Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated list F

Copyright rules by territory

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
P Q R Sa-Sl So-Sy T U V W X Y Z

This page gives overviews of copyright rules in different countries or territories. It is "transcluded" from individual pages giving the rules for each territory.

Text transcluded from
COM:Faroe Islands

Faroe Islands

Copyright rules: the Faroe Islands Shortcut: COM:Faroe Islands
Durations
Standard	Life + 70 years
Photograph	Create + 50 years
Anonymous	Publish + 70 years
Other
Common licence tags	{{PD-old-auto}} {{Anonymous-EU}} {{Faroe stamps}}
ISO 3166-1 alpha-3	FRO
Treaties

This page provides an overview of copyright rules of the Faroe Islands relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. Note that any work originating in the Faroe Islands must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both the Faroe Islands and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from the Faroe Islands, refer to the relevant laws for clarification.

Background

The Faroe Islands is an autonomous country of the Kingdom of Denmark.

The Danish copyright law, Consolidated Act on Copyright (Consolidated Act No. 1144 of October 23, 2014), does not extend to the Faroe Islands but may by Royal Ordinance be brought into full or partial operation in the Faroe Islands, subject to such modifications as required by the special conditions obtaining in the Faroe Islands.^{[1144/2014 Art.93]}

The prevailing copyright law in the islands is Løgtingslóg nr. 30 frá 30. apríl 2015 um upphavsrætt.

General rules

According to the Faroese law of 2013, since amended:

• Works are protected for the term of life of the author plus 70 years (= {{PD-old-70}}) (§ 53, 1)
• Anonymous works are protected with a copyright term of 70 years after the work was made available to the public if the author never disclosed their identity (= {{Anonymous-EU}}) (§ 53, 2)
• Photographic images are protected for the rest of the year they were created + 50 full years. (§ 58)

Copyright tags

• {{PD-Faroe stamps}} – for stamps by the Faroe post office in the public domain.

Freedom of panorama

• OK architecture only.
•  Not OK public art. Restricted to non-commercial and/or de minimis (or not-the-main-subject) use, but non-commercial content is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons.

According to Løgtingslóg nr. 30 frá 30. apríl 2015 um upphavsrætt (in Faroese text):

• "Tá listaverk varandi er sett upp við veg ella á plássi, har atkomuligt er hjá almenninginum, kann listaverkið verða avmyndað. Ásetingin í 1. pkt. er tó ikki galdandi, um listaverkið er høvuðsevnið í myndini, og myndin verður tikin við vinningi fyri eyga."^{[30/2015 §24.2.]}
• "Bygningar kunnu frítt avmyndast."^{[30/2015 §24.3.]}

Listaverk - work/s of art. Bygningar - building/s.

Stamps

use {{PD-Faroe stamps}}

See also

• Føroyar
• Category:Faroese FOP cases
• Category:Stamps of the Faroe Islands
• Template talk:Faroe stamps
• Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Denmark

Citations

Caution: The above description may be inaccurate, incomplete and/or out of date, so must be treated with caution. Before you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons you should ensure it may be used freely. See also: Commons:General disclaimer

Text transcluded from
COM:Fiji

Fiji

Copyright rules: Fiji Shortcut: COM:FIJI
Durations
Standard	Life + 50 years
Photograph	Create + 50 years
Anonymous	Publish + 50 years
Audiovisual	Create / publish + 50 years
Government	Create + 50 years
Other
Terms run to year end	Yes
Common licence tags	{{PD-Fiji}}
ISO 3166-1 alpha-3	FJI
Treaties
Berne convention	9 October 1970
WTO member	14 January 1996
URAA restoration date‌*	1 January 1996
*‌A work is usually protected in the US if it is a type of work copyrightable in the US, published after 31 December 1928 and protected in the country of origin on the URAA date.

This page provides an overview of copyright rules of Fiji relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. Note that any work originating in Fiji must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both Fiji and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from Fiji, refer to the relevant laws for clarification.

Background

The British established the crown colony of Fiji in 1874. Fiji gained independence in 1970. Fiji has been a member of the Berne Convention since 9 October 1970. By letter dated 1 December 1971, the Government of Fiji deposited a declaration of continued application of the Brussels Act of the Berne Convention. Fiji joined the World Trade Organization since 14 January 1996.

As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed the Copyright Act, 1999 as the main IP law enacted by the legislature of Fiji. WIPO holds the text of this law in their WIPO Lex database.

Applicability

According to the Copyright Act, 1999, copyright is a property right that exists in accordance with this Act in original works of the following descriptions: (a) literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works; (b) sound recordings; (c) audio visual works; (d) broadcasts; (e) cable programmes; (f) typographical arrangements of published editions.^{[1999 Section 14(1)]}

Durations

Under the Copyright Act, 1999,

• Subject to the following subsections, copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work expires at the end of 50 years after the end of the calendar year in which the author dies.^{[1999 Section 22(1)]}
• If the work is a photograph, copyright expires at the end of 50 years after the end of the calendar year in which the photograph is taken.^{[1999 Section 22(2)]}
• If the work is computer-generated, copyright expires at the end of 50 years after the end of the calendar year of authorised publication of the work, or, if there is no authorised publication within 50 years after the making of the work, at the end of 50 years after the end of the calendar year of its making.^{[1999 Section 22(3)]}
• If the work is of unknown authorship, copyright expires at the end of 50 years after the end of the calendar year of authorised publication of the work, or if there is no authorized publication within 50 years after the making of the work. at the end of 50 years after the end of the calendar year of its making.^{[1999 Section 22(4)]} If the identity of the author of a work of unknown authorship becomes known after the copyright has expired, the copyright is not revived.^{[1999 Section 22(5)]}
• With a work of joint authorship, the reference to the death of the author is to be construed as a reference to the death of the last of the authors whose identity is known.^{[1999 Section 22(6)]}
• Copyright in a sound recording or audio visual works expires at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work is made, or is first made available to the public, or is first published, whichever is the latest.^{[1999 Section 23(1)]}
• Copyright in a broadcast or a cable programme expires at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the broadcast is made or the cable programme is communicated to the public.^{[1999 Section 24(1)]}
• Copyright in a typographical arrangement of a published edition expires at the end of the period of 25 years from the end of the calendar year in which the edition is first published.^{[1999 Section 25]}
• Where a work is made by or under the direction or control of the State, the State is the first owner of any copyright in the work.^{[1999 Section 26(1)]} State copyright expires
  • in the case of a typographical arrangement of a published edition - at the end of the period of 25 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work is made;^{[1999 Section 26(3a)]}
  • in the case of any other work - at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work is made.^{[1999 Section 26(3b)]}

Not protected

Under the Copyright Act, 1999, no copyright exists in any of the following works: (a) any Bill introduced into the House of Representatives; (b) any Act as defined in the Interpretation Act (Cap 7); (c) any subsidiary legislation as defined in the Interpretation Act (Cap 7); (d) the debates of the Parliament of the Fiji Islands; (e) a report of a Royal Commission, Commission of Inquiry, ministerial inquiry or statutory inquiry; (f) a judgment of any court or tribunal.^{[1999 Section 27(1]} This applies to works made before or after this Act comes into force.^{[1999 Section 27(2]}

Copyright tags

• {{PD-Fiji}} – for photographs at least 50 years after production.

Freedom of panorama

OK for buildings, sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship. Under the Copyright Act, 1999,

• This section applies to (a) buildings; and (b) works (being sculptures, models for buildings, or works of artistic craftsmanship) that are permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.^{[1999 Section 67(1)]}
• Copyright in a work to which this section applies is not infringed by (a) copying the work by making a graphic work representing it; (b) copying the work by making a photograph or audiovisual work of it; or (c) broadcasting, or including in a cable programme, a visual image of the work.^{[1999 Section 67(2)]}
• Copyright is not infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the broadcasting or communication to the public or inclusion in a cable programme, of anything the making of which was, under this section, not an infringement of copyright.^{[1999 Section 67(3)]}

Citations

Caution: The above description may be inaccurate, incomplete and/or out of date, so must be treated with caution. Before you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons you should ensure it may be used freely. See also: Commons:General disclaimer

Text transcluded from
COM:Finland

Finland

Copyright rules: Finland Shortcut: COM:FINLAND
Durations
Standard	Life + 70 years
Anonymous	Publish + 70 years
Other
Freedom of panorama	For buildings
Terms run to year end	No
Common licence tags	{{PD-Finland50}} {{PD-Finland}}
ISO 3166-1 alpha-3	FIN
Treaties
Berne convention	1 April 1928
WTO member	1 January 1995
URAA restoration date‌*	1 January 1996
WIPO treaty	14 March 2010
*‌A work is usually protected in the US if it is a type of work copyrightable in the US, published after 31 December 1928 and protected in the country of origin on the URAA date.

This page provides an overview of copyright rules of Finland relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. Note that any work originating in Finland must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both Finland and the United States, before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from Finland, refer to the relevant laws for clarification.

Governing laws

Finland has been a member of the Berne Convention since 1 April 1928, the World Trade Organization since 1 January 1995 and the WIPO Copyright Treaty since 14 March 2010.

As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed the Copyright Act (Act No. 404/1961 of July 8, 1961, as amended up to Act No. 972/2016 of November 18, 2016) as the main IP law enacted by the legislature of Finland. WIPO holds the text of this law in their WIPO Lex database. The Finnish Ministry of Justice website holds an English translation of the Copyright Act 404/1961, with amendments up to 608/2015 on its website. Finlex holds up-to-date Finnish and Swedish versions of the act.

General rules

Under the Copyright Act 404/1961, with amendments up to 608/2015,

• Copyright subsists until 70 years have elapsed from the year of the author's death or, in the case of a work of joint authorship, from the year of death of the last surviving author.^{[404/1961–2015 Sec.43(1)]}
• Copyright in a cinematographic work subsists until 70 years have elapsed from the year of the death of the last of the following to survive: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic work.^{[404/1961–2015 Sec.43(1)]}
• Copyright in a musical work with lyrics, when the lyrics and music have been specifically created for the work, subsists until 70 years have elapsed from the death of the last surviving lyricist or composer, whether or not they have been appointed as the authors of the musical work with lyrics.^{[404/1961–2015 Sec.43(2)]}
• Copyright in a work made public without mention of the author's name or generally known pseudonym or pen name shall subsist until 70 years have elapsed from the year in which it was made public.^{[404/1961–2015 Sec.44(1)]}
  • If the identity of the author is disclosed during the period referred to in subsection 1, the provisions of section 43 shall apply.^{[404/1961–2015 Sec.44(2)]}
  • The copyright in a work not made public, whose author is unknown, shall subsist until 70 years have elapsed from the year in which the work was created.^{[404/1961–2015 Sec.44(3)]}
• Anyone who for the first time publishes or makes public a previously unpublished work for which the protection has expired obtains a right that subsists until 25 years have elapsed from the year in which the work was published.^{[404/1961–2015 Sec.44a]}

Photographs that are not works of art

The right to a photographic picture [that does not qualify as a "work of art"] shall be in force until 50 years have elapsed from the end of the year during which the photographic picture was made.^{[404/1961–2015 Sec.49a]}

Photographs considered to be "works of art" are protected normally for 70 years after the death of the work's creator.^{[404/1961–2015 Sec.43]} The difference between a photograph and a photographic work of art is not precisely defined. To qualify as a work of art, the photograph must express personal vision such that no other person can be expected to have produced a similar image. As an example, the (legally not binding) statement by the Finnish Copyright Council states that this photograph of Paavo Nurmi "— is, despite its historical importance, a regular photograph of contemporary events. The photograph does not demonstrate original and personal contribution on the part of the photographer and so it cannot be regarded as a photographic work (of art)."

An amendment to the Copyright Act (1991) extended the copyright time from 25 years (according to the 1961 copyright law) to 50 years. However, material already released to public domain according to the 1961 law remain in public domain and therefore all photographs (but not photographic works of art) released before 1966 are in the public domain (and were in the public domain at the URAA date).

Photographs featuring works of art exhibited in public spaces can only be used for non-commercial purposes other than in certain contexts (similar to "fair use"), unless it is clear that the work is not the main subject in the photo (freedom of panorama). Taking photographs of buildings (works of architecture) is explicitly allowed, but photographing single, private homes or yards may be illegal based on privacy laws.

Photographs of people

The law regarding images of living people is unclear and the advice below is mostly deduced from recommendations, case law and legal literature. Possible consequences of the Data Protection Directive of the EU and related domestic legislation have not been considered below.

Domestic privacy (kotirauha, hemfrid): people in private yards, homes or similar places (which includes temporary overnighting facilities, such as tents) may not be observed by technical means, nor photographed, other than rightfully (which may open for de minimis defence in some cases).

Photos of people who are of public interest (famous politicians, artists, sportsmen) and who are carrying out their public duties or going about their usual work may be published without consent. In case of politicians, public officials and important persons in economical life, photos of private life may also be published in certain cases, where the information is important for their role and for public interest.

Photos of regular people in public places may only be published without their consent if the person is clearly not the main subject of the image and the picture does not cause damage, suffering or despise to the person in the picture. Photographs of public events or regular life in the streets should be unproblematic, unless some individual people are shown prominently or somebody is doing something stupid. In the latter case, whether showing the incident is unimportant, and whether the person did not intend the action to be public, should be considered.

However, if the person can be identified, the image may not be used in advertisement (commercially or non-commercially) without consent. Even when a person is not clearly identifiable, using a picture with the person as the main subject may require their consent. The images should be marked with {{Personality rights}} as the uploader may be held responsible for allowing such use.

Not protected

Under the Copyright Act 404/1961, with amendments up to 608/2015, there shall be no copyright:^{[404/1961–2015 Sec.9(1)]}

• In laws and decrees;
• In resolutions, stipulations and other documents which are published under the Act on the Statutes of Finland (188/2000) and the Act on the Regulations of Ministries and other Government Authorities (189/2000);
• Treaties, conventions and other corresponding documents containing international obligations;
• Decisions and statements issued by public authorities or other public bodies;
• Translations of documents referred to above made by or commissioned by public authorities or other public bodies.

As of the 2005 revision, copyright protection continues to apply to independent works contained in the documents referred to in the list above.^{[404/1961–2015 Sec.9(1)]} A work that is part of or attached to a decision or something similar is often such that it was not produced specifically as a part of the decision or as an attachment to it. In such a case, it is not reasonable that the attached work should also automatically lose copyright protection. An example is a work of fine art included in currency. This applies to independent works included in both the text of the document and its appendices. These independent works could be reproduced in connection with the document in question and used separately from the document for the purpose to which the document is related, but due to these restrictions the document or the protected independent work it contains cannot be uploaded to Commons.

The textual, and in many cases the graphical, representations of Finnish coat of arms of municipalities, regions and provinces are considered to be part of decisions of public bodies and therefore they are not protected by copyright. According to the opinions of the Finnish Copyright Council even the graphical representation is thought (at least in these cases) not to be protected by copyright.

Either the graphical representations were part of the decisions of the municipalities (whether they could be considered works of art was thought to be irrelevant), or the alterations made did not meet the requirements for an original work of art. The coats of arms of historical provinces and other historical coats of arms are not protected by copyright: if there has been any copyright, it has expired.

Coats of arms of new entities should be analysed on a case-by-case basis. Usually they are based on old coats of arms and not eligible, but there is no guarantee unless they are included in public decisions. Some unofficial coats of arms, e.g. for former municipalities, which never had official coats of arms, are private creations under copyright, provided they reach the threshold of originality.

Reproductions of out-of-copyright works

National recommendations (JHS 189) for open licensing in Finland is CC-BY and most of the open digital archives are following it. A digitised work (particularly of a three-dimensional object) could lead to protection by a related right as a non original photograph. The Copyright council has stated that the start time of copyright protection of a photograph is when the photograph is taken. Reproductions of out of copyright photographs are copies and do not get new copyright protection.

Copyright tags

• {{PD-Finland50}} – for photographic simple images in the public domain according to Finnish law.
• {{PD-Finland}} – for works of art (photographic included) in the public domain according to Finnish law. Same as {{PD-old-70}} for Finnish works.
• {{PD-FinlandGov}} – for laws, statements and decisions of Finnish officials.
• {{PD-Coa-Finland}} – for Finnish coats of arms of municipalities, districts or administrative or historical provinces.
• {{PD-FinlandStamp}} – for postage stamps published before January 1, 1990.
• {{PD-Kansallisarkisto}} – for archives material from the digital database of Finnish National Archives Service
• {{PD-Raita}} – for records from the Raita database.

Currency

 Not OK. Some exceptions do apply. The Bank of Finland claims that using images of banknotes and Euro coins is subject to permission. For Euro banknotes and the shared side of Euro coins: see COM:CRT/European Union:Currency. For markka banknotes, permission has been granted given provided certain guidelines are followed, see below. There is a statement from the Finnish Copyright Council (a semi-official body giving advice on copyright) that the use of an image on a markka coin is not subject to copyright, as the designs of coins were part of decrees. The statement could apply more broadly.

Decisions by governmental institutions are excepted from copyright. This includes images that are part of the decisions (see e.g. statement 1989:13 of the Finnish Copyright Council, on using the image of a coin), unless those are separate works, which is thought to apply only in unusual cases. In the old law on money there was no mention of copyright. Thus the images on markka banknotes and coins should be in the public domain, and likewise the images on the national side of euro coins.

There might be copyright issues, independent of the copyright by governmental bodies, if a design element is a derived work of a pre-existing work. The last 20 mark and 100 mark banknotes are known to be encumbered by this.

Counterfeit legislation does apply: it is criminal to publish images that are confusingly similar to legal tender (chapter 37, article 7 of the penal code). For instructions about Euro notes and coins see above.

The Bank of Finland claims it has copyright on Finnish (i.e. mark) banknotes and states that illegal reproduction of banknotes is punishable as counterfeit or fraud according to chapter 33 and 36 of the Penal Code (these seem not to apply to good faith use), or as breach of copyright.

Sources:

• On copyright protection of the common face design of the euro coins.
• Bank of Finland 2015 guide how to use pictures of the notes.
• Decision of the European central bank of 19 April 2013 on the denominations, specifications, reproduction, exchange and withdrawal of euro banknotes (recast)
• The penal code chapter 37, article 7, and chapter 33 and 36.
• Statement of the Finnish Copyright Council on using an image of the markka coin
• Statement of the Finnish Copyright Council on using an image of the Finnish flag, about coins is summarized
• Statement of the Finnish Copyright Council on coats of arms of municipalities, where the applicability of article 9 of the copyright law is discussed
• Old law on money

De minimis

Under the Copyright Act 404/1961, with amendments up to 608/2015,

• Works of art made public may be reproduced in pictorial form in material connection with the text: 1) in a critical or scientific presentation; and 2) in a newspaper or a periodical when reporting on a current event, provided that the work has not been created in order to be reproduced in a newspaper or a periodical.^{[404/1961–2015 Sec.25(1)]}
• When a copy of a work of art has, with the consent of the author, been sold or otherwise permanently transferred, the work of art may be incorporated into a photograph, a film, or a television programme if the reproduction is of a subordinate nature in the photograph, film or programme.^{[404/1961–2015 Sec.25(2)]}

Freedom of panorama

• OK for buildings only: {{FoP-Finland}}
•  Not OK for other works of art, including sculptures (non-commercial only): {{NoFoP-Finland}} (category-only template)

Under the Copyright Act 404/1961, with amendments up to 608/2015,

• A work of art may be reproduced in pictorial form ... if the work is permanently placed at, or in the immediate vicinity of, a public place. If the work of art is the leading motive of the picture, the picture may not be used for the purpose of gain. A picture having a material connection to the text may, however, be included in a newspaper or a periodical.^{[404/1961–2015 Sec.25a(3)]}
• A building may be freely reproduced in pictorial form.^{[404/1961–2015 Sec.25a(4)]}

Buildings (works of architecture) are the only copyrighted works in public space from Finland that can be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Non-commercial licensing is not accepted on Commons as per Commons:Licensing (which is backed by the Definition of Free Cultural Works). Images of works of art permanently located in public places in Finland can only be used non-commercially or as illustrations to texts in newspapers and periodicals. Published works of art may also be used as illustrations to scientific texts or criticism, according to Article 25.

Stamps

Åland has its own laws on postal matters; the discussion below does not concern stamps of Åland.

Stamps issued before 1990

Before 1990 stamps were issued by a public body whose decisions and statements are not protected by copyright. See #Not protected (above). If an image of a stamp was included in a public body's decision or statement and the stamp is not an independent work, the image would be free of copyright as part of the document, the document can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and the image can be cropped from this document. Use {{PD-FinlandStamp}} in these cases.

It is uncertain how the above affects the copyright of stamps depicted in other places. The precautionary principle is that we assume a stamp is copyrighted unless proven otherwise. A copyrighted stamp will lose copyright protection 70 years after the author's death or 70 years after publication if the author is anonymous. Information on the author of a stamp will often be available at Postimuseo's Postimerkkiselain, and should be included in the stamp description where available. Use {{PD-old-70}} or {{PD-anon-70}} in these cases.

Stamps issued from 1990

Posts and Telecommunications of Finland became a state-owned enterprise known as Posti-Tele in 1990. It is not clear whether this entity and its successors retained the status of public bodies. The precautionary principle is that we assume it did not, and any new stamps issued from 1990 onward remain copyrighted.

Threshold of originality

For works of visual art, the threshold of originality is relatively low. Simple logos, however, are generally below the threshold of originality. In particular, the threshold is high when only basic colors and shapes (such as triangles, squares and circles or capital letters) are used.

OK		Simple photograph with limited copyright period – not a photographic work of art. (TN 2003:6)
OK		Differences compared to the coat of arms of the historic region did not meet threshold of originality. (TN 1998:5)
Not OK	Commons:Deletion_requests/Aalto_vases	"The wave-like forms of the [original Aalto vases] do not... result from the intended use of the object but the creative mental effort of the author. [Therefore the original vases] are independent and original enough to be considered works of art as meant in 1 § of [the Finnish Copyright law]" (p. 4). (TN 2010:10)
OK	A specific house type	(Eurohouse S 2, court ruling)
OK		The logo is below the threshold of originality because it is "ordinary and [does] not express an independent and original result of a creative process of its author. Somebody else in undertaking a comparable task could have contrived a similar ... logo". (TN 2000:1)
Not OK	Save the Children Fund logo	The logo is above the threshold of originality, because its "visual manifestation is the creative work of its author, whereby the ideological basis of the fund has been successfully conformed with in an independent and original manner... [N]o one else undertaking a comparable task could have reached a similar outcome". (TN 2010:3)
OK	and	The logos are "in their literary and visual manifestation simple and ordinary to the degree that they are not to be regarded as original works in their own regard." (TN 2009:2)
OK		The logo is "is not original and independent in such a way that it would be protected ... by copyright". (TN 2011:7)
OK		The logo is below the threshold of originality because "its central elements and the way in which they have been combined are commonly used in logos and are thus ordinary". (TN 2000:1)
Not OK	"Silmu" logo	Although the logo consists of a "stylized, albeit fairly simple, red tulip", it is above the threshold of originality for works of visual art. (TN 2001:12)

See also

• Finland
• Category:Finnish FOP cases
• Category:License tags of Finland
• Category:Stamps of Finland

Citations

Caution: The above description may be inaccurate, incomplete and/or out of date, so must be treated with caution. Before you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons you should ensure it may be used freely. See also: Commons:General disclaimer

Text transcluded from
COM:France

France

Copyright rules: France Shortcut: COM:FRANCE
Durations
Standard	Life + 70 years
Anonymous	Publish + 70 years
Posthumous	Publish + 25 years
Other
Freedom of panorama	No
Terms run to year end	Yes
Common licence tags	{{PD-France}} {{PD-old-auto}} {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} {{PD-EU-unpublished}}
ISO 3166-1 alpha-3	FRA
Treaties
Berne convention	5 December 1887
WTO member	1 January 1995
URAA restoration date‌*	1 January 1996
WIPO treaty	14 March 2010
*‌A work is usually protected in the US if it is a type of work copyrightable in the US, published after 31 December 1928 and protected in the country of origin on the URAA date.

This page provides an overview of copyright rules of France relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. Note that any work originating in France must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both France and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from France, refer to the relevant laws for clarification.

Governing laws

France has been a member of the Berne Convention since 5 December 1887, the World Trade Organization since 1 January 1995 and the WIPO Copyright Treaty since 14 March 2010.

The relevant laws are in the first book of the Code of Intellectual Property. The code includes dispositions transposed from the 1993 European directive on Copyright.

As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed the Intellectual Property Code (consolidated version as of September 7, 2018) as the main IP law enacted by the legislature of France.WIPO holds the text of this law in their WIPO Lex database.

General

• Standard copyright term: Life + 70 years, (except posthumous works, musical works, and works whose author "died for France")
• Wartime copyright extensions may apply to musical works: + 6 years 152 days for musical work published through 1920 (Art. L123-8); + 8 years and 120 days for musical work published through 1947 (Art. L123-9); these extensions are cumulative with each other and with the "died for France" extension.
• Anonymous works: 70 years after publication (if author never disclosed)
• Posthumous works: Life + 70 years if published within 70 years of the author's death, otherwise, 25 years from publication[8]
• Government works: not free except for video, text and graphics published on the gouvernement.fr site between March 2014 and September 2014 (Please use {{Gouvernement.fr}})

The normal duration of copyright is 70 years following the end of the year of death of the author (or the death of the last author for multiple authors); if the work is anonymous, pseudonymous or collective, it is 70 years following the end of the year of publication of the work (unless the authors named themselves). This applies only if publication occurs within 70 years of creation (see Article L123-3).

Images from public web sites

Note that French government services often use professional photographers who are not government employees to make official photographs. These photographers then typically sell usage rights of the photograph to the government. In such circumstances, the government does not own the copyright to the photograph, and thus could not give us a license to use it even if it wanted to.

The rules for protection of works by the government are somewhat fuzzy, and one should assume by default that anything from a government entity is copyrighted. One should refer to the Law of 17 July 1978 and Decree of 30 December 2005.

Laws, decrees, court decisions and other similar government texts (but not the translations or commentaries thereof), possibly found on the Légifrance website, are in the public domain. This seems acknowledged by Légifrance's copyright terms.

Video, text and graphics published on the gouvernement.fr website are now licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND but where in 2014 under CC BY 3.0 FR. Be careful, since this does not apply to photographs. However, it is possible to import images taken from videos. Please use {{Gouvernement.fr}} Unless you really know what you're doing, please abstain from copying photos from French government web sites to Commons. Thanks.

Wartime copyright extensions

On February 27, 2007, the Court of Cassation, supreme jurisdiction, first civil chamber, ruled in the Hazan case (arrêt n° 280 du 27 février 2007) that articles L123-8 and L123-9, extending the duration of protection to compensate for periods of wartime, were not applicable to works for which an extended protection period (beyond 70 years) had not started to elapse on July 1, 1995. The judgment regarding Giovanni Boldini's work was broke too, by the same court.

Previously, French law granted extensions to copyright because of the World Wars. The extensions were:

• 6 years and 152 days for World War I
• 8 years and 120 days for World War II
• 30 years for people who died for France, example includes Alain-Fournier (d.1915), Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (d.1944) and Jehan Alain (d.1940).

Several extensions can be added together, by example: Alain-Fournier, « Mort pour la France » on 1 January 1915 : +50 years, +30 years, +6 years +152 days, +8 years +120 days = 30 September 2009.

In practice, copyright extensions today only apply for authors "Mort pour la France", but even this is subject to debate.

It was previously assumed that the European directive on copyright did not necessarily suppress these extensions:

• Article 10 – Where a term of protection, which is longer than the corresponding term provided for by this Directive, is already running in a Member State on the date referred to in Article 13 (1), this Directive shall not have the effect of shortening that term of protection in that Member State.

According to the French Ministry of Culture, the legal status of these extensions, adopted when copyright was 50 years after death, was unclear in the context of the new 70-year law; the Ministry called for erring on the side of caution and assuming they are valid.

It was also assumed that copyright holders do try to enforce these extensions. In 2005, right holders demanded payment for a movie where a character whistled The Internationale, whose author died in 1932. (See also Template:PD-Internationale for further information.) On the other hand, the Paris Appeal Court ruled against applying the extensions in 2004. However, on 12 October 2005, another section of the same court applied the extension so that the works of the painter Giovanni Boldini who died in 1931 will not enter the public domain before late 2016.

Works of arts, including architecture, exhibited in public spaces

The architect of a notable building owns copyright over the representations of that building, including postcards and photographs. For instance, the architect of the pyramid in the courtyard of the Louvre Museum may claim copyright over images of the pyramid. This, for instance, extends to the designer of lighting systems; for instance, the company operating the Eiffel Tower claims copyright of images of the tower when lighted at night.

Place des Terreaux, Lyon

However, ruling #567 of March 15, 2005 of the Court of Cassation denied the right of producers of works of arts installed in a public plaza over photographs of the whole plaza:

Because the Court has noticed that, as it was shown in the incriminated images, the works of Mr X... and Z... blended into the architectural ensemble of the Terreaŭx plaza, of which it was a mere element, the appeals court correctly deduced that this presentation of the litigious work was accessory to the topic depicted, which was the representation of the plaza, so that the image did not constitute a communication of the litigious work to the public

The court draws a distinction between depictions of a work of art, and depictions of whole settings of which the work of art is a mere part, and denies the right of the artist over such images.

While architects may have rights to works derived from their work of art, this is not the case of the owners of works of art or buildings, in general. The summary of the conclusions of a May 7, 2004 ruling by the Court of Cassation was:

The owner of a thing does not have an exclusive right over the image of this thing; he or she can however oppose the usage of this image by a third party if this usage results in an abnormal disturbance to him or her.

In this decision, the court excluded that the owner of a hotel, who had made extensive repairs and enhancements to the buildings at high costs, could claim exclusive rights to the image of that hotel: merely demonstrating that the costs supported did not demonstrate that the publishing of images was an abnormal disturbance.

The Court already ruled on [June 5, 2003], that the right of property comprised absolutely no right to the image of this property. However, they also upheld the right to privacy of the homeowners: in this case, not only a photograph of a house was published, but also its exact location and the name of the owners. Earlier rulings similarly rejected requests based on ownership without a justification of an abnormal disturbance.

Historical terms

In 1866, France enacted a copyright term of life + 50 years for most works. On January 1, 1986, the term for musical compositions was increased to life + 70 years. On July 1, 1995, the copyright term for most works was increased to life + 70 years (in harmonization with the rest of the European Union).

Prior to July 1, 1995, posthumous works were protected for 50 years from the date of publication.

Copyright tags

• {{PD-France}} – Public domain because the author(s) died more than 70 years ago and did not benefit from any copyright extension, or it is an anonymous, pseudonymous or collective work and more than 70 years have passed since its publication, or it is the recording of an audiovisual or musical work already in the public domain, and more than 50 years have passed since the performance or the recording.
• {{PD-Archivesnormandie}} – for pictures from the site Archives Normandie 1939-45. Pictures credited to the National Archives USA or the National Archives Canada and tagged "libres de droits" are in the public domain.
• {{PD-JORF}} – for French official legal texts as published in the Journal officiel de la République Française or reprinted on Légifrance; note: not all texts on Légifrance are out-of-copyright, many others are copyrighted under free licenses, and sometimes under unfree licenses).
• {{PD-JORF-nor-conso}} – with NOR (identification number) and index of the updated text.
• {{PD-ID-France}} – Ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain because it is a legally valid French identity photograph.
• {{Licence Ouverte}} and {{Licence Ouverte 2}} – For documents issued under the Licence Ouverte (for example from http://data.gouv.fr).
• {{Gouvernement.fr}} – For extracts from a video, text or infographic issued on the French government's website.

Currency

OK Regarding former French currency (francs), case law states that copyright exists, but is paralysed by the ‘allocation to the general interest and character of public service’ of currency. See, for instance, Cour de Cassation 5 February 2002.

Please use {{Money-FR}}.

De minimis

This photograph is not a copyright violation since it is of the entire plaza, and not just the Louvre Pyramid.

The white triangle in this derivative work covers the copyright protected region of the top image.

French case law admits an exception if the copyrighted artwork is "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" (CA Paris, 27 octobre 1992, Antenne 2 c/ société Spadem, « la représentation d'une œuvre située dans un lieu public n'est licite que lorsqu'elle est accessoire par rapport au sujet principal représenté ou traité »). Thus ruling #567 of March 15, 2005 of the Court of Cassation denied the right of producers of works of arts installed in a public plaza over photographs of the whole plaza:

• Because the Court has noticed that, as it was shown in the incriminated images, the works of Mr X... and Z... blended into the architectural ensemble of the Terreaux plaza, of which it was a mere element, the appeals court correctly deduced that this presentation of the litigious work was accessory to the topic depicted, which was the representation of the plaza, so that the image did not constitute a communication of the litigious work to the public.

French case law states that the said artwork must not be intentionally included as an element of the setting: its presence in the picture must be unavoidable (CA Versailles, 26 janvier 1998, Sté Movie box c/ Spadem et a.):

• It can be considered as an illicit representation of a statue by Maillol, the broadcasting of a commercial in which it appears, as it was not included in a film sequence shot in a natural setting—which would explain the brief and non-essential to the main subject, appearance of the sculpture, which is set in the Tuileries gardens, but used as an element of the setting.

Freedom of panorama

 Not OK {{NoFoP-France}}

Please, tag France no-FoP deletion requests: <noinclude>[[Category:French FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude>.

On 7 October 2016, the French parliament approved a law recognizing a limited version of the freedom of panorama that authorizes the reproduction by individuals (not organizations) of buildings and sculptures permanently located in public space, but only for non-commercial utilizations.

• Reproductions and representations of architectural works and sculptures, permanently placed on public roads, carried out by natural persons, to the exclusion of any commercial use.^{[L.122 5]}

On 4 April 2001, a court emphasized that "droit d'auteur unquestionably applies to the reproduction of artworks placed in public space" (« le droit d'auteur s'étend incontestablement à la reproduction de l'œuvre installée dans un espace public »). Concerning buildings, case law defines several criteria for originality:

• "a definite artistic character" (« un caractère artistique certain »), as opposed to the building being purely functional, and not being part of a series (as is the case in housing development) (CA Riom, 26 May 1966) [ this decision has been criticised as the law explicitly states copyright protection is granted regardless of merit, art.L.112-1 of the French copyright act but another decision of French supreme court concludes on 20 october 2011 that creation must be original as required by art 111-1 of French copyright act and that it is up to appeal court to decide if it is original work or not.
• a harmonious combination of its composing elements, like volumes and colours (TGI Paris, 19 June 1979)
• an “esthetic preoccupation”, here the choice of a sphere and of a mirror surface (CA Paris, 23 October 1990, about en:La Géode)
• a choice which cannot be ascribed to purely technical reasons (CA Paris 20 November 1996, about stairs and a glass roof)
• Works are protected if the creation is original, but not if the realization is purely technical.
• Works without a particular or original character, which are a trivial reproduction of building types largely found across the country, are not protected. (#13).
• It is up to the author or an architectural, art or picture work to prove that it is original and not just application of a technical knowledge.

Case law traditionally admits an exception if the copyrighted artwork is "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" (CA Paris, 27 octobre 1992, Antenne 2 c/ société Spadem, « la représentation d'une œuvre située dans un lieu public n'est licite que lorsqu'elle est accessoire par rapport au sujet principal représenté ou traité »). Thus, ruling #567 of March 15, 2005 of the Court of Cassation denied the right of producers of works of art installed in a public plaza over photographs of the whole plaza:

• Because the Court has noticed that, as it was shown in the incriminated images, the works of Mr X... and Z... blended into the architectural ensemble of the Terreaux plaza, of which it was a mere element, the appeals court correctly deduced that this presentation of the litigious work was accessory to the topic depicted, which was the representation of the plaza, so that the image did not constitute a communication of the litigious work to the public.

Case law states that the said artwork must not be intentionally included as an element of the setting: its presence in the picture must be unavoidable (CA Versailles, 26 janvier 1998, Sté Movie box c/ Spadem et a.):

Courts are traditionally lenient with pictures showing urban landscapes, cf. Tour Montparnasse, C.A. Paris - 7 novembre 1980.

• Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free.

Two-dimensional public art

The non-commercial freedom of panorama exception only covers works of architecture and sculptures in public spaces. A case file from 2023 (Combo v. Melénchon), concerning a politician's use of a street art in their ad campaign, sets a precedence that all street art is not covered by the panorama exception. Therefore, all 2D art is  Not OK, even for non-commercial uses. Another precedence is that graphic works are not permanent because these are always exposed to hazards, like bad weather or damage by passersby.

Illegal graffiti are also protected under French copyright law. One image of an illegal graffiti was deleted after a cease-and-desist letter was sent to Wikimedia France in 2012.

Local transfer to French Wikipedia

If the subject of the picture is either a building or an architectural artwork, and if the picture is already used on the French-speaking Wikipedia, w:fr:Utilisateur:Le plus bot can transfer the picture from Commons to this local Wikipedia under a local exception, as voted by the community in 2006 and 2011 (see w:fr:Wikipédia:Exceptions au droit d'auteur#Exceptions).

• This minimal exception is only for the illustration of the most directly related article in French Wikipedia (this illustration is not usable elsewhere), or outside French Wikipedia.
• Their licencing terms must not permit their extension to derived works (for example, sales of these pictures is not authorized, as well as offline republication or online republication via external proxies and aggregators)
• The copyrighted protection must be stated explicitly in their description page, with relevant licencing templates tracking usage of these images in French Wikipedia.
• The image description page will also display the full list of local pages (most often only one) embedding for their illustration a very limited number of such medias (images in galleries showing all artistic and creative aspect of the same copyrighted subject should not be integrated in these French Wikipedia articles: generally a single illustration is enough). These images should not be integrated in templates reusable in an unbound number of pages.
• Most free images currently hosted on French Wikipedia should be transferred to Commons, so that French Wikipedia will only host non-free copyrighted materials subject to these restrictions: this will allow remote proxies or Wikipedia contents aggregators, or other linguistic editions of Wikipedia to block these images, even if they display the rest of articles embedding these non-free illustration images, only by looking at the prefix of their URL on the image servers (instead of displaying these images, they can display only their textual description with a direct link to the French Wikipedia article showing these images covered by this exception).
• Do not transfer these non-free images currently hosted by French Wikipedia (including corporate logos unless they are accessory to the rest of the image and unavoidable) to any other editions of Wikipedia or to other Wikimedia sites (including Commons, as stated by licencing templates shown in their description pages in French Wikipedia).
• Even if these non-free images are now tolerated in French Wikipedia articles, the legitimate copyright holders can send their veto so that these images will be deleted on French Wikipedia too. The same deletion will occur when receiving a French court order: their long-term presence is not warranted as long as the copyright protection persists.

Stamps

According to La Poste, French stamps have the same legal status as any other work of art. Stamps by designers deceased more than 70 years ago are public domain. The names of the artists are generally printed at the bottom of the stamps or its main picture. Check the individual artists death dates in the frwiki category: Dessinateur de timbres/Stamp designers and also the French Phil-ouest website that lists many more than have wiki articles.

On 1st January 2015, it appears that all postage stamps of France issued until 1922 are in the public domain (doubts about the 1919 stamp known as "The Two Orphans" – cause: no information found on the date of death of Surand and Jarraud).

The following list of artists whose works are in public domain in France (but not necessarily in the United States) because they died before 31 December 1953 is non-exhaustive:

• Barre, Jacques-Jean (1793–1855)
• Delacroix, Ferdinand Victor Eugène (1798–1863)
• Barre, Désiré-Albert (1818–1878)
• Merwart, Paul (1855–1902)
• Blanc, Joseph (1846–1904)
• Dubois, Alphée (1831–1905)
• Chaplain, Jules (1839–1909)
• Sage, Jules-Auguste (1840–1910)
• Roty, Oscar (1846–1911)
• Mouchon, Louis-Eugène (1843–1914)
• Nézière, Georges de la (1878–1914)
• Puyplat, Jules-Jacques (1843–1915)
• Merson, Luc-Olivier (1846–1920)
• Thévenin, Auguste (1856–1921)
• Dumoulin, Louis (1860–1924)
• Froment, Eugène (1844–1926 (?))
• Paul Albert Laurens (1870–1934)
• Ruffé, Léon (1864–1935)
• Mignon, Justin Abel Francois Xaviér (1861–1936)
• Dezarrois, Antoine (1864–1939)
• Gandon, Gaston (1872–1941)
• Delzers, Jean Antonin (1873–1943)
• Degorce, Georges Léo (1894–1943)
• Nézière, Joseph de La (1873–1944)
• Grégoire, René (1871–1945)
• Prudhomme, George Henri (1873–1947)
• Cortot, Henri (1892–1950)
• Ouvré, Achille (1872–1951)
• Hourriez, Georges (1878–1953)
• Dulac, Edmond (1882–1953)
• Nézière, Raymond de la (1865–1953)

Works by the following artists will be in public domain in France (but not necessarily in the United States) on 1 January following 70 years after their death:

• Feltesse, Émile Henri (1881–1955) @2026
• Barlangue, Gabriel Antoine (1874–1956) @2027
• Dufresne, Charles Paul (1885–1956) @2027
• Lemasson, Henri (1870–1956) @2027
• Cheffer, Henry (1880–1957) @2028
• Rigal, Louis Pierre (1888–1959) @2030
• Munier, Pierre (1889–1962) @2033
• Cocteau, Jean (1889–1963) @2034
• Kieffer, Clément (1881-1964) @2035
• Mazelin, Charles (1882–1964) @2035
• Louis, Robert (1902–1965) @2036
• Serres, Raoul (1881–1971) @2042
• Cami, Robert (1900–1973) @2044
• Lemagny, Paul Pierre (1905–1977) @2048
• Spitz, André (1883–1977) @2048
• Piel, Jules (1882–1978) @2049
• Picart Le Doux, Jean (1902–1982) @2053
• Monvoisin, Michel (1932–1982) @2053
• Miró, Joan (1893–1983) @2054
• Fernez Louis (1900–1984) @2055
• Decaris, Albert (1901–1988) @2059
• Delpech, Jean (1916–1988) @2059
• Haley, Claude (1923–1988) @2059
• Gandon, Pierre (1899–1990) @2061
• Pheulpin, Jean (1907–1991) @2062
• Cottet, René (1902–1992) @2063
• Combet, Jacques (1920–1993) @2064
• Lengellé, Paul (1908-1993) @2064
• Peynet, Raymond (1908–1999) @2070
• Hundertwasser, Friedensreich (1928–2000) @2071
• Leguay, Marc (1910–2001) @2072
• Durrens, Claude (1921–2002) @2073
• Hertenberger, Claude (1912–2002) @2073
• Bridoux, Charles (1942–2003) @2074
• Dessirier, René (1919–2003@2074
• Guillame, Cécile (1933–2004) @2075
• Folon, Jean-Michel (1934–2005) @2076
• Forget, Pierre (1923–2005) @2076
• Lacaque, Eugène (1914–2005) @2076
• Slania, Czeslaw (1921–2005) @2076
• Schach-Duc, Yvonne (1933–2009) @2080
• Sainson, Huguette (1929–2011) @2082
• Mathieu, Georges (1921–2012) @2083
• Béquet, Pierre (1932–2012) @2083
• Leliepvre, Eugène (1908–2013) @2084
• Wou-Ki, Zao (1920–2013) @2084
• Markó, Serge (1926–2014) @2085
• Taraskoff, Mark (1955–2015) @2086
• Quillivic, René (1925–2016) @2087
• Andréotto, Claude (1949–2017) @2088

Threshold of originality

French law asserts that a work is copyrightable when it bears the "imprint of the personality of the author". In practice, it depends on the work in question, but this has left the bar quite low for many works where an artistic intent can be shown. For an art exhibition, a man placed the word paradis with gold lettering above the bathroom door of the old dormitory of alcoholics at a psychiatric facility, and termed it artwork; the French courts agreed with him that it was copyrightable based on the aesthetic choices made ("affixing the word 'paradise' in gold with patina effect and a special graphics on dilapidated door, the lock-shaped cross, encased in a crumbling wall with peeling paint").

France has "a slightly higher threshold of originality in general, and particularly so in the context of photographic works".

A decision from Supreme court (Cour de Cassation) on October 2011 agreed with appeal court decision saying that a quite artistic picture of two fish on a yellow plate about a traditional Marseille meal could not be protected by French law because of lack of originality. According to this decision, level of originality required by this appeal court is very high. This decision was criticized but French supreme court does not control facts but only controls interpretation of the law. In 2017, copyright protection on this image of Jimi Hendrix was restored after a court initially denied protection.

See also

• France
• Category:French FOP cases
• Category:License tags of France
• Category:Stamps of France

Citations

Caution: The above description may be inaccurate, incomplete and/or out of date, so must be treated with caution. Before you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons you should ensure it may be used freely. See also: Commons:General disclaimer

Copyright rules by territory

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
P Q R Sa-Sl So-Sy T U V W X Y Z