Commons:Freedom of Panorama 2015/Talking points

Freedom of Panorama

Freedom of Panorama, the right to publish photos of building and sculptures in public places, exists in many but not all European countries. Where it exists, the details in the regulations vary.

Core arguments:

• 28 different versions of Freedom of Panorama causes legal insecurities and risks, which hampers creativity and innovation.
• We have three parallel studies on the implementation and all with different results.
• The right to use pictures taken in public spaces are a part of the freedom of expression.
• It is impossible and undesirable to control the use of such images. Keeping impractical and largely inapplicable rules results in ineffective legislation and high transaction costs.
• One universal Freedom of Panorama exception in Europe would mean less transaction costs (Wikipedia volunteers, photographers, small publishers, bloggers, online media)

Reply to common counter-arguments

• But you are trying to take away author’s choice what to do with his/her creation?
  • The author makes the active decision to make something part of the public space. It is not the public space that enters the author’s atelier.

• It is OK if someone just takes a picture and uses it privately, but I don’t want a large company to use my work for a commercial campaign without asking me! Only non-commercial use should be allowed.
  • Non-commercial/commercial are very ambiguous legal terms online. They would create a grey zone that results in legal risk for SMEs, individuals and non-profits.
  • Posting an image to a service that carries adverts (such as Facebook or Instagram) can be considered commercial use in some contexts — a selfie in front of the Eiffel Tower at night or in front of the Louvre Pyramid should not be an issue with the copyright of those buildings.
  • Many educational institutions and courses are not fully financed by public money, which makes them commercial operations. We don’t want to exclude them.
  • Even Wikipedia as a non-commercial project, could be considered of commercial scope. Other online uses, such as bloggers who run ads to cover their hosting costs and social media could very well be considered commercial.

• What if nationalist and racist groups take my work and use it for their hateful propaganda?
  • Freedom of Panorama doesn’t compromise the moral and personality rights of authors.

• Don’t you think creators deserve fair remuneration for their work?
  • Among the seven EU countries where architects and visual artists earn the highest incomes, six have full and unrestricted Freedom of Panorama. Exception: Luxembourg.
  • The money visual artists’ collecting societies gather would change insignificantly, as many of their uses of visual arts - in parks, in galleries, 3D models, temporary public exhibitions - wouldn’t be covered by this exception.

Public Sector Information

Public works are paid for by the public and should belong to the public. In addition to being a fair principle, this benefits democracy and civil society as well as economic growth. Works produced by the public differ from other works in a number of respects:

Core arguments:

• Copyright is meant as an incentive for creativity. This incentive is not required for government action.
• The creation of such works has already been paid for by the public and therefore they should be available for use and re-use by the public.
• Copyright protection is sometimes abused to prevent public discussion on official documents.

Reply to common counter-arguments:

• I am worried people’s personal data might be at risk.
  • Copyright is an economic tool and not a data protection mechanism. All data protection laws remain valid even for content to which copyright doesn’t apply.

• The government often holds sensitive information that needs to remain secret.
  • Secret documents are secret. Public domain status for government works isn’t an information control issue, as it would apply only to published documents.

• In our press archive we have a photo of African children. We’d like to upload it to Commons, but we are afraid of the “no non-commercial” policy. We don’t want these kids to be used for someone’s commercial or fundraising campaign.
  • Personality and moral rights are not harmed by giving public domain status to works produced by the government. Copyright is an economic tool.

• Public institutions are often underfunded and rely on generating extra income from their work.
  • The purpose of public services is to be of service to the public, so this should be the priority.

• Giving away all the publicly funded content will just make it easier for Google/Facebook to make money and further monopolise the markets.
  • Large companies can afford to clear rights and pay for licensing and transaction costs. It is SMEs, start-ups and individuals who often lack the resources to do so. Public domain for public sector information would help levelling the playing field.