Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 13

← Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14 →

FoP in the Republic of Moldova

Hi. The Moldovan Law on Copyright and Related Rights has been amended in 2010 and now it has a more permissive approach to reproduction of architectural works. The English version of the law is available on The State Agency on Intelectual Property official site here, official versions in Romanian and Russian can be viewed here and here, respectively. Carefully read the related articles: §22(1) and §22(2), §26(1) and §26(2)a, §28 k. My impression is that this law allows free reproduction of architectural works in Moldova. Please consider taking a look and maybe we can make Moldova a lawn green territory on this map and on this one as well. Thank you. //  Gikü  said  done  Thursday, 30 May 2013 18:03 (UTC)

No, not free enough per article 16 of the moldovan law on copyright: "(2) Translations or other derived works shall be made only with the consent of the author of the original work."--Snaevar (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with FoP. The relevant section is article 28(k): "use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that does look quite good. Looks like there is full FoP for permanent, publicly-placed works. Looks like some/all of Category:Moldovan FOP cases needs to be restored. That new copyright law is also a fully retroactive increase to 70pma, so there may be some other works which need to be deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Great, can I update the page and request to undelete related images? //  Gikü  said  done  Wednesday, 5 June 2013 12:22 (UTC)

Yes. Carl is knowledgeable about copyright issues and respected 'round here. I also took a look at the English version and agree. "Art. 28. It shall be permitted without the consent of the author or other holder of copyright and without payment of remuneration..." is the start of the section, and applies to 28(k), as quoted above. request filed.--Elvey (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It does mean that we will have to delete {{PD-Moldova}} and replace it with {{PD-old-70}}. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what does it have to do with FOP :) But I think you are right. //  Gikü  said  done  Monday, 5 August 2013 17:17 (UTC)

m:Wikilegal/FOP statues

Hi. :) A community member asked the legal team for feedback on a question regarding use of images under Freedom of Panorama. One of our legal interns has responded at m:Wikilegal/FOP statues. I mention it here in case the community has interest. Thank you! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Maggie.

However, if we take the last sentence of the linked analysis at face value, Houston we have problem. --Túrelio (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. :/ --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Maggie and thank Tiffany as well. It still seems rather vague as to the hosting status of File:ACMI 14.jpg. The photograph is free licensed on Flickr. The statue is on permanent display in Australia that allows FOP for statues. The statue itself is still copyright protected in the USA where the servers are. Can we host it at commons according to WMF? It meets our normal criteria for photographer license and FOP.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

My question with this specific image would be: is the location were the statue is shown "in a public place, or in premises open to the public" according to Australian law? --Túrelio (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It is in the w:Australian Centre for the Moving Image. There a news articles on the talk page about it being permanent. File:ACMI 13.jpg shows the full display.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That was not my issue. My question is whether this location is "a public place, or premises open to the public" according to Australian copyright law and/or jurisprudence? --Túrelio (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

http://www.acmi.net.au/planning_your_visit.htm Seems to be open to the public. Some countries only allow FOP in free public places but not Australia.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

http://www.acmi.net.au/faqs.htm Seems it is free and only the theatres cost. --Canoe1967 (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

O.k., if that is settled (valid FOP Australia), then this image is neither more nor less questionable than all other FOP-based images of (still copyrighted) non-buildings. --Túrelio (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Should we delete the fair use image of it on en:wp and replace it then?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

IMO, that question should be decided on :en. As Tiffany suggested and as I suggested in other words, a big share of the FOP-based images on Commons are (rather likely) unfree in the U.S. The still undecided question is what are we doing about that. I am aware of only one case where the (US-based) rights holder of some sculptures permanently installed in public space (outside) in Germany, send a DMCA order[1] to the WMF and requested deletion of several images of these sculptures from Commons. After some consideration, the WMF complied (did not challenge the request in court) and, if I remember correctly, also warned not to re-upload these images locally on :de. This resulted in some shitstorm on :de against the artist and, unjustified, against the WMF. However, if I remember correctly, the WMF didn't take this as a precedence for asking to take down all U.S.-unfree FOP-based images. --Túrelio (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The legal response even seems to apply to sculptures created outside the US. Please tell me I'm wrong. --99of9 (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but AFAIK it's legally uncharted territory. As the WMF decided to comply with the Oldenburg request, the case didn't went to court. If I remember the following discussion (see Commons:Deletion requests/works by Claes Oldenburg) correctly, there seem to be no U.S. court-cases about photos of copyrighted works falling under FOP in their non-U.S. location. --Túrelio (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I replaced in in the article w:Academy Award. If the Academy that owns the copyright files under DCMA then that should be the next step. I doubt the WMF will challenge a DCMA takedown but that will be their decision. The statue will be public domain in 2024 and any court case may take longer even. If they do remove it we could replace it with File:Copyright information image.png instead of a fair use one just to bring the point up with readers.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

FOP in Slovenia before 1995

The current law from 1995 doesn't allow FOP in Slovenia, but the old Yugoslav law did allow it. So is there FOP for photograhs taken before 1995 (once free - always free principle) or is the new law retroactively disallowing it (Slovenian constitution doesn't allow retroactivity)? --Sporti (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This was already discussed here and here. The files have been deleted, because the situation remains unclear and it is probable that the old photographs are not free for further commercial reusage. I don't think any new information has emerged since then. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

FOP page locked

Due to the continued edit-warring by 2 regular users, I have protected Commons:Freedom of panorama from further editing by non-admins for 1 day. I've probably protected the wrong version of the page, but it can't be helped.
To the 2 edit-warriors: try to get a mutual agreement over the disputed statements, first on this talkpage. If you can't, try to get a third opinion. --Túrelio (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous works in Slovenia/yugoslavia before 1970

Some further clarifications have already been removed in March without any consensus, but because the Slovene community is small and partialy uninterested in what is going on here on Commons, nobody noticed it until now. What I did, was nothing more than reverting those edits and removing unneccessary/too specific examples. I think that at least following clarification should be kept in text:

• OK for all anonymous works published before 1970 (and for all works whose author remained unknown in this same period of time)

According to copyright lawyer Setinc, the anonymous photographic works were only protected for 25 years by the Yugoslav copyright law from 1978. Changes in copyright law after the breakup of Yugoslavia extended this period to 70 years (but this is not retroactive), which means that copyright for works published before 1970 already expired by 1995: "Tako so fotografska avtorska dela po zakonu iz leta 1978 (ZAP, Ur.l.SFRJ št.19/78, 24/86, 21/90) varovana 25 let po smrti avtorja (oziroma 25 let po objavi, če gre za neznanega avtorja). ZASP (Ur.l.RS št.21/95, 9/2001, 30/2001 - ZCUKPIL, 43/2004, 17/2006, 114/2006 - ZUE, 139/2006, 68/2008) je izenačil fotografska dela z drugimi avtorskimi deli (ki so varovana 70 let po smrti avtorja, pri anonimnih in psevdonimnih delih pa 70 let od zakonite prve objave dela). Rok 70 let velja za vsa avtorska dela tista dela, ki so po ZAP iz leta 1978 uživala varstvo v letu uveljavitve (1995) ZASP (stari krajši roki iz ZAP se podaljšajo na 70 let po ZASP)."[2][3] I hope that is clear enough and that a thir user can revert my constructive edits. Thanks --Miha (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

This is already mentioned: "An exception are the photographs of the photographic and similarly-made works in a public space, and the photographs of the works of applied art, which are acceptable for Commons if the original work was published in 1969 or earlier.", therefore there is no need to add the proposed text. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

That alone is clear enough, but what bothers is that it is limited only to photographic works. If an anonymous work was already in public domain in 1995 (i.e. was published before 1970 = in 1969 or ealrier), it can not be protected now - this term can only be extended for then-existing and future copyrights. Another important thing that the current revison lacks now is the folowing paragraph: Article 5 of the current law defines copyright works as "individual intellectual creations in the domain of literature, science, and art, which are expressed in any mode". This means an individual creative process of expression is a prerequirement for a work to be copyrighted, because the scope of copyrightability varies in different countires. In addition, it should also be included to Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Slovenia . --Miha (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

No one has claimed that "if an anonymous work was already in public domain... it can be protected now." (in the source country). Feel free to add the text of Article 5 to the Copyright rules by territory, if you deem it important. However, this is a general, not FOP-specific provision, therefore it should only be cited at that page. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Until the opposite has been explicitely written, only the term of then-existing and future copyrights can be extended - even with COM:PRP retroactivity can not be asumed. A parallel would be the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, when the American Congress extended the term of then-existing and future copyrights by twenty years (Lessig 2004). --Miha (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, and...? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 17:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

That is not about FoP either. That should be taken to the page Copyright rules by territory, if useful, although even that page should be reasonably short and readable and not duplicate the whole laws. Also, in your first comment you said yourself that it was about "anonymous photographic works". -- Asclepias (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The whole paragraph probably should not even be there anyway. It doesn't sound like it has anything to do with FoP. I doubt that the Slovenian copyright law would be so poorly written as to base a FoP exception on the same criteria that normally define the duration of copyright, such as the anonymity of the author and the date of publication. That would be completely counter-intuitive with respect to the normal rationale of a FoP exception, which basically is that if a work of a given nature (architecture, sculpture) is in the public space, then it can be photographically reproduced even if it is under copyright. The paragraph clutters the page uselessly and makes it difficult to understand what the section actually has to say about FoP. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

What does that have to do with FoP? The FoP help page has a different scope than the Copyright rules by territory page. They are not supposed to be duplicates. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There is generally no freedom of panorama in Slovenia, but there used to be in Yugoslavia, which makes the entire situation more complex - some works that might seem to be protected are not. We want to keep as much photos as possible. --Miha (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

An important distinction in my point of view: We want to keep as much free photos as possible, but only those where there is no significant doubt that they're free. This question was already discussed at [4], followed by deletion of this image and others by a number of administrators. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 19:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

FOP Former Soviet Union CIPR -links & Commons FOP practices for photos of Belarus

The links to CIPR to e.g. Belarusian FOP seems not to work. Does anybody know where to find a link which would work? Or somebody give a short summary of this, is the rule that one can include only photos of buildings whose architect died before 1963 (I could not check this)? There are numerous photos currently in Commons of Belarusian buildings, statues or memorials which have been built after WWII. Which of these photos are free of FOP and ok in Commons and which are not (and why there is a difference if there is any). All of the following examples can be found in Commons. Buildings or statues built in:

• 1964-1971 like Lukoml_power_station (e.g. Commons file Lukoml power station 20090919 02.jpg),
• 1967-69 like Mound_of_Glory (e.g. Mound of Glory2.jpg),
• 1981 like Minsk National Airport (e.g. MINSK-Airport-1000-278768.jpg)
• 1985-2001 like the Palace of Republic (e.g. Belarus-Minsk-Palace of Republic.jpg),
• 1988 like the National Exhibition Center BelEXPO (e.g. Belarus-Minsk-Minsk-EXPO Exhibition Complex-1.jpg),
• 1990 like Frunzenskaya (Minsk Metro) (e.g. Frun_08.jpg),
• 2000 like Minsk Passazhirsky railway station (e.g. Station square Minsk.jpg, Чыгуначны вакзал «Мінск-Пасажырскі» 002.jpg),
• 2002-2006 like the National Library of Belarus (e.g. Национальная библиотека Белоруссии.jpg) or
• 1995-2002 like the Church of the Resurrection of Christ in Brest (e.g. Brest Kirche.jpg).

This is just a tiny example set of photos about Belarus. I just wish to understand which photos of buildings and statues are ok in Commons and which are not. For many of us it is very strange that e.g. 2014 IIHF World Championship are organized in Minsk-Arena, photos of which arena are not allowed in Commons based on recent practices...--Paju (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid all of them should go to RfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, situation is as bad as I thought. And after some search, I found the Belarusian copyright law in Russian in wikisource. Article 22 says that the rights are valid during the lifetime and also 50 years after the death of an artist (architect). Article 19 allows citations in scientific, research, educational, debate, criticism and informational purposes. Thus, it appears to me that one might use these non-free photos in wikipedia e.g. as sourced informational, educational, debated etc. commentary (fair use). But, as these are non-free photos, the correct place is not Commons. However, one could rescue key photos to wikipedia, and not just bluntly ask RfD. If done properly, there is quite a lot of work to be done, as I guess, one should include at least some key facts like correct name of the object (building or work of art), year and name of artist (architect) when using such files. Currently such data is often missing. Maybe one could also write some info text to the relevant Commons categories, which would clearly indicate the non-FOP of such objects and hint users to save photos of such objects under the umbrella of their local wikipedia instead.--Paju (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

RfD has now been submitted for majority of these & other photos of the same objects. --Paju (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama and reconstructed buildings

I'd like to understand if recently reconstructed buildings, like the Minsk Guildhall ("City hall") in Minsk, Belarus, which was built based on 18th century pictures and drawings in 2004, is FOP or non-FOP object? This building was demolished in the 2nd half of 19th century according to tsar's decree. Later it is said (S. N. Maštšeno, 2008: Minsk i okrestnosti - Minsk and Surroundings, published by Višeišaja škola, Minsk, Isbn 978-985-06-1420-9, pages 22-23 about this Guildhall i.e. Ратуша) as follows: "Pictures and drawings of the Guildhall building of the 18th century made by the province architect F. Kremer have been retained up to the present time. They were used for reconstruction of the Guildhall in 2004." So, if the architect is person from 18th century, does the building have free of panorama, or is the year of construction important here? My first assumption is that such objects would be FOP, and one could use photos of this building more freely than pictures of objects like current Minsk Passazhirsky railway station, where only citation approach seems to have solid arguments. Any comments? --Paju (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

These are always interesting questions. I'd lean towards saying that at least photographs of the exterior are OK -- it sounds like there was detailed documentation on what the structure looked like, and if all of those details were followed as closely as possible in the reconstruction, really there is little or no original expression found in the external appearance anyways, and no modern architect could claim a copyright on that aspect as that copyright expired long ago (well technically never existed, and was never restored by current laws). As a technical matter, "freedom of panorama" is about usages where there is a valid underlying copyright, so this would not be technically FOP; it is simply taking a photograph of material in the public domain. Reconstructing a a building with the same design would not create a new copyright. The main question is if there was any significant detail lacking in the old drawings which had to be filled in by a modern architect, but I think a photograph would have to be focusing on such elements to be infringing. It really depends on faithful the new building is to those existing drawings, and from the looks of it, it seems rather close. The interior may be more of a question mark. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina - misinterpretation of the law

The Commons:FOP page currently states that, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Article 52 of the 2010 law on copyright and related rights states that reproductions of copyrighted works (including buildings) "permanently located in squares, parks, streets or other places accessible by the public" are only allowed "provided they are not used for gaining economic profit". I checked Article 52, and it says (my translation is on the right):

Član 52. (Djela trajno smještena na javnim mjestima) (1) Dopuštena je slobodna upotreba autorskih djela koja su trajno smještena na trgovima, u parkovima, na ulicama ili drugim mjestima pristupačnim javnosti. (2) Djela iz stava (1) ovog člana ne smiju se reprodukovati u trodimenzionalnom obliku, upotrijebiti za istu namjeru kao izvorno djelo ili upotrijebiti za ostvarivanje imovinske koristi.

Article 52. (Works permanently located on public places) (1) It is allowed to freely use copyrighted works which are permanently located in squres, parks, streets or other places accessible by the public. (2) The works from the point (1) of this article shall not be reproduced in three dimensions, used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic profit.

So, this article in NO way restricts the use of photographs (i.e., two-dimensional reproductions) of the works permanently located on public places. It forbids their three-dimensional reproductions (like creating the same building or monument or sculpture at some other place, making their models, etc.); it forbids the use of such reproductions for the same purpose as the original work; and it forbids the use of the works and their three-dimensional reproductions for gaining economic profit (like charging money for access to a public monument or its reproduction). In conclusion, all files in Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina FOP cases, which have been deleted per FOP considerations, should be restored. VVVladimir (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, this article seems to me to restrict the commercial use of photographs of such works (e.g. selling them as postcards). Admittedly it doesn't specifically talk about photos or other non-3D copies of the works covered, but that seems to be implied by the phrase "[...] used for the same purpose as the original work [...]", which would seem to make no sense if it wasn't implicitly referring to copies. (By the way,the WIPO has also published an English version of the legislation.) --Avenue (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Right, the problem is the "or used for gaining economic profit" part. Everything is fine until that clause. That means you can take photographs, and use them for any non-commercial purposes, but can't use them for commercial purposes (i.e. making money from it) without getting some further permission from the copyright owner of the underlying work. This would cover a large amount of use, but the non-commercial restriction is the part which means the photograph is truly "free". Even though Wikimedia's own use is not commercial (it would not violate the law at all for us to use such photographs), we need for any material hosted here to be *able* to be used for commercial purposes without there being a copyright restriction on doing so. See Commons:Licensing -- files must be usable for any purpose, and that includes commercial use. For example, you could not sell postcards using such a photograph. This is common for countries of eastern Europe; see File:Freedom of Panorama in Europe NC.svg which shows such countries in yellow -- there is explicit ability to do a lot with such photographs, but we still can't host them per policy (and that policy is mandated by the Foundation). The requirement that material be "free" is a requirement throughout all of the Wikimedia Foundation projects. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Avenue and Carl: the commercial exploitation is also forbidden for 2D reproductions. A similar statement is also included in the Slovene act, stating "Uporaba iz prejšnjega odstavka se ne sme izvršiti v tridimenzionalni obliki ali za isti namen kot prvotno delo ali vršiti za doseganje gospodarske koristi." [Works mentioned in the foregoing paragraph may not be reproduced in a threedimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work, or used for economic gain.] [5] It has sometimes been argued that the prohibition of commercial exploitation only applies to 3D reproductions, yet a peer-reviewed article [6] and a court case clearly show this also applies to 2D reproductions.[7] Of course, it may be different in BiH, but the burden of proof is on the uploader and we have no official source stating that the translation is incorrect. In my sincere opinion (I do read Bosnian), it is not. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 15:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It is the same problem as in Slovenia. Someone is interpreting the laws terribly wrong as already discussed countless times. I dont't see how 2D photography is either reproduction or commerical usage. We are providing the photo as such (as an individual work of art) under the free licence, not the original building itself. Photography (unless a faithfull 3D reproduction) is not just a plain derivative work. --Miha (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone? Who would be that someone? Are all the numerous users and administrators who propose DRs/delete 2D photographs of copyrighted 3D works from no-FOP countries, authors of peer-reviewed articles and judges mistaken or is it more probable that you are interpreting the laws incorrectly? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 19:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of uses of such photos would not be a real-life problem -- including our use. That is the frustrating part. However, there are *some* usages which are most likely a problem. If you take a photo of a sculpture, part of the sculptor's protected expression is in the photograph, undoubtedly. In the normal realm of copyright, this is a derivative work. It has to do with how much of the underlying expression is in the photograph itself. The photographer undoubtedly added their own expression as well; it would be their take of the subject. If the photographer added little to nothing (in some jurisdictions, a straight-on photo of a painting would be an example), it would be a "copy", not a "derivative work" -- the latter implies added artistic expression. Copyright laws however give the author of the underlying work substantial rights over derivative works. This is often the right to publish a translation of someone's novel, and things like that, but it can be and has been applied to photographs of copyrightable works. There have been a number of court cases -- in the U.S., there have been been lawsuits over commercial use made of photographs of the Vietnam Women's Memorial and also the Korean Memorial, both sculptures commissioned by the U.S. Congress and placed on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. However, the sculptors retained the copyright, and the right to sue over derivative works, and were successful. Simply taking a photograph is not commercial use. Putting it up on your website probably isn't either. But... selling a postcard of such a photo can very likely be a problem, or selling t-shirts from such a photo (one of the above-mentioned court cases), or selling the photo to the U.S. Postal Service for use on a stamp (another of those court cases) -- those are commercial use, and the courts ruled that way. Many uses are covered by "fair use", or explicit limitations written into copyright law (for example news organizations are allowed to use them to report the news -- but neither could they sell postcards with the photos). Works hosted here must be "free", which is not about cost but about the restrictions placed on the works -- there can't be many. People have to be free to take the photos, and do something else with them -- including put them on postcards. If that is a real restriction, then the works are not free. The photographer, as much as they want, cannot license away the right to use such photos in a commercial context, because that right is held by someone else. So while our uses are OK, and are not commercial, Wikimedia has a philosophical opposition to hosting them here. And yes, there have been court cases where even photos of buildings were an issue. Very rare, but they have happened. 96.255.133.216 04:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Literary Works as part of sculpture

The article says:

"Music, literature etc.

Sometimes, a literary work is a part of a sculpture or is presented on a publicly accessible plaque. It is usually understood that the particular presentation of the work falls under the panorama freedom."

I don't see any basis for this unless, of course, the local FOP covers literary works (Germany, Mexico, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Brazil, Croatia, North Korea, Slovakia). In all other countries, the FOP might cover the sculpture, it it will not cover an image of a literary work on a plaque on the sculpture. Of course, this does not extend to a plaque with only names and dates, but it would include any quote beyond a few words. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The Nordic FOP laws state that buildings may be depicted freely, and the laws do not state that the buildings have to be artistic works. This could possibly be taken to mean that literary works contained in an architectural work are covered by the architecture FOP rule. However, it is possible that this isn't what the lawmaker meant, so you would have to read lots of background documents in order to find out.

The FOP provisions for statues in the Nordic copyright laws specifically use the word "artwork", without any indication that literary works contained in the artworks are included in the FOP provisions.

I assume that point 3 in COM:PRP applies in most situations, meaning that no one sues anyone for such images and that there is no case law to look at, so we will probably only be able to find pure speculations. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

If there were text that was an integral part of a building, then perhaps your first point might apply -- a monument that qualified as architecture (most do not, but say the Washington Monument) to a recently deceased writer which had quotes from his or her works all over it might fit under the FOP you cite. But a plaque attached to the building -- even one describing the building -- that was not part of its original construction would not. I think the test would be, "If this building were PD, would this literary work associated with it be PD as part of the building?" If you can't say "yes" to that, then the plaque does not fall under any FOP for the building. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If text is contained in a building, then the text expires 70 years after the death of the writer in Europe whereas the rest of the building expires 70 years after the death of the architect. The writer and the architect typically do not die at the same point. Compare with an old European newspaper where the upper half of a page may be OK whereas the lower half might be  Not OK, because different articles were written by different journalists. I think that you are thinking of a separability test, similar to the case Leicester v. Warner Brothers, where a United States court decided that a sculpture was covered by freedom of panorama because it was a part of a building. I assume that the same would be true for text which isn't separable from a building. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

missing FOP information

• Ethiopia
• Cameroun

--Túrelio (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Many countries are missing. You can find the copyright laws of most countries at w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights and check whether they seem to contain FOP provisions. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added an entry for Cameroon, derived from Cameroon's Law No. 2000/011 of December 19, 2000 on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights. —RP88 14:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

FOP Australia

this statementFreedom of Panorama is dealt with in the Australian Copyright Act, sections 65–68, and is based on the laws of the United Kingdom. See the United Kingdom section for more details.' implies that UK copyright law applies to Australian works yet it is unsubstanciated by the Australian Copyright Act, and by the link provided on that line. Without supporting evidence that UK Law should be applied to Australian works this should removed. Gnangarra 23:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The section does not state that UK law applies in Australia; the section only states that the Australian law is based on the UK law. Most or all former British colonies simply duplicated the UK law when they gained independence. If the law hasn't been changed in either the UK or Australia since then, this means that a British and an Australian court would examine identical laws when processing FOP cases, and therefore the outcome would presumably be similar. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Namibia, recent deletions

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Buildings_in_Windhoek, Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Windhoek, and this discussion with the deleting admin refers.

While Namibia clearly has no FOP with regard to a narrow definition of 'artistic work', that is sculptures, frescoes, monuments, and such works, this prohibition does not extend to buildings. The Act is at times contradicting. It does classify buildings as architectural work, it does classify architectural work as artistic work, and it does pany reproduction (2D repro of 3D works explicitly included) of artistic work.

However, there are two imho important points to mention. First, there is a restriction in section 1 where it says an object shall not be taken to be a copy of a work of architecture unless the object is a building or a model of a building. To me that reads like an overall restriction of the provision of copyright for buildings and architecture, for all paragraphs further down.

Second, and probably more important, I think that the law itself is not the only information that should be considered. Most of Namibian laws have misleading wording and contradicting instructions. There has never been a lawsuit in Namibia against anybody publishing pictures of buildings. Newspapers, National TV, photographic artists do that all the time. Nowhere has it ever been suggested that this is an illegal action, and it would go against all common sense.

Furthermore, the law also prohibits (8e) 'making an adaptation of the work'. If by the chain classification art work--architecture--any building is protected by this law I might not even repaint my own house. Now, we do a lot of silly things in Namibia, but that is certainly not one of them.

tl;dr: Can the clause an object shall not be taken to be a copy of a work of architecture unless the object is a building or a model of a building be included in the Namibia section, so that I can go ahead and request undeletion of the affected files? --Pgallert (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

“copy" means a reproduction of a work, and, in the case of a literary, musical or artistic work, a cinematograph film or a computer program, also an adaptation thereof, but an object shall not be taken to be a copy of a work of architecture unless the object is a building or a model of a building;

Does this mean that it only is an infringement of the copyright of the building if you create something which is in three dimensions? This would seem to suggest that you can include buildings in photos, paintings and films. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I would believe that I may not build a building that looks exactly like yours, or a model of it. Even this is not much common sense when applied to any building---my house looks exactly like my neighbour's, as it often happens in urban residential areas. Bottom line is that we have laws that on paper forbid certain things that they were never meant for. Our Communications Act, for instance, forbids the transmission of any electronic signal beyond title borders, without communications license. Still many people have garages with remote-controlled doors; they are not in conflict with the law. The law itself is flawed. --Pgallert (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose The problem with the reading of the law set forth above is that in describing copyright holders' rights, the law does not use the word "copy", but the word "reproduce". It defines "reproduce" separately in a way that does not favor the reading above.

This

"there is a restriction in section 1 where it says an object shall not be taken to be a copy of a work of architecture unless the object is a building or a model of a building"

cited by Pgallert above, is out of context. Stefan quotes the whole sentence. It has no general applicability in the law, but is simply a definition of the word "copy".

The relevant language is:

"8 Nature of copyright in artistic works

Copyright in an artistic work vests the exclusive right to do or to authorise the doing of any of the following acts in Namibia:

(a) Reproducing the work in any manner or form;"

We also have in Definitions:

""reproduction" in relation to-

(b) an artistic work, includes a version produced by converting the work into a three-dimensional form or, if it is in three dimensions, by converting it into a two-dimensional form;

and references to "reproduce" and "reproducing" shall be construed accordingly;"

Since Architecture is defined as being an Artistic Work, (8a) covers Architecture. "Reproducing the work in any manner or form" is very broad and certainly includes photographs, particularly since the definition of "reproducing" specifically cites 3D to 2D conversions. If (8a) had said "Copying the work in any manner or form" then we would have a serious ambiguity because of the special definition of "copy" which is cited above, but it doesn't say that. We are required by COM:PRP to delete if there is a "significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file"; it seems to me that the wording in (8a) clearly supports our current stance on Namibian FOP.

As for the notion that no one has ever sued to enforce the copyright on a building in Namibia, that is specifically dealt with by COM:PRP #1. Our firm policy is to protect the rights of copyright holders as set forth in the relevant law regardless of realities on the ground. This is at least partly because we want to be perceived as a repository that takes copyright seriously. Simply shrugging and saying that it won't happen won't give significant users the comfort they need to use our images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This reading takes one source, a poorly worded law from a time when the Republic was barely four years old, as superior to common practice of every citizen, every government institution, every business and every NGO, and neglects the absence of any hint whatsoever, anywhere, that in Namibia taking pictures of buildings is not allowed. Does that improve the encyclopedia? --Pgallert (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because Commons credibility requires that we follow the law, not what we think the law ought to be. Your reasoning suggests that we should allow all files to be kept on Commons, because copyright suits are extremely rare in any country -- they are very expensive and very rarely recover damages sufficient to cover their costs. Most of us believe that every country should have an FOP exception such as that in Germany, but we enforce the laws of France, the USA, and other non-FOP or partly-FOP nonetheless.

Note, by the way, that is not the taking of pictures that we are disputing here -- none of us would argue that you cannot take pictures because of copyright restrictions. What is under discussion is publication and commercial use of those pictures. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

[squeeze] Your reasoning suggests that we should allow all files to be kept on Commons No, my reasoning suggests that the causal chain, artworks protected---architecture protected---any building protected, was never intended by the lawmakers. I'm not anti-adhering to copyright law at all. Namibia has no Freedom of Panorama, and I can live with that, but Namibia likewise has no prohibition of taking and publishing pictures of things that are not artworks, particularly, architecture and by extension, any building. Why would the clause I quoted, out-of-context as you say, be in the law after all? --Pgallert (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course taking pictures would be prohibited if yours was the correct reading of the law: 'reproduction in any form and manner' would be the relevant clause then. That's exactly what I wanted to bring across, that none of us would argue that you cannot take pictures because of copyright restrictions (your words, probably slightly taken out of context again). To treat a school building, a plaque on a dilapidated iron frame, a residential building converted to offices and treat them as art work is, imho, taking the case of copyright too far. --Pgallert (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

To your first paragraph, "architecture" -- "being either a building or a model of a building" is explicitly defined in the definitions section of the law as one of several things that is an "artistic work" and therefore protected. There is no reason in the text of the law to believe that Namibia is any different from other countries where the case law is clear that all architecture -- any building -- is covered by copyright.

To your second paragraph, Section 18(4) refers back to Section 15(1)(a) which allows reproduction "for the purpose of research or private study by, or the personal or private use of, the person using the work". The casual taking of photographs of a copyrighted object is explicitly permitted, only the publication of such a photograph is prohibited. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that the important issue is that a photo of a building isn't a copy of the building, so if you publish a photo of a building, then you are not reproducing a copy of the building and therefore you are not reproducing the building. However, the law is contradictory and unclear. This is one of those tricky cases where you would need access to background documents, case law (it any) and legal assistance. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with this (unless this is different in Namibia). This peer-reviewed article, which discusses the Slovene and the European copyright law in the field of architecture, clearly states that photographs, shootings, drawings etc. do qualify as reproductions and that only the architect has the right to reproduce his works. Or this court case (also from Slovenia), which states that "the publication of a photograph of a statue undoubtedly presents a reproduction." --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• There seems to be a fairly broad copyright exemption in article 16 of the 1994 act, which states:

16 General exceptions in respect of reproduction of works

In addition to reproductions permitted in terms of this Act reproduction of a work shall also be permitted in such circumstances as are prescribed, but in such a manner that the reproduction is not in conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and is not unreasonably prejudicial to the legitimate interests of the owner of the copyright.

Would I be right to think that photographs of buildings are generally not "a normal exploitation of the work" and that hosting them here would not unreasonably prejudice the architect's legitimate interests, which are generally related to designing and constructing other buildings? --Avenue (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The question is whether the commercial republication of these photographs without paying the author is unreasonably prejudicial to the legitimate interests of the owner of the copyright. In my opinion, it is. Every author deserves a fair payment for his work if it is to be exploited commercially. Reproducing a work (in the form of photography etc.) and earning money with the reproductions does count as a "normal exploitation of the work" and as the author's legitimate interest. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Article 16 sounds ambiguous and is one of those cases where we would need legal expertise to know exactly what "normal exploitation" and "unreasonably prejudicial to the legitimate interests" mean. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there nowhere a distinction between architectural masterpieces, where selling pictures might be a normal exploitation of the work, and ordinary buildings where the normal exploitation would be to sell pizza in it, conduct an English class in it, cook and sleep in it? --Pgallert (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ethiopia

What's the FOP situation in Ethiopia? If I correctly understand [8] (9. Reproduction for Personal Purposes), there is only non-commercial FOP for statues etc., and no FOP for architecture. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Section 9 is only about creation of copies for your own personal purposes and has nothing to do with FOP. For example, if you find a photo in a book, then article 9 allows you to make a photocopy of it for your own personal use, but you can't distribute that photocopy to anyone else. The part about architecture means that you can't construct new copies of existing buildings without permission from the architect of the original building, even if you only construct the building for your own personal purposes (for example because you need a house to live in). Taking photos of a building for your own personal purposes seems to be fine, though. Compare with article 12 of the Swedish copyright law, which is very similar. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

So what's your take on the Ethiopian FOP situation? We host images of monuments from Ethiopia, but don't have the section explaining if they're ok for us or not. I don't see anything in the Ethiopian act that would make publicly displayed works free for any usage. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If there is no counter-argument, I'm going to add Ethiopia as 'no FOP'. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that section 9 doesn't provide any FOP. I haven't read the rest of the law, so I don't know whether there are FOP provisions in some other section or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Autostadt

Question about FOP in Germany in relation to pictures taken inside the grounds of the Autostadt attraction. As there is an entrance fee the attraction would not appear to meet both the " dedicated to the public and publicly-accessible" test

For example all of the following are pictures of buildings that would appear to be in copyright taken from inside the grounds :

• File:12-10-03-autostadt-wob-by-RalfR-01.jpg
• File:12-10-03-autostadt-wob-by-RalfR-03.jpg
• File:AudipazAutostadt.JPG
• File:BentleypavilionAutostadt.JPG
• 

The following taken inside :

• 
• 
• File:12-01-03-autostadt-by-RalfR-152.jpg
• File:12-01-03-autostadt-by-RalfR-153.jpg
• File:Autostadt Wolfsburg - The World.JPG
• File:Didacta Stand Autostadt-by-RaBoe 01.jpg

Am I missing something that makes these free ? LGA _talk^edits 08:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

ianal, but as for my understanding of FOP-Germany, a daily open public attraction where the entrance fee is the only limitation (similar for a museum, zoo, etc.), qualifies as public place. File:12-02-02-autostadt-wolfsburg-041.jpg doesn't show copyrightable things anyway. --A.Savin 11:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That view is at odds with the text on the main page and with some of the court rulings given as a cites. Take the first example listed from the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) "That would require them to be dedicated to public use, though not necessarily in a public-law sense, and the provision of free entrance" would indicate that charging of the entrance fee does disqualify a location from § 59. LGA _talk^edits 19:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi A.Savin, that's a valid point, and some commentaries opine on this issue. However, I'm unaware of one who'd share your interpretation. See e.g. Wandtke/Bullinger: "Öffentliche Wege sind in diesem Sinn auch für jedermann frei zugängliche Privatwege und Privatparks (Dreier/Schulze/Dreier § 59 Rn. 3), nicht jedoch privates Gelände, das aufgrund von Zäunen und Kontrollen nicht dem freien Zutritt unterliegt."; Schricker/Loewenheim: [does not apply to] "[...] Privatgelände mit Eingangskontrollen, U-Bahnhöfe oder Bahnhofshallen, selbst wenn sie Tag und Nacht frei betreten werden können"; Nordemann/Fromm: [does not apply to] "Privatgelände, das zwar ständig Publikumsverkehr hat, aber durch Umzäunung und Torkontrollen vom freien Zutritt abgeschirmt wird". — Pajz (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Autostadt, This page is for discussing improvements to Commons:Freedom of panorama. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Laos law updated in 2012

See this WIPO resource for when enacted and entered into force, and the law itself (PDF). -Mardus (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Switzerland

Hi, I have changed the section on Switzerland, which now closely follows the (recently rewritten) dewiki article (section) on this topic, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panoramafreiheit#Schweiz. The previous version was, at times, somewhat imprecise and in my opinion lacked crucial informaton. As for the update, my impression was that for the purposes of this page, it is more convenient to gather relevant information if it is presented in the form of a bullet point list. — Pajz (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

FOP and USA copyright issues

I have a question about FOP and USA copyright. Suppose that some statue were copyrighted in both USA and the local country in January 1st, 1996. Then this country passes a law in 1996 or later declaring that FOP is valid. So the copyright of the pictures taken in the streets are the property of the photographer only in that country. But I think that this copyright exception does not extend to the USA, where the URAA is still valid. In this case, no pictures of these statues could be uploaded, and even if at this moment FOP were valid in all the world, we could not upload these images. What do you think? Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are no US court cases on transnational FoP. I'm not sure all the stuff about 1996 is relevant; if a statue is in copyright in the US, then I think a court would most likely find that a photo of it is a derivative work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

In that case, if a country passes now a law that enables FOP, all statues already in the street will continue being copyrighted in the USA. So we could not upload their images to Commons. Only photos of new statues will be OK for this project. Is that right? Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think whether the country has an FOP law or not matters for US law. Given the controversy getting stuff in copyright in the US and not in its home nation deleted, no one has really wanted to think too hard about what US FOP law might demand of us in this respect.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we would have to erase half the contents of Commons. I prefer this not to happen. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that's quite an exaggeration; and don't underestimate the number of images deleted for self-imposed problems, like FoP for architecture, which is not a law the WMF has to follow.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It's anyone's guess on how a U.S. court would handle it (and it's always possible contradictory rulings could happen). There is a U.S. case which used the law of the foreign country to determine copyright ownership (i.e. if transfers were valid, etc.), but U.S. law to determine if infringement occurred and damages (for infringements taking place in the U.S., of course). When it comes to this kind of thing, the question is if a court would consider the FOP law in the place the work is located to speak to the ownership issue, or if they would rule that the copyright owner of the statue is clear, and the copyright owner of the photograph is clear, and the question is a boundary issue between them (what is infringement and what is not). With no precedent, we're not really sure. The one somewhat relevant non-U.S. case I'm aware of was a photo taken in Austria but marketed also in Germany; the German court took the latter of the two above approaches (the photo was an infringement in Germany, even if it was not in Austria, due to slightly different FOP laws). The question of what happens when the FOP laws elsewhere change makes everything harder. Unless the statue had expired by then though, the 1996 situation and URAA would not be relevant. Given that there are many works where the situation is much more clear (photographs which themselves are still clearly copyrighted in the U.S. though expired elsewhere) that we are still working through, I don't think anyone is concentrating on this issue too hard. But if pressed by a DMCA takedown request or maybe an explicit deletion request, photos may well be deleted in such a situation (that did happen with some photos of Claes Oldenburg works if memory serves). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

For the relevant links see Category:Claes Oldenburg. --Túrelio (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, so far as I can see the photos in the takedown were deleted[9][10] but any not mentioned in the takedown were kept[11] even in the case where one of the kept photos, File:FlyingPins.jpg, was a different photo of a work included in the takedown. Thincat (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There is also an aspect in that FOP doesn't always transfer all rights to the photographer or painter in the countries where FOP exists. For example, if I take a photograph of a copyrighted building or statue here in Sweden, then I control the economic rights to the photo and the sculptor or architect can't use his economic rights to the underlying work to prevent me from using the photograph. On the other hand, the sculptor or architect sill controls the moral rights to the underlying work and can prevent me from using the photograph if I fail to fulfil the moral requirements (provided by 11 § URL), which essentially means that I sometimes am required to attribute the sculptor or architect and that I can't modify the underlying work more than necessary. I am not sure if these restrictions somehow affect how the photograph may be used in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The existence of such rights in other countries would not affect U.S. use. Of course, if U.S. law has any such rights for the artist (such as 17 USC 106A) those would apply. Moral rights are generally outside the bounds of any "free" interpretation though, as are other non-copyright restrictions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Moral rights are not "non-copyright restrictions" as they are very much part of copyright law. However, moral rights alone do not make a work unfree. The restrictions posed by moral rights are very much similar to those posed by a CC-BY licence, and as far as I know, we still accept files licensed under CC-BY. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

They are typically enumerated in copyright laws, but the "free" status is based on the economic right (the rights that U.S. "copyright" most directly translate to). That's not to say we ignore moral rights -- authors should be named if possible, and yes CC-BY has very similar requirements and could make not following such rights a copyright infringement as well -- but if a country had stronger-than-normal moral rights we still would consider works free if licensed by the owner of the economic right. There have been concerns in the past about some of the clauses in those rights but they should not affect the presence of works on Commons (other than making sure we attribute if at all possible). But the U.S. would not recognize rights in another country's laws, just its own (same as any other country). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

FoP tag location

Should FoP tags (like {{FoP-Canada}}) always be placed on the file description page? Or, if there is a category for the building or artwork in question, can the tag be left only on the category and not included on each file description page within? Powers (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I should mention that the above query arises out of a discussion that LtPowers and I have had concerning the use of {{FoP-Singapore}}. LtPowers takes the view that each file should be tagged (which would mean thousands of files), while I feel that if an entire category (for example, "Category:Buildings in Singapore") is tagged then individual files in that category need not be tagged. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, most of the viewers will not visit the category, and therefor not see the tag then. I suppose to put it on every iniviually image would be better. --JuTa 10:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That was certainly my thinking; is one way or the other customary? Powers (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't really notice many photographs of buildings, sculptures, etc., with individual FoP tags on them. Also, perhaps we can clarify what purpose highlighting the FoP status of individual files serves? I would have expected that people who wish to know about the law relating to FoP in individual jurisdictions would visit "Commons:Freedom of panorama". — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I would expect to see the Freedom of Panorama information, whether via template inclusion or plain wikitext, on the file description page, as that's the most logical and convenient place for the reader and re-user. The template has an advantage in allowing readers to click the tools link "What links here" to find other images affected by the same FOP. Otherwise, a user may not even know this FOP page exists. In my opinion files such as File:Crest of the Singapore Municipal Commission, Central Fire Station, Singapore - 20110505.jpg and its derivatives should mention and link the relevant FOP section. -84user (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The FOP-tag needs to be on the description page of each image, which we host legitimately only thanks to FOP-exception in the country of origin. Nevertheless, in case of special works of art which can only be photographed from a public location, it may also make sense to put an additional FOP-tag into the category.

The FOP-tag actually should serves 2 important purposes:

• 1) to provide immediate information why a photo of a still copyrighted work is/can be hosted;
• 2) to warn or notify re-users that they need to be aware of the fact that this image might not be legitimate in their local jurisdiction.

The problem with the current content of most or all of our FOP-tags is that they do not fulfil the 2nd purpose. --Túrelio (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)