Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 17

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.

← Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18 →

FOP in Taiwan

Article 58 of the Taiwan copyright law says:

"Artistic works or architectural works displayed on a long-term basis on streets, in parks, on outside walls of buildings, or other outdoor locales open to the public, may be exploited by any means except under the following circumstances:

1.Reproduction of a building by construction of another building.

2.Reproduction of a work of sculpture by production of another sculpture.

3.Reproduction for the purpose of long-term public display in locales specified in this article.

4.Reproduction of artistic works solely for the purpose of selling copies."

(1) and (2) don't concern us. We are concerned only with photographs.

(4) prohibits the selling of copies. That means that FOP does not extend, for our purposes, to photographs, but we are not concerned with the sales of copies of paintings or other works.

(3) is a little vague, but I take it to mean literal reproduction, not a photograph of an object.

Therefore, my reading is that we have been too restrictive -- that photographs of any created work except another photograph are permitted. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment: It doesn't say the reproduction of an existing building is banned. The Taiwan wording on FOP is a bit vague but doesn't explicitly say a picture of a building is banned. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I read Article 58 closely, and I consider architectural works to also be artistic works, and thus FoP in Taiwan is " Not OK for buildings" due to the prohibition of selling copies (commercial use) in (4). Is that wrong? If so, where do we draw the line between mundane buildings and buildings with unique architectural designs by sought-after architectural designers who want their designs protected for 50 pma? How can case law in Taiwan inform this discussion? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 00:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

No offense but I trust Admin (Jameslwoodward)'s reasoning here much more. Also, one shouldn't change FOP policy on one country without a discussion at least. He will respond when he is free. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say that a work of architecture is also an artistic work. By that line of reasoning there would be no FOP for architecture in the eight countries that allow FOP only for architecture. It is true that surface decoration on a building -- gargoyles or murals -- can have a copyright separate from the architecture, so that there are buildings whose photographs cannot be kept on Commons despite in FOP , but that is already well understood here.

In the USA, at least, the case law is clear that there are no "mundane" buildings -- even the simplest of buildings has a copyright because even a simple building requires hundreds of creative decisions.

Note that "reproduction" in this context means just that -- reproducing the original. Except for a photograph of a photograph, a photograph is not a reproduction. So (4) prohibits making and selling copy paintings of paintings and photographs of photographs. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't read it that way. "Reproduction of a building by construction of another building." is a weird phrasing if "reproduction" just means in the same form; there is no non-scif-fi way to reproduce a building into another building except by construction. Reproduction of a painting as a poster seems a quite normal reading, and much more commercially relevant than reproduction of a painting by a painting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: makes sense to me. Architects in Taiwan are not supposed to rip off the work of their colleagues, taking a photograph of said building or painting it is OK. Reproduction as a 3D model (like for a video game) will really depend on the translation of "construction" but will not concern us often. It should perhaps be taken into account for 3D uploads as those were enabled a while ago. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 12:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Here are two relevant blog posts by a Taiwanese copyright law researcher and professor 章忠信: [1][2]. In his opinion, selling postcards with a photo of the Taipei 101 tower, and selling pencil cases with a 2D drawing of a permanent outdoor sculpture are both ok, whereas selling plastic miniatures of the said sculpture is not. --Wcam (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, regarding photos of permanent outdoor sculptures, 章忠信 believes that photographic reproduction is a "creative reproduction" rather than reproducing the original [3], so (4) should not apply. --Wcam (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was interpreting copyright protection for buildings in Taiwan too broadly, in that I thought photos of them would violate their copyrights. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: If it is like this, then why do some photos get deleted and some photos will not?--Kai3952 (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kai3952: Hopefully, the following subsection will iron that out. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the original stand, that photos of non-free objects are not free, might be the correct one, but the updated policy contradicts the law. Article 3 of the law says, '"Reproduce" means to reproduce directly, indirectly, permanently, or temporarily a work by means of printing, reprography, sound recording, video recording, photography, handwritten notes, or otherwise. This definition also applies to the sound recording or video recording of scripts, musical works, or works of similar nature during their performance or broadcast, and also includes the construction of an architectural structure based on architectural plans or models.' My suggestion is to seek professional legal opinion from Taiwan or to look for precedents in Taiwanese courts.--Roy17 (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Professional legal opinion from Taiwan has been discussed above and were incorporated into the updated policy. --Wcam (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is a better piece of legal opinion from the Taiwanese authority-in-charge: [4]. After reading this link I quoted, now I think that as long as a photo is not taken solely of non-free materials, the photo will be free per Taiwanese law. For example, File:Tunyuan Trailhead.jpg is supposedly a photo of the trailroad, but part of the image is a piece of art displayed on a signpost. This would be 合理使用 (reproduction within a reasonable scope).--Roy17 (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Update and clarify COM:FOP#Taiwan

So far, based on the discussions above and elsewhere (e.g. Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:Naval_Mazu_Statue_of_Befangao_Jingan_Temple_20130504.jpg) it looks like there is consensus that we have been too restrictive regarding Taiwan FOP that photos of buildings as well as outdoor sculptures should be allowed. Pinging @Jameslwoodward, Jeff G., Leoboudv, Prosfilaes, Kai3952, Alexis Jazz, and Ww2censor: to see if any of you have anything to add so that COM:FOP#Taiwan can be clarified. --Wcam (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I don't know enough about this issue. JameslWoodward is the best copyright expert here. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Support @Wcam: I agree with you. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 11:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Text updated. --Wcam (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Please note that Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:Naval_Mazu_Statue_of_Befangao_Jingan_Temple_20130504.jpg (linked above) has been archived to Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/05#File:Naval Mazu Statue of Befangao Jingan Temple 20130504.jpg. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 08:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wcam: Text updated further. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 08:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright law misunderstanding with Mongolia's photos

At this link someone has entered the misunderstood warning about copyright law of Mongolia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Theaters_in_Mongolia ; Plus the COM:FOP#Mongolia link in the red frame says only expired 1999 version of the law plus the original law link is dead! But I have found the 2006 law version here that the whole warning thing is incorrect. In that 2006 version please do search function of "1948" and there is no any statute regarding 1948. Thank you. Orgio89 (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there is a newer law; 2006 law in English is here. Just like the old law, the term is life plus 50 years. So 50 years ago is 1968; if an architect or author died before then, their works are now expired. Otherwise, they are still under copyright. The new exceptions to copyright is article 24, and while changed I do not see a FoP provision. It says buildings in public places can be used in the course of reporting current events, but that is all. Looks like the theaters page had 70 though instead of 50; another user just fixed that. So it should be 1968 and not 1948. (And next year, it will be 1969, etc.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

1948 is 70 years ago. That was wrong, and I corrected it to 50. While the Google translation is pretty bad, I see nothing that jumps out as a freedom of panorama section, except Article 24, which reads like a fair use clause but does say "The following cases which are not in conflict with the legal nature of the work of the work and the legitimate interests of the right holders shall not be considered as a violation of copyright: ... 24.1.6. Publish the buildings, the art of art and the photographs placed on public premises on the premises for displaying the situation". My tendency is not to read that as enough, but having even a semi-strong conclusion based on Google Translate would be silly.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

This was written before Carl Lindberg posted; given his English translation, I see article 24 as clearly a fairly normal fair use clause.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Non-copyrighted sites in SA

The section about Saudi Arabia states:

Even taking pictures of sites not covered by copyrights can be problematic and photographers operating in Saudi Arabia found it useful to carry a copy of a decree allowing taking pictures from public places.

However, it does not explain the issue with photography of such sites. Which law covers this? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Bosnian Authorship Law and its Article 52

@Jameslwoodward, Jeff G., Leoboudv, Prosfilaes, Kai3952, Alexis Jazz, Ww2censor, and DarwIn: I am assuming that you guys are best instance to turn to for issue at hand, since i noticed , hopefully correctly, that you have extended experience in it, so I wonder, if you have spare time, would you be kind to look at following: Someone made terrible mistake interpreting Article 52 of Bosnia and Herzegovina Authorship Law, and I mean really dire mistake - some two hundreds images were deleted upon current interpretation from "Project page" (subsection Bosnia and Herzegovina). To me it was strange to see that country which almost literally rewrote similar Croatian law was painted red on this map, unlike Croatia which is in green, so I decided to read it for myself. So I found that Article 52 actually says a bit different thing from one quoted in text on "Project page" - it literally state:

Član 52. / Article 52
(Djela trajno smještena na javnim mjestima) / (Works permanently situated at public places)
(1) Dopuštena je slobodna upotreba autorskih djela koja su trajno smještena na trgovima, u parkovima, na ulicama ili drugim mjestima pristupačnim javnosti. / Free use of copyrighted works permanently placed on squares, parks, streets, or other places accessible to the public is permitted.
(2) Djela iz stava (1) ovog člana ne smiju se reproducirati u trodimenzionalnom obliku, upotrijebiti za istu namjeru kao izvorno djelo ili upotrijebiti za ostvarivanje imovinske koristi. / The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as an original work or used for the purpose of obtaining material gain.

(3) U slučaju korištenja iz stava (1) ovog člana, moraju se naznačiti izvor i ime autora, ako je to navedeno na upotrijebljenom djelu. / In the case of usage referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article, the source and author's name shall be indicated, if indicated on the work in question.

So, the very key word is intelligible even in most foreign languages: "trodimenzionalnom" = in English "threedimensional". referring to reproduction in three dimensions the law states that copyrighted work "is forbidden for reproduction in threedimensional form" !

I am reluctant to go further into this, to make changes on "Project page", subsection "Bosnia and Herzegovina", and alone, but someone of your reputation should take into consideration to make these changes there and on its map, and soon as possible since there are still more images, at least several dozens, waiting to be deleted on ground of faulty interpretation which can be read at "Project page".--Santasa99 (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The WIPO translation is "(2) The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage." It's not entirely clear, but my interpretation is that "the works shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form"; "the works shall not be used for the same purpose as the original work" and "the works may not be used for gaining economic advantage."--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Santasa99 and Prosfilaes: @Jameslwoodward, Leoboudv, Kai3952, Alexis Jazz, and Ww2censor, @DarwIn: ping didn't work, so I am retrying. "the works may not be used for gaining economic advantage" appears to restrict commercial use of 3D objects, thus we can't host files depicting 3D works and claiming an FOP exemption in Bosnia. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 00:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

No, no, dear @Jeff G.: , we are hosting 2-D object, images, not 3-D objects. That much is quite clear. Use of 3-D object is use of 3-D object, not its image which is 2-D, there is nothing vague about that.--Santasa99 (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

My reading of that article is also that FoP is allowed only for non-commercial purposes (something that is trending lately in some copyright laws) - that is, there is no FoP. Unfortunately it seems that there is no FoP in BH, indeed.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.:

http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=5932 :

"Article 52

(Works Permanently Located in Public Places)

(1) The free use of the works permanently located in squares, parks, streets or other places accessible by the public shall be permitted.

(2) The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage."

(3) In the case of the use referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article, the source and authorship must be indicated if they are indicated on the work used."

This about translates to {{Cc-by-nc}}. (which is a speedy deletion template) This seems to apply to 2D works as well, but I didn't read the entire document. The limitation of not being allowed to reproduce 3D objects as 3D objects is not interesting for us unless someone wants to upload a 3D model of a statue. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment I don't think there is FOP in Bosnia. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I read and reread entire document yesterday. Only this article refers to Free Use and/or reproductions of works situated in public places, and as Serbo-Croatian speaker myself I understand and it is quite clear to me, as far as wikimedia FoP standard is concerned, that only threedimensional repro is prohibited, which clearly means that 2-D or image (photos, sketches) is irrelevant to the law. The other two points in the article referring to prohibition of duplication and usage for personal gain. I really think that there shouldn't be anything even remotely vague?
There is this instance in Article 47. that could be to some extent related to this issue:

Article 47

(Quotations)

(1) It shall be permitted to literally quote passages and quotations from a disclosed work or individual disclosed works of photography, fine art, architecture, applied art and industrial and graphic design for the purpose of scientific research, critique, polemic, review, teaching and other reference to the extent justified by need for the intended illustration, confrontation or referral, and in accordance with good practices.

(2) In the case of the use referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article, the source and authorship must be indicated if they are indicated on the work used.

I am a bit surprised that some of you interpreting this law as "No Free(dom) Of Panorama" in BH , so I assume that you are maybe professionally tied to law and legal stuff. It wouldn't hurt if one of you is a lawyer. To me this is clear as it can be - we are allowed to publicly display 2-D repros, pictures and images, of works placed permanently or temporarily in public - "commercial" portion of the statement is still referring to 3-D reproduction NOT to 2-D - article clearly refer to "threedimensiona reproductionl"!
Why not compare this law with same in Serbia and Croatia ?--Santasa99 (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey, guys, I will ask this seriously - is there a lawyer among you or someone who is professionally associated to juridical matters ? Maybe some expertize would not hurt.
As I already noted at the beginning, BH rewrote entire law from Republic of Croatia - artists themselves were ones who suggested to be rewritten as they likened Croatian law in contrast to outdated socialist law still enforced at the time in Bosnia. That's why this Article 52 is identical in substance to similar in Croatian law, yet you are interpreting them differently - that's unusual, to say the least. I suggest you visit both websites and compare few articles yourself 2003 Zakon Croatian = 2010 Zakon Bosnian - these are identical.--Santasa99 (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Santasa99:

"Hey, guys, I will ask this seriously - is there a lawyer among you or someone who is professionally associated to juridical matters ?"

User:Alexis Jazz#Where the lawyers at?

"That's why this Article 52 is identical in substance to similar in Croatian law, yet you are interpreting them differently - that's unusual, to say the least."

Croatian copyright law, article 91: "The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article may not be reproduced in a three-dimensional form."

The noncommercial part is omitted here. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 04:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

And in the original language from your links:

(2) Djela iz stavka 1. ovoga članka ne smiju se reproducirati u trodimenzionalnom obliku. (Croatia)

(2) Djela iz stava (1) ovog člana ne smiju se reproducirati u trodimenzionalnom obliku, upotrijebiti za istu namjeru kao izvorno djelo ili upotrijebiti za ostvarivanje imovinske koristi. (Bosnia) - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 04:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Lately I've seen a lot of misunderstanding about what is FoP, with legislators saying that there is not any problem with FoP, as long as it is non-commercial, as they understand that someone making money with the copyrighted work (like selling postcards) is taking that profit away from the copyright holder. I've seen that discussion a lot in Brazil, and also in the recent EU debates, so it do not surprises me that BH has included that on their more recent copyright law.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no problem with non-commercial FoP in general -- it would cover most uses by most people. It just conflicts with the definition of "free" and the self-imposed requirements of Wikimedia projects. Such photos would be legal to upload, most likely; they however would not conform to site policy and be deleted for that reason. And yes, it would appear the BH law includes the additional non-commercial restriction, which Croatian law does not have, which in turn is the crucial distinction for Commons despite the similarity of the laws otherwise. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: You shouldn't patronize me and mock me, English Wikipedia have entire Category and bunch of Templates for so called "Expert retention" (when needing and requesting expert help) - would it be so strange if person assume that Wikimedia Commons could and should have something similar, especially with all these contentious interpretation of laws and regulations from around the world ? Your first input, along with abrupt injunction of "speedy deletion" claim (you simply know those things at first glance), includes statement: "This seems to apply to 2D works as well, but I didn't read the entire document"; that's quite categorical, so I would like to know on what ground and from what paragraph's statement exactly you derived such conclusion, "2-d" is nowhere to be found in the law, so how on Earth you concluded that it applies to it !? I would really appreciate if you told me that instead of sending me to your personal page.

For the rest of you guys @Jameslwoodward, Jeff G., Leoboudv, Prosfilaes, Kai3952, Ww2censor, and DarwIn:

Don't you think that images, sketches, photos are reproductions "in a three-dimensional form" - the law says "in" not "of", which I guess means you can't reproduce replica in 3-d, you can't plagiarize, but you can make reproduction of 3-d copyrighted object in 2-d !? (This is elaborated below in boxed entry and website of the body established to interpret and clarify matters of authorship and copyrights, from which I copy/pasted clarification of the Article 52. (entire law is elaborated there).)

Also, shouldn't Paragraph (2) be read statement by statement within paragraph, like in any law everywhere?

Anyway, whoever got it right or wrong, here's some clarification from authorized body called "Institut za intelektualno vlasništvo BH" / "Institute for intellectual property of BH", from their website: Najčešća pitanja o autorskom i srodnim pravima / Common questions about authorship and copyrights (website has its English version but the text on the page isn't translated, unfortunately - at least you can browse through easily and than use online translation engines if necessary)

11. Slobodna upotreba / Free Use

j. Upotreba djela trajno smještenih na javnim mjestima / Use of works permanently situated at public places
Djela koja su trajno smještena na trgovima, parkovima, ulicama ili drugim mjestima pristupačnim javnosti slobodna su za upotrebu. Ta djela svako može fotografirati, snimati, prikazivati u TV-emisijama i slično s tim da se zabranjuje njihova reprodukcija u trodimenzionalnom obliku, upotreba za istu namjeru kao originalno djelo ili upotreba za postizanje imovinske koristi. / Works permanently situated in squares, parks, streets, and/or other public places are free for usage. EVERYONE CAN MAKE PHOTOGRAPHS, RECORDINGS OF THESE WORKS, SHOW IT  (PRESENT IT) IN TV PROGRAMS AND SIMILARLY, but its reproduction IN three dimensions is forbidden or same use as original (meaning, if it's a statue you can't create plagiary and put it on the street) or for achieving material gain (which means plagiarism, you can't make plagiary of a statue and ask money for it).

I guess it can't be more clear then this - you can make photos of building facades, statues, etc. and present it in public media - end of story, I guess !?

But even this isn't the end of the road, because you can make further inquiry at Institute website, asking for further clarification.

(Something else - with all the project watchers maintaining their firm grip on accuracy and authenticity, and consequently on all changes and interpretation, what happens when you stumble on ambiguity like one in case of laws identical in substance (I know that Bosnian law was literally rewritten from Croatian), for example, Croatian Article 91. Paragraph (1) which states that "reproduction" of works is allowed, and Bosnian Article 52. "use"(age);

how about five additional laws for amendments, repeals and replacement of numerous articles and paragraphs (2007, 2011, 2013, 2014 and 2017) of the original Croatian law since 2003, have you checked for any differences in law and its individual articles ? And, consequently how sure are you that Croatian law from 2003 still applies, and maybe even more importantly, how much you care?)--Santasa99 (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems that I unintentionally deleted two comments by to other people - now I restored deleted comments, hopefully all is OK now?!--Santasa99 (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you may be concentrating on the wrong clause. As I read the English translation, the law is:

(1) The free use of the works permanently located in squares, parks, streets or other places accessible by the public shall be permitted.

(2) The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage.

to expand on the second paragraph, such works are OK unless they are:

a) reproduced in three-dimensional form, or

b) used for the same purpose as the original work, or

c) used for gaining economic advantage.

Part a), agreed, means you can't make a 3-D reproduction. Photos, indeed, are not three-dimensional so this clause does not affect upload here. It is the same restriction that Croatia has. Part b) means the derivative work cannot be used for the same purpose of the original, i.e. if a photo is put up in public, you can't take a photo of that photo (or really, any 2-D work) which is framed much as the original, as that is basically a copy. Indeed, most photographs of public works are not affected by that clause, so that does not prevent upload either. Croatia does not have that clause, but that is a basically a rewording of part of the Berne Convention, so that type of restriction (not competing with the original in the marketplace) is usually inherent in all FoP laws. But then we have that last part, c), which says you cannot use such works to make money. So if you try to sell postcards using photos like these, you would be violating the BH law, but would not be violating the Croatian law, which does not have that all-important (for us) clause. From our perspective, that means that such works effectively have a non-commercial restriction, in other words is a non-commercial FoP, which means the photo is non-free (as to be "free", means that others can use these photos even for commercial gain without paying royalties). It is that last part, c), which is the crucial factor here. You can put such photos up on blogs, and that sort of thing -- but that one restriction goes over our policy line. The Croatian law, at least as of 2015), does not have that non-commercial restriction and that is the critical difference. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Clindberg: as of 2014, not as of 2015. Also the 3D clause does affect uploads here, but not those concerning photos. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 03:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: It is hard to upload a 3-D object here ;-) I suppose if you make a 3-D reproduction, then upload a photo of *that*, it would be an issue. A 3-D model would be an interesting gray area. But I have a hard time imagining how it could affect typical uploads here. As for the date, the document was dated 2015, so while the law was from 2014 it had not changed again as of 2015. Anyways, the English translation of the 2017 version of the law is here (guess it's not on wipolex yet), and that article is unchanged, so that would appear to be current as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Santasa99: There is a lot to respond to here. I will also respond to some things you removed because I think more clarification is needed. First of all, I only mocked your hopes for FoP in Bosnia and Herzegovina a little in my edit summary, otherwise I didn't really mock you. Trust me, you'd know. I have kind of a reputation here.

"would it be so strange if person assume that Wikimedia Commons could and should have something similar, especially with all these contentious interpretation of laws and regulations from around the world ?"

"instead of sending me to your personal page."

You asked where the lawyers at. User:Alexis Jazz#Where the lawyers at? answers that question. IANAL, because if I were, "Where the lawyers at?" would say "right here!".

"otherwise why would you send me to you personal page filled with humorous instructions directed at this specific category of editors,"

My user page is essentially an essay with some unconnected issues that I perceive to be flaws of Commons. There are no instructions there.

"Your first input, along with abrupt injunction of "speedy deletion" claim (you simply know those things at first glance)"

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Article 52 seems to be mostly compatible with Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial. If you try to use that license here ({{Cc-by-nc}}), it turns into a speedy deletion template.

"so I would like to know on what ground and from what paragraph's statement exactly you derived such conclusion, "2-d" is nowhere to be found in the law, so how on Earth you concluded that it applies to it !? I would really appreciate if you told me that"

Article 52 does not appear to be limited to any specific kind of work like statues, movie posters, graffiti, 2D or 3D.

"It's strange that I have to even say this, but people will never upload 3-d objects here, as Alexis Jazz astonishingly discovered himself,"

Quite the opposite, they already have.

"but you can make reproduction of 3-d copyrighted object in 2-d !?"

We don't argue that, for noncommercial purposes you can take as many photographs of statues as you like. But you can't put that photo on a postcard and sell it.

"which means plagiarism, you can't make plagiary of a statue and ask money for it"

I think you don't understand what plagiarism is. You could take a photo of a statue, put it on a postcard, attribute the creator of the statue correctly and in Croatia you would be allowed to sell that postcard. In Bosnia and Herzegovina you would only be allowed to give it away for free. Neither would be plagiarism.

You could also copy the statue as a 3D object, creating a new identical statue. You could attribute this to the original creator so it wouldn't be plagiarism, but it's not allowed in Croatia and not allowed in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The "used for the same purpose as the original work" is bit more difficult to explain. But if there would be a sign, nicely decorated so it is copyrightable, that says "Do not walk on the grass" you would be allowed to take a photograph of that sign, show the photograph on TV, share it on your blog, but you would not be allowed to put it on a new sign that you intend to use to alert people they should not walk on the grass.

how sure are you that Croatian law from 2003 still applies, and maybe even more importantly, how much you care?

We care very much thank you. We primarily go by the English WIPO translation in this case, which for Croatia is the 2014 version of the law. We would consider looking at the law in the original language, but that would require someone who can read that law in the original language, speaks English at a native or near-native level and has some reasonable understanding of copyright law and can point out exactly why the WIPO translation is wrong. Such a person is not around here as far as I know. Sorry, you brought Article 47 to this discussion which is about the right the quote, you seem confused about what plagiarism means and although your English is not bad, you don't seem to speak it at a native level even though your user page claims you do, along with four other languages. So we are going by the English WIPO translation. The relevant part: "The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage." This clearly says "or used for gaining economic advantage". This leaves no room for doubt and we don't have the resources to figure out if WIPO somehow has translated it incorrectly (which I doubt). - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 03:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Relevant discussion

Hello, I would like to draw your attention to a relevant discussion taking place at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Is_this_stone_arrangement_sufficient_to_create_its_own_copyright_in_Russia?. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 01:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Ireland

I think we should change the section Ireland to:

OK for 3D works (buildings, sculptures, models for buildings) [5]

OK "works of artistic craftsmanship"

Not OK for 2D "graphic works"

When the Irish law wants to make a distinction between a 2D work and the works of artistic craftsmanship, then they manage to do it. As evidence see their definition of what are artistic works subject to protection, there is a clear distinction between the 2D works and the works of artistic craftsmanship. And finally when you go to the list of the artistic works on public display., there is no mention of the previously listed 2D works. Therefore there is absolutely not any exemption to the copyright protection for the 2D works. And IMO {{FoP-Ireland}} should be also modified, with an additional sentence "This does not apply to two-dimensional graphic works such as posters or murals." as for {{FoP-UK}}. Regards, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

extraterritorial organizations and FoP

Hi, difficult question. I was at an international organization that is constituted as extraterritorial. They had works of art in the aisles, and no problem with me taking photos (they just didn't want me to take photos of people). I was inside the building. What rules do apply in such a case with respect to FoP? The FoP-rules of the host country, or some international rules? Similar, in case of the interior of an embassy etc., what rules do apply? The rules of the host country, or the rules of the embassy's country, or the intersection of both? Any idea? best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as with embassies, the host country laws are usually used. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this page too big?

Recently I have been splitting out sub-pages for specific countries from the Commons:Copyright rules by territory, making pages like (for example) Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Algeria. It should be easier to maintain the smaller pages, which are listed in the main page. I started to add links from the new pages to (for example) Commons:Freedom of panorama#Algeria. But it would be more convenient to the typical contributor if the FOP information was in the country-specific page, so they would not have to skip to the list entry in this page. Three possibilities:

Move the FOP description for each country to a #Freedom of panorama section in the country sub-page, replace the list of country rules here with a list of pointers to these sub-page sections.
Add links from all the country sub-pages back to their section in this page, e.g. See also Commons:Freedom of panorama#Algeria, perhaps with brief summary in the country sub-page.
Make text-only pages, one per country, giving the FOP rules for that country, and transclude them into the Commons:Freedom of panorama list entries here and into the country-specific pages. See User:Aymatth2/Sandbox/FOP2 for an example. The effect of transcluding this file is shown in the box below.

Algeria freedom of panorama

OK {{FoP-Algeria}}

According to article 50 of the Algerian copyright law, it shall be lawful to reproduce or to communicate to the public, without authorization of the author and without remuneration, a work of architecture or the fine arts, a work of applied arts or a photographic work that is permanently situated in a public place, with the exception of art galleries, museums and classified cultural or natural sites.

Article 51: "Est considérée licite sans autorisation de l'auteur ni rémunération, la reproduction ou la communication au public d'une oeuvre d'architecture ou des beaux arts, d'une oeuvre des arts appliqués ou d'une oeuvre photographique lorsqu'elle est située en permanence dans un lieu public, à l'exception des galeries d'art, musées et sites culturels et naturels classés."

[6]

Revised approach using section transclusion

Revised approach 3, same basic alternatives:

Move the FOP description for each country to a #Freedom of panorama section in the country sub-page, replace the list of country rules here with a list of pointers to these sub-page sections.
Add links from all the country sub-pages back to their section in this page, e.g. See also Commons:Freedom of panorama#Algeria, perhaps with brief summary in the country sub-page.
Make a section in each country sub-page, giving the FOP rules for that country, and transclude them into the Commons:Freedom of panorama list entries here using the {{#section-h}} function.

@Bidgee: You may want to contribute to this discussion. See below to see how the idea would work. I would distinguish here between SME's (subject matter experts) who maintain the rules and contributors who upload images. A contributor who wants to upload a 1950s photo from Australia will find a page that tells them all about Australian copyright rules useful. They are unlikely to have heard of "freedom of panorama". On the other hand, an SME interested in FOP may well be interested in a page that allows comparison of FOP rules in different countries, with centralized discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we need a systematic change. However, the per-country pages on copyright rules may be helpful for some of the longer entries here -- ones with a lot of detail could move to a section in the per-country page, with just a summary here, and a link to the country page for the details. In other words, option 1, but only for a few of the longer entries. I don't think I would make it systematic for every country. Usually that would happen when court cases clarify a few things; for most countries all we have is the short clause in the law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Clindberg: My concern is with duplicating data here and on the new country-specific pages, then getting forking. The information is fairly static, but laws do change. I would be willing to do the systematic change – it is just a repetitive cut-and-paste job that would take a few hours. I would make a level-2 heading for ==Freedom of panorama== in each country-specific page, with text copied from here, then replace the content here with, for example,

{{#section-h:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Austria|Freedom of panorama}}

That would pull the text from the country-specific page back in, as shown below. (This what is in the Austria page now, not the more comprehensive information in Commons:Freedom of panorama#Austria, a forking problem that needs to be fixed on this and other country-specific pages, e.g. Belize, Burma etc..)

Generally

OK, use tag {{FoP-Austria}}

Article 54 of Austrian copyright law says it is allowed to reproduce, distribute, and publish architectural works of an actual building or other works of visual arts which were created to permanently remain at a public place.^{[1936-2018 Art.54(5)]}

Architectural works may generally be reproduced, including all permanent buildings and other structures as a whole, building parts such as walls, pillars, windows (including church windows), doors, and stairs, a complete view of the interior design. This includes photographs taken in streets and public places, private grounds and the interior of buildings. However, single pieces of furniture or artworks may not be freely reproduced.

For other types of work, uploading a photograph to Wikimedia Commons is only covered by Austrian Freedom of Panorama if the picture meets the law's criteria regarding type of depicted work, place of photograph and permanence. The rules are:

Type of work

[OK] two-dimensional works of visual arts (paintings, frescos, sgraffiti…)
[OK] three-dimensional works of visual arts (sculptures)
works of literature (texts)
acoustic works (music, speech, bells, signal sounds…)

Place of photograph

[OK] streets and public places
private ground
interiors of buildings, including churches, museums, and theatres (except for works, which themselves are components of the structure, including windows in churches and such)

permanence

[OK] works created to remain permanently at a public place, for example memorials
works placed at a public place only temporarily
stage designs of open air theaters
advertisements including election posters

Even if criteria for Freedom of Panorama are not met, it might be possible to upload a picture of the work to Commons, for example if the work does not meet threshold of originality, or if the copyright has expired. In such a case, the matching public domain tag is used instead of {{FoP-Austria}}.

The {{#section-h}} function only seems to work with level-2 headings. Otherwise I could just pull the FOP text from here into the country-specific pages with no change to this page. The only impact I can see is that editors would have to go to the country-specific pages to make changes. The section headings link to the country-specific pages, so it is easy enough to get there, and possibly easier to edit and review since the country-specific pages will be smaller. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: Sadly, I think level-2 is too high for the task at hand. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 09:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: ~~I will post a request for technical help. Any level works with {{#section-h}} on .en.Wikipedia.~~ The problem is solved. Any level works here too, when coded right. Assuming the rules should be displayed both here and on the country-specific pages, the question is simply whether they are maintained here and transcluded there, or maintained there and transcluded here. I prefer the second but would accept the first as a compromise. Either way, the transcluded source needs a tag to show it is being used elsewhere. The long entries for France, Germany etc. are a separate question. Probably they should be moved to stand-alone pages, with a summary left here and on the country page. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Next steps

Assuming no objections are raised in the next week or so, I will start moving/merging content from this page into the country-specific pages, replacing the content here with a template to transclude from the country-specific page. Thus

{{TranscludeCRT|country=Bahamas|section=Freedom of panorama}}

Will result in the content shown in the box below.

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
Bahamas#Freedom of panorama

OK. The Bahamas has freedom of panorama for architecture, and 2D and 3D artistic works on display in places or premises open to the public. According to the 2010 version of Statute Law of The Bahamas - Chapter 323,

The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or is ordinarily visible from a public place.^{[Cap 323/2010 Sec.78 (1)]}
The copyright in an artistic work does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs or other pictorial representations of the work if the work is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.^{[Cap 323/2010 Sec.79 (1)]} This section applies to (a) buildings; (b) sculptures, models of buildings and artistic works, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public. ^{[Cap 323/2010 Sec.78 (2)]}
In this Act... “artistic works” include two-dimensional and three dimensional work of fine, graphic and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, architectural plans and technical drawings;"^{[Cap 323/2010 Sec.2 (1)]}

I think this will help with maintenance when we spot a new law or revision to a law in a given country, because all updates can be done in one place on the country-specific page. This page will continue to provide an overview of all the FOP sections. The link boxes to the right will making editing from this page easy. If anyone has serious concerns, please point them out below. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Note that this is not the only list holding a specific type of information about a country. Others include Commons:Copyright tags, Commons:Currency, Commons:Stamps/Public domain and Commons:Threshold of originality. This is inconvenient to contributors, who may not know the lists exist, as well as hard to maintain when a country updates its laws.. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bidgee: This section is the discussion which preceded your revert. Your opinion is welcome. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 09:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment

In the course of this discussion has anyone considered

The additional time that it takes to load the parent page
The point is that loading the parent page is not needed any more if the information about only one country is needed. Yann (talk) 08:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The additional difficulty to edit the pages which are now subsidiary and buried in templates where one needs to have multiple extra steps to edit
I don't see any difficulty here. Instead it is now easier to edit the information about one country. Yann (talk) 08:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The change to edit history for the compiled information over time which was to this one page is now basically nullified with the copy and paste to a smattering of other pages
The edit histories are linked, so historians can see that the first set of changes to, e.g. COM:FOP Australia were made at COM:FOP#Australia. Tracking down the early Australia rule changes will still be tough. Going forward, it will be easier to track the edits for each country. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The change to watchlist history so that instead of watching one page, that there is now the requirement to watch many pages, and where each of these pages is now needing to be protected.
In the old structure someone interested in the copyright rules for Russia had to watch COM:CRT, COM:FOP, COM:TOO etc., where almost all the changes would be irrelevant. Now they just have to watch COM:CRT/Russia. The new structure has been in place more than a month. If there were serious problems there would have been a flood of complaints by now.

The country pages have all been protected for a month: see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 24#Commons:Copyright rules by territory/[country]. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
To be precise, they are semi-protected. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 16:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

IMO these small issues are overcome by the advantages of the split. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

— billinghurst sDrewth 07:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The needs of casual contributors and of experts in a given country are best served by pages that consolidate the rules for each country. The casual contributor with a photo of a park in Buenos Aires may find the rules for COM:CRT/Argentina, but will probably not know to look for rules for freedom of panorama. It is easier to maintain the country pages when the laws are revised, and more likely that this will happen. The downside is that people interested in a particular type of copyright rule, such as FOP, cannot easily track changes to all rules of that type. There may be a technical solution. A bot would
- Copy the text of COM:FOP after transclusion and save it as COM:FOP/Rendered
- Repeat every day, but only save to COM:FOP/Rendered if there has been a change

Users interested in monitoring changes would just have to watch COM:FOP/Rendered and check the diffs to this page. The bot could be used on other wikis and other pages that hold a lot of transcluded content, so may be worth developing. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

___

References

Comparison of long page versus transcluded pages

	Long page	Transcluded pages
NewPP limit report	NewPP limit report Parsed by mw1251 Cached time: 20181224072412 Cache expiry: 1900800 Dynamic content: false CPU time usage: 2.032 seconds Real time usage: 2.271 seconds Preprocessor visited node count: 61053/1000000 Preprocessor generated node count: 0/1500000 Post‐expand include size: 260551/2097152 bytes Template argument size: 36659/2097152 bytes Highest expansion depth: 19/40 Expensive parser function count: 2/500 Unstrip recursion depth: 0/20 Unstrip post‐expand size: 81725/5000000 bytes Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400 Lua time usage: 0.459/10.000 seconds Lua memory usage: 2.08 MB/50 MB	NewPP limit report Parsed by mw1272 Cached time: 20181224070027 Cache expiry: 1900800 Dynamic content: false CPU time usage: 2.788 seconds Real time usage: 3.364 seconds Preprocessor visited node count: 66791/1000000 Preprocessor generated node count: 0/1500000 Post‐expand include size: 1293221/2097152 bytes Template argument size: 549052/2097152 bytes Highest expansion depth: 19/40 Expensive parser function count: 2/500 Unstrip recursion depth: 0/20 Unstrip post‐expand size: 78786/5000000 bytes Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400 Lua time usage: 0.821/10.000 seconds Lua memory usage: 2.38 MB/50 MB
Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template)	Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template) 100.00% 1478.599 1 -total 56.41% 834.086 90 Template:Cat_see_also 29.42% 434.949 300 Template:LangSwitch 21.88% 323.532 91 Template:Conj 12.54% 185.479 95 Template:Colon 10.93% 161.653 95 Template:Full_stop 6.38% 94.275 2 Template:Reflist 3.29% 48.622 1 Template:Header 3.28% 48.569 1 Template:TNT 3.16% 46.747 4 Template:Navbox	Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template) 100.00% 2607.262 1 -total 87.20% 2273.575 152 Template:TranscludeCRT 86.38% 2252.095 152 Template:TranscludeCRTtext 35.88% 935.504 88 Template:Cat_see_also 32.25% 840.970 543 Template:LangSwitch 13.08% 340.954 89 Template:Conj 9.40% 245.153 97 Template:OK 8.45% 220.414 93 Template:Colon 7.12% 185.709 93 Template:Full_stop 4.39% 114.338 84 Template:NotOK

There is indeed an increase in CPU time (from 2.032 to 2.788 seconds) and in rendered page size (from 649k to 748k). Most of the size change is due to addition of 158 "transcluded from" attribution boxes to the right of each section, which is unavoidable. Some of it may be due to addition of more detail on FOP rules in the country-specific pages. But the change is small and anyway this page is likely to be a lot less active in the future. Server load and user wait time will be reduced. A deletion nomination for a Russian statue will point directly to the much shorter COM:FOP Russia. Edits to the general FOP content will also be faster, assuming the proposed split of the transcluded section list into sub-lists like Commons:Freedom of panorama/Europe goes ahead. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Greece

See discussion at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Greece. Does "incidental inclusion" deserve a section here? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

copyright tags for FoP photos

Referring eg to File:Moscow Stanislavsky Theatre.jpg. It has two templates : fop-russia and self. Since this guideline says that the rights for derivative works does not extend to derivation related to depicted objects, only to creativity of the photograph, I am not sure that self template is the correct one here, in terms of "remix". Please clarify. Altenmann (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Altenmann: Hmm, I wonder why this is problemic, FOP tags are mostly included in files by co-existing with their (I mean, the uploader/license provider) licenses. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Maps and tables - colours

The colour coding in the maps and tables make this page inaccessible for people with colour vision deficiency - i.e.en:Color blindness. Use of the suggestions in Commons:Creating accessible illustrations would be a great help to me and others looking to make sense of this page. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

UZ

Apparently there was a claim at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 16#Freedom of Panorama in UZ that there is a FOP in Uzbekistan, and one file was kept for this jistification. Anyone interested or wanting to put their inputs should go to Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Uzbekistan#FOP in Uzbekistan?. Thank you for your understanding. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

There was indeed a law change after that, but the updated version seems not to have changed the FoP provision. It's article 28 now, but it still has the caveat that it does not apply if the work is the main subject, or being used for commercial purposes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Changing the world map to svg

While there's still an ongoing debate to the header image, this one has made me think for a while. The FOP world map, located halfway before the end (just above the table), is the .png version, File:Freedom of Panorama world map.png, which is already outdated. If this is favorable to everyone or to most, I'm proposing to change the world map to svg one File:Freedom of Panorama world map.svg, which was recently updated (thanks to Bes-ART who responded to my requests at the file's talk page). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Support, png is such a poor choice due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744. See the following comparison. OTOH, the png version has lots of labels. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 13:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

+1 Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Europe map at top?

Given that Commons is global, it's rather weird to have the Europe map, rather than the global map, at the top. Could we globalize a bit? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 13:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

No room. Europe has a convenient shape and the greatest concentration of countries most relevant to freedom of panorama. Despite the good intentions, squeezing a world map in the infobox does not strike me as an improvement. Making subcategory browsing multilingual using Wikidata is much more important. - Iketsi (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Iketsi: I would say that I

little support removing that Europe-only map since it contains some outdated informations about Sweden, to which that map says

Inconclusive but COM:FOP Sweden, by now, says

Not OK --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: So change the map. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 15:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: This SVG image has several outdated schemes to which the newest version of Inkspace too hard to open (wasted me more than 16G RAMs), so updating it is ≈ impossible. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per Iketsi. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 15:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose There are more users and visitors from Europe than any region in the world. One can even guess there are more people from Europe than the rest of the world combined. According to [7] (only countries with more than 1M pageviews in Jan 2021)

20M: United States of America
14M: Germany
6M: France
4M: United Kingdom
3M: Russian Federation
3M: Italy
3M: India
3M: Japan
2M: Canada
2M: Spain
2M: Poland
2M: Netherlands
1M: Brazil
1M: South Africa
1M: Australia
1M: Korea (South)
1M: Austria
1M: Iran, Islamic Republic of
----
37M: Europe
23M: Americas
8M: Asia
1M: Africa
1M: Oceana

4nn1l2 (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per above. Also, much of the literature on FOP, whether legal or blog, articles or news, focus on FOP situation in Europe, more so the EU. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

huge support If that be so that we only show the map of Europe, then we must refrain of things like "Reason for the nomination: No COM:FOP in Qatar", as no one cares outside of Europe. Otherwise, it goes without saying, that a World Map has to be shown we can also show it next to or above/under the map of Europe. Otherwise, remove these Deletion requests based on FOP in all other countries. Okay? It's obvious, that you may take pictures of EVERYTHING that is on public display, and that no one has a right to make a claim. Can someone please make a list of countries, where a claim on FOP has been won in court? That is the only thing that should matter here. Also, buildings are definitely not pieces of art as defined in the Berne Convention, they are buildings. The copyright of the building is supposed to protect the building from being copied, not its depictions. – Please! As Wikimedia, we also need to remain reasonable. – Before 2011, it wasn't even a thing in English speaking countries. Article on policyreview.info We don't need this German non-sense of FOP to be introduced in 195+ country legislations. Otherwise, we would have to go through all the pictures of all countries, where there is no FOP, and deletion request all pictures of houses! Discuss here and here --Saippuakauppias (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Saippuakauppias: We rely not only on case law, but also on statutory law. In the US, where I live, we enjoy FOP for buildings, but not for statues, as a matter of statutory law. You may use photos of statues commercially in the US in ignorance of FOP, but don't be surprised if you consequently get sued for US$10,000 for breach of copyright. See all the case law cited at COM:FOP US#Artworks and sculptures. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 00:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Saippuakauppias: you only thought FOP matter is a European thing. But no, as Jeff G. said, there are already cases in the US. You may want to search "Gaylord v. United States," as well as Di Modica's lawsuits against Walmart, North Fork Bank, and Random House for their commercial uses of his sculpture. Also Kapoor's lawsuit vs. National Rifle Association. There are also examples from Brazil: see examples under COM:FOP Brazil. FOP-related matters so exist for Japan (Murakami's insight on Japanese sculptures in relation to COM:FOP Japan, and the lack of FOP in our country as per Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines in addition to attempt of its introduction here (though the upcoming 2022 Philippine elections will almost certainly hinder its introduction). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: If FOP matter is not a European thing, you would need to support the insertion of a world map, as suggested by Original Poster.--Saippuakauppias (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

There is one, further down the page, which makes use of the full page width which would be inappropriate near the top. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 17

Contents