Utilizator:Strainu/©

romania.guv.ro

• http://www.romania.gov.ro/blog/contact/
• formularul nu permite introducerea de legături

Stimată doamnă/stimate domn,

Mă numesc xxx și sunt unul dintre administratorii ediției în limba română a enciclopediei Wikipedia.

În urma vizitei pe situl dvs. am observat că CEL PUȚIN articolele despre Biserica Ortodoxă Română și Biserica Romano-Catolică au fost copiate de pe Wikipedia.

Țin să vă reamintesc că toate materialele publicate pe Wikipedia sunt distribuite sub licențele Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 (Unported) și GNU Free Documentation License. Ambele licențe vă obligă să precizați autorii materialelor folosite, precum și licență acestor materiale. În general, se consideră că este suficientă o legătură către articolul respectiv de pe Wikipedia pentru ca prima cerință să fie îndeplinită. Pentru mai multe detalii, vedeți în partea de jos a oricărei pagini Wikipedia legătura spre “Termenii de utilizare”.

Vă rog să binevoiți a face modificările necesare în TOATE articolele preluate de pe Wikipedia în limba română. În caz contrar ne rezervăm dreptul de a obține această modificare prin toate metodele legale aflate la dispoziția noastră.

Vă mulțumesc.

turismpedia.ro

• http://www.turismpedia.ro/contact

Buna ziua,

Numele meu este xxx si sunt unul din administratorii Wikipediei in limba romana. Am observat ca textul de la pagina http://www.turismpedia.ro/Budapesta-335 este copiat de la Wikipedia, fara precizarea sursei.

Textul prezent la Wikipedia este disponibil sub licenta CC-BY-SA-3.0. Pentru amanunte privitoare la modul de precizarea sursei vedeti http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use

Va rog sa mentionati sursa cat de repede posibil in TOATE articolele dvs. care folosesc text de la Wikipedia in limba romana.

Va multumesc

Consultare UE 2016

3. Wikipedia content is licensed under CC-BY-SA, requiring reusers to mention the author names. Reusers sometime "forget" to do so or mention "Wikipedia" as the author. There are several cases when we followed-up with reusers and were told they will only change the attribution on request from the original author.

4. While there might by some positive financial impact, it will be at least partially offset by the higher cost of reuse (retribution for author+publisher), which will decrease the appeal of licensing this kind of content

5. In order to keep the final prices down, the publishers will make pressures on the authors to accept lower remuneration. This will be especially problematic for researchers, where the publishers already have significant power over the authors, as only a limited number of journals count for promotion in the academic world.

6. Limiting the right to press publishers will not have the same impact as on the previous questions, as journalists can use 3rd party tools to reach their public. However, this will create a discrimination between journalists and other authors.

7. For the same reasons as for authors: the publisher will pressure the rightholders to give up part of their remuneration.

8. For the same reasons as for authors: the publisher will pressure the rightholders to give up part of their remuneration and will create a discrimination between the press and other publishers

9. As explained in question 5, researchers are doubly bound to a few ISI-ranked journals on one hand they need to publish in those magazines in order to progress in their career and on the other hand, they need to subscribe to the same magazines in order to have access to cutting-edge research in their respective field. Educational institutions, especially in humanistic studies, will be hard hit by yet another right they have to assess before using certain materials in their syllabus.

10. While the impact on the researchers themselves is hard to gauge, educational institutions, especially in humanistic studies but not only, will be hard hit by yet another right they have to assess before using certain materials in their syllabus. If this right is adopted, it is imperative for the Commission to ensure exemptions for educational and research institutions.

11. While established online service providers have the financial capability to pay the new fees and/or become publishers themselves in order to compete with the publishers, new, innovative services will take longer to arrive on the market (if they arrive at all), as the providers will need to first identify the financial resources needed to pay the publishers.

12. While established online service providers have the financial capability to pay the new fees and/or become publishers themselves in order to compete with the publishers, new, innovative services will take longer to arrive on the market (if they arrive at all), as the providers will need to first identify the financial resources needed to pay the publishers.

13. The citizens will be the worse-off if such a right is adopted:
- directly, because not all the information that is currently reaching them will be available (due to financial constraints); for example, they will be forced to follow several websites instead of an aggregator to find the articles they are interested in; if they currently pay for access to a news website, in the future they will have to pay more and/or pay several subscriptions to access the same quantity of information.
- directly (for the citizens working in the publishing/online services domain), as lower innovation will mean fewer jobs in the area (by lower competition and/or automation of tasks) and higher costs for online service provider could mean lower wages for their employees
- indirectly, because innovation will slow down in this field (see answer to question 11 for the reasoning)
- indirectly, on the long term, because research and education will be affected as describe in the answers to questions 9 and 10)

14. The same answer as for question 13, with the observation that limiting the right to press publisher will have more direct impact and less indirect impact.

15. As a Wikipedian, I found the sources for some of my articles where moved behind paywalls due to the additional payments the online publishers had to make.

16. There is no specific need for a new, ancillary right to be adopted, as copyright itself has been used in the past to remunerate publishers (for example, the journals employed journalists, thus having the right to take advantage of the financial rights related to copyright for a certain span of time). If the Commission finds the role of publishers in the value chain is under-represented, it can act on the interaction between employer's and employees' rights over content produced without adding new limitations for reusers.

No matter what the decision is, the rules need to establish a clear and simple procedure for reusers to obtain rights to the content, as well as establishing exceptions for education and research, as the pillars of the future development of Europe.

The Commission should also take into account the realities of how content is distributed between private persons, by sending a link and a short excerpt, and should ensure these actions are still legal.

---

1. Member state: Romania
Type of work: architectural works (buildings, bridges etc.) as well as paintings (graffiti, murals etc.) and sculptures

Images of protected works are not accepted in some photography competitions due to concerns over what qualifies as "commercial use" (non-commercial uses are allowed in Romania). An example of such a competition is Wiki Loves Monuments, the largest photo competition in the world.

Also, Wikimedia Commons does not accept such images, making it very difficult to illustrate Wikipedia articles about such works of art.

Some of the images I upload on Flickr, a large image repository, cannot be licensed for use by Getty images due to copyright concerns.

2. Member state: Romania
Type of work: architectural works (buildings, bridges etc.) as well as paintings (graffiti, murals etc.) and sculptures

As a Wikipedian, I face two categories of problems:
- on one hand, the rules of the online Encyclopedia do not allow me to publish such images unless I follow very strict rules (one image per work, low-resolution, a lengthy "fair use" justification for each image etc.), which sometimes prevent proper illustration of all the relevant information about that work
- on the other hand, 3rd party authors are reluctant to license their images under a license that allows commercial reuse due to potential legal issues with the authors of the work.

3. Member state: Romania
Type of work: architectural works (buildings, bridges etc.) as well as paintings (graffiti, murals etc.) and sculptures
Activity: Publishing information about the works in Wikipedia articles

I use images based on "fair use" exceptions in the Romanian that allow non-commercial use of such work.

4. -

5. The Romanian law already has a non-commercial exception

6. As described in previous questions, such an exception would allow: - better coverage of the respective works in articles written about them - licensing of more photographs using specialized websites.

7. In Romanian there is no public data available regarding the income made by authors by licensing they publicly-displayed works nor of any court decisions on such subjects, so the impact of any decision is hard to calculate.

Also, due to the (excessive) current length of the copyright in the EU (author's death+70 years) and the lack of information on old buildings (sometimes not even the City Hall archives have information about the architect of some buildings and in other cases the buildings were simply build illegally) it becomes very difficult for reusers to track the right holders. Since theoretically copyrightable works placed in public places needed approval from the local authorities, if an exception on the mater of the freedom of panorama is not enforced, the local authorities should be tasked with helping reusers identify the right holders.