Translations:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated list Western Europe/2/en

Text transcluded from
COM:Austria

Austria

Copyright rules: Austria Shortcut: COM:AUSTRIA
Durations
Standard	Life + 70 years
Anonymous	Create/publish + 70 years
Audiovisual	Life + 70 years
Other
Freedom of panorama	Yes
Terms run to year end	Yes
Common licence tags	{{PD-AustrianGov}} {{PD-StVZVO}}
ISO 3166-1 alpha-3	AUT
Treaties
Berne convention	1 October 1920
Univ. Copyright Convention	2 July 1957
WTO member	1 January 1995
URAA restoration date‌*	1 January 1996
WIPO treaty	14 March 2010
*‌A work is usually protected in the US if it is a type of work copyrightable in the US, published after 31 December 1928 and protected in the country of origin on the URAA date.

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

Governing laws

Austria has been a member of the Berne Convention since 1 October 1920, the WIPO treaty since 14 March 2010 and the World Trade Organization since 1 January 1995.

As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed the Federal Law on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works and Related Rights (Copyright Law 1936, as amended up to Federal Law published in the Federal Law Gazette I No. 63/2018 (BGBI.I No. 63/2018)) as the main IP law enacted by the legislature of Austria. WIPO holds the text of this law in their WIPO Lex database.

Durations

Under the Federal Law on Copyright 1936 as amended up to 2018,

• Copyright in individual work of literature, music and the visual arts ends 70 years after the author's death.^{[1936-2018 Art.60]}
• If the work is jointly created, copyright ends 70 years after the death of the last surviving author.^{[1936-2018 Art.60]}
• Copyright in anonymous or pseudonymous works end 70 years after creation or publication if published within 70 years.^{[1936-2018 Art 61]}
• Copyright in cinematographic works lasts 70 years after death of the last survivor of the principal director, the scriptwriter and the composer of music especially for the work.^{[1936-2018 Art.62]}

Calculation of durations does not count the calendar year of the event used to calculate the duration.^{[1936-2018 Art.64]}

Photographs

In Austria pursuant to the provisions of Article 74(6) of Federal Law BGBI No. 111 of 1936 in the Version of 2003-07-01:

• A simple photograph ("Lichtbild"), such as simple passport photos from Photo booths, photos from satellites, pictures from radiography, is no longer protected if it was either published more than 50 years ago or it was taken more than 50 years ago and never published within 50 years of its creation.
• Photographs that involve artistic interpretations, such as studio shots and those that involve lighting and poses, qualify as photographic works ("Lichtbildwerke") or "works of literature, music and art".^{[1936-2018 Art.60]}With these, protection lasts for 70 years after the author's death. (see this discussion).

In order to be acceptable on Commons, works must be in the public domain in the United States as well as in their source country. Austrian works are currently in the public domain in the United States if their copyright had expired in Austria on the U.S. date of restoration (January 1, 1996). However, some works might have a subsisting U.S. copyright resulting from the long-standing copyright relations between Austria and the United States.

• For unpublished simple photographs, copyright has expired in Austria if it was created more than 50 years ago and was never published within 50 years of creation. Copyright has expired in the United States if created prior to 1946 and never published within 50 years of creation.
• For published simple photographs, copyright has expired in Austria if published more than 50 years ago. Copyright has expired in the United States if published prior to 1946.
• For all other photographs and artworks, copyright has expired in Austria if the author died more than 70 years ago and it was published. Copyright has expired in the United States if it was published prior to 1932.

Not protected

Under the Federal Law on Copyright 1936 as amended up to 2018,

• Laws, regulations, official decrees, official notices and decisions and official works as defined in §2Z items 1 or 3, solely or mainly produced for official use. shall not enjoy copyright protection.^{[1936-2018 Art.7(1)]}

Copyright tags

• {{PD-AustrianGov}} – for parts of laws, ordinances or official decrees issued by an Austrian federal or state authority and for works of those authorities intended predominantly for official use.
• {{PD-StVZVO}} – for road signs published in ordinances or other regulations.

Currency

 Not OK

• It is the (apparently unanimous) view in treatises and law review articles on Austrian copyright law that bank notes and coins do not constitute official works under s 7 of the Austrian Copyright Act and are therefore not freely usable.

Freedom of panorama

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}}.

Stamps

The Austrian postal service (Österreichische Post) has limited copyright for all stamps and the displayed images. The stamps can be used for sale, manufacture and advertising. For all other imaging requests (such as printing works, books or encyclopedias) the respective postage stamp designer needs to be contacted, since it is not advertising. For each stamp a release must be obtained individually. The contact addresses of the designers are subject to data privacy. See de:Wikipedia:Briefmarken#.C3.96sterreichische_Post. Therefore the general copyright term applies (pma + 70).

Threshold of originality

Austria has a low threshold of originality despite being a civil law country. See the archived discussion on the German Wikipedia.

These logos are  Not OK:

• Bauer Logo.
• Zimmermann Fitness logo.

De minimis

De minimis (Unwesentliches Beiwerk) is permissible under § 42e of the Federal Law on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works and Related Rights.^{[1936-2018 Art.42e]}

See also

• Austria
• Category:Austrian FOP cases
• Category:License tags of Austria
• Category:Stamps of Austria
• Category:Stamps of the Austrian Empire

Citations

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

Text transcluded from
COM:Belgium

Belgium

Copyright rules: Belgium Shortcut: COM:BELGIUM
Durations
Standard	Life + 70 years
Anonymous	Publish + 70 years
Other
Freedom of panorama	Yes
Terms run to year end	Yes
Common licence tags	{{PD-old-auto}} {{PD-Belgium-exempt}}
ISO 3166-1 alpha-3	BEL
Treaties
Berne convention	5 December 1887
Univ. Copyright Convention	31 August 1960
WTO member	1 January 1995
URAA restoration date‌*	1 January 1996
WIPO treaty	30 August 2006
*‌A work is usually protected in the US if it is a type of work copyrightable in the US, published after 31 December 1928 and protected in the country of origin on the URAA date.

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

Governing laws

Belgium has been a member of the Berne Convention since 5 December 1887, the WIPO treaty since 30 August 2006 and the World Trade Organization since 1 January 1995.

As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed the Code de droit économique (Code of Economic Law) (updated on September 10, 2018) as the main IP law enacted by the legislature of Belgium. WIPO holds the text of this law in their WIPO Lex database. Book XI. of this law covers intellectual property and business secrets. The website https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be holds the Dutch and French text of this law.

General rules

According to the law as of 2018 (Art. XI.166.):

• Copyright protection lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. Rights to works created by employees or under contract may be transferred to the employer or contractee.
• With collaborative works, copyright protection lasts for 70 years after death of the last surviving author. For audiovisual works, this includes various people with defined roles in production of the work, including the director, scenarist and authors of text and music.
• For anonymous or pseudonymous works, copyright protection lasts for 70 years after publication unless there is no doubt about the author's identity or they reveal their identity, in which case copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author.
• The above durations all end on 1 January of the year following the last year of protection.
• A portrait may not be reproduced without the permission of the person represented or their heirs for 20 years after their death.
• Until 1994, Belgian law was 50 years pma, but the new law is retroactive, so all copyrights were restored by URAA.
• Publication of never-published works give a new right during 25 years.

Copyright tags

• {{PD-Vlaams-gemeentewapen}} – for municipal coats of arms from the Flemish region.
• {{PD-Vlaamse-gemeentevlag}} – for municipal flags from the Flemish region
• {{PD-Belgium-exempt}} – for the official products of the Belgian government

Currency

Banknotes

OK Banknotes denominated in Belgian francs issued by the National Bank of Belgium can still be exchanged for an undetermined period of time. The Bank still owns copyrights with regard to the design of the banknotes it has issued, as long as reproductions in advertising or illustrations cannot be mistaken for genuine banknotes they can be used without prior authorisation of the Bank of Belgium. The same kind of restrictions apply to reproductions of Belgium banknotes as to Euro banknotes.

Please use {{Belgian franc banknote}} for Belgian franc banknotes.

Coins

 Unknown

De minimis

Art. XI.190 of the Code on Economic Law states:

• Once a work has been lawfully published, its author may not prohibit: [...] 2°. reproduction and communication to the public of a work shown in a place accessible to the public where the aim of reproduction or communication to the public is not the work itself [...].

Freedom of panorama

OK: {{FoP-Belgium}}

Since 1 January 2015, Belgian copyright law is defined by Title 5 of Book XI (intellectual property) of the Code on Economic Law. It replaced the Copyright Act of 30 June 1994. On 16 June 2016 the Belgian Parliament introduced freedom of panorama by adding the following to article XI.190 of the Code on Economic Law (translated here to English):

"Once a work has been lawfully published, its author may not prohibit: [...] 2/1°. reproduction and communication to the public of works of plastic, graphic or architectural art designed to be placed on a permanent basis in public places, provided that the reproduction or the communication of the work is as it is found there and that this reproduction or communication does not infringe upon the normal exploitation of the work and does not cause unreasonable harm to the legitimate interests of the author."^{[2018 Art.XI.190]}

The Act was signed into law on 27 June, published on 5 July, and took effect on 15 July 2016.

2022 amendment

A 2022 amendment to the law moved the restriction from "and that this reproduction or communication does not infringe upon the normal exploitation of the work and does not cause unreasonable harm to the legitimate interests of the author" from Art.XI.190 itself to Art.XI.192/3, where it now forms part of a common set of provisions restricting the scope of multiple exceptions. Translated here to English, it reads:

"Art. XI.192/3 The exceptions provided for in articles XI.189, XI.190, XI.191, XI.191/1, XI.191/2, XI/192 (Section 1, Paragraph 2), XI.192/1 and XI.192/2 are only applicable insofar as much as they do not affect the normal exploitation of the work or database and so not unjustly prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightsholder."^{[2022 Art.XI.192/3]}

Notes

• An explanation that was attached to a draft version of the freedom of panorama provision stated that the provision was intended to apply to locations that are permanently accessible to the public, such as public streets and squares, and that the provision was not intended to apply inside of public museums or other buildings that are not permanently open to the public. According to the explanation, if a work of art is situated inside a building that is not permanently open to the public, then the artist may not have expected public exhibition of the work.
• Before 15 July 2016, there was no panorama freedom in Belgium. Modern pieces of art could not be the central motive of a commercially available photograph without permission of the artwork copyright holder. See also this discussion from 2009.
• Another exception to copyright, de minimis, is stated in article XI.190 (previously article 22 in the 1994 act) of the law: "Once a work has been lawfully published, its author may not prohibit: [...] 2°. reproduction and communication to the public of a work shown in a place accessible to the public where the aim of reproduction or communication to the public is not the work itself [...]". These conditions need not be met any more if the conditions of freedom of panorama as stated above are met.

Stamps

In Belgium an image of a stamp is copyright free when the following conditions are fulfilled: 70 years after La Poste / De Post have issued the stamp AND 70 years after the designer of the image on the stamp has died.

The works of the following artists are in public domain because the artist died before 31 December 1945.

• Baugniet, Charles (1814-1886)
• Houyoux, Léon (1856-1940)
• Meunier, Henri (1873–1922)
• Vloors, Émile (1871–1952)

The work of the following artists will be in public domain on 1 January following 70 years after their death

• Bonnevalle, Oscar (1920-1993)
• De Bast, Jean (1883-1975)
• Dolphyn, William (1935–2016)
• Van Noten, Jean (1903–1982)

See also

• België / Belgique / Belgien
• Category:Belgian FOP cases
• Category:License tags of Belgium
• Category:Stamps of Belgium

Citations

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

Text transcluded from
COM:France

France

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

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

Governing laws

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

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

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

General

• Standard copyright term: Life + 70 years, (except posthumous works, musical works, and works whose author "died for France")
• Wartime copyright extensions may apply to musical works: + 6 years 152 days for musical work published through 1920 (Art. L123-8); + 8 years and 120 days for musical work published through 1947 (Art. L123-9); these extensions are cumulative with each other and with the "died for France" extension.
• Anonymous works: 70 years after publication (if author never disclosed)
• Posthumous works: Life + 70 years if published within 70 years of the author's death, otherwise, 25 years from publication[7]
• Government works: not free except for video, text and graphics published on the gouvernement.fr site between March 2014 and September 2014 (Please use {{Gouvernement.fr}})

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

Images from public web sites

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

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

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

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

Wartime copyright extensions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Works of arts, including architecture, exhibited in public spaces

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

Place des Terreaux, Lyon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historical terms

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

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

Copyright tags

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

Currency

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

Please use {{Money-FR}}.

De minimis

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom of panorama

 Not OK {{NoFoP-France}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two-dimensional public art

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

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

Local transfer to French Wikipedia

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

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

Stamps

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

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

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

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

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

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

Threshold of originality

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

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

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

See also

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

Citations

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

Text transcluded from
COM:Germany

Germany

Copyright rules: Germany Shortcut: COM:GERMANY
Durations
Standard	Life + 70 years
Anonymous	Publish + 70 years
Other
Freedom of panorama	Yes
Terms run to year end	Yes
Common licence tags	{{PD-old-auto}} {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} {{PD-EU-unpublished}} {{PD-GermanGov}} {{FoP-Germany}}
ISO 3166-1 alpha-3	DEU
Treaties
Berne convention	5 December 1887
Univ. Copyright Convention	16 September 1955
WTO member	1 January 1995
URAA restoration date‌*	1 January 1996
WIPO treaty	14 March 2010
*‌A work is usually protected in the US if it is a type of work copyrightable in the US, published after 31 December 1928 and protected in the country of origin on the URAA date.

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

Governing laws

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

As of 2019, the main copyright law of Germany is the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG). In general, the current (consolidated) text of the law is provided by the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection and can be found here. An unofficial English translation is also available courtesy of the Ministry—see here—, but often does not reflect the most recent amendments, so you may wish to review the "Version information" at the top.

Summary of copyright terms

Standard term for works

As of 2019, the standard copyright term for works is life + 70 years.

Anonymous and pseudonymous works

The treatment of anonymous and pseudonymous works in copyright law changed in 1995. Since then, for all anonymous or pseudonymous works created prior to 1 July 1995 the term of copyright must be calculated as follows: Calculate the point of expiry under the old law (the "old method"), then calculate the point of expiry under the new law (the "current method"). Copyright expires on whichever date comes last.

The old method

Unpublished works: The term of copyright is life + 70 years (the special rules for anonymous and pseudonymous works did not apply to unpublished works).

Published works: It was controversial whether the special rules for anonymous and pseudonymous works applied to all published works or only to so-called released works (verbreitete Werke). ("Released" is a special case of "published".A work is deemed to have been released "when copies of the work have been offered, with the rightholder's consent, to the public or brought to the market after their production in sufficient quantity", § 6(2) UrhG. By way of example, when a new film is shown on television, that makes it a "published" work, but not yet a "released" one. Once DVDs of the film are distributed to stores, it would also be considered "released".)

That aside, the general rules were as follows: If and only if the following three conditions are met:

1. The work is not a work of fine art and
2. neither the real name of the author nor a known pseudonym of his were specified in the usual manner on a released/published copy of the work, and
3. neither the real name of the author nor a known pseudonym of his were specified within the context of a communication to the public of the work

then the copyright term for the work was 70 years after publication unless

1. the work was published (again) within that period of time and this time the author was designated with their real name or their known pseudonym in the usual manner on a published copy or
2. the author has become known in some other way within that period of time, or
3. an application was filed within that period of time to enter the author's name in the register of anonymous and pseudonymous works, or
4. the work has never been published during the lifetime of the author.

If any of these four conditions is met, then the term of copyright was life + 70 years.

The current method

Unpublished works: If an anonymous or pseudonymous work is still unpublished 70 years after its creation, its copyright expires.

Published works: The copyright term for anonymous and pseudonymous works is 70 years after publication unless

1. the author reveals their identity within that period of time, or
2. an application is filed within that period of time to enter the author's name in the register of anonymous and pseudonymous works, or
3. the pseudonym adopted by the author leaves no doubt as to his identity.

If any of these three cases applies, the term of copyright is life + 70 years instead.

Two miscellaneous comments on these provisions are in order: First, it should be noted that the prevailing view is that the term "work of fine art" in (A) also applies to works of applied art and architectural works; it does not extend to photographic works. This implies that the copyright term of works like oil paintings, sculptures, or buildings created before July 1 1995 is, effectively, always life + 70 years, irrespective of whether they would otherwise qualify as anonymous/pseudonymous. Second, as a practical matter, condition (2) is particularly problematic. It is very much unclear how one would ascertain whether the author "has become known in some other way" during the 70 years following the work's (first) publication. Courts have so far not provided meaningful guidance on the issue. Academic commentators seem to advocate a rather low bar. In the view of Paul Katzenberger, "it was sufficient if a not completely insignificant part of the relevant public became aware of the author's identity[;] by no means was it necessary that [the identity] became general knowledge".

Related rights

• Publication right: 25 years from first publication or first public performance if copyright has expired before such publication or performance, or if the work has never been protected in Germany and the author died more than 70 years before the first publication.^{[UrhG/2017 § 71]}

Official works

Section 5(1) works

Not protected

Under § 5(1) of the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG), acts, statutory instruments, official decrees and official notices, decisions, and official headnotes of decisions do not enjoy copyright protection.

The fuzziest element within this enumeration is perhaps the fourth, "official notices" (amtliche Bekanntmachungen). According to the Federal Court of Justice, such notices need to have "regulatory substance"—the provision is not intended to render unprotected "merely informatory expressions by an administrative body". More broadly, the Court held that § 5(1) as a whole applies only to works that contain a "normative or individual legal stipulation" (normative oder einzelfallbezogene rechtliche Regelung) for only in this case there is a "sufficient public interest in the distribution to justify the exception from copyright with no strings attached". "Decisions" are decisions by federal or state courts or administrative authorities that, as judgements, court orders, official ordinances, etc, contain legally binding stipulations.

An important question for this project is whether § 5(1) is capable of applying to all types of works. A 2012 decision by the Berlin Regional Court (which has garnered some attention by users of this project as the lawsuit was brought against the Wikimedia Foundation) followed some academic and non-judicial commentators in holding that § 5(1) applies exclusively to literary works (Sprachwerke). This view has been criticised by others who have pointed out that official decrees, decisions, etc may very well contain other types of works and that it would defeat the purpose of § 5(1) if these all had to be removed prior to publication.

The prevailing view is that § 5(1) does not apply to currency (notes and coins), postage stamps, or official coats of arms (although the latter thus far have not nearly received as much academic—let alone judicial—attention). Those who deem § 5(1) applicable to non-literary works mostly agree that the provision applies to land-use plans (Bebauungspläne) pursuant to § 8(1) of the Federal Building Code (Baugesetzbuch), which contain legally binding designations for urban development, as well as to official road signs. Most maps and plans originating in government, however, do not qualify for subsection 1 but either for subsection 2 (see below) or are not considered "official works" at all. According to the Federal Court of Justice, for instance, topographic maps issued by the state offices for survey are not official works under copyright law.

Section 5(2) works

Section 5(2) broadens the scope of application of the German official works provision, stating that "official works published in the official interest for general information purposes" also do not enjoy copyright protection. However, these works—unlike the § 5(1) works described above—may not be modified (prohibition of alteration, § 62) and when using them the source must be acknowledged (§ 63). Due to these requirements, there has been some discussion on this project whether official works pursuant to § 5(2) should be accepted. As of 2019, the prevailing view seems to be that we may not rely on § 5(2): The {{PD-GermanGov}} template refers exclusively to § 5(1) as a possible justification. We will therefore forego a more thorough analysis of § 5(2) on this page.

Copyright tags

• {{PD-GermanGov}} – for public domain images from German statutes or other regulations.
• {{PD-BW}} – for publicly available service regulations ("Zentrale Dienstvorschrift") of the German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr).
• {{PD-Coa-Germany}} – for German coats of arms of corporations governed by public law that are in the public domain according to German law because they are official works (§&5 Abs.1 UrhG).
• {{PD-Flag-Germany}} – for German flags of corporations governed by public law that are in the public domain according to German law because they are official works (§5 Abs.1 UrhG).
• {{PD-Seal-Germany}} – for German seals of corporations governed by public law that are in the public domain according to German law because they are official works (§5 Abs.1 UrhG).
• {{PD-VzKat}} – for road signs published as statutes or other regulations.
• {{PD-German stamps}} – for current German stamps.
• {{PD-Deutsche Bundespost stamps}} – for German stamps released as Deutsche Bundespost.
• {{PD-GDR stamps}} – for German stamps released as Deutsche Post der DDR.
• {{PD-Meyers}} – for images from the 4th edition of Meyers Konversationslexikon (1885–90).
• {{PD-Germany-§134}} – for literary works, works of music and scientific or technical images published by a legal entity under public law more than 70 years ago that do not mention the author.
• {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} – for photographs and works of art published by a legal entity under public law more than 70 years ago that do not mention the author.
• {{Data license Germany-attribution-2.0}} – for data from German authorities, very similar to CC BY-SA
• {{Data license Germany-Zero-2.0}} – for data from German authorities, very similar to CC0

Currency

 Not OK except for Deutsche Mark bank notes.

• At present many Commons images of German coins and banknotes use {{PD-GermanGov}}, but this template relies on § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG, which has recently been declared by a low German court (Landgericht) to apply only to text, not images. See discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/07#German currency.
• Deutsche Bundesbank has confirmed public domain for German DM-banknotes 1949–2001, which is, however, a permission for simple usage only (and not solely sufficient) towards Wikipedia.
• According to the coinciding German copyright literature, works like bank notes, coins and stamps are not to be considered works by the government and are not free. This, however, does not influence above-mentioned permission by Deutsche Bundesbank affecting Deutsche Mark bills (not coins!).

De minimis

Under § 57 of the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG), "any reproduction, distribution, and communication in public of a work shall be admissible if the work is to be regarded as an immaterial supplement in comparison to the actual subject matter of the reproduction, distribution, or communication in public."

The first step in assessing whether a particular use of a work is covered by § 57 is to determine the actual (primary) subject matter reproduced, distributed, or communicated to the public. The primary subject matter does not itself need to be protected by copyright.To qualify under § 57, the work must not only "fade into the background" or be of "subordinate significance" relative to the primary subject matter; rather, it must not even attain marginal or minor significance.

According to the Federal Court of Justice, this is the case

1. if it could be omitted or replaced and the average observer would not notice it (or, in the alternative, the overall impression of the primary subject matter would not be at all affected); or
2. if, in light of the circumstances of the case, it bears not even the slightest contextual relationship (inhaltliche Beziehung) to the primary subject matter, but rather is without any significance to it whatsoever due to its randomness and arbitrariness.

The Federal Court of Justice also provided a (non-exhaustive) list of examples where it is "regularly impossible" that the use of a work qualifies as de minimis:

1. The work noticeably impacts the style or mood conveyed (erkennbar stil- oder stimmungsbildend);
2. the work underscores a particular effect or statement;
3. the work serves a dramaturgic purpose; or
4. the work is characteristic in any other way.

Note that whether the work can be replaced with another work is relevant only to the extent that if an average observer of the primary subject matter would not notice the work in question because it can be arbitrarily replaced or omitted, this supports a finding of immateriality (see above). However, as soon as it has been established that the work is part of the overall concept (say, because it impacts the mood of the picture), it no longer matters if the work could be replaced: Section 57 does not apply.

Examples of de minimis use from court cases:

There are very few court decisions discussing the German de minimis provision and the 2014 decision by the Federal Court of Justice, which set out the tests expounded above, was the first by Germany's highest court of civil jurisprudence that revolved around § 57. In the case at issue, the Court looked at a photograph in a furniture catalogue depicting several furniture items for sale and a painting on the wall in the background (pictured here, p 3). The Court held that the publisher could not rely on § 57 for its use of the painting after the lower court found that the painting added a "markedly contrasting colour accent". The Court deemed this sufficient to rule out an immaterial use pursuant to § 57. In another decision, the Federal Court of Justice held that the use of a picture of a Spanish city as part of a high-school student's essay on that city does not qualify as de minimis.

In light of the 2014 judgement, older decisions by lower courts will need to be viewed with some caution. That being said, the use of a photograph of an individual wearing a T-shirt with a protected design on the cover page of a magazine (pictured here) was held by the Munich Higher Regional Court in 2008 to fall within the definition of use as an immaterial supplement because the design did not bear any contextual relationship to the primary subject matter due to its randomness and arbitrariness.

Freedom of panorama

OK {{FoP-Germany}}

See also: de:Panoramafreiheit#Deutschland

General

Under section 59(1) of the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG), it is permitted to "reproduce, distribute and communicate to the public, by means of painting, drawing, photography, or cinematography, works located permanently in public streets, ways, or public open spaces".

Section 59(1) applies to all types of works as long as they are reproduced by painting, drawing, photography, or cinematography. The German freedom of panorama limitation is thus capable of applying to photographs of works of artistic art (such as paintings, fountains, sculptures, or photographic works) as well as to pictures of poems and song lyrics inscribed on commemorative plaques.

For the exception to arise, two principal conditions must be met: The work must be located in a place that is "public" and the work needs to be located there "permanently". The two conditions are discussed in more detail below.

Public

Despite the somewhat ambiguous wording, a work is located "in" a public place if it can be observed from a public place. In other words, what needs to be public is the place from where the photograph is taken; it does not matter if the work itself is accessible to the public. It is important to note that only the view from the public place is privileged: If, for instance, a statue is located next to a public street, photographs of the statue taken from that street enjoy freedom of panorama, but photographs of the very same statue taken from a non-public spot do not. Accordingly, the Federal Court of Justice held that a picture of a building taken from the balcony of a privately owned flat across the street did not comply with the requirements of § 59(1) because the balcony is not a public place. To simplify life for photographers and re-users of their pictures, there is a rebuttable presumption that if a given photograph of a work could have been made from a public place, it was in fact made from a public place.

When a photographer has used special tools (such as a ladder) to create the picture or has taken the picture after removing objects that otherwise would have shielded the work from the public eye (think of a photographer brushing aside the branches of a hedge to get a better view of a sculpture), § 59(1) cannot be relied upon for the resulting view is no longer part of what the general public can visually perceive from the public place. Based on the same reasoning, the Federal Court of Justice has held that aerial photography does not meet the requirements of § 59(1). (In a 2020 decision, a regional court challenged this view, holding that the decision of the Federal Court of Justice is no longer good law as EU law compels German courts to extend the freedom of panorama to photographs created from the airspace as long as the works shown are located in public spaces. In a separate case, however, a higher regional court in 2023 squarely rejected that position. The court did allow an appeal, though, which as of November 2023 is pending before the Federal Court of Justice.) There is some controversy in the legal literature as to whether telephoto lenses should also be treated as impermissible tools—the majority of commentators answers this in the affirmative.

Whether a place is "public" for purposes of § 59(1) does not depend on whether it is public or private property. Instead, the question turns on its actual accessibility, which, according to the prevailing view, needs to be such that one can infer a (sufficient) dedication to the public. Against this backdrop, many academic and extra-judicial commentators argue that publicly accessible station halls, subway stations, and departure halls fall short of the "public" requirement because they are not in the same way dedicated to the public as streets, ways, or public open spaces. The status of atria and passages is controversial. On the other hand, the place does not need to be accessible all the time. Graveyards are often cited as an example of a place that is public despite the fact that it is often closed during night hours. Private property that cannot be freely accessed, for instance because there is some type of access control in place (or even an entrance fee is charged), does not fall under § 59(1). Buildings such as museums, public collections, churches, or administrative buildings are not "public" within the meaning of the statute, and thus photographs of works exhibited in their interior do not qualify for § 59(1).

The location alternatives listed in § 59(1) ("streets", "ways", and "open spaces") are merely illustrative; freedom of panorama also extends, inter alia, to what can be seen from international and coastal waters, waterways, and ocean harbours.

Permanent

Permanently located in a public place (see Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798): protected work of art ("Smiling Lips") on the bow and the hull of a cruise ship
(design by Feliks Büttner; pictured here near Funchal, Madeira)

Permanently located in a public place (see Bundesgerichtshof 19 January 2017, case I ZR 242/15 East Side Gallery, (2017) 119 GRUR 390): protected work of art on a remaining section of the Berlin Wall
("Hommage an die junge Generation" by Thierry Noir, East Side Gallery)

Permanently located in a public place (see Oberlandesgericht Köln 9 March 2012, case 6 U 193/11 Liebe deine Stadt, (2012) 16 ZUM-RD 593) based on having been in place for five years: installation by Merlin Bauer (protected as a work of art) on a rooftop in Cologne, Germany, Nord-Süd-Fahrt

To meet the condition as to permanence, a work does not need to remain at its location during its entire existence. According to the Federal Court of Justice, the proper test is whether the display or the erection of the work in a public place, as perceived by an objective observer, serves the purpose of a not-merely-temporary presentation. In a more recent decision, the Court clarified that a work is permanently located in a public place if "from the point of view of the general public, [it is] intended to remain in the public place for a long, mostly indefinite, period of time". On that basis, the Court determined that a work presented to the public for just two weeks—the so-called Wrapped Reichstag—cannot be reproduced under § 59(1). In the same vein, a regional court held that an artistic "grass sofa" installed in a freely accessible garden for many years without any indication of an end date of the exhibition, is located there permanently. These cases must be distinguished from the case of ephemeral works, such as ice or sand sculptures, or chalk paintings on streets, whose lifetime is limited by certain natural constraints; leading academic commentaries almost universally consider such works permanent even though they often exist only for a short period of time. The same position is usually taken with respect to graffiti on exterior walls (which in all likelihood will be painted over sooner or later).

Works displayed in shop windows do not fall under § 59(1) due to a lack of permanent display. There is some controversy in the literature over the permanent nature of posters on advertising columns and similar structures.

In order to be located "permanently" in a public place, a work does not need to remain in one and the same place—its location may change. Accordingly, the Federal Court of Justice held that a protected work of art on the bow of a cruise ship meets the "permanence" condition because the artwork and the cruise ship "are intended to be located for a long time in (different) public places". In the view of the Court, this seems to apply more broadly to "street cars, omnibuses, or even freight vehicles", which are "increasingly being used as an advertising medium and at least a non-negligible share of the designs attached to such vehicles are copyright-protected as works of applied art".

Additional requirement for architectural works

In the case of architectural works, the freedom of panorama provision is applicable only to the external appearance. Therefore, pictures of interior staircases and interior courtyards cannot be used under § 59(1) even if all of the above-described conditions are met.

Prohibition of alteration

Section 59(1) does not permit the use of modifications of the depicted work. Therefore, when the photographer of a horse sculpture digitally changed the colour of the horse and digitally added a Santa hat to it, a regional court found that he could no longer use the resulting picture under the freedom of panorama. The same conclusion was reached by a higher regional court when a photographer digitally altered the colour of a protected sign ("Liebe deine Stadt", pictured) and the colour of the sky visible in the background of his photograph. Modifications that directly result from the chosen method of reproduction are permitted. Partial reproductions are generally allowed, even if essential parts of the work are left out and even if it would be possible to reproduce the work as whole.

Acknowledgement of source

The source of the work must be clearly acknowledged. The "source" generally includes the name of the author, but goes beyond that, in that it shall enable a third party to identify the copy of the work that was depicted.

While it is straightforward to apply the attribution requirement when the author is identified directly on/next to the particular copy of the depicted work, it is not entirely clear whether a photographer needs to undertake research (and if so, how thoroughly) when the author is not named on (in the vicinity of) the particular copy. It is widely believed that those who rely for their communication to the public on the freedom of panorama need to undertake a reasonable effort to identify the author, but the interpretations of that differ. Professor Dreier argues in his treatise, for instance, that when using pictures of works of architecture or applied art, less of an effort can be expected than in the case of pictures of works of fine art; Dreyer J, writing extra-judicially, points out that what is reasonable depends primarily on the intensity of the use (publishers printing post cards depicting a work vs tourists giving photographs of a work to their acquaintances as gifts); and Professor Götting argues that it seems unreasonable to him to make the user of a picture of an unsigned architectural work research the name of the author.

Stamps

According to a decision by a German regional court (Landgericht Berlin) in a case of the heirs of German artist Loriot against the Wikimedia Foundation, announced 27 March 2012, German postage stamps are not "official works" according to § 5 I or II UrhG and are therefore not in the public domain, as previously assumed on Commons.

Stamps of other private entities are copyrighted as well. However, the usual German copyright expiration term applies - copyright expires 70 years after 1 January after death of the creator. Some individual stamps may be copyright-free for other reasons (e.g. simple graphic design). For a further discussion, see Wikilegal/Copyright of Images in German Postage Stamps

Outdated license templates, to be deleted or changed

See Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review.

• Template:PD-German stamps
  for stamps of Deutsche Post AG, issued from 5 May 1995 on (imprint „Deutschland“)
• Template:PD-Deutsche Bundespost stamps
  for stamps of Deutsche Bundespost (Federal Mail, including Saarland) issued from 1949 until 6 April 1995
• Template:PD-Deutsche Bundespost Berlin stamps
  for stamps of Deutsche Bundespost Berlin issued from 1949 until September 27, 1990
• Template:PD-GDR stamps
  for stamps of Deutsche Post der DDR (German Democratic Republic, 1945 - 1990)
• Template:PD-DBZ stamps
  for stamps issued by Allied Occupation authorities (1945 - 1949)
• Template:PD-German Empire stamps
  for stamps of Deutsche Reichspost (Imperial Mail, including foreign entities) issued before 1945
• For stamps of the pre-Imperial German states the Template:PD-old applies.
  • See talk pages for updates.

Threshold of originality

Works of fine art (including works of applied art and architectural works)

"Works of fine art", as defined in § 2(1)(4) of the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG), is a catch-all term for works of fine art in a stricter sense, works of applied art, and architectural works. Fine art is distinguished from applied art by its lack of a utilitarian purpose. For many decades, courts imposed a higher threshold of originality on works of applied art than on works of fine art ("two-tier theory"). In 2013, however, the Federal Court of Justice expressly changed its jurisprudence, holding that "in general, the copyright protection of works of applied art is not subject to other requirements than the copyright protection of works of non-utilitarian fine art or of literary or musical creation. It is hence sufficient that they attain a level of creativity that allows a public open to art and relatively familiar with views on art to justifiably speak of 'artistic' creations".

In assessing whether an article with a utilitarian purpose is protected by copyright, one must take into account, however, that the aesthetic effect of the article can only provide a basis for copyright protection to the extent that it is not dictated by the article's utilitarian purpose, but instead is based on an artistic effort. Only those features of a utilitarian article that are not entirely dictated by the technical function can justify copyright protection. A feature is considered "dictated by the technical function" if the article could not function without it. This includes features that, for technical reasons, must necessarily be used in articles of the same kind as the article concerned, as well as features that, while being used for technical reasons, are freely selectable or interchangeable. To the extent that the design of such features is entirely dictated by their technical function, they are incapable of justifying copyright protection of the utilitarian article.

Examples from court cases on applied art:

Protection denied:

• a climbing structure for playgrounds made of ropes (pictured in the decision, p 3 bottom) because the structure consists of freely selectable or interchangeable yet technically required features and does not exhibit artistic creativity;
• a wooden toy train ("birthday train") with wagons in which candles and numbers can be inserted (pictured in the decision, p 3) because there were similar-looking, pre-existing toy trains.
• a logo (pictured here in black and white) consisting of the text "Match by Audiotec Fischer" and the commonly used "fast-forward" symbol because neither the design of the text nor the design of the symbol ("widely used in the audio world") nor the combination of the two could be considered an artistic creation.

Protection accorded:

• a logo consisting of a mouth, eyes, and wave lines ("eyebrows") (pictured in the decision, p 3) (in the case at issue, the design was painted on the exterior of a ship and therefore could be reproduced under the freedom of panorama limitation);
• a toy train comprised of wooden animal figurines on wheels ("birthday caravan") (pictured in the decision, p 3) because it was a complete redesign of pre-existing toy trains, whose locomotive and waggons were replaced with animals, and the overall design (shapes, colours) was not the result of technical necessities but an expression of the author's artistic creativity;
• an urn emblazoned with an airbrushed depiction of a deer (pictured in the decision, on the left);
• a Birkenstock sandal (model "Madrid");
• a Porsche 356 sports car (pictured in the decision, 3rd and 4th image from the top);
• a patio heater with a triangular base (pictured in the decision, first image).

In the past decades, court cases where protection as applied art was eventually accorded primarily revolved around renowned designer objects, in particular items of furniture and lamps. A few more recent examples:

• chairs and tables based on drafts by the designers Marcel Breuer ("Wassily" chair, "Laccio" table) and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe ("Barcelona" chair, stool, couch, and table; "Brno" chair; "Prag" chair);
• the "Wilhelm Wagenfeld table lamp";
• a brilliant-cut diamond ring ("Niessing-Spannring").

Signatures

German copyright law requires a high threshold of originality, called Schöpfungshöhe.

OK for a typical signature. The relevant law is the Urheberrechtsgesetz, abbreviated UrhG. Paragraph 2(2) UrhG makes it clear that there is a threshold of originality that must be met: "Werke im Sinne dieses Gesetzes sind nur persönliche geistige Schöpfungen", which can be roughly translated as "According to this law, only personal intellectual creations are considered as works." The Schöpfungshöhe defines the minimal requirements that must be met for a work to become a copyrightable intellectual creation. In this context, signatures are comparable to simple graphics that just fulfill some practical purpose which are likewise not eligible for copyright as documented by following cases:

• OLG Köln, 6 U 199/85 (GRUR 1986, 889) ruled that this image is ineligible for copyright including its animation
• BVerfG 1 BvR 1571/02 ruled that this image is ineligible for copyright because it is a work of applied art serving a practical purpose which requires a higher threshold of originality

In general, simple type faces and signatures for practical purposes are not eligible for copyright. To quote from Haimo Schack: Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht, p. 118:

"Dagegen wird ein Urheberschutz von Schriftzeichen von der Rechtssprechung in aller Regel verneint. Auch das einprägsame Signet der "ARD-1" erfüllte nicht die Anforderungen an eine persönliche geistige Schöpfung. Seit dem 1.6.2004 werden Schriftzeichen nicht mehr über das Schriftzeichengesetz, sondern unmittelbar als Geschmacksmuster geschützt (vgl § 61 GeschmMG)."

Rough translation:

"In contrast, copyright protection for typefaces is declined by the prevailing case law. Even the catchy logo "ARD-1" did not fulfil the requirements of a personal intellectual creation. Since 1 June 2004 type faces are no longer protected by the Schriftzeichengesetz (law for type faces) but as design patents (see § 61 GeschmMG)."

See also de:Rechtsschutz von Schriftzeichen#Schutz handschriftlicher Schriftarten und Gestaltungen.

However, there may still be copyright be if the signature is sufficiently complex to become a protectable artistic work (e.g. because it has more creativity than this image - see above).

See also

• Deutschland
• Wikipedia:Bildrechte on the German Wikipedia.
• Category:German FOP cases
• Category:License tags of Germany
• Category:PD Germany license tags
• Category:Stamps of Germany
• Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review

Notes

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

Text transcluded from
COM:Liechtenstein

Liechtenstein

Copyright rules: Liechtenstein Shortcut: COM:LIECHTENSTEIN
Durations
Standard	Life + 70 years
Anonymous	Create/publish + 70 years
Audiovisual	Life + 70 years
Other
Freedom of panorama	Yes
Terms run to year end	Yes
Common licence tags	{{PD-Liechtenstein-official}} {{PD-Liechtenstein-old-unknown}}
ISO 3166-1 alpha-3	LIE
Treaties
Berne convention	30 July 1931
WTO member	1 September 1995
URAA restoration date‌*	1 January 1996
WIPO treaty	30 April 2007
*‌A work is usually protected in the US if it is a type of work copyrightable in the US, published after 31 December 1928 and protected in the country of origin on the URAA date.

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

Governing laws

Liechtenstein has been a member of the Berne Convention since 30 July 1931, the World Trade Organization since 1 September 1995 and the WIPO Copyright Treaty since 30 April 2007.

As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed the Law of May 19, 1999, on Copyright and Neighboring Rights (consolidated version of December 19, 2006) as the main IP law enacted by the legislature of Liechtenstein. WIPO holds the machine-translatable German text of this law in their WIPO Lex database. The Liechtenstein Law Gazette holds the text in German.

General rules

Under the 1999 Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, amended 2006,

• A work is protected by copyright from the time it is created. The protection expires 70 years after the death of the author.^{[1999-2006 Art.32]}
• If several people have participated in the creation of a work, protection expires 70 years after the death of the last surviving co-author.^{[1999-2006 Art.33.1]}
• Where the individual contributions can be separated, each is protected for 70 years after the death of the author.^{[1999-2006 Art.33.2]}
• The term of protection of cinematographic or other audiovisual works expires 70 years after the death of the last survivor of the main director, author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of the music made specifically for the film or audiovisual work in question.^{[1999-2006 Art.33.3]}
• If the author of a work is unknown, protection expires 70 years after publication. If the author becomes known during this period, protection expires 70 years after their death.^{[1999-2006 Art.34]}
• The term of protection lasts to 31 December of the year which it expires.^{[1999-2006 Art.35]}

Not protected

Under the 1999 Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, amended 2006, the following are not protected: a) laws, regulations, international treaties and other official instruments; b) means of payment; c) decisions, records and reports of authorities and public administrations; d) patents, and published patent applications. Also not protected are official or legally required collections and translations of the above works.^{[1999-2006 Art.5]}

Currency

OK According to the Law of May 19, 1999, on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, "Copyright protection shall not subsist in .. means of payment".^{[1999-2006 Art.5]}

Please use {{PD-Liechtenstein-official}} for the corresponding currency images.

Freedom of panorama

OK {{FoP-Liechtenstein}}

The 1999 Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, amended 2006, says that works may be depicted when they are permanently located at or on public ground. The depiction may be offered, sold, sent or otherwise distributed. The depiction must not be three-dimensional and not be usable for the same purpose as the original.^{[1999-2006 Art.29]}

Stamps

According to the Law of May 19, 1999, on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, "Copyright protection shall not subsist in ... means of payment".^{[1999-2006 Art.5]} However, Liechtenstein generally emulates Swiss law, and Liechtenstein's Copyright Act is based on the Swiss text. The majority of Swiss copyright law commentaries does not consider stamps "means of payment".It is therefore likely that Liechtenstein stamps are protected by copyright as well.

In the past, {{PD-Liechtenstein}} was used for uploads of stamps from Liechtenstein, but this should not be done in the future, unless it's possible to produce evidence for the public domain claim.

See also

• Liechtenstein
• Category:Stamps of Liechtenstein

Citations

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

Text transcluded from
COM:Luxembourg

Luxembourg

Copyright rules: Luxembourg Shortcut: COM:LUXEMBOURG
Durations
Standard	Life + 70 years
Anonymous	Publish + 70 years
Audiovisual	Life + 70
Collective	Publish + 70 years
Other
Freedom of panorama	No
Terms run to year end	Yes
Common licence tags	{{PD-old-auto}}
ISO 3166-1 alpha-3	LUX
Treaties
Berne convention	20 June 1888
WTO member	1 January 1995
URAA restoration date‌*	1 January 1996
WIPO treaty	14 March 2010
*‌A work is usually protected in the US if it is a type of work copyrightable in the US, published after 31 December 1928 and protected in the country of origin on the URAA date.

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

Governing laws

Luxembourg has been a member of the Berne Convention since 20 June 1888, the World Trade Organization since 1 January 1995 and the WIPO Copyright Treaty since 14 March 2010. As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed Law of April 18, 2001, on Copyright and Related Rights and Databases as the main IP law enacted by the legislature of Luxembourg.

WIPO holds the text of this law in their WIPO Lex database. The 2001 Law was amended by the Law of April 18, 2004 (LU043), Law of May 22, 2009 (LU055) and Law of April 25, 2018 (LU053). It was also amended by Law of February 10, 2015, transposing Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament ... The 2001 Law applied to works that had not entered the public domain before its entry into force.^{[4-18-2001 Art.96(1)]} It also applied to all works which, on 1 July 1995, were protected in at least one Member State of the European Union.^{[4-18-2001 Art.97]}

General rules

Under the Law of April 18, 2001 as modified in 2015,

• Copyright extend for 70 years after the death of the author in favor of his heirs and assigns.^{[4-18-2001 Art.9(1)]}
• When the work is the product of collaboration and the contributions are inseparable, copyright exists for the benefit of all interested parties until 70 years after the death of the last surviving author.^{[4-18-2001 Art.9(2)]}
• Protection of audiovisual works expires 70 years after the death of the last survivor of the following persons: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, dialogues and musical compositions, with or without words, specially created for use in the work, whether or not sponsors.^{[4-18-2001 Art.9(2)]}
• Copyright in anonymous and pseudonymous works lasts 70 years from the day when the work was lawfully made available to the public.^{[4-18-2001 Art.9(3)]} If the identity of the author of an anonymous or pseudonymous work is established, the author or his heirs may claim protection for the duration specified in paragraph 1.^{[4-18-2001 Art.9(3)]}
• Directed works are created by several authors at the initiative and under the direction of a natural or legal person who publishes it under their name, and in which the contributions of the authors are designed to be integrated into the collection. In the absence of of any contractual provision to the contrary, the publisher has the original economic and moral rights in the work.^{[4-18-2001 Art.6]} Copyright in directed works lasts 70 year from the year of publication.^{[4-18-2001 Art.9(3)]}
• Any person who, after the expiration of protection by copyright, publishes or lawfully communicates to the public for the first time a work not previously published, is vested with property rights equivalent to those enjoyed by the author for a period of 25 years from the time when the work was first published or communicated to the public.^{[4-18-2001 Art.9(4)]}
• All dates in this article are calculated from 1 January following the relevant event.^{[4-18-2001 Art.9(5)]}

Copyright in the United States

Luxembourg was a member of the Berne Convention when the Uruguay Round Agreements Act came into effect in the United States on 1 January 1996. At that time, the governing law was the Loi du 29 mars 1972 sur le droit d'auteur (Law of 29 March 1972 on Copyright). The Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg provides an online version of this law. Works originating in Luxembourg are usually protected under the copyright rules of the United States if they are a type of work that may be protected by copyright in the United States, were published after 1924 and were either protected in Luxembourg on the URAA date of 1 January 1996, or were published after that date. The general rules in Luxembourg on the URAA date were:

• Literary or artistic works as defined under the Law of 1972 were subject to protection.^{[3-29-1972 Art.1]}
• Copyright extended for 50 years after the death of the author.^{[3-29-1972 Art.2]}
• For works of joint authorship, copyright extended for 50 years after the death of the last surviving author.^{[3-29-1972 Art.6]}
• Copyright in photographic works and works of applied art extended for fifty years from their creation.^{[3-29-1972 Art.4]}
• Copyright in an anonymous or pseudonymous work expired fifty years after the work was made accessible to the public.^{[3-29-1972 Art.8]}

Some works may be in the public domain in the United States but not in Luxembourg. These are works that entered the public domain before the URAA date, then returned to copyright protection with 8 September 1997 amendment to the 1972 law, which extended the term for literary or artistic works including photographs to death plus 70 years.^{[3-29-1997 Art.2]} This law was retroactive, but stated that "Works that passed into the public domain before July 1, 1995, and have already been freely exploited may continue to be exploited by the same persons, who shall be exempted from copyright insofar as they engage in the same forms of exploitation."^{[3-29-1997 Art.49]}

Freedom of panorama

 Not OK {{NoFoP-Luxembourg}} Only incidental inclusion allowed. Under the Law of April 18, 2001 as modified in 2015,

• A copyright holder may not prevent "the reproduction and communication of [his or her] works located in a publicly accessible place, when such works do not constitute the primary subject of the reproduction or communication."^{[4-18-2001 Art.10(7)]}

Threshold of originality

According to Jean-Luc Putz, the threshold of originality in Luxembourg is not as strict as in UK but not as liberal as in Germany. During the legislation the intent was to orientate with other Benelux states or France.

See also

• Lëtzebuerg
• Category:Luxembourgish FOP cases

Citations

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

Text transcluded from
COM:Monaco

Monaco

Copyright rules: Monaco Shortcut: COM:MONACO
Durations
Standard	Life + 50 years
Anonymous	Publisher life + 50 years
Posthumous	Publish + 50 years
Government	Public domain
Other
Freedom of panorama	No
Terms run to year end	Yes
ISO 3166-1 alpha-3	MCO
Treaties
Berne convention	30 May 1889
URAA restoration date‌*	1 January 1996
*‌A work is usually protected in the US if it is a type of work copyrightable in the US, published after 31 December 1928 and protected in the country of origin on the URAA date.

This page provides an overview of copyright rules of Monaco that are relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. Note that any work originating in Monaco must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both Monaco and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from Monaco, refer to Law 491 for clarification.

Governing laws

Monaco has been a member of the Berne Convention since 30 May 1889.

As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed Loi n. 491 du 24/11/1948 sur la protection des œuvres littéraires et artistiques as the main copyright law enacted by the legislature of the Monaco.

The law came into effect on 1 January 1949.^{[491/1948 Art.35]} It applies to all literary or artistic works that were not in the public domain when it came into force.^{[491/1948 Art.36]} WIPO holds Law No. 491 as amended up to Law No. 1.313 of June 29, 2006 in their WIPO Lex database.

Applicability

The law applies to works authored or co-authored by a citizen of Monaco, and to all works first published in Monaco.^{[491/1948 Art.34]} Other works are protected as defined by international conventions. Applied art works are protected in Monaco to the same extent that they are protected in their country of origin.^{[491/1948 Art.34]} Authors have rights in all literary and artistic works that they create with no requirement for any formality.^{[491/1948 Art.1]} The rights of the author may be transferred in whole or part by gift, sale or inheritance, with some limitations on inheritance.^{[491/1948 Art.14]}

Works protected by copyright include all literary, scientific and artistic productions, whatever their mode or form of expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and similar works; dramatic or dramatico-musical works; choreographic works and pantomimes whose staging is fixed in writing or otherwise; musical compositions with or without words; cinematographic works and those obtained by a process analogous to cinematography; works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithography; photographic works and those obtained by a process analogous to photography; works of applied arts; illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and plastic works relating to geography, topography, architecture or science.^{[491/1948 Art.2]}

Durations

Under Loi n. 491 du 24/11/1948,

• The author has the sole right to publish, reproduce or otherwise disclose their work, and has the exclusive right to authorise any translation, arrangement or adaptation of their work.^{[491/1948 Art.3-4]}
• The author of a translation, arrangement or adaptation has rights to their work without prejudice to the rights of the author of the original work.^{[491/1948 Art.5]}
• For individual works, copyright lasts 50 years after the author's death.^{[491/1948 Art.12]}
• For posthumous works, copyright lasts 50 years after publication.^{[491/1948 Art.12]}
• A collaborative work is the common property of the authors, but when it is not an indivisible whole each of the co-authors has the right to exploit their personal contribution separately.^{[491/1948 Art.7]} For collaborative works, copyright lasts 50 years after the death of the last surviving author.^{[491/1948 Art.12]}
• The publisher of an anonymous or pseudonymous work is treated as the author. However, if the identity of the author is established, the author or their successors obtain the copyright.^{[491/1948 Art.13]}

In the above definitions, "50 years after [event]" means "up to the end of the 50th year after the year in which [event] happened."

Not protected

Laws, ordinances, orders, decisions and administrative, judicial or official publications do not benefit from copyright protection.^{[491/1948 Art.38]}

Freedom of panorama

 Not OK: Chapitre - III RESTRICTIONS À L'EXERCICE DES DROITS (Chapter - III RESTRICTIONS ON THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS) does not contain an exception that allows photographic and/or videographic reproductions and commercial publication and/or distribution of images of copyright-protected architecture and artistic works situated in public places.

Il est permis de publier des emprunts faits à des œuvres littéraires ou artistiques, à condition d'en indiquer la source et l'auteur lorsque ces publications ont un caractère scientifique, scolaire ou constituent des chrestomathies.

— in: 491/1948 Art.16

It shall be permissible to publish borrowings made from literary or artistic works, provided that the source and author are indicated where the publications are of a scientific, scholarly or chrestomathic nature.

— Translation of Article 16

See also

• Category:Monégasque FOP cases

Citations

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

Text transcluded from
COM:Netherlands

Netherlands

Copyright rules: the Netherlands Shortcut: COM:Netherlands
Durations
Standard	Life + 70 years
Anonymous	Publish + 70 years
Audiovisual	Life + 70 years
Other
Freedom of panorama	Yes
Terms run to year end	Yes
Common licence tags	{{PD-old-auto}} {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} {{FoP-Netherlands}}
ISO 3166-1 alpha-3	NLD
Treaties
Berne convention	1 November 1912
Univ. Copyright Convention	22 June 1967
WTO member	1 January 1995
URAA restoration date‌*	1 January 1996
WIPO treaty	14 March 2010
*‌A work is usually protected in the US if it is a type of work copyrightable in the US, published after 31 December 1928 and protected in the country of origin on the URAA date.

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

Governing laws

The Netherlands has been a member of the Berne Convention since 1 November 1912, the World Trade Organization since 1 January 1995 and the WIPO Copyright Treaty since 14 March 2010.

As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed Act of September 23, 1912, containing New Regulation for Copyright (Copyright Act 1912, as amended up to September 1, 2017) as the main copyright law enacted by the legislature of the Netherlands. WIPO holds the text of this law in their WIPO Lex database. Wikisource holds a version of the 1912 law as valid on 1 January 2005.

Official Dutch sources also provide the text of the Copyright Act and Related Rights Act in Dutch and English.

Standard terms

Under the Act of September 23, 1912 as amended up to September 1, 2017),

• Works of individual authors enjoy copyright protection until 70 years after the 1st January following the author's death.^{[1912-2017 Art. 37(1)]}
• Posthumously published works before 1995 have a copyright until 50 years after publication (pre-1995 law's term), or 70 years after the death of the author (post-1995 law's term), whatever duration is the longest.^{[1912-2017 Art. 37, 51]} This clause was used to restore the copyright on until 1984 unpublished portions of Anne Frank's diary.
• The duration of the copyright belonging jointly to two or more persons in their capacity as co-authors of a work shall be calculated from 1 January of the year following the year of the death of the last surviving co-author.^{[1912-2017 Art. 37(2)]}
• The copyright in a work of which the author has not been indicated or has not been indicated in such a way that his identity is beyond doubt expires 70 years after 1 January of the year following that in which the work was first lawfully communicated to the public.^{[1912-2017 Art. 38(1)]}
• This also applies to the works of a public institution, association, foundation or corporation that is regarded as the creator, unless the natural person who created the work is indicated as such on or in copies of the work which are made public.^{[1912-2017 Art. 38(2)]}
• For works whose term of copyright is not calculated according to the provisions of Article 37, copyright expires within 70 years after creation if not lawfully disclosed in this period.^{[1912-2017 Art. 39]}
• Copyright in a cinematographic work expires 70 years from 1 January of the year following the year of death of the last of the following persons: the principal director, the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the author of music made for the film.^{[1912-2017 Art. 40]}
• If in a musical composition with words the copyrights on the music and on the words are held by different individuals, copyright expires 70 years from 1 January of the year of death of the last survivor.^{[1912-2017 Art. 40a]}

Outside Europe

Before World War II the Netherlands colonies in the Caribbean were administered as the Netherlands Antilles, which included Aruba, Curaçao, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, Sint Maarten and Saba. Copyright laws were defined by the auteursverordening 1913. In 1948 the Netherlands Antilles was given considerable autonomy, and on 15 December 1954 it became an equal partner to the Netherlands in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. On 1 January 1986 Aruba seceded from the Netherlands Antilles and became a country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

In 2010 the Netherlands Antilles was dissolved. Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba became special municipalities of the Netherlands, while Curaçao and Sint Maarten became countries in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. According to Article 39 of the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands, "civil and commercial law, the law of civil procedure, criminal law, the law of criminal procedure, copyright, industrial property, the office of notary, and provisions concerning weights and measures shall be regulated as far as possible in a similar manner in the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten".

• The relevant law in Aruba is the 2003 Auteursverordening (Aruba).
• For Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba, the operative law is the Auteurswet BES, with a copyright duration of 50 years after the death of the author. This law is based on the corresponding law of the Netherlands Antilles.
• In Curaçao the law is similar.
• The law in Sint Maarten is Auteursverordening.

Not protected

Dutch laws and legal judgments are completely free of copyright (Article 11 of Dutch copyright law of 1912).

In principle all works communicated to the public by or on behalf of the public authorities (government) may be freely distributed (this includes modifications and derivatives) in the Netherlands unless the copyright has been reserved explicitly, either in a general manner by law, decree or ordinance, or in a specific case by a notice on the work itself or at the communication to the public. This is regulated in (Article 15b of Dutch copyright law of 1912). Entities like the Silicose Oud-mijnwerkers foundation can also be regarded as public authorities (AbRS 30 November 1995, JB 1995/337). This might imply that their publications are not automatically copyright protected. This arrest does not contain references to the copyright of such organizations and is in addition in general critized by prof. mr. SE Zijlstra in a note to the arrest.

Copyright tags

• {{PD-NL-gemeentewapen}} – for coats of arms of (no longer existing) municipalities, provinces and the country itself
• {{PD-NL-gemeentevlag}} – for flags of (no longer existing) municipalities, provinces and the country itself
• {{PD-NL-Gov}} (deprecated) – for all works communicated to the public by or on behalf of the public authorities (government), unless the copyright has been reserved explicitly, either in a general manner by law, decree or ordinance, or in a specific case by a notice on the work itself or at the communication to the public

Currency

 Not OK: Guilder banknotes are subject to copyright 70 years after the first publication. De Nederlandsche Bank has been contacted and they state that the introduction of the Euro does not change this.

 Question Guilder coins may be OK to reproduce, since they are subject to Article 15b of the Auteurswet. Works published by or on behalf of the government can be reproduced, unless copyright has been reserved explicitly by the government at the time of publication. However, even if no reservation was made, only the author has the right to have those works published in a collection.

 Not OK National sides of the Euro coins are subject to copyright as well. Although they are subject to Article 15b, an express reservation of rights has been made by the Dutch government.

De minimis

The law of the Netherlands includes an article devoted to a situation where the copyright is not or barely relevant. This is called de minimus or bagatel. Based on this article, it is allowed to include work of other persons in an own work, but only if it is incidental or of minor significance. "Incidental" means that the presence of the copyrighted work is more or less by chance. Of minor significance means the copyrighted work is a small part of the work.

Translated text from Art.18 of the Auteurswet of the Netherlands:

The incidental processing of a copyrighted work as a part of minor significance in another work is not considered an infringement of the copyright of the first mentioned work.

Sources

• Auteurswet art. 18a
• Lexology.com
• Understanding intellectual property (In Dutch)

Freedom of panorama

OK for buildings and most 2D and 3D artwork {{FoP-Nederland}}
 Not OK for photographs, maps, applied art, industrial design, and models

Article 18 of the Dutch copyright act states that:

• it is not an infringement of copyright to reproduce and publish pictures of a work, as meant in article 10, first paragraph, under 6°[1] or of an architectural work as meant in article 10, first paragraph, under 8°[2], which are made to be permanently located in public places, as long as the work is depicted as it is located in the public space. Where incorporation of a work in a compilation is concerned, not more than a few of the works of the same author may be included
• [1] drawings, paintings, works of architecture and sculpture, lithographs, engravings and the like
• [2] drafts, sketches and three-dimensional works relating to architecture, geography, topography or other sciences.

Article 18 limits this explicitly to "works relating to architecture", i.e., geography, topography, and other sciences are not included in article 18. Photographs are not included in Item 6. They are separately listed in Item 9 and therefore are not included in FOP. Also separately listed and therefore not included are maps, applied art and industrial design, and models.

Public place in article 18 of the Dutch copyright law not only includes open-air spaces such as public roads and squares, but also the interior of public buildings. What exactly is a public building is not defined in the Dutch law, but there are some guidelines that can be taken from the published literature and from the parliamentary debates about this article when it was introduced in this version in 2004. Among the criteria to decide whether the interior of a building is a "public place" in the sense of article 18, parliament said that the building must be freely accessible by the general public and then mentioned two negative criteria: whether an entrance fee was charged, and whether access may be denied on private law grounds. (Other criteria may exist; these two were just mentioned as examples.)

Parliament and the literature explicitly mention that schools, opera buildings, entrance halls of businesses, and museums are not public places for the purpose of article 18, but that railway stations are. Case law in the Netherlands on "freedom of panorama" issues is scarce. In one case, the interior of the Johan Cruijff ArenA was deemed to not be a public place. In a second case, a photo of a building in a private holiday resort was considered covered by article 18 because the building was visible from public ground.

Taking these guidelines and the few court cases into consideration, we interpret "public place" (openbare plaats) in article 18 to cover works on open-air roads and squares as well as works visible from there, as long as they are outside. It also includes works in the interiors of only those buildings that primarily serve a transit purpose for the general public: railway stations are explicitly mentioned by the lawmakers, but arguably this would also apply to airports, underpasses, (covered) parking lots. Article 18 also seems to apply in shopping malls. It probably does not apply within the shops in such a mall. In all likelihood it does not apply to other indoors non-private places, such as hotels, cafés, or shops. It certainly does not apply in the locations specifically excluded by the lawmakers: schools, operas, entrance halls of businesses, and museums.

Article 18 is limited to works that were originally made for being placed permanently in public places. The literature mentions that this would also apply to graffiti, even if these normally are removed rather quickly. This is consistent with the interpretation of "permanent" e.g. in Germany as explained here; the "natural lifetime" of a graffito is considered to end with its removal. Furthermore, the picture must show the work as it appears in the public place. A photograph showing a sculpture in its surroundings is OK. Cutting out the sculpture and using only the image of the sculpture is not covered by article 18. Dutch legislature seems to favor a strict interpretation of the Berne three-step test. Parliament mentioned that creating and selling a postcard from a close-up photo of a copyrighted sculpture (i.e., without the surroundings, not showing the sculpture in context) was not allowed.

Lacking evidence of original authorship/ creative input of any kind

Images without evidence of original authorship can be used with a public domain license.

The most common example are photo's intended for use in a passport or ID-card. These have been made in a prescribed manner by a photographer or even in automatic photo machine. From 1 October 2006 the Regeling eisen pasfoto’s and the Paspoortuitvoeringsregeling Nederland 2001 exactly prescribes the requirements for these photos. The main requirements are:

• Complete view of the face, centered on the image
• Front view of the face
• Head and shoulders straight
• Neutral expression, mouth closed
• Both eyes visible; also in case of glasses
• No shadows or reflections in face or background
• Plain background
• Colour image

Previous to these regulations, other requirements were valid for ID photo's. Especially the photo should be made in a 3/4 view, while one of the ears should be visible and the photo should be black and white. This is described here.

These images are according to legal interpretations, such as 1 or 2 not elegible for copyright.

Threshold of originality

Simple logos are okay in the Netherlands but not all logos are. Whether something is above the threshold of originality in the Netherlands is defined in the Supreme Court judgment "'Van Dale/Romme'". In this judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that:

• In assessing the ground of cassation it should be noted that, for a product to be considered a work of literature, science or art as meant in article 1 in conjunction with article 10 of the Copyright law (Auteurswet), it is required that it has an own, original character and bears the personal mark of the maker.

This was further specified in the Supreme Court judgment ''Endstra-tapes':

• The product has to bear an own, original character. In short, this means the shape may not be based on that of another work. (cf. article 13 Aw.) The demand that the product has to bear the personal mark of the maker means that there has to be a shape that is the result of creative human labor and thus creative choices, which therefore is a product of the human mind. In any case, excluded from this is everything that has a shape that is so trivial or banal, that one cannot show any creative labor behind it of any kind whatsoever.

Later the Supreme Court determined in judgment on Stokke v. Fikszo that:

• For a work to be eligible for copyright, it is necessary that the work has an own original character and bears the personal mark of the maker ... The Court of Justice of the European Union has has formulated the benchmark in such a way that it must concern "an intellectual creation of the author of the work".

Stamps

See nl:Wikipedia:Beleid voor gebruik van media/Postzegels (In Dutch).

Prior to 1 January 1989, the government-owned corporation PTT considered Dutch stamps as being created by the PTT company and as such was considered their author. In The Netherlands copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author. With stamps issued prior to 1989, copyright expires 70 years after publication.

From 1 January 1989 onwards, the PTT became the private company TNT Post. The rules are sometimes different compared to the period before 01-01-1989; for example, when there is more than one author of a stamp.

As of 2024 Dutch stamps created in the period 1852–1953 are considered to be Public Domain.

See also

• Nederland
• Category:Dutch FOP cases
• Category:License tags of the Netherlands
• Category:PD-Netherlands
• Category:Stamps of the Netherlands
• Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Aruba
• Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Curaçao
• Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Dutch Caribbean
• Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sint Maarten
• Commons:Copyright rules by territory/European Union#Currency
• Archived discussion on Freedom of panorama from August 2014

Citations

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

Text transcluded from
COM:Switzerland

Switzerland

Copyright rules: Switzerland Shortcut: COM:SWITZERLAND
Durations
Standard	Life + 70 years
Anonymous	Publish + 70 years
Other
Freedom of panorama	Yes
Terms run to year end	Yes
Common licence tags	{{PD-old-auto}} {{PD-Switzerland-official}} {{PD-Switzerland-photo}}
ISO 3166-1 alpha-3	CHE
Treaties
Berne convention	5 December 1887
Univ. Copyright Convention	30 March 1956
WTO member	1 July 1995
URAA restoration date‌*	1 January 1996
WIPO treaty	1 July 2008
*‌A work is usually protected in the US if it is a type of work copyrightable in the US, published after 31 December 1928 and protected in the country of origin on the URAA date.

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

Governing laws

Switzerland has been a member of the Berne Convention since 5 December 1887, the World Trade Organization since 1 July 1995 and the WIPO Copyright Treaty since 1 July 2008.

As of 2024 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed Federal Act of October 9, 1992, on Copyright and Related Rights (status as of January 1, 2022) as the main copyright law enacted by the legislature of Switzerland (and holds an unofficial English translation of the text of this law in their WIPO Lex database). The Bundesrat (Federal Council) also holds an unofficial and updated English translation of the law (2023), in addition to the official versions in German, French, Italian and Romansh.

General rules

Under the Federal Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Copyright Act, CopA) of 9 October 1992 (Status as of 1 July 2023),

• In general a work is protected by copyright as soon as it is created, irrespective of whether it has been fixed on a physical medium.^{[1992-2023 Art.29(1)]}
• Protection expires a. in the case of computer programs, 50 years after the death of the author; a^bis. 50 years after production for photographic depictions and depictions of three-dimensional objects produced by a process similar to that of photography if the depictions do not have individual character; b. in the case of all other works, 70 years after the death of the author.^{[1992-2023 Art.29(2)]}
• Where it is has to be assumed that the author has been dead for more than 50 or 70 years respectively, protection no longer applies.^{[1992-2023 Art.29(3)]}
• Where two or more persons have participated in the creation of a work, protection expires a. in the case of computer programs, 50 years after the death of the last surviving joint author; b. in the case of all other works, 70 years after the death of the last surviving joint author.^{[1992-2023 Art.30(1)]}
• Where the individual contributions may be separated, protection for each contribution expires 50 or 70 years respectively after the death of the respective author.^{[1992-2023 Art.30(2)]}
• In the case of films and other audio-visual works, the calculation of the term of protection is based solely on the date of the death of the director.^{[1992-2023 Art.30(3)]}
• [The three aforementioned provisions] do not apply to photographic depictions and depictions of three-dimensional objects produced by a process similar to that of photography if the depictions do not have individual character.^{[1992-2023 Art.29(3)]}
• In the case of films and other audio-visual works, the calculation of the term of protection is based solely on the date of the death of the director.^{[1992-2023 Art.30(3)]}
• Where the author of a work is unknown, protection for that work expires 70 years after it has been published or, if it has been published in instalments, 70 years after the final instalment.^{[1992-2023 Art.31(1)]}
• If the identity of the person who has created the work becomes publicly known before the expiry of the aforementioned term, protection for the work expires: a. in the case of computer programs, 50 years after the death of the author; b. in the case of all other works, 70 years after the death of the author.^{[1992-2023 Art.31(2)]}
• The term of protection is calculated from 31 December of the year in which the event determining the calculation occurred.^{[1992-2023 Art.32]}

The increase of the protection term from 50 to 70 years occurred in 1993 and was not retroactive, but since the change was more than 20 years ago, no works are in the public domain under the life+50 term that would not also be in the public domain under the current life+70 rule. However, this can be relevant with regard to URAA-restored copyrights in the US, as the protection of many works was already expired applying the 50 years term and protection was not restored for these works in 1993, as confirmed by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in its "Sternheim" decision in 1998. For example, Swiss aviation pioneer and photographer Walter Mittelholzer died in 1937. His works went into the public domain in Switzerland 50 years after his death on January 1, 1988. As the 1993 extension to 70 years did not restore already expired copyrights, Mittelholzer's photographs were still in the public domain in Switzerland on the URAA date of 1 January 1996, and therefore outside the scope of URAA copyright restorations.

Not protected

Copyright does not protect: acts, ordinances, international treaties and other official enactments; means of payment; decisions, minutes and reports issued by authorities and public administrations; patent specifications and published patent applications. Copyright also does not protect official or legally required collections and translations of the [aforementioned] works [...].^{[1992-2023 Art.5]}

To be eligible for copyright in the first place, works must be "literary and artistic intellectual creations with individual character, irrespective of their value or purpose".^{[1992-2023 Art.2]} Exceptionally, photographs of three-dimensional objects are protected as works even in the absence of individuality (see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Switzerland#TOO for details).

Copyright tags

• {{PD-Switzerland-official}} – for Swiss official documents, currency or patents. See template for details.
  • {{PD-Coa-Switzerland}} – for coat of arms of a Swiss Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (corporation governed by public law).
• {{Attribution-Swisstopo}} — for files from the website of the Swiss Federal Office of Topography swisstopo, including map.geo.admin.ch.
• {{PD-Switzerland-old-70}} public domain because the author(s) died more than 70 years ago.
• {{PD-Switzerland-old-unknown}} for works published anonymously at least 70 years ago.
• {{PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years}} for photographs created in Switzerland more than 50 years ago that do not have the individual character that is required by law for copyright protection; see template for details. The template should only be used if no other license is possible.
• {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} – Legacy template for photographs first published in Switzerland that do not have the individual character that is required by law for copyright protection. Only applicable for existing use on Commons and for Wikimedia projects that started before April 1, 2020; see template for details. Do not use this template for new uploads.

In Switzerland copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the author with the exception of computer programs, the protection of which ends 50 years after the death of the author.

Currency

OK. Currency is not covered by copyright in Switzerland. Article 5(1)(b) of the Swiss copyright law from 1993 on works not subject to copyright explicitly excludes monetary items from copyright.

Reproduction of banknotes that may be confused with genuine bills is prohibited by article 243 of the Swiss Penal Code. The Swiss National Bank has issued guidelines on how to reproduce banknotes in a way they believe are permissible. Printing "Specimen" across the image and not reproducing the bills at their true size or in their true colors are recommendations.

{{PD-Switzerland-official}} can be used to tag images of Swiss currency.

Freedom of panorama

OK. {{FoP-Switzerland}}

Under Article 27 of the Copyright Act, a work permanently situated in a place accessible to the public may be depicted and the depiction offered, transferred, broadcast or otherwise distributed. The depiction must not be three-dimensional and it must not be possible to use the depiction for the same purpose as the original (in the German text of the Copyright Act: "nicht zum gleichen Zweck wie das Original verwendbar"). It is therefore, for example, not allowed to reproduce copyrighted paintings from a permanent outdoors exhibition and to use them for another exhibition.

Freedom of panorama does not apply to works located in interior spaces.

Accessible to the public

• The place must be accessible to the public on a de facto basis. The legal ownership status of the place is irrelevant to the applicability of the provision.
• The depicted work itself does not have to be accessible to the public. Freedom of panorama also applies to a work on private (not publicly accessible) grounds provided it can be seen with the naked eye from a place accessible to the public.

• The place does not need to be accessible to the public all the time. If a park is closed during night hours, it may still be “accessible to the public” within the meaning of Article 27 provided the other criteria are met.
• Following the majority view in the legal literature, if the place is only accessible to certain categories of persons, such as pupils and high school staff, it is no longer “accessible to the public”. Commentators do not agree whether charging entrance fees also makes the place "not public" and therefore not subject to Article 27.
• Following the majority view in the legal literature, freedom of panorama does not apply to interior spaces. Hence Article 27 cannot be invoked for depictions produced in the staircase or the rooms of a building. It is recognized in the literature that in some cases it can be difficult to determine what constitutes an “interior space”. Part of the literature suggests a differentiation of interior spaces from interior courtyards, with only the latter fulfilling the requirements of Article 27. However, definition problems remain, for instance, in the case of station halls or shopping arcades which, consequently, are assessed differently by commentators. It is generally held that the interior of a church cannot be depicted under Article 27.
• Commons opinion is that stained glass windows should be considered part of interior spaces.

Permanently situated

• A work is not “permanently situated” within the meaning of the law if it is only visible by accident (e.g. whilst being transported).
• It is controversial what is required to fulfill the feature “permanently situated”. According to one widespread view, this requires that the (objective) intent of the copyright holder is to indefinitely present the work in/at a publicly-accessible place.A minority view holds that freedom of panorama can also apply to a work such as a sculpture otherwise located inside a museum that is accessible to the public as part of a temporary exhibition. Whether Christo’s “wrapped works” can be depicted under Art. 27 is controversial. Posters in public are not considered “permanently situated” by the literature.
• Works whose lifetime is restricted by natural conditions, such as ice sculptures or chalk paintings on streets, are nevertheless considered permanent.

General

• Applicability to all works: Article 27 applies to all categories of protected works.
• Modifications: Modifications of the work are not allowed (Art. 10 URG). Article 11 prohibits the distortion of the work. However, modifications required due to the reproduction method used are generally considered permitted.

Stamps

According to Article 5 of the Federal Act on Copyright and Related Rights, "copyright does not protect [...] means of payment". However, the prevailing view among legal commentators is that stamps are not considered means of payment and do not fall under any other exemption clause. They therefore enjoy copyright protection.

Threshold of originality

Swiss copyright law defines works as "literary and artistic intellectual creations with individual character, irrespective of their value or purpose". Such works are protected by copyright: "Up to 70 years after the death of the author (50 years for computer programs); 50 years from the taking of a photograph without individual character; 70 years from the performance/publication of a phonogram or audio-visual fixation; 50 years from the transmission of a broadcast." This section discusses some types of subject matter.

Photographs: Photographs may be protected as works on the basis of their individual character (individual photographs). Some photographs that lack individual character may also enjoy protection (non-individual photographs).

• Individual photographs: The individual character may manifest itself in a variety of ways, such as the choice of the depicted object, the decision on when the picture is taken, or the editing work done after the picture has been taken. In a 2003 decision, the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland held that a photo of Bob Marley taken at a concert by a spectator with a handheld camera was eligible for protection as a photographic work because it had the required individual character by virtue of the aesthetic appeal of the picture, combined with the orientation of the picture's components and the distribution of light and shadow. It also found that the photograph was a "creation of the mind" by being shot at a specific time during the singer's movement on the stage. By contrast, in the 2004 case Blau Guggenheim v. British Broadcasting Corporation, the Court found that a photo (en:File:Christoph Meili 1997-nonfree.jpg), shot by a reporter to document Christoph Meili with the files he had taken from his employer, lacked individual character. It found that the scope of conceptual and technical possibilities was not exploited, and that the photograph did not distinguish itself in any way from what was common use. The copyright in an individual photograph lasts for 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author died.

• Non-individual photographs: Effective 1 April 2020, Swiss law also protects certain non-individual photographs. Article 2(3^bis) URG provides that "photographic depictions and depictions of three-dimensional objects produced by a process similar to that of photography are considered works, even if they do not have individual character". While no individuality is required, according to the official motives accompanying the (eventually adopted) revision draft, these photographs are still required to be "based on human actions", and thus "automatically created photographs such as radar pictures, pictures from surveillance cameras or camera traps" are ineligible for protection. It should be noted that the new right also applies to photographs created before 1 April 2020 that had previously not been protected for failing the individuality test; however, if a particular use of a non-individual photograph was "begun prior to the commencement" of the new law, it "may be completed". According to the official motives, this has the effect that "if non-individual photographs are used on a web page, the web page may be maintained after the entry into force of the protection of non-individual photographs. If, on the other hand, such photographs are included into an existing or a new web page after the entry into force of this protection, permission is required from the owner of the rights in the non-individual photographs." The copyright in a non-individual photograph lasts for 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the photo was taken.

Data published by the Swiss Federal Office of Topography swisstopo

Shortcut

• COM:SWISSTOPO

OK. {{Attribution-Swisstopo}}

Since March 1, 2021, the data publicly accessible on the website of the Swiss Federal Office of Topography swisstopo is freely usable, also commercially, but requires attribution to Swisstopo.

On April 3, 2020 the Federal Council amended the Geoinformation Ordinance of May 21, 2008 with effect on March 1, 2021. According to the new article 28a of the Geoinformation Ordinance, the authorization to use Swisstopo data is deemed to have been given if it publishes such data in a freely-accessible manner, as open government data. On March 1, 2021, Swisstopo did so, by publishing its data "free of charge and for open access use", within the framework of "Open Government Data". According to the Swisstopo FAQ:

• May the data obtained be published and used commercially? Yes. The aim is the widest and most versatile usage of the available data.
• Do fees have to be paid for the use of swisstopo geodata? No, no fees must be paid. The digital standard products are provided free of charge to everyone as a public service.
• Is authorisation necessary to use swisstopo geodata? No, no authorisation is required. However, the source must be indicated upon use as “Source: Federal Office of Topography swisstopo” or “© swisstopo”.
• Must the source be indicated when using swisstopo geodata? Yes. The Terms and Conditions provide free use for all purposes. However, they oblige the user to indicate the source as “Source: Federal Office of Topography swisstopo” or “© swisstopo”.

See also

• Switzerland
• w:Swiss copyright law
• Category:License tags of Switzerland
• Category:Swiss FOP cases
• Category:Stamps of Switzerland

Citations

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