Wikipedia talk:Freedom of Panorama 2015

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Two weeks to save freedom of panorama in Europe

Content moved from en:Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous).

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.)

What can I do?

Send an e-mail to one or more Members of the European Parliament from your country/area (list of members on Wikipedia and list of the members on the site of the European Parliament (on the page of each member is the e-mail address linked)).
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.

Where is the coordination?

Commons:Freedom of Panorama 2015

Here, press releases, media reports, and more matters can be reported / added / suggested.

Feedback for the suggested banner text and landing page can be provided here: Commons:Freedom of Panorama 2015/Proposed messages.

Where can I read more information?

Read the article in the Signpost at: Three weeks to save freedom of panorama in Europe

Thanks! Romaine (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion, links, blogs and more information

Thanks for raising this at VP, Romaine, and for drawing my attention to it.

If anyone wants more information on this, beyond what Romaine has put above, there was an excellent piece by Jheald in Signpost this week, at Three weeks to save freedom of panorama in Europe and, borrowing heavily from that, I wrote a piece on Medium over the weekend: Freedom of Panorama is under attack.

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]

The discussion on dewiki has more great blacked-out images. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More:
- Michael Zhang, Alert: Freedom of Panorama under Threat in Europe, Petapixel, 20 June 2015. Also on Facebook
- Paul Wilkinson, PR use of public images under FOP threat - 21 June 2015 -- discusses press release put out by PR industry, [1], 18 June

Jheald (talk) 10:40, 22 June 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]
- Yes, I'm the wrong person. I think you want User:Slaporte (WMF) from Legal. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Key dates

Wednesday 1 July: Deadline for amendments. Cross-party amendments need to be signed by 75 MEPs.
Thursday 2 July, 9–12: Hearing specifically on Freedom of Panorama, EP working group on intellectual property
Thursday 9 July: Vote in the EU Parliament

Proposal: Banner alert campaign

Something like the banner below has been suggested, geo-targeted to readers browsing from countries in Europe.

Photos of modern buildings must remain on Wikipedia

A proposal in the European Parliament brings thousands of images on Wikipedia in danger.
More information

or

A proposal in the European Parliament would require removing thousands of images of modern buildings and sculptures from Wikipedia.

Learn more...

Alternate designs can also be proposed/discussed at c:Commons:Freedom of Panorama 2015/Proposed messages.

What do we think ?

Support banners

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]
Strong support. What Jheald said. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 10:58, 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. Reywas92^Talk 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]
Support We need to stand up for our content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:23, 24 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. —Мандичка^YO 😜 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]
Yes!!! This is an important point. If you are in Disneyland, then you are not in a public street, but on private land. There is nothing in the United States to stop Disney putting up a sign prohibiting commercial photography. Or for the building architect asserting copyright, since you are not taking the image from a public street. (Fortunately, I am in China, and not the United States. ) Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:21, 9 July 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 very much so. Stickee (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per DGG, Reywas92, and Sandstein. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:22, 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 — MusikAnimal ^talk 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. //Halibu tt 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. — TaqPol _talk _contrib 12:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Directly affects Wikipedia. --Zundark (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - — Maile (talk) The banners at least inform people this is happening, regardless of the eventual outcome. 12:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a no-brainer on a critical issue for Wikimedia. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 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^name ^isnot^dave (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.Korruski^Talk 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 Cat ^chi? 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. PK T(alk) 16:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support Wikipedia should support itself. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This affects Wikipedia, and by extension everyone. -Kai445 (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is an impact on liberty, let alone anything else. Miyagawa (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Cliftonian (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Might even grab the attention to get countries with restricted freedom of panorama to open up. OhanaUnited^{Talk 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. Krakatoa Katie 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. ‑‑mjgilson^T 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! Ham II (talk) 22:18, 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. --Chetvorno^TALK 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. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:37, 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. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 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. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 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 Cat ^chi? 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. Since this directly affects Wikipedia.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 21:43, 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--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:33, 28 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. --Pres N 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. JT_dale^Talk~ 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. - Ne ll is 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]
Rs chen 7754 17:06, 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. Ocaasi^{t | 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 – Smyth\^talk 20:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support this cuts too close to our core mission for us to back out saying "political." Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:06, 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. Steven Zhang ^{Help 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 definitely. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:17, 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. Waggers TALK 13:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support JonRichfield (talk) 14:26, 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. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 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 Mark in wiki (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Paul W (talk) 06:50, 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. Giant Snowman 12:14, 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!. –Davey2010^Talk 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? --Anar chyte 00:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, That amendment is stupid, and would hurt Wikipedia. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Obviously. -- Visviva (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - save the pictures! starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:41, 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]
@Boson: How about the white banner I added above? It's another option being discussed on Commons. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:37, 24 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 like the white informative banner better. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:40, 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. ~ Rob^Talk 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 42 Talk 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). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 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.

Articles like List of public art in the City of Westminster would be decimated, as would Commons.

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]
@Mdann52: Unfortunately, WP:NFLISTS disagrees here:

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).

That said, even if you don't care about effects outside enwiki (so on Commons, or Wikipedias in other European languages, let alone in the wider world, such as your tourist shots on Instagram, this proposal would mean that articles like List of public art in the City of Westminster (and 50 other articles in Category:Lists of public art in the United Kingdom), List of public art in Copenhagen or even List of football stadiums in Germany, List of lighthouses and lightvessels in Germany, List of tallest buildings in Berlin and List of statues of Stalin would suffer greatly — and that lists like List of public art by Oldenburg and van Bruggen or List of tallest buildings in Valencia could never be populated to become less patchy. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

That said, even if you're not concerned by effects outside enwiki (so on Commons, or Wikipedias in other European languages, let alone in the wider world, such as your tourist shots on Instagram), this proposal would mean that articles like List of public art in the City of Westminster (and 50 other articles in Category:Lists of public art in the United Kingdom), List of public art in Copenhagen or even List of football stadiums in Germany, List of lighthouses and lightvessels in Germany, List of tallest buildings in Berlin and List of statues of Stalin would suffer greatly — and that lists like List of public art by Oldenburg and van Bruggen or List of tallest buildings in Valencia could never be populated to become less patchy.

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.

If one clicks on the image in the article I linked, one should see that it is appropriately licensed via an OTRS ticket on Commons. So, as I stated above, no freedom of panorama does not necessarily mean no image. Fuebaey (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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. Esquivalience ^t 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. Esquivalience ^t 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. —Мандичка^YO 😜 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? —Мандичка^YO 😜 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. Intothat darkness 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 42 Talk 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^(TALK_CONT) 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]
Oppose. Wikipedia isn't for righting great wrongs. Calidum T|C 06:19, 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 Cat ^chi? 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 Cat ^chi? 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 Cat ^chi? 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 Cat ^chi? 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 Cat ^chi? 18:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
@Thierry Caro: I am afraid you are incorrect; this type of law is often retroactive. Copyright Term Extension Act was retroactive, for example. See [2], and Eldred v. Ashcroft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 -- This is not Wikipedia's role. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 10:02, 28 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 Banner talk 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. Fylbecatulous talk 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 Cat ^chi? 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 violating its own rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 1 July 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 Cat ^chi? 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. Andreas JN 466 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.

We cannot claim fair use for all the uses we currently have — particularly articles like List of public art in the City of Westminster (and 50 other articles in Category:Lists of public art in the United Kingdom), List of public art in Copenhagen or even List of football stadiums in Germany, List of lighthouses and lightvessels in Germany, List of tallest buildings in Berlin and List of statues of Stalin would suffer greatly — and that lists like List of public art by Oldenburg and van Bruggen or List of tallest buildings in Valencia could never be populated to become less patchy.

— OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Risker: I like the more informative and neutral wording of the white banner. What do you think? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page here should state "more than a decade" and not "over a decade". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lugnuts: Done — OwenBlacker (Talk) 07:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend people read WP:BLUDGEON before they ping everyone who voted to oppose. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @NinjaRobotPirate: Fair point; apologies. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 09:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like the German Wikipedia has put up a banner. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Good for them. Now, can anyone tell me how did their version of this process (getting community consensus) looked like? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks to me like
    1. a page announcing the upcoming EU Parliament vote with a link to ...
    2. a survey page, which first asked if any action was appropriate (yes/no = 118/9), then solicited ideas for what actions to take, the main four being:
      - a main page banner (yes/no = 130/5)
      - an "open letter" to the EU Parliament (yes/no = 125/5), with 1748 "signatures" as I post this
      - blacking out the main page (yes/no = 44/16)
      - blacking out all images in an FoP category on every page (yes/no = 68/11)
    HTH --Unready (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    
    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 Cat ^chi? 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 Cat ^chi? 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]

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". Number 5 7 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! Number 5 7 18:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only on Wikipedia such attention to spelling is so profoundly praised. :) -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I've changed it. -- KTC (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a shame you eagle-eyed lot didn’t spot that the banner has images which would be unaffected by this legislation: The Milau Viaduct, the Little Mermaid, the Atomium, the National Palace of Culture and the Tigutorn, are all currently under copyright in their respective countries so to pretend that that situation would change is rather misleading, don’t you think?--Ykraps (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Status quo preserved - for now

As Romaine summarized here, both proposals to change FoP in the EU have been rejected by the European Parliament - the negative (non-commercial FoP only) as well as the positive one (full FoP in the whole EU). So, for now, it seems that things will remain as they were: Many EU countries (including United Kingdom, Germany, Spain...) have full freedom of panorama, whilst some have noncommercial FoP only (such as the Baltic countries) and some have even no FoP at all (including France, Italy). That's not an ideal outcome, but at least a major change for the worse has probably been prevented (it's likely that the European Commission's proposal in autumn will not try to reintroduce Cavada's change). I'm sure that the Wikipedia community, among other protesters, has played an important part in this, and we should not shy away from using our power should similar cases arise in the future. We should stay alert. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The vote was quite comfortable: 502 - 40 against the Cavada text. In other words the whole EP turned out to be more than twelve to one against this thing that we were told was in extreme danger of getting through. (Even though a twelve to one vote in favour wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to the law as it was only an advisory report). Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, here's a better one. Why don't we just stand a few wikipedians across the UK and Europe to get some seats in the EU Parliament? That way we'd have a say in things without having to assume that the whole site wishes to follow suit... <sarcasm concludes here>. What does the Fish say? | Woof! 12:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you meant it sarcastically: European Parliament has 751 members. That's quite a lot of people - it's not unlikely that some of them have contributed to Wikipedia occasionally, maybe there are even some real "Wikipedians" among them. Not all MEPs are what one could imagine as a typical politician, e.g. Martin Sonneborn... Gestumblindi (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following your math. About 30,000 people had edited Wikipedias and there are roughly 3 billion adults in the world. So roughly 1 in every 100,000 adults has edited. Using Poisson's approximation, the odds that there are no Wikipedians among the MEPs are roughly exp (-751/100000) ≈ 0.9925. And 100/1 is, statistically speaking, unlikely. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that in a group of (hopefully) literate, educated people with good internet access (most of them probably also using Wikipedia as readers), the likeliness of some of them having made edits to Wikipedia will be much higher than in the world's adult population as a whole (which includes about 775 million people who are illiterate). So it seems to me that your math may be too simple. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, the vote was "quite comfortable" because public pressure made the parlamentarians aware of the wider consequences - there was of course not just Wikipedia, also other petitions, letters, e-mails, and quite a bit of media coverage prior to the vote. Without the public discussion, I think the vote could have gone quite differently. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe the vote had nothing at all to do with public pressure.--Ykraps (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]