine, we find that we need to find a good understanding of the legal framework in order to change it. We have just responded to the consultation on IP rights enforcement. And we are getting ready to work on the consultation on FoP. In the meantime we want to support national initiatives as much as we can. [18:46:46] Dimi is our colleaue in Brussels [18:46:54] Oop: for main opposition to FoP, see http://www.evartists.org/en/news.html?category=5 -- particularly pushed by the French collection society ADAGP, which probably stands to lose income of 2 million on transfers of about 8 million [18:47:00] Steinsplitter: but thank you for illustrating the point [18:47:27] ah, ok :) [18:47:37] jgerlach: how do you see that support to national initiatives happen? [18:48:19] Romaine we think the French initiative is really great: http://libertedepanorama.fr/ [18:48:26] Thanks, I have had extensive discussions privately with the French, with the Ukrainians, and several others, I've also read most of the copyright acts of the world, otherwise I would not have started today by having a discussion of FoP in Estonian parliament at 8 a.m. [18:48:40] Romaine and we'd love to see others build similar sites. [18:48:46] I forgot to ask a very important question about the Sweden ruling, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:FoP-Sweden ... [18:48:46] Oop: I think the point of the conversation has been born out for most of the hour, it is a more conceptual (rather then practical) conversation but that isn't bad. [18:48:49] Romaine: I’m looking for local leadership to take on the national initiatives, but it would be great hear from you or others if there is more we can do to help. [18:48:55] So long, and thanks for all the fish [18:49:06] Oop: What did you want to discuss with the Swedes? We can answer some questions about the Swedish case if you have them. [18:49:12] does it mean that the artists maintain a right over how their work and derivatives of it may be reused, the images of public art in Sweden do not meet the open license criteria for content on Commons [18:49:18] jgerlach: I think the word "support" can be used in two ways, one is saying to support, the other one is by helping a national initiative, can you give me an idea which of the two is the support WMF Legal can provide? [18:49:54] Romaine: what do you need? :) [18:50:17] I think you think you can only give the first one, but I hope to have the second [18:50:52] DMCA takedown requests are problematic for image uploaders as the law says that repeat violators have to be globally locked, i.e. a rights holder who dislikes an uploader could send lots of takedown requests to have the account globally banned unless the uploader disputes the takedown requests. You could also get users globally banned that way by sending forged takedown requests if no one discovers that the requests are forg [18:51:33] A lot of users discussing the issue argued that the ruling was about database rights, which Commons policy does not consider. The main issue is summed up in an email near the end. [18:51:44] Thats right, endorsement is different from action but then again the WMF is limited in what support they can give advocacy actions in foreign countries [18:52:00] from what I understand [18:52:14] WMF provided in JUne support by sending the executive director to Brussels to talk to politicians [18:52:16] Andrew_ : Swedish court has said FoP exception in SE law does not include "communication to the public" (EU-speak for putting things online), only "reproduction" [18:52:17] Douglas_: there are limitations - but there is a lot we can do to support locals [18:52:27] AndChat173801: we spend a lot of time verifying that takedowns are legitimate and have never had anyone get even 2 strikes let along enough to get banned. While in theory that's true the practical experiences and the process we have (we look deeply at every DMCA we get and reject far more then we accept) means it's incredibly unlikely [18:52:29] Andrew_: That goes back to what we were discussing earlier. The Foundation's opinion is that FoP is a good thing and we're willing to host images under that justification unless we receive a specific takedown request and determine a specific image is not legally allowed. If Commons as a commuity doesn't want to host the images, you're totally free to make that decision, but [18:52:29] it's up to the community. [18:52:33] and I think helps us more then it hurts [18:52:59] Douglas_: and a number of things we as an org can do - once we have gone through our own org/movement processes [18:53:03] But I'm asking for clarification of what the Swedish ruling means [18:53:23] jgerlach: in the recent discussion with the local team we decided to not build a site for the Belgium situation, after carefully judgement [18:53:43] jrogers55 : isn't that somewhat awkward, the Foundation knowing that it is hosting images that are not lawful [18:54:02] Romaine: We are happy to help with research and drafting where that is useful. If you need practical help (like website hosting), let us know and we’ll see what we can do. Glad to hear that the ED visit in Brussels was helpful, too! [18:54:32] varnet: thanks for the clarification [18:54:39] (or at least having reasonable reason to believe...) [18:54:41] jheald: I know that jrogers55 is planning to respond to you, in queue for Andrew first though [18:55:00] I think it is important for WMF to show their support by showing up on site [18:55:21] Romaine, how did that template for contacting politicians work? [18:55:27] good [18:55:47] I copied the system from SOPA [18:55:48] Romaine do you plan to use it again? [18:55:58] not at this point [18:56:01] so given usual practice and WMF opinion, I think that we are much too strict regarding copyright, and no-FoP in particular [18:56:03] Jheald: "Communication to the public" (överföring till allmänheten) refers to various thing done at a distance, e.g. Internet, radio, television and telephone. The concept is not limited to online use. [18:56:13] Andrew_: I'm not sure I can answer that with any kind of expertise. The database law definitely factored into the decision, and our belief is that Swedish law does allow individuals to take pictures under FoP. I think I have to defer that one to Wikimedia Sweden, who I believe are consulting with Swedish lawyers on the ramifications of the decision. [18:56:13] (and not without legal team involved, like last year) [18:56:31] Romaine :) [18:56:38] Romaine: We were discussing with varnent some tech tools that may be helpful when the community wishes to run a campaign, and that contacting-your-MEP form that you built was one idea that came up. [18:57:04] for me it is pretty easy to build [18:57:11] AndChat173801: thx for the clarification. Unfortunately the SE court just ruled against Swedes' ability to do all of them... [18:57:19] the basis is a database with contact details [18:57:25] some people did argue for deleting any image where some building is visible (notably in case of Slovenia) [18:57:32] Research and drafting would be a great help as would a 'model' law to give some guidance on what exactly to ask for from governments. What sort of FOB is most idea to ask for, for example [18:58:26] slaporte: OT (but relevant for me tomorrow): Has WMF ever managed to enforce terms of CC-BY-SA at law ? [18:58:35] jheald: regarding the earlier point. We don't know what images we're hosting. Any given image under a tag may be lawful (even if the tag itself is wrong, the image could be fair use or have license permission in specific cases). We look when we receive a takedown request, but we otherwise consider the content on the projects to be the work of the community on that project. [18:58:41] To clarify my opinion for other users, If my understanding of the judgement is correct, the artists of works in public maintain a right (under copyright) over how their work and derivatives of it may be reused, therefore the images of public art in Sweden do not meet the open license criteria for content on Commons (and all WMF projects) and the community will need to go through and remove such images as copyright violation [18:58:43] Douglas_ you mean best practices? [18:59:21] slaporte: Does WMF have standing, give we are only licensees of the contribution ? [18:59:49] jgerlach slaporte: are you going to plan a FKAGEU meeting sooN? [18:59:53] jgerlach, I suppose so. If you mean best practice in this case to mean how it would be best for us to go about requesting for FOB in our respective countries [18:59:59] In that case, the images are non-free under both Swedish and US law, so my question was not about the conflict of laws question raised earlier. [19:00:28] Andrew_: More relevantly, it is not lawful to share them online under SE law [19:00:55] Douglas_ I actually meant best practices for a FoP law. But we could probably help develop a guide for such campaigns with the community. [19:01:07] Is there a model piece of legislation for us to look when advocating for FOP in our countries? [19:01:16] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Sweden is marked as Inconclusive :/ [19:02:22] jgerlach, yes for law specifically. The legal drafting of an ideal FOP enabling bit of legislation [19:02:49] Steinsplitter: that's mainly because of the argument (by non-lawyers) about what the Swedish ruling means, which is why I was asking for clarification [19:03:28] We're just past the top of the hour now so will start to wind up as people finishing answering questions [19:03:40] jheald: this is a little offtopic. We have spoken with re-users before and gotten them to comply with the CC BY SA. Enforcing the license in court may need the creator to participate. Hopefully, a lawsuit isn’t necessary though! [19:04:10] Andrew_: It's a decision, not a ruling. Things might be clearer when the ruling comes in some months. [19:04:52] Douglas_ Germany and Austria are very permissive with regard to FoP. Almost best practice examples. [19:05:38] AndChat173801: Is there a difference? The Swedish Supreme Court has determined how a particular clause in the Copyright Law is supposed to be interpreted. The lower court will use that decision in their ruling. [19:05:47] Romaine we're happy to join FKAGEU's meetings! [19:06:31] Thats good to know as we (South Africa) largely modeled our FOP amendment request on the German example [19:06:44] Thanks everyone for coming, I think that's all the time for questions today but obviously some people are free to keep chatting. The legal team is currently planning to try and do office hours like this at least every quarter so the next one will be in around 3 months after Wikimania. [19:07:09] jgerlach: you are not answering my question [19:07:18] Thanks for taking the time to host this! [19:07:20] Thanks, everyone, for joining the discussion. We’re going to continue to work on our response to the European Commission on FoP, and we’ll share a draft on Meta Wiki. It would be great for you to contribute if you have more ideas. [19:07:24] Before we leave, here's an overview of the laws in different countries: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama [19:07:32] Jamesofur et all, thanks for the time :) [19:08:17] Romaine, we don't plan those meetings as you know. But we'll check with Dimi to set one up soon! [19:08:22] thanks Steinsplitter ! [19:09:48] I'll post the log shortly on meta and link here when done/respond to the announcements [19:09:58] Excellent, thanks Jamesofur [19:14:47] Logs: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2016-04-19