"Another case of breath-taking idiocy ... It will destroy an explicit British freedom guaranteed in our copyright legislation for over 100 years ... This absurd, mercenary proposal takes the EU's regulatory impulse to new heights ... an appalling impingement on basic artistic and cultural liberties." — EU Threatens Freedom to Photograph, 22 June 2015
Agnew's office tell me that UKIP are going to oppose the measure since they oppose more or less all new EU regulations on principle. -- by email, via en-wiki, 29 June 2015
Angel of the North victim of EU madness blogpost, unknown date in June 2015. Includes verbatim the text about "unintended consequences" also provided by Paul Nuttall to the Wirral Globe.
"As so often before when the European Union passes its laws it ignores the law of unintended consequences. This attempt to restrict the Freedom of Panorama, by allies of the Lib-Dems in Brussels, strikes at the root of our liberties." — Express article, 23 June 2015
Response to constituent: "Thank you for writing to me about this, I am aware of it, and indeed made a press statement last week. This is a particularly idiotic example of proposed EU legislation. If and when it comes before the Parliament I, and my UKIP colleagues, will vote against." — via diff, 30 June 2015
Unknown; not listed in the roll-call vote on deleting the Cavada-amended §46
"Thank you for your email and concerns on this subject. Jonathon Arnott gave a statement the other day which may help you understand our stance on this" — by email to Owen Blacker; links added by Owen.
"Moves in the European Parliament which could mean iconic views such as Gormley’s ‘Iron Men’ could no longer be photographed without permission have been slated by local MEP Paul Nuttall." — Press Release: Freedom of Panorama Chaos, 24 June 2015
"This would end up being another example of unintended consequences which frequently happens when the EU passes laws. It is idiotic and would mean that visitors would not be able to snap views of the Iron Men and other famous works and use them commercially if they so wanted. This attempt to restrict the Freedom of Panorama strikes at the root of our liberties. It will destroy an explicit British freedom guaranteed in our copyright legislation for more than 100 years. Art and photography are valuable because of their intrinsic freedom. Freedom is constantly undermined by the European Union as we have seen time and time again." — Wirral Globe article, 24 June 2015
"I'm really sorry for this, but I agree with this guy from UKIP. I just think that this is a practical nonsense, and it discredits real argument about the very real issues around copyright." — Daily Politics (video, at 5:00), BBC2, 23 June 2015
More extensive version of Moraes's statement from Labour for the North-East: "Freedom for Commercial Photographers: ... Labour MEPs do not support the whole of this amendment on Freedom of Panorama, and are tabling further amendments... Labour are against this proposal and will put forward changes which would see it removed from the final report... It has been suggest that the EU has proposed this when in fact it is an amendment to a non-binding report of the Parliament." — Labour for the North-East statement, 25 June 2015
"... It does not relate to holiday snaps. It’s about copyright over commercial images. And, needless to say, it’s not an EU law, nor even a proposal for one. Parliament hasn’t even voted. It’s just one idea submitted as part of a general, non-legislative discussion about copyright, which is a million miles from becoming law even if MEPs wanted it to." — Absurd EU photography madness is a damp squib, 26 June 2015
Supports the committee text: "There's a principle at stake here: if money is made out of your work, then you deserve recognition for that... This does happen in other areas of creative endeavour. If you do something on YouTube you have to make sure that everything you use, all the music clips and everything else you may use, is actually cleared by the people who produced it in the first place. So this is not a new idea, and it is only reasonable that artists who have created these works and have it as their living, and these works are going to be used for commercial purposes, that at least the artists' permissions should be sought." — Daily Politics (video, at 1:05 & 3:45), BBC2, 23 June 2015
According to Dimitar Dimitrov, "Our man in Brussels", who was speaking to Catherine Stihler's office (rapporteur for IMCO on this report and EPLP Whip): "Mary has changed her position on this" (from email off-wiki, 26 June 2015)
"The amendment made was to an own-initiative report that is simply an examination by an MEP of the state of play in the implementation of the 2001 Information Society Directive. Therefore the current document has no legal effect, but Ms. Honeyball fully understands your concerns. The European Parliamentary Labour Party will vote against any amendment which negatively affects the current UK provisions on Freedom of Panorama." — key paragraph from a longer reply to constituent, 2 July 2015
More extensive version of Moraes's statement from Labour for the North-East: "Freedom for Commercial Photographers: ... Labour MEPs do not support the whole of this amendment on Freedom of Panorama, and are tabling further amendments... Labour are against this proposal and will put forward changes which would see it removed from the final report... It has been suggest that the EU has proposed this when in fact it is an amendment to a non-binding report of the Parliament." — Labour for the North-East statement, 25 June 2015
"... indeed that's why we said amendment is bad proposal & why we're working to make sure it's rejected" — Twitter, 25 June 2015
"Labour MEPs do not support the part of this report dealing with Freedom of Panorama, and are tabling further amendments. There are a lot of good policies in this report, and we believe in the principle of creators being rewarded for their work, however some measures are impractical. We will work to make sure photographers' concerns are reflected in the final report that will be put to MEPs on July 9." — by email, via diff, 24 June 2015
Not listed in the roll-call vote on deleting the Cavada-amended §46
In an email from Dimitar Dimitrov: "Her assistant told me that what she knows for now is that currently all groups are against this amendment, including ALDE who tabled it. S&D is resolute to either table an amendment or split the vote, she doesn't exactly know which procedure will be taken, but she was very positive this part of the text will be removed." — 26 June 2015
"However, one outstanding issue remains regarding the Freedom of Panorama, which the UK Conservatives (and the wider European Conservatives and Reformists Group) will seek to delete in the plenary vote. ... However, since ... there are different views in Member States on this issue, the Group will request deletion of any reference to Freedom of Panorama as an EU solution to this issue is not appropriate and the matter can be discussed in more detail after further debate." — from a longer reply to constituent Owen Blacker, 1 July 2015.
"I have been in touch with my colleague who is following this dossier for my political group. He has sent me the following in response:
"...the ECR does not think an EU solution or recommendation is appropriate and will therefore request deletion of paragraph 46. This will ensure there is no mention of the issue of Freedom of Panorama in this non-legislative report." — via email to Diliff
Not listed in the roll-call vote on deleting the Cavada-amended §46
tells me that they (the European Conservatives and Reformists group, to which the UK Conservative Party belongs) will seek removal of any reference to Freedom of Panorama. He believes that there will be enough support for this deletion to succeed. — via email, reported on en-wiki, 29 June 2015
"Thank you for your email. Greens support the principle of ‘freedom of panorama’ and believe the law should uphold the right of photographers to reproduce pictures of public spaces. ... My Green colleagues and I oppose [Cavada's] amendment and will vote against it on 9th July." — From a reply to a constituent, by email, 6 July 2015.
"While I will be voting against the current amended proposal, I am not against having harmonised copyright laws across the EU. Sensible harmonisation could protect FOP in every EU country. In the UK we already have an existing law that has a strong provision for FOP. I would like to see the EU extending FOP across Europe, not restricting it.". She's missed the point about NC, though. There's a little more on her blog
Her reply to Owen Blacker as a constituent (specifically pointing out that she'd missed the point about NC) was a repeat of her blogpost, disappointingly. — 1 July 2015
Her reply to Christopher Cooper as a constituent attempted to provide re-assurance by stating she did not support the current proposal and that she would like to see the UK standard of FOP across Europe, though she once again seemed to miss the point about NC. — 8 July 2015
Charles Swan, a director of the Association of Photographers and an intellectual property lawyer, described the proposal as “absurd” and “a complete invasion of our freedom of expression”. He said: “Why on earth shouldn’t you take pictures of the landscape or skyline and do what you want with them? It would be fairly disastrous and most of the British public, not just photographers, would think this was pretty horrific. The only people it would be good news for might be architects.” — The Times, [1], 24 June 2015
The Royal Institute of British Architects opposes the law change. A spokesman said: "We are concerned that the well-intentioned proposals to ensure that architects are paid for the use of images of their work by commercial publishers and broadcasters would instead have negative implications, and represent a potentially damaging restriction of the debate about architecture and public space." -- The Times, [2], 24 June 2015
Issued a statement on 10 July 2015, the day after the vote in the EP:
"... We are acutely aware that photographers were especially concerned about the suggested changes to the law that would interfere with the exception allowing photography of sculptures, buildings and permanent monuments in public spaces.
As DACS operates under UK copyright law we already recognise the disputed exception, and currently do not support a reopening of the Information Society Directive, where the exception originates from." Jheald (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They did talk quite closely with Mary Honeyball, but this wasn't something they specifically lobbied on -- their key concern was the drafting of the clause on the Education exemption. This isn't something the org has pushed for, nor ever taken a position on. They've never heard it discussed in meetings of Europe-wide collective rights management organisations either. It's something that might affect a few of their members who publish their own self-taken photographs, but most authors rely on library photographs from agencies. (telephoned) Jheald (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"It wouldn’t just affect photography of buildings and monuments, but potentially photos of anything that has an “author” – anything having a clear design covered by copyright that appears in public. The owners or designers of the buildings themselves might make a few pounds in fees but our photographic culture would change overnight, and our visual history would become dramatically poorer."
"TAKING photographs of the London Eye and the Angel of the North could soon be banned if the meddling European Union (EU) gets their way, it has been claimed today".
"Next time you take a photo of the London Eye, or the Angel of the North, or any monument, artwork or building in a public place, know this: you are exercising a freedom that is under threat. This is the freedom of panorama — enshrined in British copyright law since 1911, but now in the sights of European Union legislators... The French can unify nonsense all they want, but it is still nonsense. On this, The Times sails with the pirate."
"Lawyers and industry experts have hit out at “absurd” proposals put forward in the EU, under which photographers could be punished for breach of copyright if they publish or sell images of buildings and works of art that are still under copyright."
"A new EU proposal could see millions of Britons face legal action for uploading photos of famous UK landmarks onto personal websites or even Facebook pages."
UKIP vs Labour. Labour accuse UKIP of scaremongering, but affirm that "this proposal is a bad proposal and as MEPs we’re working to make sure it’s rejected; that’s democracy in action."
"'Amateur Photographer' (AP) is at the forefront of a campaign against controversial European plans to restrict photography of public buildings which threaten to censor millions of amateur and professional photos."
Unknown; not listed in the roll-call vote on deleting the Cavada-amended §46