Here's the text from the proposal that's causing the stir, and it's indeed troublesome to say the least:
photographs, video footage or other images
of works which are permanently located in
should always be
subject to prior authorisation from the
authors or any proxy acting for them
That's ammendment 421 to paragraph 16.
Ammendment document as linked by osullic previously
This would require anyone taking photographs to get permission beforehand of anything (s)he wants to include in a scene if that photograph may end up being used for commercial purposes (which basically means anywhere outside the scope of your own home, a website hosting Google ads is likely to be considered commercial for example because it generates income from those ads, thus placing a photo on it would classify as commercial use under a strict reading of the law).
Wikipedia has a policy of only allowing content that's in the public domain, published under Creative Commons.
Photographs of anything taken in the EU would under this clause be impossible to publish under CC, thus Wikipedia would have to remove any photograph taken in the EU (and specifically any photograph of buildings and other structures located in the EU).
But it doesn't just hit Wikipedia. It hits any photographer operating in the EU. That picture of the Eiffel Tower your niece took during her school trip to Paris that she placed on her Facebook page or Flickr album would be in violation unless she got permission in writing to use it from the owners of the Eiffel Tower (and the owners of any other building, car, etc. etc. visible in the picture as well).
Mind that I'm not a laywer, let alone an intellectual property lawyer, but a literal reading of the clause makes me interpret it that way, and it's no doubt how courts will interpret it when they handle claims from say Disney when they sue people posting pictures of their trip to Eurodisney on Facebook...
Mind it would not just be buildings either. As written my gratuitous cat picture would be illegal to upload to any site making money from it without getting permission from the guy who made the carpet he's standing on.