Talk:EU policy/Position Paper on EU Copyright

Some comments

• The statement never explains why it is being issued - in response to rumors? in response to the summary data? ... ? Even if the answer is "just to remind them on the occasion of their delayed release", it should probably say that.
• I might throw in a "for example" before the paragraph about buildings. As it currently stands, there is no transition between the background and the examples- it's a little jarring to read if you don't know the issue already.
  • Consider making those three paragraphs bullet points as well, or tying the examples to the recommendations?
• I might link to related materials in the recommendations? Like the draft answers from the earlier consultation, or some other, more detailed statement of policy?

Hope that helps. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, the bullet points are inconsistent between re-use "by everyone" or "by Europeans". Might be worth making consistent. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Luis! These comments are extremely useful. An experienced set of eyes helps a lot to iron some parts, which is what makes a decent paper a good one. I've now re-worked the document and tried to include all your points. Please comment if I've missed something or just go ahead and edit boldly :). --Dimi z (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, I plan on contacting the EU chapters to sign this even ahead of Wikimania, but I believe it would also be good to give people a chance to discuss it at the conference. Maybe we can even let individuals edit/support/sign it the document (editing is tricky if a chapter has already decided to sign it). It might be an exciting and topical example of "How should Wikimedia advocate for free knowledge?" --Dimi z (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, good example to talk about and improve our practice. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Concretely

Concretely, where does this paper go? It's not part of some official process, is it? I guess the purpose is just to serve as a flag "hey we're still alive and interested"? The content in itself doesn't add anything to the responses to the consultation (obviously). --Nemo 16:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Nemo! Sorry I am answering just now, but I was on holidays after Wikimania and am trying to catch up with all the work that piled up. The situation is as follows: After the consultation the different units within the European Commission had a massive... let's say they had a strong disagreement about how to interpret the results and which way to go. Simultaneously, after the EP elections we're going to have new Commissioners and new lead DGs. Copyright for instance was moved from DG MARKT to DG CONNECT (or whatever the new name of the latter will be). The idea here is threefold:

• Strengthen the position of the people within the European Commission supporting a copyright reform in line with our views
• Ensure that our issues don't get lost during the transition from one Commissioner and DG to another
• Test the readiness of our working group to react to current political developments

As to our dissemination tactics: I plan on sending this to all the relevant institutions of the EU and organisations that deal with copyright reform. I don't believe it is important to make a big media fuss around this now. Let's give the new Commissioners a chance to pick it up and work with us voluntarily. --Dimi z (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Günther Oettinger

http://ec.europa.eu/about/juncker-commission/docs/oettinger_en.pdf --Nemo 12:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Formulation

I think "One striking example for the need of harmonisation is that publishing images of buildings permanently located in public spaces is unlawful in many EU countries, as architecture and public artworks are covered by copyright" might not be the best way to articulate your position since it implies a contradiction between copyright protection and eligibility for FOP. Since you don't want to do away with copyrightability of architectual works and public artworks, that seems like an unnecessarily strong statement. Cheers, — Pajz (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Pajz! I am flagging this and will refrain form using this particular formulation in personal talks I am starting to have now on the subject and in future documents. Unfortunately, I would feel uncomfortable editing this particular paper in a meaningful way after it has been signed by so many groups. --Dimi z (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Limiting IDs of databases from being copyrightable

I think it would be good if the EU copyright treaty would specify that IDs of database entries aren't subject to copyright. Currently the American Chemical Society claims to hold the copyright to CAS Registry Numbers. This position creates possible legal risk for Wikidata and generally makes it harder for Wikidata to aggregate IDs for linking different enitites together. ChristianKl (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Where do you see such a copyright claim? On the Wikipedia article you mention, I only see claims about trademarks and databases. See also Wikilegal/Database Rights. Nemo 13:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)