This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It can't be a license. PD-Art and FOP-whatever aren't licenses. They are warning/information templates. Combining them wouldn't change anything to it. PD-Art is a warning/information template which tells, with its linked pages, in what countries some reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works may or may not be reused, depending on local laws. The basic PD-Art template must include a parameter stating that the original work is in the public domain in the United States. FOP, as explained in this FOP page, is the notion that images of some copyrighted works displayed in public places may be used in some countries, depending on local laws. By nature, the notion of FOP enters into play only when works are under copyright. The notion of FOP is irrelevant for works that are in the public domain. It is impossible to state, at the same time, that the original work is in the public domain in the United States and that it is under copyright in the United States. It can't be both. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
As far as I understand, it doesn't. Church interiors are not a "public place" (as the text talks about "vías públicas", which actually refers to streets and the like). --Discastotalk22:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
There was nothing in the law which limited FoP to the external appearance. So, in a recent DR, I thought that photos of buildings (outside or inside) were OK, since the single architectural work itself was located in public. I thought that separate works inside were a different matter, though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Copyright is generally dependent on the place of first publication of a work rather than the place where a work is created, so the first thing that needs to be ascertained is whether a photograph taken on Antarctica is in fact published elsewhere.
Assuming that Antarctica is in fact the place of first publication, then it depends on exactly which part of Antarctica the publication occurred. According to "w:Antarctica", "Antarctica has no government, although various countries claim sovereignty in certain regions. Although a few of these countries have mutually recognized each other's claims, the validity of these claims is not recognized universally." Thus, a photograph first published on, say, British Antarctic Territory would presumably be regulated by UK copyright law (setting aside the difficult issue of how many other nations actually recognize UK's claims over the territory).
FOP depends on the country in which the court is located, not on the country in which the photograph was taken or first published. This is given by Article 5 (2) of the Berne Convention, which says that you can't pay any attention whatsoever to what the laws of the source country say about FOP. This means that you can publish photos of buildings located in Antarctica in the United Kingdom but not in France. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Zambia
The previous section claiming that Zambia does not allow FOP was unsourced. I looked up the law, while Section 2 does indeed state that "works of architecture in the form of either buildings or models" are covered by copyright, Section 4 goes on to make a very clear exception for FOP. I have changed the text accordingly, and set Zambia to OK. Jpatokal (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually no, your cited section merely states that such works do not constitute publication for the underlying work. That has nothing to do with whether such works are not considered infringements, and is not a FOP clause. The limitations on copyright section (article 21) does not seem to have any FOP clause, unfortunately, and that is where it would need to be. Zambia should still be a full "Not OK". Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I remain unconvinced. Sec. 17(3) covers "The controlled acts in relation to an artistic work", and (a) forbids "reproduction in any material form" (emphasis mine), but surely a digital photograph of a building is not a "material reproduction" of the building itself? And per sec. 4, a photograph of a building does not qualify as "publication" (b) either. Jpatokal (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Commons does not allow the upload of photos which can't be printed on postcards. A postcard is in material form. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't count as publication of the building, but it's still communication to the public (UK-based laws usually distinguish those two; TV broadcasts are generally not publication but are communication to the public). And communication to the public is one of the rights controlled by the original author. A close reading suggests that private photographs of copyrighted artistic works are OK, but trying to publish or sell those photographs is not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Summary table
Is there any rhyme or reason to the selection of the 32 countries in the summary table? Looking at it from a most-populous-country standpoint, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Pakistan are in the top 10 of most populous countries but aren't in the summary table, but much smaller places like Albania (#140 by population) are on the list. —Darkwind (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Indonesia is in the table, in the list of no FoP nations at bottom; if there's no FoP at all, there's no need to point out details. Pakistan could probably be in it if you added it, and we don't seem to have any knowledge about Nigerian FoP at all, one way or the other.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The map is wrong about Hellas, she has full freedom of panorama (at least since 1995), Hellas should be colored green as anything and anyone in public can be photographed and the photo be published or sold for non-commercial use, e.g. editorial/journalistic or artistic use. Joxi Szriasztista (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Am I reading this correctly in that the EU is moving to restrict FoP to non-commercial only?
On the “freedom of panorama” principle, such as the right to create and share images and photographs of public buildings, the text cautions that the commercial use of such reproductions should require authorization from the rightholder.
If that is truly the copyright law there, then yes. It appears South Sudan has not yet passed a copyright law of their own. The U.S. Copyright Office's page on copyright relations says the South Sudan copyright relations are "unclear", so they may not be a member of Berne. Usually though previous law stays in place unless explicitly revoked or replaced by the new government, so yes a copy of Sudan is the best guess. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I would appreciate comments. This relates to much of the discussion about freedom of panorama, and I was hoping to describe the precedent from freedom of panorama discussions. Blue Rasberry (talk)14:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it relates directly to the issue of freedom of panorama. They are really separate issues. Although both issues relate to the notions of derivative works or reproductions and although they might interact for a given photograph, as any two issues may sometimes interact, the respective basic explanations of each issue are better kept separate, to avoid causing confusion more than help. The matter of the consent of the author of an artwork to the appearance of views of his/her artwork in photographs offered under free licenses by the photographers, is related to the help page Commons:Derivative works (there may be some marginal question in the doctrine about whether a photograph of an artwork is a reproduction or a derivative work, but it is of little practical consequence for reusers and Commons refers to such photograph as a derivative work). If you add more developments about it in help pages, I suppose it could be in that page Commons:Derivative works or, as you suggest, in the 3-D art section of the casebook collection page now renamed Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter. I would advise against mixing the specific issue of FoP (the possibility of some types of uses in some countries in the absence of the sculptor's consent) into an explanation of the issue of the consent actually given by a sculptor to some uses (unless I'm missing something about what you want to do exactly).
On the issue of the consent of the author of an artwork to free-licensed photographs, I guess the reason why the help pages do not extrapolate about the consequences on the status of the artwork may be because help pages provide general information but Commons would not want its help pages to seem to give legal advice about potentially unclear or controversial points. When there is evidence (external or through OTRS communication) that the author of an artwork has explicitly consented to the view of his/her artwork in a specifically free-licensed photograph, we can say that it is okay to reuse this particular photograph under the terms of the license. But if one wants to extrapolate about other consequences, your view, that the photo is validly licensed and that does not affect the otherwise non-free status of the artwork, represents, I think, the opinion generally expressed by Commons users in discussions and it is logical. But would Commons want to represent it as a certainty?
example of copyrighted sculpture, hosted on Wikipedia because of Freedom of Panorama
Asclepias Thanks for talking this through with me.
On your second point, I think that Commons should say something, even if it is "the community has no idea what to say about this issue." I hope that something more certain can be said, because it is a very common case that people take pictures of 3D art. The reason why I think that Commons should say something is because this is such a common situation.
About your first point - "does this relate to freedom of panorama" I am not sure. Here are the situations -
There is a public sculpture. Its copyright holder keeps a restrictive copyright on it. The place has freedom of panorama. Wikipedians do not get permission to photograph from the copyright holder. Wikipedians photograph and upload the photo of the sculpture. This does not change the copyright status of the sculpture, right?
There is a public sculpture. Its copyright holder keeps a restrictive copyright on it. The place might or might not have freedom of panorama. Wikipedians get permission to photograph from the copyright holder. Wikipedians photograph and upload the photo of the sculpture. This does not change the copyright status of the sculpture, right?
The cases seem somewhat related to me, because the end effect is the same - the sculpture gets a photo on Wikipedia. I am trying to get opinions on whether giving permission to photograph also releases other rights to the 3D work. With a 2D work, I think the consensus is that permission to photograph is the same as permission to reproduce the work at the highest quality and resolution. I want to find out if Commons has said anything about 3D work.
In a place with Freedom of Panorama, are artists supposed to tell everyone to not photograph their work even when they know people will anyway, because they might lose their copyright if they give permission for it to be photographed?
Artists letting people photograph their sculptures is not a big deal. The deal is letting them make derivative works without limit, which implicitly includes 3D derivative works. If Commons permitted the use of a license that explicitly said that 3D derivative works were excluded, then that would be fine, but I don't think Commons would, and that's not part of the CC licenses. FoP is one of those things where we take advantage of what the law gives us, even though it's not what we might ask for, I think.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems what you seek is really about the various possible types of a copyright owner's permission/licensing and their consequences. IMO, in the help pages, it still shouldn't be mixed with the different question of "Freedom of panorama" (FoP). The effects of a given permission, decided by the copyright owner, are determined by the scope and wording of that permission. The effects of a given FoP exception on the use inside a given country are determined by the scope and wording of the relevant sections of the law of that country. The copyright owner (c.o.) can grant a permission for use, which, in a each country, can be more permissive than the use without permission that is allowed in that country by the law of that country. So, in a given country, someone can use the work under the terms of the broader of: the c.o.'s permission or the FoP exception in that country or some other type of exception in that country. If the objective is clarity about permissions granted by a c.o., a reference to FoP seems unnecessary. The effects of a permission are determined by the wording of that permission. But I think I get your point for the discussion: In your quest to determine the effects of a c.o.'s permission, you use the effects of FoP as one possible comparison. In a way, you note that, among the many different possible terms and conditions under which a c.o. could choose to license his/her work, one of the possibilities is that he/she could happen to write a license in terms that might resemble the wording of a FoP provision found in the law of some given country, and to grant that license for one, several or all countries. We can imagine some types of permissions:
The c.o. of the artwork places explicitly that work under a universal free license (for example CC-by-sa). Anyone can reuse according to the terms of that license anywhere for any purpose.
The c.o. declares a permission for anyone to make and publish two-dimensional representations of the artwork, for any purpose, in some countries only. For example, if a copyright owner wrote "I grant my permission for any person to represent, in a painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or cinematographic work, the sculpture Sculpture and to publish such representation for any purpose in Belgium and in Romania." (You might say that the effect, on a photo, of this type of permission, is to add some types of uses in some countries to the combination of all the FoP exceptions existing in all countries.)
The c.o. declares a permission for anyone to make and publish two-dimensional representations of the artwork anywhere, for some purposes only. (If the artwork is situated in a public place, somewhat comparable to some types of exceptions in the laws of some countries.)
The c.o. grants permission to one or to some identified persons to publish a particular photo or a particular set of photos under a specified free license, with the understanding that the c.o. of the artwork won't be able to restrict the legal free reuse of those particular photos, but that he/she retains all rights to restrict any other use of the artwork, including to restrict the publication of any other photographs of the artwork not specified in that permission, and that the fact that the c.o. of the artwork has allowed a representation of the artwork to be embedded in the photographic work of the photographer, which photographic work is under a free license granted by the photographer, does not have the effect of placing the sculptural work of the sculptor under that free license. One could say that the permission from the c.o. of the artwork implies that this particular representation of the artwork, as it is represented in two-dimensional form on the particular photo, can be freely reused, but does not imply that the artwork can be reused in three-dimensional form. That seems to makes sense as a principle, and Commons seems ok with that situation, but Commons can't guarantee that someone might not interpret or misinterpret the situation differently.
When there is a permission from the c.o., a potential question may be the interpretation of the c.o.'s wording and intention and of what should or should not be included. Under FoP, where there is a legal reuse without permission from the c.o., that question does not arise.
Asclepias Thanks, yes, you identified my concern. This articulates it exactly - " c.o. of the artwork has allowed a representation of the artwork to be embedded in the photographic work of the photographer, which photographic work is under a free license granted by the photographer, does not have the effect of placing the sculptural work of the sculptor under that free license. One could say that the permission from the c.o. of the artwork implies that this particular representation of the artwork, as it is represented in two-dimensional form on the particular photo, can be freely reused, but does not imply that the artwork can be reused in three-dimensional form".
It seems that FoP is that sort of permission. Photographers may represent a sculpture in their photos, but that does not place the sculptural work into the copyright license of the photograph.
I am having trouble thinking about this and I think I need time to reflect more on this. My concern was to determine if there were something viral about a photograph that can change the copyright status of works which are photographed. It seems that the precedent with FoP is that this does not happen. I recognize that just because the precedent exists with FoP, that does not necessarily mean that the same would be true if the c.o. of a sculpture gave permission for the sculpture to be photographed. I agree that FoP and the "permission to photograph" situation are different.
I will think more about this.
If you have other thoughts then please share. I live in the United States and I have been talking with a city level government policymaker about whether they should apply free licenses to the public art in a few cities. The United States has no FoP, and it would be nice to have photos, but the concern is that the copyright holders routinely sell photos of their sculptures and do not want to give blanket permission for anyone to photograph them. They wish to provide a single image of each sculpture for Wikipedia, but to otherwise not allow free photography. I have to give them some recommendation, and I am still trying to imagine whether it is possible for them to safely upload their photos to Wikimedia Commons. The sculptures are described at en:Category:Outdoor sculptures in Portland, Oregon. This is a difficult issue in the United States.
And I'm still troubled about this. A Free license of a photograph should give someone enough rights to use that photo as, say, the basis for a scene in a game or movie, including a three-dimensional model of whatever is in the photo. That wouldn't necessarily give them rights to use details of the statue not in the photo. I realize this is not how FoP works.
I'm sometimes frustrated by the way some people who aren't really cool with Free licenses upload their stuff to Commons in a way designed to frustrated or deter Free use. It doesn't really make a body of safely reusable work, and it opens up room for nasty surprises on both sides. If people who don't want to give a freely licensed copy of their work, they probably shouldn't be pushed into doing so.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
... that is basically the question. The author of the underlying work certainly can license just the photograph -- basically blessing the photograph as itself, and allowing derivative works of the photograph (say using it as part of a collage in a film or something), but still restricting other derivative works of the original (such as making a 3-D model, which is using none of the licensed expression from the photograph and is thus a derivative work of the original only). The question is if that is "free" or not and if we'd accept it -- I personally think that is just as good as FoP photos, which we allow, and realistically then allows us to get similar photos of works in non-FoP countries, while still respecting the separate copyright of the underlying work (which in many cases the author understandably would not want to license). As a general copyright thing, authors can definitely do that; I'm not entirely sure it's possible within CC's terms, and I don't know if everyone considers it "free". But if we don't allow it, then basically we are preventing our ability to ever get photos of copyrighted works. We seem OK to host FoP photographs, which carry the same restrictions -- if we are happy to do that, I don't see why we wouldn't think it would be OK for authors of underlying works to give the OK to the license of photos in non-FoP locations under similar terms. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I could take a Free painting and use that to make a 3D model of the world therein. I certainly couldn't take a random photograph and legally make a 3D model of what's in the photograph without license; take File:Wishbone Ash 2015 - 03.jpg. File:Keble College Dining Hall 2, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg is more independent. To add a note that the 3D work is not included is as good as FoP, and authors certainly can do that, but I don't know how it interacts with the CC licenses. I will note that FoP is better in that artists have by law given up their ability to control photos of the work, which can be vastly better when the statue is just in the way.
As for preventing our ability to ever get photos of copyrighted works... as I said in the last paragraph, our desire to get photographs for Wikipedia sometimes clashes with our desire to be a collection of Free works, and the example in Blue Rasberry's last post of sculptures who permit one Wikipedia picture is definitely a case where I feel that we could be accepting a frustratingly non-free picture as Free instead of just more honestly using it as non-free.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind that a photographic copyright covers just the expression of the photographer, such as the angle, framing, possibly lighting, and things like that. The CC-BY etc. license of a photograph is *just* licensing those aspects. So yes, in many cases you can make a 3D model of what's in the photograph -- the photographer usually does not have a copyright over that, so even with a copyrighted photo you can do that (free or not). If a photographer selected and arranged the subject though, then that is an additional copyright (which is fixed in the same photographic work), and that is where making a 3-D version is an issue -- it is derivative of the selection and arrangement copyright, not the photographic expression per se. That is what got Jeff Koons in trouble in the Rogers v. Koons case. So with a photographic copyright, the license is for that -- and I guess the underlying author can certainly OK the picture without licensing the statue's copyright directly -- that is basically granting the equivalent of FoP for that photograph in places without FoP. As you say, I'm not exactly sure how that interacts with CC licenses either, but it sure seems like it should be possible, if we accept CC-BY-SA (etc.) licensed photos of FoP works. You could even argue that CC's answer as regards to low-resolution versions of a painting would actually support this case, where the sculptor can agree with a license on a separate work without directly licensing the original. For a low-resolution version of a 2-D work, the only copyright is that of the original work, so that would have to be licensed directly (at least in part -- that is where I do not understand their answer, as I think it should be possible to just license a portion of the work.) There is some question as to how the CC licenses interact with it I guess, as I don't think anything like that has ever gotten to court, but if CC licenses are OK with FoP works then I don't see any real problem with a sculptor granting the equivalent of FoP rights on a particular photo or photos. I would tend to think the courts would also tend to side with the authors, letting them do what they want with their copyright. In the case of adaptations / derivative works, I think it's "free" to just be able to use the underlying work in the context of the adaptation only. That at least allows adaptations to be free, as a stricter interpretation would mean they can never be free unless the original is also completely "free" with no restrictions, and I think that is actually damaging to the "free" movement itself (as well as Wikipedia). It will severely limit a lot of types of possible free material which could be used. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Allow panoramas that are not free for commercial use
It is my opinion, that Wikimedia Commons should allow photos of artwork, where we do not allow commercial use of the photo. That way we would be able to illustrate articles about artwork or constructions created with special architectural skills. That is, we would also allow NC versions of the Creative Commons license, but only for photos of artwork located in public space. The reason for this proposal, is that several countries do not allow unrestricted commercial use of photos of artwork located in public space. Meaning Wikipedia/Wikimedia can not have photos of them.--BIL (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia can host such images under a fair use rationale; Wikimedia Commons though cannot host images using that rationale as works here are not tied to a specific use. This goes well beyond Commons policy so it is not something we can change; it is mandated by the Foundation (see wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy), and we use the definition found at http://freedomdefined.org/Definition , which does state the copies must be allowed to be sold (and that has long been part of the "free" principle). Yes, such a policy does somewhat harm Wikimedia projects which are all educational and thus noncommercial, but when trying to produce a free encyclopedia, that comes with the territory. The fair use rationales are part of bridging that gap though. Also, note that while some countries do allow noncommercial use of works permanently placed in public, not all countries even allow that, so such photos would still be an issue there. The U.S. concept of "fair use" usually does not apply in those countries either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
South Korea
Hello. I recently saw that there is no freedom of panorama in South Korea. However, I made a lot of pictures there and also uploaded them here, especially of Sungkyunkwan University and the Blue House. Are these okay? And for the licences, do I have to choose something that prohibits commercial use? --Christian Bolz (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
No, unfortunately the photos which show modern buildings - not all photos in the categories show modern buildings - are not ok.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
the following shall not be an infringement of copyright: "making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph or an architectural work of art" and "making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture or other artistic work if such work is permanently situated in a public place or any premises to which the public has access".
This is obviously a bad quote; I don't know what the first sentence fragment is supposed to say. What it definitely doesn't say is no to 2D art and yes to 3D art; the first sentence lumps architecture with painting, for example, and it's unclear what "sculpture or other artistic work" means.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is the same as India and UK. 2D "works of artistic craftsmanship" means things like tapestry, but most 2D art is not included (painting, photography, etc.). Regards, Yann (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not the same as the UK. Pakistan does have "works of artistic craftsmanship" in their definitions, but the FoP clause clearly states: making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture or other artistic work if such work is permanently situated in a public place or any premises to which the public has access. The clause includes artistic works, which are defined in article 2(c) as (i) a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph, whether or not any such work possess artistic quality; (ii) an architectural work of art; and (iii) any other work or artistic craftsmanship. So "artistic works" clearly includes works of artistic craftsmanship along with paintings, drawings, maps, diagrams, charts, paintings, photographs, and 2D works of the kind. I don't see anything in that law which limits FOP to works of artistic craftsmanship -- the law would explicitly use that term if it did. (I suspect there was some OCR issues which changed "of" to "or" in a couple places in the linked WIPO text; I assume that the FOP clause should be making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of an architectural work of art, and in the clause I quoted, any other work of artistic craftsmanship.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I reverted my addition. It is surprising because in (almost?) all ex-British colonies (India, Australia, New Zealand, Burma, Canada, Hong Kong, Malta, Singapore, USA, etc.), FoP does not apply to 2D art. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it is a little odd. Pakistani law reads very very close to the Indian copyright law (which is what it was more directly based on, and which does have "of" instead of "or" in those places btw), but the FoP article eliminated the language from the Indian law which limited it to works of artistic craftsmanship. Not sure why, but that does seem to be the law. I think Bangladesh is similar. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Yann: As far as I can tell, yes 2D art (paintings, drawings, maps, pictures, engravings, etc.) are not okay in Pakistan, including work or artistic craftsmanship. --Saqib (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
As far as you can tell from what? The law we are quoting in on the page right now, the text I quote at the top of this section does not say that. I'd rather we didn't change things based on vague remembrances instead of actual law or relatively authoritative interpretations of the law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Map needs to be updated
The current map does not show Kosovo separated but rather within Serbia. Please update it if you happen to have the right skills. --Altin.ukshini (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Are bridges in former Soviet Union countries "architecture"?
Hello,
a deletion request about pictures of the Tbilisi Peace Bridge has triggered the question whether under Georgian (copyright) law (and possibly identical situations in other former SU republics), a bridge is a structure or a piece of architecture, in other words, can the architect/engineer who designed it claim copyright on pictures (as there is no FOP) or not?
What exactly does 'works urban development' mean in {{FoP-Russia}}? To me, 'works urban development' sounds like roads, bridges, train tracks and such things, to the extent that these things meet the threshold of originality - a typical road would not be original enough. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
In general, bridges have been considered to be architectural works. I have devoted recently a lot of time to identify the authors of a bridge built in Estonia about 1954-57, and I suspect Georgian situation might be the same. Although, it might also depend on whether the organization that employed the architect(s) was local or central - in the last case, modern Russian laws might have some influence, if we consider that the alienable rights (as opposed to the moral rights) might have officially belonged to the employer. (And yes, before you ask, I could make it even more confusing.) --Oop (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
A Sri Lankan issue
I have visited w:National Museum of Colombo and able to capture antique images that belong to several historical eras including A.D 1000 to 1930. At the entrance you have to get the permit, if you want to photograph those images. However, the permit has the following note:
Photographs cannot be used any other purpose without getting the special permission from the Director of the National Museums.
And, it does not have any signature or official seal or I never heard of official announcement.
Is it ok for someone to holding copyright or ownership to the antique images? Can we upload these type of images to Commons? Relevant website: Video/Camera Permit and Category Category:Colombo National Museum
A question has come up as to what makes a work on permanent public display (covered by FOP) as opposed to temporary (not covered). I'm raising it here as I can't find any real discussion (beyond ice sculptures can be ok).
The specific case is in the UK - where the statue "Verity" is on loan for a 20 year period. With such a long time frame it feels absurd for FOP to not apply, but it is a fixed-time frame much less than the expected lifespan of the work. This DR has some discussion.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Cypriot interiors?
If Cypriot law says "the reproduction and distribution of copies of any artistic work permanently situated in a place where it may be viewed by the public", doesn't this also include public interiors? (Is there any information pro or contra?) If yes, then the map of Europe needs an update. --Oop (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Djibouti
If Djibouti's law says "communicating works permanently in public[...] only if use is incidental" then how is it OK for Commons? Also, the link given is not to the actual law, it does not even cite the law. Are there really no Arabic-speakers on Commons? IF not, we could at least use the site of WIPO that gives "Law No. 154/AN/06 of 23 July 2006 on the Protection of Copyright and Neighboring Rights (2006)". There, Art. 54 allows "(h) The reproduction of works of art or of architecture through cinematography or television and the communication of such works to the public if such works are permanently located in a place where they can be viewed by the public or are included in the film or program by way of background or as incidental to the essential matters represented". Thus, it is NOT ok.
Additionally, there actually isn't any public domain in Djibouti as nothing ever becomes free for use: "Art.75. Paying public domain (1) On the expiration of the terms of protection provided for in this Law, the author’s works shall pass into the public domain. (2) The representation, public performance and reproduction of these works shall require an authorization from the Office of Copyright and Neighboring Rights. If the performance is for profit, the authorization shall be granted in exchange for payment of a royalty calculated on the basis of the gross income from the operation. This royalty shall be equal to half that usually applied to works of the same category in the private domain. (3) Royalties from the exploitation of a work from the public domain shall be paid into a special fund managed by the Office of Copyright and Neighboring Rights and shall be used for cultural, artistic promotion and social development purposes." So, what's called "public domain" in the law is practically a form of state ownership. This is a nightmare for free culture. --Oop (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
According to the law you found, it is actually OK. Note the key word "or". They are OK if they are permanently located in public OR are incidental inclusion. If that said AND, then you'd be right, but basically it says non-public or non-permanent art is only OK if included incidentally, but permanent public art is OK even if not incidental. So that section should be "OK" although the previous wording / logic in that entry was wrong as you noted. As for the permanent public domain thing... we would not respect that on Commons. There are a few countries like that. The Berne Convention is always about a limited time frame. That is a nightmare for free culture in Djibouti and those others, no doubt. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
IMO, the sprinkling of "OK" and "Not OK" templates everywhere is arbitrary, too simplistic and misleading. Anyway, if users feel they must do it, a FoP exception available only to very limited types of media, such as cinema and television, should probably not be called generically "OK". -- Asclepias (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
If the FoP includes video, which presumably it does, what about still from a video? Nowadays, the distinction between moving and still images is very much blurred, as almost every photo cameras can also do videos. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh... I did miss that it was limited to cinematography and television. Yes, that probably does change things. Unless "communication of such works to the public" can include photographs, though you'd think that would be "reproduction by photography". Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Blutgretchen included the term 'place of photograph' in the section COM:FOP#Austria. Does this (as in Germany) refer to the location of the camera (i.e. the object can be anywhere, but the camera must be in a public place), or does it (as in Sweden) refer to the location of the object (i.e. the object must be in or right next to a public place, but the camera can be anywhere)? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I haven't read the discussion it came from, but just from reading the description here... no, it has nothing to do with the location of the camera. That was made clear anyways with the w:Hundertwasserhaus case (where the location of the camera made something a violation in Germany, but the same photo was OK in Austria). It sounds like you can take pictures of the interior side of an architectural work (as that work itself is located in public), but taking pictures of separately copyrightable objects inside buildings (such as objects in museums) are not OK. In other words, it sounds like the interior of museums, churches, etc. are not considered a "public place", but the inside surfaces of a building are still just parts of the building, and the building as a whole would be located in a public place, so photos of that are OK (inside or out). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
It is not clear to me whether the Austrian public place requirement applies to buildings in the first place. In Sweden, the public place requirement only applies to works of arts (such as sculptures) but not to buildings, so there is full FOP for buildings, regardless of where the building is and regardless of where the camera is. If there is no public place requirement in the first place, then a court doesn't need to check if the public place requirement is satisfied. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
FOP for British Overseas Territories
Hi all
Does anyone know if the rules for FOI in British Oversea Territories the same as for the UK? Or are they decided on a local level?
The territories can make their own laws, however its reasonable to presume they will be similar to UK law; and in the absence of local law, presumably UK law applies.
I came here looking for this too. It would be nice to have clarification. I'm working with the understanding that the Occupied Palestinian Territories are controlled by Israel and are thus subject to their FoP laws: {{FoP-Israel}}czar22:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Copyright ownership of buildings in non-FoP countries
There is a company which owns a theme park, Dubai Parks and Resorts. They bought some land, had buildings built on the land, and they own the buildings and everything around. The buildings are in Dubai, in the UAE, where there is no freedom of panorama. What do we presume about the copyright of the building? Do we presume that the building owner has it, or that they do not?
Can anyone provide an example of a case in a non-FoP country where there is a photograph of a copyrighted building that has a release which talks about the distinction between building owner and copyright holder control over the copyright of a building?
The owners of buildings should not be assumed to hold the copyright of their buildings. For this reason, in countries without freedom of panorama, Wikimedia Commons requires proof of copyright release from the copyright holder when hosting any images of those buildings. If the owner of a building uploads an image to Commons, presume that they do not own the copyright. Ask them to provide either proof of copyright transfer from the architect to them, or otherwise, ask them to direct the architect to apply a Commons-compatible license to the image.
While I understand your reasoning, I wonder whether this isn't too much to expect. I mean, when we ask the uploader/presumed representative of the owner to provide a permission-statement directly sent from the legal department (or equivalent) of the owner to OTRS, shouldn't this be sufficient? Of course, our permission-request should mention/explain the ownership/copyright issue. --Túrelio (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Túrelio, I agree only to the extent that I could accept a message from the General Counsel of a building owner that explicitly said that the building owner's agreement with the architect allowed the building owner to license images of the building. Anything short of that would not be acceptable to me -- we see far too many public relations directors who don't have a clue about copyright and who tell us things they have no right to say. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Resolved See Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-06#Dubai_Parks_and_Resorts_-_continued_discussion. The resolution was that we got a plausible claim of copyright ownership of the design of the buildings by confirming the release with top-ranking staff over contracts and legal issues at the company. The discussion says to be mindful that this does not set a precedent, but I think the context is that there is no precedent to do such a thing without talking to top staff. I do think there is a precedent to approve this when permission is confirmed by the head of a company's legal department, when that legal department gives enough information to establish that they know what they are doing. Blue Rasberry (talk)15:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Sweden on the map
Sweden seems to have lost its online FoP. Maps need updating. Perhaps there should be some special colour, as formerly we have not had any countries with only offline FoP. --Oop (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Read and re-read the decision and multitudinous comments. It actually seems that buildings are still okay. But there is nothing inconclusive about images: the Supreme Court of Sweden declared that digital databases are not a fair game, and if anyone tries to convince me Commons is NOT a digital database, they'll have to do one hell of a job. Many people (incl. WMF's legal team) disagree with the decision the Court made but it is nevertheless their decision, Wikimedia Sverige has to follow it and pay the damages, nothing inconclusive about that. See 1, 2, 3, 4 and the painful English translation of the decision by Google. --Oop (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
This edit looks misleading. The court's decision is not about paragraph 3. The decision is about the meaning and extent of «abilda», which affects the whole of section 24. -- Asclepias (talk) 06:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
There are two issues: 1) reproduce and 2) redistribute. The court case is about whether "avbilda" means both 1) and 2) or only 1). If it only means 1) then the same rule applies to buildings. One may take photographs of buildings, but not redistribute them digitally. Edaen (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, Sweden's entry in the Summary table section needs updating to reflect the change: it currently shows FOP (green) for all items except artwork instead of a mix of red and yellow that I would expect. 2D artwork appears as green which looks wrong even before the recent court decision. -84user (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
The right to take photographs under S24 is unaffected - so Swedish FOP still exists whatever the final ramifications of the case. However, the ability to distribute (via Commons) may be curtailed. There is also possibility buildings are not affected by the final ruling at all (so at worst Sweden would be Yellow). In short - Red is not the right colour at this time, an inconclusive colour should be used.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I disagree; the right to take photographs is nigh irrelevant. Everyone takes photographs of anything they want, unless there's someone physically stopping them from doing so, and it's usually so minor an infringement that nobody bothers caring. The essence of FOP is right to reproduce the images, the issue that makes court cases, so Swedish FOP does not exist, merely some minor related right of little interest.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
The rule is that you can publish photos (e.g. newspapers & postcards), but you can't communicate photos to the public (e.g. television and Internet). I don't know whether a court would rule that you can perform photos publicly (e.g. projections on a wall) or display photos publicly (e.g. outdoor advertisements). Since you can at least publish photos, there is still some FOP. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Request for example - traditional copyright on 3D art, CC photo
Still working on this type of problem? ;) Cases must be extremely rare where the copyright owner of the 3D work applied a Creative Commons license to a 2D representation. I don't remember having seen any. (A less unusual situation, as you know, is when the copyright owner of the 3D work allows the publication of a CC-licensed photographic work which includes a representation of the 3D work. As discussed in Archive 15. Btw, what happened with the Portland photos?) Shouldn't the discussion be kept in one place, at C:VP/C? -- Asclepias (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Asclepias I forgot that previous discussion, and I forgot that I had been thinking about this for so long. Thanks for remembering - wow, I appreciate that. Actually for now - I think this is resolved due to there being no good precedent. Here is where I am -
The art in Portland in Seattle remains unshared. The artists are willing to release copyright of photos, but they do not want to release copyright for their 3D sculptures. Wikimedia Commons cannot manage these requests right now.
The owner of a building in a country without freedom of panorama wants to share an image of the building they own. Wikimedia Commons has no example of this being done.
In another case, a building owner wants to share some "instruments of service" (a technical term in architecture) which describe parts of the design of a building, but explicitly not release the copyright of the building's design. Wikimedia Commons does not have an example of this.
A modern art museum can provide valid release of particular photographs to sculptures under traditional copyright. They wish to share only photos they provide with a CC license, but cannot release teh copyright of the sculpture in the photos. Wikimedia Commons does not have an example of this.
I think for next steps, I would like to do a test case of this last sort of release. I am talking with staff at a museum and will ask them to attempt this sort of release and to write a statement about how this works. I will check in with the Creative Commons community also. Perhaps by starting with in individual sculpture at a museum, from that point, it would be easier to discuss how to release photos without giving permission to release everything in the photo.
Contrary to what is stated on the project page, the thesis asserts (at pp 43-44 of the pdf), in reliance upon a provision in Indonesia's Criminal Code applying the "legality principle" (nullum delictum nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali), that Indonesia does have freedom of panorama, in relation to architectural and sculptural works. The thesis also notes (at p 42) that there is no Indonesian case law challenging freedom of panorama, and (at p 40) criticises Wikimedia Commons for deleting images on the basis of an understanding that Indonesian law does not recognise freedom of panorama.
Does anyone have any comments on this thesis, the contents of which suggest that the comments on the project page about Indonesia need major revision? Bahnfrend (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Without any legal precedents in Indonesia, we are left to follow the patterns from other countries. In general, the Berne Convention gives control over derivative works to the author of the underlying work. As noted by the author of that paper, photographs of literary works were deemed to be copying under the Berne Convention, but the author then claims that because photos of architectural works were not discussed at all, they may be treated differently. Under the letter of the law, there do not seem to be any distinguishing sections of the law which would treat them differently. And indeed, in Berne countries which do not have an explicit exception for photographs of architecture, there have indeed been court cases. There was one in Germany of a photograph of a building in Austria, which was OK per Austria's FOP but not Germany's, and it was ruled an infringement. A French case ruled a photo of a street scene was not derivative of a building in that scene, but that directly implied that a photograph primarily of that building would have been an infringement. Thus, without any other specific information or clues in the text of their law, we assume that the Berne Convention by default makes photographs of buildings a derivative work. The Berne Convention specifically allows countries to make exemptions, but if those exemptions are not in the text of the law, or at least have not been ruled to exist by a court case, we don't feel free to assume they exist. U.S. law, while not based on Berne Convention text, has an explicit exemptions for buildings only, and in several court cases have ruled that photos of sculpture were derivative, which would seem to follow that pattern. It is distasteful to me to delete photos of buildings (coming from a U.S. viewpoint), but the law is the law, like it or not.
The article is incorrect in a few details surrounding U.S. style "fair use", which is actually quite broad. Also, Indonesia made a substantial update to their law in 2014 (http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=15600 ) and it looks like the article was based on the previous law, which may have been a bit more ambiguous. But in the current law, Article 9 seems to be quite explicit about derivative works being under control of the underlying author, and I don't see a freedom of panorama exception. Article 43 (which was a 2014 change) does seem to grant some very broad non-commercial rights for reproductions of all kinds, and that probably amounts to a non-commercial FOP. That would likely cover typical personal usage, but would not cover commercial use which is needed to be "free" for Wikimedia Commons purposes.
The article looks to be more hopeful that photographs of public works would not be considered derivative, but from what I know, basically every case brought to attention in places without an explicit FOP provision ruled that they were (as mentioned in the article, including U.S. photos of sculptures), and I'm not aware of a case which went the other way. Given other precedents, there are rulings that photos of an overall scene which happens to contain a copyrighted work would not be infringing -- it would be photos primarily of a building or statue. In that sense, "freedom of panorama" is not well-named since panoramic photos would almost always be OK. While I did not read the article very carefully, I don't see anything based on the wording of Indonesian law which would exempt them from Berne Convention norms, and in addition it is based on the law of 2002, and there is a new 2014 substantial revision which provides a more explicit balance of personal rights than the old law did, but limits those at non-commercial. While legal commentary is very helpful and they probably understand the situation in Indonesia better than any of us, I'm not convinced that our position is incorrect. Copyright can be inherently subjective so we are always guessing, but if there is a substantial doubt (and actual court cases in multiple countries are somewhat of a precedent), we will tend to be careful, and I don't see anything there which changes our position. Granted, the law now makes OK almost all uses of such photos in Indonesia, but it's the conflict of the need to be "free" which causes the problem since commercial use of such photographs would appear to still be restricted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Resolved