Talk:Pilipinas Panorama Community/Freedom of Panorama

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Possible suggestions for FOP in the Philippines[edit]

Contributed by JWilz12345, PPC regular member
For the pending bills
  • Consolidation of the pending intellectual property code amendment bills from HoR and Senate into one new consolidated bill, with the FOP provision remained intact in the exact same wording (or in alternate wording as prescribed below).
Concerns
  • Number 1: artists not attributed. If desired so as to provide respect to the authors of the public art and works: add a clause that mandates users (content creators, netizens, and photographers) to attribute the work author (architect, sculptor, or muralist), if he/she is known or can be immediately identified.
  • Concern 2, possible alteration of the work. If desired to prevent disrespect to the works (through vandalism or destructive alteration), a non-alteration clause is added. Wikimedia Commons implicitly allows freedom of panorama legal rights that prohibit alterations that harm the integrity of the depicted works. These are the freedom of panorama legal rights of Belgium, Brazil, Germany, and the Netherlands. As long as the commercial use is not restricted. The additional condition is based on Belgian FOP. The Belgian FOP, in turn, is inspired from Dutch FOP.
Model examples of FOP provisions if the concerns need to be addressed
  • Addressing concern 1

The copyright in a work that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of the work, or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast; Provided, that the author of the work to be used is attributed, if known.

  • Addressing concerns 1 and 2

The copyright in a work that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of the work, or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast; Provided, that the author of the work is attributed, if known, and that the work is depicted as it is found there.

  • Addressing concerns 1 and 3

The copyright in a work that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of the work, or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast: Provided, That the author of the work to be used is attributed, if known; Provided, further, That if the work is situated inside museums or art galleries, the painting, drawing, engraving, photograph, cinematograph film, or television broadcast of the work should not be used for direct or indirect commercial purposes.

  • Addressing concerns 1 and 4

The copyright in a work that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of the work, or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast: Provided, That the author of the work to be used is attributed, if known; Provided, further, That if the work is a two-dimensional graphic work, the painting, drawing, engraving, photograph, cinematograph film, or television broadcast of the work should not be used for direct or indirect commercial purposes.

  • Addressing concerns 1, 3 and 4

The copyright in a work that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of the work, or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast: Provided, That the author of the work to be used is attributed, if known; Provided, further, That if the work is a two-dimensional graphic work or is situated inside museums or art galleries, the painting, drawing, engraving, photograph, cinematograph film, or television broadcast of the work should not be used for direct or indirect commercial purposes.

For the upcoming Implementing Rules and Regulations
  • Per IPOPHL (in February 2021), once the amendments are passed into law and become part of the copyright law, an accompanying Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) for the Philippine freedom of panorama will be formulated to further define, streamline, and clarify it.
  • Priority target types of works as covered by the legal right:
  1. all architecture
  2. all monuments outdoors and public indoors meant to be permanently placed (should also cover those that were meant to be permanent but suddenly destroyed, like the Bust of Ferdinand Marcos and Kalinga Anti-Chico River Dam Monument)
  3. all 3D decorative/aesthetic works meant to be permanent in public like Jones Bridge lamp poles, and
  4. land arts like the Relief Map at Rizal Park.
If church frescoes and murals are to be included, then the IRR must state that only photography, cinematography, and TV broadcasting are the allowed methods of representing the said works visually, since the wording of future Philippine FOP is generalized.

FOP in ASEAN + APEC[edit]

Contributed by JWilz12345, PPC regular member

Combined countries that are members of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). The list does not include dependencies or overseas territories. Partial means the country's FOP provision only covers architectural works, not other types of public space works.

Selected country FOP status FOP provision Note/s
Philippines no (thoroughly discussed earlier on this page)
Australia yes Copyright law: Part III, Division 7, Sections 65–66. Publication is governed by Section 68.
  • Follows British copyright law heritage, hence the Australian FOP is very similar to the British FOP. Most flat arts like murals and frescoes are not covered as a result.
  • Section 65, with respect to sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship, is subject to criticism from artists' groups, claiming that this provision of Australian freedom of panorama "conflicts with the normal exploitation rights of the artist by allowing others to freely exploit their work." (Per 2006 article by Arts Law Center.) Articles of Arts Law Center of Australia over the matter: 2006 article, 2013 article.
Brunei yes Copyright law: Section 66 Follows British copyright law heritage, hence the Bruneian FOP is very similar to the British FOP. Most flat arts like murals and frescoes are not covered as a result.
Cambodia no Copyright law: Article 25, second paragraph Incidental inclusion only ("doesn't constitute the principle [sic] subject for subsequent reproduction"). More like de minimis than freedom of panorama. The "principle" word in the English translation is probably a typographical error; it should have been "principal".
Canada yes Copyright law: Section 32.2, (b), (i) and (ii) Follows British copyright law heritage, hence the Canadian FOP is very similar to the British FOP. Most flat arts like murals and frescoes are not covered as a result.
Chile yes Article 71F Outdoor works only, including exterior architecture. Photos of other architecture, like interior architecture, can only be used in traditional media and in textbooks. Lawful commercial uses of public art is allowed, provided that those works are permanently seen in public outdoors, and that extends to exterior architecture. Refer to: c:COM:FOP Chile.
China (People's Republic of China) yes Copyright law: Article 24(10) The FOP wording is probably generalized. While it may seem to appear that even temporal artworks can be freely used, a 1995 statement from Supreme People's Court explicitly gives the opposite perspective: outdoor artistic works used in a Chinese Lantern Festival event cannot be considered as "art works installed or displayed in public places" because of their temporal nature. Court rulings in the past defined Chinese freedom of panorama: refer to c:COM:FOP China.
Indonesia no Copyright law (in Indonesian). Closest provision is Article 43(d). Translation: "the creation and distribution of Copyrighted content through information and communication technology media that are not commercial and/or lucrative to the Author or related parties, or the Author expresses no opposition to the creation and distribution."

Considered unfit for Wikimedia Commons, because it means photos of such works can only be distributed in the Internet under non-commercial licenses. See a discussion by the Indonesian chapter of Creative Commons here (in Indonesian).

Japan partial Copyright law: Article 46, which features a non-commercial restriction for images of public art at the fourth condition.
  • Legal interpretations regarding the Japanese FOP vary, but most accept that some buildings such as the Tower of the Sun in the city of Suita, Osaka Prefecture are artistic works and not architectural works, which means these "special buildings" cannot be freely photographed commercially. See also: c:Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 1#Hideyuki Murata, regarding an opinion from a Japanese lawyer.
  • It is noteworthy that the freedom of panorama provisions of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are very similar to each other, having four conditions in which FOP no longer applies (including the fourth condition that disallows commercial use). Only difference is that the South Korean legal right did not include "artistic works", which made architectural works subject to restriction too. According to User:Stefan2's guess here, "South Korea and Taiwan used to be Japanese colonies, so maybe the FOP provision simply was copied from an older Japanese law."
Korea, South no Copyright law: Article 35(2), which features a non-commercial restriction at the fourth condition.
  • According to c:COM:FOP South Korea (with reference to an article by Jin-won Choe): "Selling reproduction of artistic works in public place is not allowed, for examples, selling postcard, calendar, collection of photos in which the artistic works have major part is not allowed."
  • It is noteworthy that the freedom of panorama provisions of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are very similar to each other, having four conditions in which FOP no longer applies (including the fourth condition that disallows commercial use). Only difference is that the South Korean legal right did not include "artistic works", which made architectural works subject to restriction too. According to User:Stefan2's guess here, "South Korea and Taiwan used to be Japanese colonies, so maybe the FOP provision simply was copied from an older Japanese law."
Lao People's Democratic Republic no Copyright law: Article 115(3.) No actual freedom of panorama as public space works can only be included in photos "incidentally" (de minimis).
Malaysia yes Copyright law: Section 13(2)(d) Covers almost all works meant to be permanent in public spaces, but excludes layout designs, blueprints, and other similar works, in accordance with Section 3 that defines terms like "artistic work". The 2022 amendment did not alter the Malaysian FOP in any way.
Mexico yes Copyright law: Article 148(VII.); in Spanish. Translation: "Article 148. – Literary and artistic works already disclosed may be used, provided the normal exploitation of the work is not affected, without authorization from the owner of the economic right and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases:.... VII. Reproduction, communication and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs and audiovisual procedures of the works that are visible from public places; But according to c:COM:FOP Mexico, some indoor locations like metro (subway) stations of Mexico City are denying the FOP right to photographers. In accordance to Federal Law of Telecom and Broadcasting, public places are "those that are in the charge of dependencies of federal, state or municipal entities, or under public programs of any one of the three orders of government." Such locations include educational institutions (e.g. schools and universities), healthcare facilities (e.g. clinics and hospitals), government offices, open areas and areas with free admission (e.g. parks, greeneries, sports facilities), and "places that collaborate in public federal programs." This would inevitably exclude most transportation facilities as well as all places of worship.
Myanmar / Burma no Likely not OK, at least at the first glance of the unofficial translation of the 2019 law provided by Lincoln Legal Services (Myanmar) Ltd. (Wayback Machine copy) that repealed the 1914 British colonial-era law which featured a British-style freedom of panorama provision. Sections 24–33 (limitations/exceptions) do not contain a provision resembling FOP.
New Zealand yes Copyright law: Section 73 Follows British copyright law heritage, hence the New Zealander FOP is very similar to the British FOP. Most flat arts like murals and frescoes are not covered as a result.
Papua New Guinea no c:COM:FOP Papua New Guinea
Peru yes Article 43(e) For more details: c:COM:FOP Peru. Some public indoors are covered.
Russian Federation partial Copyright law: Article 1276(2), in Russian. (1) governs uses of non-architectural public space works, still subject to Soviet-era non-commercial restriction. According to c:COM:FOP Russia, "the FOP exceptions for works of architecture, urban development, and garden and landscape design, which were added under consultation with Wikimedia Russia, have taken effect with the Civil Code amendments as of October 1, 2014." See also this article on Wikimedia's blogging site Diff, written by Linar Khalitov (User:Rubin16).
Singapore yes Copyright law: Section 265 Follows British copyright law heritage, hence the Singaporean FOP is very similar to the British FOP. Most flat arts like murals and frescoes are not covered as a result.
Taiwan (Republic of China) partial Copyright law: Article 58, which features a non-commercial restriction for images of public art at the fourth condition.

Important discussions on Taiwanese FOP matter: c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/01#FOP Taiwan and w:zh:维基百科讨论:全景自由#有关维基共享资源台湾全景自由问题一事. The latter (generally in Chinese) includes contention from some members of Wikimedia Taiwan community despite a recent official reply from Taiwan Intelletual Property Office or TIPO reaffirming the restrictive perspective that commercial use of Taiwanese monuments under copyright does not conform with the law. TIPO also stated that the use of Creative Commons licenses being mandated by Wikimedia can infringe the copyrights held by artists of non-architectural public works, as the licenses do not prevent reusers from using photos of works like Ju Ming sculptures and Hongtong village murals in post cards and other items where the main purpose is to sell photographic copies of those artworks.

  • It is noteworthy that the freedom of panorama provisions of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are very similar to each other, having four conditions in which FOP no longer applies (including the fourth condition that disallows commercial use). Only difference is that the South Korean legal right did not include "artistic works", which made architectural works subject to restriction too. According to User:Stefan2's guess here, "South Korea and Taiwan used to be Japanese colonies, so maybe the FOP provision simply was copied from an older Japanese law."
Thailand yes Copyright law: Sections 37 and 38 According to Thai-speaking Wikimedian User:Paul_012 here, the FOP text in original language (Thai) features a condition that only works regularly placed in public can be freely used. The "regularly" wording is missing in most English translations, whether official (like the link provided here) or unofficial (like the versions at WIPO Lex database).
United States of America partial Copyright law: Section 120(a) "Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works". Cornell Law School copy of the provision.
  • The FOP exception for U.S. architectural works was added in 1990. According to Wikilegal/Pictorial Representations Architectural Works: "Motivation for the exemption stems from the key role that architectural works play in a citizen's daily life, not only as a form of shelter or investment, but as a work of art with a very public and social purpose. Congress also reasoned that exempting pictorial representations of architectural works would not interfere with the normal exploitation of architectural works because of the nature in which the pictorial representations are used. For example, millions of people visit cities every year and take back photographs, posters, and other pictorial representations of architectural works as mementos of their trip. Architectural photographs are also often essential bases of scholarly books on architecture. Given the important public purpose and the lack of harm to the copyright owner's [architect's] market, Congress decided to provide the exemption, rather than relying on the doctrine of fair use."
  • There is no equivalent freedom of panorama right for other types of public space works. If it had it would have been under Section 113 ("Scope of exclusive rights in pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works"). Hence, notable real-life cases and issues emerged, like "Gaylord v. United States" concerning Korean War Veterans Memorial (USA Today article, judicial document from United States Court of Federal Claims), the issue of Portlandia statue's lack of recognition which is apparently a result of its sculptor's continued copyright hold on it (Willamette Week article), and the three cases launched by Arturo Di Modica involving his public art Charging Bull in New York City (against Walmart, North Fork Bank, and Random House).
  • At least one artists' society, ARS, sees selfies of copyrighted public art made for use on social media posting as an infringement on copyright. According to them, "there is no special rule regarding works of art displayed in public. Such works are provided with the same protection as works situated withtin a museum of a private collection." ARS holds the copyright of estate of the late artist Luis Jiménez (died in 2006) who authored The Southwest Pieta of Albuquerque, NM (Commons deletion request) and Los Lagartos of El Paso, TX; they also hold/protect the copyrights of 80,000 other artists.[1]
  • Some older monuments, especially those dated before 1978, may be in public domain even if the artist died just recently, because of failure to be registered or renewed; in-depth discussion of the complex history of U.S. copyright laws in relation to public art is found at c:COM:Public art and copyrights in the US.
Vietnam no Copyright law, 2022 amendment (in Vietnamese): Article 25.1.(h) or Điều 25.1.(h). Translation provided by WIPO Lex: "1. Cases where the published works could be used without obtaining permission or paying royalties but information on the author's name and the origin of the work must be published include: ... h) To take photograph or televise the art work, architectural, photographic, applied-art works displayed at public places for the purpose of presenting images of these works and not for commercial purposes;" The Vietnamese copyright law was amended in 2022, with the amendments becoming effective on January 1, 2023. Prior to the amendments the FOP provision did not feature the "không nhằm mục đích thương mại" ("not for commercial purposes") restriction. Discussions: on Wikimedia Commons and on Vietnamese Wikipedia. In the discussion on Commons, one user remarked: "I believe our community can not do anything now and even in the future when the government has no interest in Wikipedia."

FOP in Council of Europe[edit]

Contributed by JWilz12345, PPC regular member

Combined countries that are members of Council of Europe. The list does not include dependencies or overseas territories. Partial means the country's FOP provision only covers architectural works, not other types of public space works.

Out of 46 members of the Council of Europe, 27 are members of the European Union (EU): Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden. Note that country names in bold refer to countries with full FOP, country names in italics for countries with partial FOP only for architecture, and countries with no highlighting for countries with no complete FOP. (This makes: 27 EU countries = 15 full FOP, 2 partial FOP, and 10 no FOP.)

A relevant Meta-wiki article on EU FOP is EU policy/Studies/FoP2/, a work by Plamena Popova of University of Library Studies and IT, Bulgaria. Another useful article, by Wiki Loves Monuments website, is Cultural Heritage Laws & Freedom of Panorama, dated October 18, 2016 and authored by User:Lodewijk.

Selected country FOP status FOP provision Note/s
Albania yes Copyright law (in Albanian): Article 82. Translation: "Reproduction of works permanently placed in public places
1. The reproduction of the works, which are permanently located on streets, squares, parks or other open areas that are accessible to the public, is allowed as well as the distribution, communication to the public of these reproductions, without the authorization of the author or the holder of the right to the author and without compensation.
2. The works referred to in point 1 of this article cannot be reproduced in three-dimensional form.
3. Regarding the reproduction of architectural work, point 1 of this article applies only in relation to the external appearance of the architectural work.
4. In the cases provided for in point 1 of this article, the source and authorship of these copies will be indicated, in cases where this is possible. 		The 2022 amendment of the copyright law did not alter the Albanian FOP (Article 82) in any way.
Andorra no c:COM:FOP Andorra
Armenia yes Copyright law: Article 25. The comment on the provision indicates it was an amendment from April 13, 2013. c:COM:FOP Armenia notes the law previously had non-commercial FOP before this amendment, seemingly inheriting the restricted FOP of the former Soviet Union, of which it was formerly part of (see c:COM:FOP Soviet Union).
Austria yes Copyright law (in German): Article 54(1)(5.). Translation: "5. To reproduce, distribute, present publicly through visual methods, broadcast by radio, and make available to public works of architecture after being completed or other works of fine arts after being prepared made to be permanently situated in a public place; excluded are the duplication of works of architecture, the duplication of a work of painting or graphic arts for permanent attachment at a location of the type mentioned as well as the duplication of works of sculpture by the sculpture.
Azerbaijan no Copyright law: Article 20
Belgium yes Copyright law: Article XI.190 (in Dutch, in French) 2/1°. the Translation: "XI.190 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 intended to be placed permanently in public places, provided that it concerns the reproduction or the communication of the work as it is found there." The introduction of freedom of panorama in Belgium in summer of 2016 was made possible through the efforts of Wikimedia Belgium (documentation).
Bosnia and Herzegovina no Copyright law: Article 52 Not suitable for Commons because of non-commercial restriction at second clause: "(2) The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage." A recent blog talks about the Bosnia and Herzegovinian FOP situation.
Bulgaria no Copyright law (in Bulgarian): Article 24(1)(7.). Translation: "7. the use of works permanently displayed in streets, squares and other public places, without mechanical contact copying, as well as their transmission by wireless means or their transmission by cable or other technical means, if this is done for informational or other non-commercial purpose;"
Croatia yes Copyright law: Article 204 (page 73 in the provided English translation copy) The Croatian FOP provision explictly limits to exterior architecture as well as presumably outdoor permanent works. All interior architecture and permanent works not covered.
Cyprus yes Copyright law (in Greek; translatable WIPO Lex copy in Greek): Section 7(2)(c). Translation: "(c) the reproduction and distribution of copies of any artistic work permanently installed in a place where it can be viewed by the public;" Seems to exclude literary-type works like memorial texts and commemorative markers.
Czech Republic yes Copyright law (translatable WIPO Lex copy in Czech): Section 33(1). Translation: "(1) Anyone who records or expresses by drawing, painting or graphics, photography or film or otherwise a work which is permanently located in a square, street, park, public road or other public space, does not infringe with the copyright; the person who further uses the work expressed, captured or recorded in this way does not infringe with the copyright. If possible, the name of the author, if the work is not anonymous, or the name of the person under whose name the work is made public, as well as the name of the work and the location, must be given." c:COM:FOP Czech Republic provides further information on Czech freedom of panorama, including the eligibility of different types of public spaces, whether indoors or outdoors.
Denmark partial Copyright law (in Danish) Article 24(2–3). Translation: "2. Works of art may be depicted when they are permanently placed on or near a place or road accessible to the public. The provision in the first clause does not apply if the artwork is the main subject and the reproduction is used commercially. 3. Buildings may be freely depicted." (eLov copy of the provision, in Danish) Architectural works are only covered in Danish FOP. Due to the lack of adequate FOP for other permanent works, the The Little Mermaid is still under posthumous copyright held by sculptor's current heirs, and various entities (mainly newspapers) have been slapped with fines from the sculptor's heirs: refer to the articles by The Local and by PetaPixel for more information. See also this Associated Press article for the latest case against a user of the famous statue (that user was Berlingske, the oldest newspaper of Denmark still in circulation); the case was concluded, with the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the newspaper on the grounds that the media outfit only exploited the statue for non-commercial, parody purpose.
Estonia no Copyright law (WIPO Lex copies in Estonian and in English): Section 20¹. Non-commercial freedom of panorama since it no longer applies "if the work is the main subject of the reproduction and it is intended to be used for direct commercial purposes." A strange exception (but obviously unfit for Commons) is provided by Section 20², permitting architectural FOP for use "in real estate advertisements."
Finland partial Copyright law (in Finnish): Article 25(a). Translation: "Photographing a work of art is also permitted in situations other than those referred to in subsections 1 or 2, if the work of art is permanently placed in a public place or in its immediate vicinity. If the work of art is the main subject of the image, the image cannot be used commercially. However, a photograph with an accompanying text may be included in a newspaper or magazine....A building can be freely photographed." Subsections 1 and 2 are about artistic works meant for display on exhibits only. Still the non-commercial FOP for non-architecture in Finland makes the country "partial FOP" only.
France no Copyright law (in French): Chapter II, Article L122-5(11°). Translation: "11° Reproductions and representations of architectural works and sculptures, permanently placed on the public thoroughfare, made by natural persons, excluding any use of a commercial nature."
  • The lack of commercial freedom of panorama has deprived Wikimedia Commons the ability to host numerous photos of permanent public space works from France, from Louvre Pyramid to the scenic Millau Viaduct that carries A75 autoroute (consequently, a segment of European route E11) above Tarn River valley. c:Category:French FOP cases/deleted has perhaps the most number of successful redactions of all FOP sorting categories at Commons.
  • Noteworthy cases, including some documented by Lipovetsky and de Dampierre (2012), show the tendency of French jurisprudence involving uses of public space works of France: incidental or accessory inclusion (de minimis) is fine but main subject inclusion is not (as per separate cases in 1990 involving post cards showing Grande Arche and La Géode dome). As per the viaduct manegement website, CEVM is the exclusive beneficiary of Architect Norman Foster's rights and all commercial uses of photos of the viaduct are not allowed without their permission.
Georgia no Copyright law: Article 24
Germany yes Copyright law: Article 59 (in German). Translation from Wikimedia Commons: "It shall be permissible to reproduce, by painting, drawing, photography or cinematography, works which are permanently located on public ways, streets or places and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies. For works of architecture, this provision shall be applicable only to the external appearance."
  • Germany is considered as the birthplace of freedom of panorama, having existed in that country since the 1870s.
  • Like most of EU states with FOP (Belgium, Hungary, Poland et cetera), German FOP is only for outdoor monuments and building exteriors only. The eligibility of Berlin's Reichstag dome is dealt with in this deletion request.
  • Various German courts have defined the extent of the freedom of panorama in Germany, according to c:COM:FOP Germany. For example, with respect to the location of the photographer, a photo of a public monument (or a modern building) as taken by a photographer from the street is covered by German FOP, but a photo of the same monument (or the same building) taken by the same photographer from his balcony is no longer covered, and the sculptor (or the architect) has the right to sue him if he distributes his photos commercially. German FOP no longer protects photos of any public space works from Germany taken by photographers who used special devices like ladder, platforms, trucks or vehicles, monopads, telephoto lenses, aerial vehicles (like airplanes and helicopters), balloons, and even drones; for non-eligibility of drone photographs of copyrighted works, see c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/05#New case law about freedom of panorama in Germany.
Greece no Copyright law: Article 26 While somewhat vague, the wording "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media" makes Greek FOP not suitable for Wikimedia Commons.
Hungary yes Copyright law: Section 68(1)
Iceland no Copyright law (in Icelandic): Article 16. Translation: "It is permitted to take and publish photographs of buildings, as well as works of art, which have been permanently located in public outdoors. Now, a building that enjoys protection according to the rules concerning architecture, or such a work of art, as previously identified, is the main element of a photograph and used for commercial purpose, then the author is entitled for a fee, unless it is a newspaper photograph or television photograph." Explicit restriction of use of public space works for non-commercial only; any commercial use is subject to remuneration to the architects, sculptors, or muralists of their works, or their heirs. Free use is only granted to users who engage in newspaper publication and television broadcasting.
Ireland yes Copyright law: Section 93 Follows British copyright law heritage, hence the Irish FOP is very similar to the British FOP. Most flat arts like murals and frescoes are not covered as a result.
Italy no
Latvia no Copyright law (in Latvian): Article 25(1–2). Translation: "(1) The representation of a work of architecture, photography, visual art, design, as well as applied art permanently displayed in public places may be used for personal use, information in news broadcasts or reviews of current events, or included in works for non-commercial purposes. (2) What is mentioned in this article does not apply to cases where the representation of the work is the object of further repetition of the work, broadcast to broadcasters or use of images of the work for commercial purposes."
Liechtenstein yes Copyright law (in German): Article 29. Translation: "Works on publicly-accessible ground. 1) A work that is permanently located on or on generally-accessible ground may be depicted; the image may be offered, sold, broadcast or otherwise distributed. 2) The image must not be three-dimensional, nor can it be used for the same purpose as the original."
Lithuania no Copyright law (in Lithuanian): Article 28(1.)(1)) Translation: "1. Without the permission of the author of the work or another subject of the copyright of this work and without royalties, but with indication, if possible, of the source used and the name of the author, it is allowed: 1) to reproduce and publicly announce architectural works and sculptures created to stand permanently in public places, except for the cases when they are exhibited in exhibitions and museums;..." The article features a non-commercial restriction at (2.): "The provision of paragraph 1, point 1 of this article does not apply when the architectural work or sculpture is the main object of representation in the reproduction and when this is done for direct or indirect commercial gain."
Luxembourg no Copyright law (in French): Article 10(7°). Translation: "7° the reproduction and communication of works located in a place accessible to the public, when these works are not the main subjects of the reproduction or communication." More like de minimis, not freedom of panorama.
Malta yes Copyright law: Article 9(1)(p)
Moldova yes Copyright law: Article 57(h) Appears to lean towards EU standards, and is compatible for Commons. c:COM:FOP Moldova notes it was formerly a no-FOP country (inheriting non-commercial FOP of the former Soviet Union) until 2010.
Monaco no Refer to both the copyright law (in French) and c:COM:FOP Monaco.
Montenegro no Copyright law: Article 55 Non-commercial restriction: "The works referred to in Par. (1) of this Article may not be reproduced in a three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work, or used for direct or indirect economic advantage." Not OK for Commons. The Montenegrin FOP clause is bound for common provision for limitations and exceptions at Article 45, governing Berne three-step test and need for user to "indicate the source and authorship of the work, unless this is not possible." A recent amendment law from 2021 (English copy at WIPO Lex) did not alter the FOP provision in any way.
Netherlands yes Copyright law: Article 18 (in Dutch). Translation per Wikimedia Commons: "It is not an infringement of copyright to reproduce and publish pictures of a work, as meant in article 10, first paragraph, under 6° or of an architectural work as meant in article 10, first paragraph, under 8°, 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." Dutch freedom of panorama only covers public space works that fall under two categories under Article 10(1) which defines terms: "drawings, paintings, works of architecture and sculpture, lithographs, engravings and the like" from 6° and "drafts, sketches and three-dimensional works relating to architecture" from 8° ("drafts, sketches and three-dimensional works relating to geography, topography or other sciences" are explicitly excluded). Also excluded from Dutch FOP are maps (listed at 7°), photographs (9°), applied art (11°), models (11°), and industrial blueprints and layouts (11°).
North Macedonia yes Copyright law (in Macedonian): Article 52(1)(11). Translation: "(1) The use of an author's work without payment of compensation refers to the following cases: ... 11) using architectural and sculptural works permanently placed in public places (streets, squares, parks, etc.)" Adequate enough for Wikimedia Commons despite limited only to architecture and sculptures. Somehow resembling EU standards.
Norway partial Copyright law: §31 (in Norwegian). Translation: "Reproduction of works placed in the public space. A work can be depicted when it is permanently placed in or near a public place or road or equivalent publicly-accessible place. However, this does not apply when the work is clearly the main subject, and the reproduction is used commercially. Buildings can be freely depicted." Just like Denmark and Finland, partial FOP for architecture only and not for copyrighted monuments.
Poland yes Copyright law (in Polish): Article 33(1.). Translation: "Art. 33. It is allowed to distribute: (1.) works permanently displayed on generally-accessible roads, streets, squares or gardens, but not for the same use;"
Portugal yes Article 75(2.)(q.) In-depth discussion on Portuguese FOP is provided by Lisbon-based Atty. Teresa Nobre for Communia, which can be accessed and read here.
Romania no Copyright law (in Romanian): Article 35(1)(f) Translation: "f) reproduction, excluding any means that come into direct contact with the work, distribution or communication to the public of the image of a work of architecture, plastic art, photography or applied art, permanently placed in public places, except in cases where the image of the work is the primary subject of such reproduction, distribution or communication and whether it is used for commercial purposes;"
San Marino no c:COM:FOP San Marino
Serbia yes Copyright law: Article 51 All limitations and exceptions to copyright as provided by the Serbian copyright law, including the FOP provision (Article 51), are bound for the common provision at Article 41, especially in terms of attribution to the author of the work.
Slovakia yes Copyright law (in Slovak): Section 41(1). Translation: "(1) A person who, without the consent of the author, uses a work permanently placed in a public space by making a reproduction, public transmission or public dissemination by transfer of ownership right does not infringe on copyright. Physical reproduction is not allowed as per second paragraph (Article 41(2)): "The provision of paragraph 1 does not apply to the creation of a reproduction of an architectural work by construction and to the public dissemination by paid transfer of the ownership right of a three-dimensional material reproduction of a work of visual art that does not take the form of an engraving or relief."
Slovenia no Copyright law (in Slovenian): Article 55. Translation: "(1) Works that are permanently found in parks, on streets, in squares or in other generally accessible places are freely usable. (2) The use from the previous paragraph may not be performed in a three-dimensional form or for the same purpose as the original work or to achieve economic benefit. (3) In the cases referred to in the first paragraph of this article, the source and authorship of the work must be indicated, if it is indicated on the used work." Images of copyrighted Slovenian architecture and monuments cannot be freely used in commercial or for-profit media, like newspapers and travel portals, as per Slovenian Wikipedia.
Spain yes Copyright law (in Spanish): Article 35(2). Translation: "2. Works permanently located in parks, streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated through paintings, drawings, photographs and audiovisual procedures."
  • Article 35(2) is part of Chapter II (Limitations to Copyright). All provisions under this chapter are bound for common provision Article 40 bis. which states "The articles of this chapter may not be interpreted in such a way that they allow their application in a way that causes unjustified prejudice to the legitimate interests of the author or that is detrimental to the normal exploitation of the works to which they refer."
  • However, a few existing court rulings strictly interpreted this common provision as disallowing any commercial uses; see both c:COM:FOP Spain and c:COM:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/08#NO-FOP in Spain? for more information. In one case decided by the Provincial Court of Seville (January 31, 2006), it was ruled that the use of images of Toro de Osborne billboard structure in tourism items like hats, t-shirts, keychains, stickers, postcards, ashtrays, tiles, ceramics, and coasters is a criminal act under Article 270 of the Penal Code, as this use is commercial in nature unreasonably harming the billboard creator's copyright. In another case from April 5, 2006, the Provincial Court of Cantabria made a similar negative ruling with regards to the uses of the appearance of the government-commissioned Grupo de Raqueros public sculpture in acrylic-based material, intended for public sale to tourists as souvenir items.
Sweden yes Copyright law (in Swedish): Article 24. An unofficial English translation exists at the WIPO Lex database. Per that translation:
"Article 24. Works of fine art may be reproduced in pictorial form: 1. if they are permanently located outdoors on, or at, a public place, 2. if the purpose is to advertise an exhibition or a sale of the works of fine art, but only to the extent necessary for the promotion of the exhibition or the sale, or 3. if they form part of a collection, in catalogues, however not in digital form.... Buildings may be freely reproduced in pictorial form." 		The status of Swedish FOP as it applies to Commons was put into jeopardy after the 2016 case in which the Swedish artists' society, Bildkonst Upphovsrätt i Sverige (or BUS), slapped Wikimedia Sweden with a lawsuit due to the latter's use of Commons photos of Swedish public space works in their website Offentlig Konst i Sverige, in which users could view where the public space works were found on a map, with links to Commons photos for such works. On-wiki and off-wiki this was talked about: on the forum page of Sweden's policy page at Commons, on Wikimedia's blog site Diff in 2016 (article by Michelle Paulson) and in 2017 (article by Atty. Jacob Rogers), and on BBC. But as per advice of Atty. Jacob Rogers at this Commons Village pump forum, the current uploads at Commons should still be retained with c:Template:FoP-Sweden permanently tagged on Swedish architecture and public art still under copyright. The template itself got nearly annihilated. See also: c:COM:FOP Sweden.
Switzerland yes Copyright law: Article 27 Per c:COM:FOP Switzerland, legal literatures there agree that most public indoors are not covered. Courtyards within private properties are still covered. Important condition is stated at the second paragraph of the article, that the depiction should not be in 3D form (such as small-scale models or dioramas of existing Swiss works and art) and should "not serve the same purpose as the original."
Türkiye yes Copyright law (in Turkish, in English): Article 40 Limited only to outdoor settings: public streets, avenues, and squares. Exterior architecture only, excluding interior architecture.
Ukraine no Copyright law (WIPO Lex copy in English): Article 22(10).
  • According to Kateryna Militsyna and Liubov Maidanyk (both from Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv) as quoted in IPKat (with some emphases added here), "the updated list of general exceptions and limitations provided in Article 22, for which the concept of 'general cases of free use' is used, includes the Ukrainian version of 'freedom of panorama'. Thus, it is allowed to create images of works of architecture and fine art, that are permanently located in places accessible to the public on the street, free of charge and without permission, provided that such actions do not have independent economic value. This provision somewhat truncates the granted freedom, as it does not directly permit the following use of such images."
  • Four separate court rulings during 2007–09 found that four users who exploited Vasyl Boroday's 1982 mpnument, Monument to the Founders of Kyiv, in the late 1990s and early 2000s violated the sculptor's "author rights". These users, independent of each other, were Ukrgasbank, which used an image of this work in their advertisements, FOLIO Publishing House, which exploited it as a book cover for their non-educational book, and Molochnik and VK and K, which both used an image of the same monument as food packaging design.[2]
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland yes Copyright law: Section 62 See also c:COM:FOP United Kingdom. In British freedom of panorama, most flat arts like murals and frescoes are not covered. Works of artistic craftsmanship are 2D works made by artisans and craftsmen, like pottery, textiles, mosaics, and stained glass artworks of cathedrals and churches.

References[edit]

  1. ↑ "Why you could be violating copyright law by taking selfies at Los Lagartos". KVIA ABC-7. February 27, 2017. 
  2. ↑ Shtefan, Anna (2019). "FREEDOM OF PANORAMA: THE EU EXPERIENCE" (PDF). European Journal of Legal Studies II. 



Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pilipinas_Panorama_Community/Freedom_of_Panorama&oldid=26155356"