Landships II

CharlieC · Legend

EU copyright proposals

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Charlie

Might I politely point out that your dismissal of the EU copyright proposals as the work of a "regime" reaching out its "tentacles" is misleading. I will give you the benefit of the doubt as you're in Australia and therefore probably unfamiliar with the way that the EU works, but let's be clear - the EU is absolutely not a regime. It also only acts in areas where the sovereign Member States have given it their blessing, because to take action at European level is more effective and/or efficient than to take action at Member State level. So, in discussing this topic could we please cut the intemperate language and leave politics out of it?

In this case, the proposals are partly to put into EU law the Marrakesh Treaty. That Treaty is concerned with access to media for people with "print disability", i.e. they cannot use printed media typically due to blindness. A guide to the EU proposals can be found here. They include certain other proposals to modernise EU copyright law.

As the FAQ from that link shows, and contrary to your assertion, there is no hyperlink tax proposed by the Commission. I have seen it claimed that this is in Article 11 but I've read this and there's no mention of any tax so I have no idea where this has come from. I think it another EU myth. I can see why there might be concern about Article 13 specifically Article 13(1) because this calls on ISPs to work with copyright holders to ensure that agreements for the use of their work are honoured. But I cannot see that this means we have to identify the rightsholders or retrospectively seek permission. It might become an issue if someone said we were using their material without permission, but if so we just take it down and that's the problem sorted.

So really I don't think there's anything here to worry about. I know there are people attacking the Commission over this, but bear in mind that just now a lot of people have agendas they're trying to promote (me included if I'm honest, but I've left that behind in responding to this and tried to give you all the benefit of many years experience of dealing with the European Commission). I suspect that a lot of what is being written on this isn't because it's bad law, it's just a means to beat the Commission, something I've seen very many times over the course of my career.

Gwyn

CharlieC · Legend

The EU Article 13 proposals seem to be of some import given that the founders and luminaries of the Internet

have written to the president of the EU voicing their concerns - https://www.eff.org/files/2018/06/12/article13letter.pdf

The chief counsel of Wikipedia has similarly expressed alarm at the impact Article 13 will have on Wikipedia's operations -

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/06/29/eu-copyright-proposal-will-hurt-web-wikipedia/.

I would dissent from the view that this is "nothing to worry about" and think it would be illogical to not start thinking and planning about

either moving Landships II away from EU hosting or quitting the website.

Since the only response I've had so far is that the EU proposals are harmless should I assume no one actually cares about Landships II

and therefore wishes to have no input into its future.

Just to remind forum readers of the history. The website which is now Landships II was the partner of this forum set up by Peter Kempf.

When Peter vanished the content of the website was saved and rehosted due to the sponsorship of Michel Boer (Black Lion Decals) and the

work of a few people. So far there hasn't been a need to go back to the forum with website issues because it has run stably without few major

changes to the structure or content.

Charlie

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Charlie

I maintain that you are over-reacting. Legislative proposals are heavily scrutinised in the EU - as is evidenced by the links you've provided. They are always heavily amended as they go through the legislative process, much more so than is customary in the UK (I don't know about Australia). These are merely proposals at this stage so I see no point in getting in a tizz about things that may never come to pass, and probably won't given the lobbying that's going on.

I acknowledged in my reply that I could see the concern with Art 13(1) but it depends how it's implemented (assuming it's unamended, which is highly unlikely). My broader point was that it should be possible to work around it, and that's why I feel there is nothing to panic us at the moment. What is illogical is making plans to do something when we don't know what the issue is we're trying to plan for. The best strategy is to wait. The new Regulations won't come into force immediately anyway. If you're that concerned I'm quite happy to write to my MEPs on the issue on behalf of Landships.

Gwyn

PDA · Legend

"should I assume no one actually cares about Landships II and therefore wishes to have no input into its future." Gosh! No! I care a lot, I just haven't checked in for a while.

I think it's prudent to have a contingency plan, but I would be surprised if the EU noticed our little site.

Gwyn Evans · Legend

So, as I said: "Legislative proposals are heavily scrutinised in the EU … They are always heavily amended as they go through the legislative process, much more so than is customary in the UK." "I see no point in getting in a tizz about things that may never come to pass, and probably won't given the lobbying that's going on."

And today the EP threw he proposals out!

Now I'm off to fight people who claim the EU is undemocratic and the European Parliament has no power...

CharlieC · Legend

That sounds like good news but it seems the MEPs have tossed the proposals out (318 : 278 votes) and required a

new set of proposals to be presented in September. I'm not sure we're out of the woods yet but at least the potential

problem is deferred.

Was it the Italian foreign minister who recently proposed a "league of nationalist governments with the Visegard group

of countries"? - sounds like the EU has some issues in convincing its own member states that it's a good idea.

Charlie

thorst · Colonel

Charlie, the rise of populism in the EU is indeed a sad development. I fear that as a EU citizen, one should start now to defend the idea of the union against such tendencies. I see why one does not like the proposal in question here. On the other hand, I find it sad if such a case is used to condemn the whole institution of the EU, and even more if it takes place on a board about WWI.

Peter Smith · Captain

I believe the "link tax" mentioned was a proposal to force websites to pay for linking to or otherwise using feeds from news sites for free. Which is A Good Thing. Too much of the "new" world, physical and digital, seems to be based on taking advantage of people.

As for copyright, something I had a lot of dealings with in 32 years of buying goods and services for MOD, I really object to website owners claiming copyright of images they don't and can't possibly own the rights to - especially when they plaster it across said images. You may own the website but that doesn't confer ownership of images thereon: just like books, strangely enough. And of course image copyright ownership should be credited if known. This isn't unique to websites. I had endless spats with companies trying to claim ownership of Crown and 3rd party IP, usually "by mistake": yeah, right. If I had a pound for every document in MOD that should be Crown Copyright but is plastered with "company proprietary" etc I'd be very rich indeed.

So if the EU proposals will have an effect on such spurious claims of ownership then I can only applaud it.

If I remember correctly, any image other than UK Crown Copyright (and possibly other government copyrights) older than 1942 will now be out of copyright protection anywhere. Technically, Crown Copyright currently extends back to 1893: but I've never heard of any action ever being taken over historical images. So, period images likely to be posted on this forum are unlikely to still be copyright to anyone. Posting images from current model company websites is an entirely different matter under the EU proposals unless they set up something like "free download" pages, preferably with images tagged as copyright free.

But of course proving copyright ownership provenance of a newer image is difficult. Having possession of an original print or, better yet, a negative is probably as good as it gets - especially with a history: like inherited pictures taken by family members. But a digital image alone is almost impossible to prove the provenance of unless it's in the metadata history. But while that may show the location and time, and perhaps the camera type, it can't identify the camera operator. Most of the billions of images already uploaded to internet sites will be impossible to prove copyright ownership.

That must be a particular problem for image-hosting sites.

And yes, copyright in particular and IP in general should be harmonised across national boundaries as the information travels across national boundaries more so now than ever. The Paris Convention tried to do this, but voluntary national sign-up was patchy and adherence/enforcement more so. We need to be looking at a world standard, not just a European one. Maybe the UN should take it on? That will delay it a decade...........

CharlieC · Legend

With technology there is always "Behold, there ariseth a little cloud out of the sea, like a man’s hand"

I've been looking at the Beaker browser (www.beaker.org) which is an average browser for http/https

and also supports the Dat protocol. One can create a website using dat and the content is shared by

everyone who accesses it. In effect the Internet becomes a cohort of equal computers which share

and discover content - the idea of gatekeepers monitoring and controlling the access and flow of information

becomes laughable. Dat is already being baked into applications to replace most of the current social media

platforms. The consequences for monopolistic access and control of data and content are pretty obvious.

Regards,

Charlie

CharlieC · Legend

The EU copyright proposals are back for a vote by the MEPs next week (week starting 10 Sept) - some amendments have been proposed but comments seem to indicate these are "lipstick on a pig" type amendments. https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/04/wikimedia-warns-eu-copyright-reform-threatens-the-vibrant-free-web/.

Regards,

Charlie

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Basing a comment on one source only, and one that might just have an agenda, is not helpful in informing the debate you seem to want us to have Charlie. As Thorst pointed out, this is a forum to discuss WW1 Landships. I suggest this isn't the place to discuss this matter. I am going to make no further comment on these proposals.