Jump to content

User:JWilz12345/Freedom of Panorama

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Freedom of Panorama (FoP) (English Wikipedia article on FoP/Wikimedia Commons policy page on FoP) refers to a limitation or exception to copyright. It can be defined as:

  • "The legal right in some countries to publish pictures of artworks, sculptures, paintings, buildings or monuments that are in public spaces, even when they are still under copyright." (Dulong de Rosnay and Langlais, 2017)[1]
  • "An exception under copyright laws, similar to fair use, that dispenses with the need to secure prior permission from a copyright owner for the use of a work." _ Atty. Chuck Valerio of the Philippines' IPOPHL as quoted by Reyes (2021)[2]
  • Cristo Redentor (Brazil), inaugurated in 1931 and authored by sculptor Paul Landowski. Covered under the Brazilian FoP.
    Cristo Redentor (Brazil), inaugurated in 1931 and authored by sculptor Paul Landowski. Covered under the Brazilian FoP.
  • 30 St Mary Axe or The Gherkin, a 2003 work of Foster + Partners, as pictured in this 2009 photo by Christine Matthews of the free culture photography initiative "Geograph Britain and Ireland". Covered under the United Kingdom FoP.
    30 St Mary Axe or The Gherkin, a 2003 work of Foster + Partners, as pictured in this 2009 photo by Christine Matthews of the free culture photography initiative "Geograph Britain and Ireland". Covered under the United Kingdom FoP.
  • Nationaal Monument op de Dam, 1956 cenotaph jointly authored by architect Jacobus Oud and sculptors John Rädecker, Han Rädecker, Jan Willem Rädecker, and Paul Grégoire. Covered under the Dutch FoP.
    Nationaal Monument op de Dam, 1956 cenotaph jointly authored by architect Jacobus Oud and sculptors John Rädecker, Han Rädecker, Jan Willem Rädecker, and Paul Grégoire. Covered under the Dutch FoP.
  • Atomium (Belgium), authored by André Waterkeyn and completed in 1958. Covered under the Belgian FoP.
    Atomium (Belgium), authored by André Waterkeyn and completed in 1958. Covered under the Belgian FoP.
  • The Merlion a 1972 sculpture in Singapore by Lim Nang Seng. Covered under the Singaporean FoP.
    The Merlion a 1972 sculpture in Singapore by Lim Nang Seng. Covered under the Singaporean FoP.
  • Bank of China Tower, I.M. Pei's 1990 work in Hong Kong. Covered under the Hongkongese FoP.
    Bank of China Tower, I.M. Pei's 1990 work in Hong Kong. Covered under the Hongkongese FoP.
  • Cones, 1982 sculpture in the Sculpture Garden of the National Gallery of Australia, authored by Bert Flugelman. Covered under the Australian FoP.
    Cones, 1982 sculpture in the Sculpture Garden of the National Gallery of Australia, authored by Bert Flugelman. Covered under the Australian FoP.
  • Petronas Towers, César Pelli's 1996 architectural work and covered under the Malaysian FoP.
    Petronas Towers, César Pelli's 1996 architectural work and covered under the Malaysian FoP.

Importance

[edit]
“

There are only a few forces stronger in the world than the desire of people to express and share their experiences and thoughts, in writing, image or song. We preserve our journeys and curate our impressions for long winter nights and entire generations to come. Our laws are seeking to reward the author, encourage the creation and ensure the exchange of works. When interests overlap, they provide guidance for mediation.

Freedom of Panorama is the codified acknowledgment that a public sphere truly exists for everybody's benefit. A building or sculpture deserves and receives the protection of the law, yet the reach of that protection ends where the protection of the public sphere begins.

In order for copyright to work and to be accepted, it has to do more than just protect works. It must provide breathing space for those who express, who portray, who sculpt, who quote or who criticise. Freedom of Panorama is part of this breathing space to those who create, to Europe's over 500 million authors.

”

—  Felix Reda (2015)[3]

Importance for Wikimedia world
  • Allows Wikimedia Commons to freely host images of more recent/potentially-copyrighted works of architecture and public art permanently situated in public spaces and/or at premises open to the public under permitted free culture licenses
  • Images of such are being used on Wikipedia (various language editions), Wikivoyage, and other projects; on Wikipedia, images are used to illustrate articles on architecture and public art, as well as lists of buildings and monuments/statues.
  • Licensing rules of the media repository site strictly adhere on the Definition of Free Cultural Works. Under this principle, the following conditions must be applicable: the freedom to use and perform the work, the freedom to study the work and apply the information, the freedom to redistribute copies, and the freedom to distribute derivative works.
Freedom of Panorama flyer (2 pages, November 2017)
Main beneficiaries of Freedom of Panorama

According to the FoP flyer disseminated by Wikimedia Deutschland in 2017:

  • Photographers
  • Architects
  • Game developers
  • Audio-visual artists
  • Educators
  • Tourism

2022 policy paper of Creative Commons

[edit]

From a 2022 policy paper of Creative Commons titled Towards Better Sharing of Cultural Heritage: An Agenda for Copyright Reform.

This [Freedom of Panorama] exception is of major importance for GLAMs [(Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums)], since it targets public spaces where cultural heritage is displayed or present. Were there no exception, visitors and the public would need to take exceedingly cumbersome care in ensuring the art in public spaces is not protected by copyright before publishing pictures of such art, placing an undue burden on the public and contradicting the function of art in the public sphere.[4]

On architectural FoP

[edit]
  • U.S. architectural panorama exception rationale, from the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee Report 101-735 on AWCPA (Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act):

Architecture is a public art form and is enjoyed as such. Millions of people visit our cities every year and take back home photographs, posters, and other pictorial representations of prominent works of architecture as a memory of their trip. Additionally, numerous scholarly books on architecture are based on the ability to use photographs of architectural works. These uses do not interfere with the normal exploitation of architectural works. Given the important public purpose served by these uses and the lack of harm to the copyright owner's market, the Committee chose to provide an exemption, rather than rely on the doctrine of fair use, which requires ad hoc determinations.[5][6]

Conclusion of a 2005 article by Andrew Inesi

[edit]

Conclusion of a 2005 article by Andrew Inesi, titled Images of Public Places: Extending the Copyright Exemption for Pictorial Representations of Architectural Works to Other Copyrighted Works.

Technological changes are empowering consumers to use photographs in ways once reserved to professionals. However, these same technologies make it more likely that consumers will come into conflict with copyright owners whose works are incorporated in their images. This conflict is especially likely with respect to photographs of public places, many of which inevitably include third-party copyrighted works.
Copyright law is ill-equipped to handle these changed circumstances. In particular, the de minimis and fair use tests, which in the past have served as bulwarks against unreasonable application of copyright, are not well-suited to this task today. In most courts de minimis does not apply to the vast majority of public photography uses. Fair use's greatest weakness – uncertainty – is becoming a more significant liability in an age where image uses are no longer easily classified and image users are less likely to be legally sophisticated.
Photographs of architectural works as a model, Congress should exempt from copyright all uses of photographic representations of copyrighted items ordinarily visible in public places. The benefits of such a change would be great, and the costs minimal. Moreover, this change would create a simple, easily-understood rule that is well-suited to the needs of consumers.[7]

Implications of lack of Freedom of Panorama

[edit]
Presentation on FoP and Wikimedia Commons, at Wikimania 2011 in Haifa, Israel, on August 4, 2011

On-wiki implications

[edit]
  • Inadequate Wiki Loves Monuments coverage of a country's built heritage. Both Bulgaria and Greece do not permit commercial form of FoP, forcing Wikimedians in both countries to come up with lists excluding all newer public monuments every time they participate, thus limiting the coverage of the photo competition in both countries.[8] In several other no-FoP countries as of 2022 (Argentina, Ghana, the Philippines, and South Africa), this legal barrier affects the motivations of Wikimedia chapters and local groups in those countries to undertake their editions of WLM competitions as well as participation rates.[9]

More censored images at c:Category:Images redacted because of lack of FoP and its subcategories.

Off-wiki implications

[edit]
Case of Portlandia (Portland, Oregon)
  • Second largest copper-hammered statue in the U.S. (after New York's Statue of Liberty).
  • No national icon recognition unlike the New York statue: absence in post cards or souvenir photographs, due to sculptor's consistent copyright enforcement.
  • Opponents of such copyright restrictions:
  • "Public art should be in the public domain." _ Chris Haberman (a muralist and co-owner of the Peoples Art of Portland gallery)
  • "It is unfair to have a situation where artists are afraid to make a painting of a statue or include public art in the background, or members of the public are afraid to take photos with the statue and post them on Instagram. The [city] didn't realize it was giving away the rights to an icon." _ Kohel Haver (local copyright lawyer representing artists)

Some critics or opponents

[edit]

In Asia–Pacific region, scholars like Jonathan Barrett from New Zealand argue that liberal forms of FoP in many Asia–Pacific countries jeopardize the rights of the indigenous people to control images of their works in public spaces in the region, and suggested an "Asian Pacific Copyright Code" in which all Asia–Pacific countries are obliged to restrict their FoP rules to non-commercial purposes only, with no differences as to whether the work is 3D or 2D.[12]

Some supporters

[edit]

From the 2015 European Parliament debate

[edit]

From Rory Stott of Archify

[edit]
  • "But most importantly for architects, we live in a world where images of our built environment - shared freely between people via the internet - are increasingly important in constructing a discourse around that built environment. We live in a world that requires freedom of panorama in order for architects to make the world a better place. And architects should be pretty upset about how many restrictions have been placed, and continue to be placed, on that freedom."[13]

2017 survey made by Wikimedia Italy

[edit]

In a 2017 survey by Wikimedia Italy chapter, the Italian architects were asked if they favored a panorama exception. Surprisingly, majority are in favor of or affirmative to FoP: 68.6%. Around 20% more are OK to FoP, as long as the attribution to the architect is made a requirement. Only 11.5% do not agree to unrestricted Freedom of Panorama. See Research:Freedom of panorama survey among architects of Italy.

Supporters of U.S. architectural FoP

[edit]
  • Richard Carney (Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation): conditional support. Generally supports the panorama exception, provided it does not extend to reproductions of blueprints and floorplans.[14]
  • Assistant Prof. Brian Schermer (University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Dept. of Architecture) and Architect Patricia Frost (Pace Architects): in two separate interviews in November 2003, "appreciated the opportunity to photograph other architects' work without fear of infringement."[15]

Situation around the world

[edit]


  • FoP statuses in Europe
    FoP statuses in Europe
  • FoP statuses in Southeast Asia
    FoP statuses in Southeast Asia


Freedom of Panorama statuses internationally, in 197 countries.
  • All 197 countries as per [1]. Non-commercial FoP (e.g. Azerbaijan, Cabo Verde, Morocco, South Korea, and Uzbekistan), incidental FoP (e.g. Cambodia, Luxembourg, and Zambia), and FoP for traditional mass media only (e.g. Greece, Lebanon, and UAE) are considered as not OK as these are not suitable for Wikimedia Commons. "Partial" denotes FoP is for architecture only but not other types of public artistic works.
  • "YES" designation also includes countries with full FoP for 3D public space works (e.g. buildings and sculptural monuments) but limited or no FoP for most 2D public space works (e.g. murals and church/mosque/temple frescoes), like India and UK.

A more comprehensive table is available at Wikimedia Commons: c:Commons:Freedom of panorama/table.

Statistics

Out of 197 countries...

  • 110 have no FoP (55.84%), and
  • 87 have some-form of Commons-compatible FoP (44.16%).

Out of those 87 countries...

  • 79 have adequate FoP*, and
  • 8 have partial FoP, for architecture only: Denmark, Finland, Japan, Malawi, Norway, Russia, Taiwan, United States

Note: * - accounts for 40.1% of all 197 countries. Percentage calculated using this online percentage calculator.

Table
Freedom of panorama statuses
Country FoP status Note/s 1 Note/s 2 Note/s 3
Afghanistan no
Albania yes COE
Algeria yes
Andorra no COE
Angola yes
Antigua and Barbuda yes
Argentina[note 1] no
Armenia yes COE
Australia yes ESEAP APEC
Austria yes EU COE
Azerbaijan no COE
Bahamas yes
Bahrain no
Bangladesh no
Barbados yes
Belarus no
Belgium yes EU COE
Belize yes
Benin no OAPI
Bhutan no
Bolivia yes
Bosnia and Hercegovina no COE
Botswana no
Brazil yes
Brunei yes ASEAN ESEAP APEC
Bulgaria no EU COE
Burkina Faso no OAPI
Burma / Myanmar no ASEAN ESEAP
Burundi no
Cabo Verde no
Cambodia no ASEAN ESEAP
Cameroon no OAPI
Canada yes APEC
Central African Republic no OAPI
Chad no OAPI
Chile yes APEC
China yes ESEAP APEC
China: HongKong S.A.R. yes ESEAP APEC
China: Macao S.A.R. yes ESEAP
Colombia yes
Comoros no OAPI
Congo-Brazzaville (R.) no OAPI
Congo-Kinshasa (D.R.) no
Costa Rica no
Côte d'Ivoire no OAPI
Croatia yes EU COE
Cuba yes
Cyprus yes EU COE
Czech Republic (native Czechia) yes EU COE
Denmark partial EU COE
Djibouti no
Dominica no
Dominican Republic yes
East Timor / Timor-Leste yes ASEAN ESEAP
Ecuador no
Egypt no
El Salvador yes
Equatorial Guinea no OAPI
Eritrea no
Estonia no EU COE
Eswatini no
Ethiopia no
Fiji yes ESEAP
Finland partial EU COE
France no EU COE
Gabon yes OAPI
Gambia no
Georgia no COE
Germany yes EU COE
Ghana no
Greece no EU COE
Grenada yes
Guatemala no
Guinea no OAPI
Guinea-Bissau yes OAPI
Guyana yes
Haiti no
Honduras no
Hungary yes EU COE
Iceland no COE
India yes
Indonesia no ASEAN ESEAP APEC
Iran no
Iraq no
Ireland yes EU COE
Israel yes
Italy no EU COE
Jamaica yes
Japan partial ESEAP APEC
Jordan no
Kazakhstan no
Kenya yes
Kiribati no ESEAP
Korea, North (DPRK) yes
Korea, South (ROK) no ESEAP APEC
Kosovo yes
Kuwait no
Kyrgyzstan no
Lao PDR no ASEAN ESEAP
Latvia no EU COE
Lebanon no
Lesotho no
Liberia no
Libya no
Liechtenstein yes COE
Lithuania no EU COE
Luxembourg no EU COE
Madagascar no
Malawi partial
Malaysia yes ASEAN ESEAP APEC
Maldives no
Mali no OAPI
Malta yes EU COE
Marshall Islands[note 2] yes ESEAP
Mauritania yes OAPI
Mauritius no
Mexico yes APEC
Micronesia (FS) no ESEAP
Moldova yes COE
Monaco no COE
Mongolia yes ESEAP
Montenegro no COE
Morocco no
Mozambique no
Namibia no
Nauru no ESEAP
Nepal no
Netherlands yes EU COE
New Zealand yes ESEAP APEC
Nicaragua no
Niger no OAPI
Nigeria no
North Macedonia yes COE
Norway partial COE
Oman no
Pakistan yes
Palau no ESEAP
Palestine yes
Panama yes
Papua New Guinea no ESEAP APEC
Paraguay yes
Peru yes APEC
Philippines no ASEAN ESEAP APEC
Poland yes EU COE
Portugal yes EU COE
Qatar no
Romania no EU COE
Russian Federation partial APEC
Rwanda no
Saint Kitts and Nevis yes
Saint Lucia yes
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines yes
Samoa (Western) no ESEAP
San Marino no COE
São Tomé e Príncipe yes
Saudi Arabia no
Senegal no OAPI
Serbia yes COE
Seychelles no
Sierra Leone no
Singapore yes ASEAN ESEAP APEC
Slovakia yes EU COE
Slovenia no EU COE
Solomon Islands yes ESEAP
Somalia no
South Africa no
South Sudan no
Spain yes EU COE
Sri Lanka no
Sudan no
Suriname yes
Sweden yes EU COE
Switzerland yes COE
Syria no
Taiwan / Chinese Taipei partial ESEAP APEC
Tajikistan no
Tanzania no
Thailand yes ASEAN ESEAP APEC
Togo no OAPI
Tonga no ESEAP
Trinidad and Tobago yes
Tunisia yes
Türkiye yes COE
Turkmenistan no
Tuvalu yes ESEAP
Uganda yes
Ukraine no COE
United Arab Emirates (UAE) no
United Kingdom (UK) yes COE
United States of America (USA) partial APEC
Uruguay yes
Uzbekistan no
Vanuatu no ESEAP
Vatican City[note 3] no
Venezuela yes
Vietnam no ASEAN ESEAP APEC
Yemen no
Zambia no
Zimbabwe yes
Note/s 1 remarks
  • ASEAN – country is a member of the Association of South East Asian Nations
  • EU – country is a member of the European Union organization.
  • OAPI – country is a member of Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle. The Bangui Agreement[2] that governs it provides a non-commercial FoP at Annex VII, Part I, Article 16; it is unsure if there is an effect in that provision's conflict with unrestricted FoP legal rights of 3 of the 17 member states: Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, and Mauritania.
Note/s 2 remarks
  • ESEAP – country is in a Wikimedia region known as ESEAP (ESEAP Hub)
Note/s 3 remarks
  • APEC - Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
  • COE - Council of Europe
Footnotes
  1. ↑ On Wikimedia Commons, Argentina is considered to have a de facto FoP for architecture, based on a perspective of an Argentine lawyer about permissible photographic reproductions of buildings (brought in a July 2010 discussion). However, it was put into question in two discussions (from December 2022, from September 2023), especially regarding the actual context of the Argentine lawyer's perspective, if that extends to commercial distributions of images or not. Also, contrary to a claim in the 2010 discussion that Argentina follows customary law in copyright, a Harvard article states that the country follows civil law system following the European system. See also c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Argentina#Freedom of panorama. On top of that, Infojustice.org tells of a proposal in 2017 to add more limitations/exceptions for the Argentine copyright law (Law No. 11.723), one of which would have been a freedom of panorama provision. Instead, most of the suggested exceptions were abolished, and the only surviving exception to be passed concerns free uses of works for persons with disabilities (PWDs), as proven by the resulting amendment law, Law No. 27.588 of November 11, 2020, on Amendments to Law No. 11.723 (WIPO copy).
  2. ↑ They have no copyright law.
  3. ↑ Church decrees govern papal works, but works of art and architecture are governed by Italian copyright law. Italy has no FoP so Vatican City has no FoP too. Refer to c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vatican City#Freedom of panorama.

Transcluded from User:JWilz12345/Freedom of Panorama/Status-Global

The long-term solution: introduction of suitable FoP legal right in countries that still do not provide such.

A close call: 1986 WIPO-UNESCO proposal for global architectural FoP

[edit]

Jane Ginsburg, in her 1990 journal, mentioned of some meetings between WIPO and UNESCO in 1986, which aimed to "seek elaborate general principles of copyright law for works of architecture." A finalized proposal – Principle WA. 7, 22 COPYRIGHT 401, 411 (Dec. 1986) – read:

The reproduction of the external image of a work of architecture by means of photography, cinematography, painting, sculpture, drawing or similar methods should not require the authorization of the author if it is done for private purposes or, even if it is done for commercial purposes, where the work of architecture stands in a public street, road, square or other place normally accessible to the public.[16]

For some reason, this "principle" is not existing in the current text of the treaty.

Initiatives and areas of Discussion

[edit]
Pilipinas Panorama Community

The following are some pages discussing or referencing FoP

Pilipinas Panorama Community
Wikilegal pages
Other pages in Meta-wiki
Extending Freedom of Panorama in Europe - EU Public Interest Clinic
WMF Global Advocacy team presentation used at Wiki Indaba 2022, about how to start an advocacy campaign about Freedom of Panorama
At Wikimedia Commons
On English Wikipedia
On YouTube
"Awareness of copyright issue in South Korea" presentation for ESEAP Conference 2024; includes slides for the no-FoP problem in South Korea
At FoP-related pages by affiliates

Discussions on choice of law conflict between U.S. FoP law and FoP laws of other countries

[edit]
Wikilegal insights
  • Wikilegal/A changing legal world for free knowledge: while does not directly mention FoP, does mention that several jurisdictions in recent years tend to apply their local laws to cases concerning their content and works being hosted on overseas websites, and not the laws of the countries where the servers of these sites are physically hosted. The Wikilegal essay cited France as an example.

FoP campaigns and protests

[edit]
  • from France
  • from Italy
    from Italy
  • from Sweden ("Availability?")
    from Sweden ("Availability?")
  • from Sweden (Google Translate: "Do you think public art should be able to be shared online?")
    from Sweden (Google Translate: "Do you think public art should be able to be shared online?")

In progress FoP introduction moves

[edit]

Sorted according to how far the progress has been made.

South Africa

[edit]
Presentation given by Wikimedia South Africa to the Committee on the South African Copyright Act of the South African parliament on August 3, 2017, calling for FoP to be included in the amended/updated copyright law of South Africa

The Copyright Amendment Bill was passed by the National Council of Provinces (NCOP); 7 out of 9 provinces in favor. As of February 29, 2023, sent to the office of the president (the second time) for signature and enactment.

See also: Wikimedia South Africa/Copyright Amendment Bill/Timeline

Philippines

[edit]

Seven bills in the lower House of Representatives (HoR) and six bills in the upper Senate seeking to amend/modernize Republic Act 8293 (Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines).

The ones with FoP provision, House Bills 799, 2672, and 3838, as well as Senate Bill 2326, remain pending as of this writing (2024-01-28). Passed in HoR and awaiting Senate approval is House Bill 7600, which does not have FoP and is more focused on giving increased powers to the country's copyright office and combating piracy, in real world and online.

See also: Pilipinas Panorama Community/Freedom of Panorama/Progress

Ghana

[edit]

According to Wikimedia Ghana User Group, "we have created a Freedom of Panorama explainer document that we can turn into a video or graphic document. This was an important step in making significant progress towards our goal."

Next steps: "petition the Majority leader of parliament about our work on Freedom of panorama, seeking a date to make a formal presentation to him"; "draft legislative proposals or amendments to existing laws", and "provide clear and actionable recommendations."

See also: Road Map for Freedom of Panorama (FoP) Copyright Advocacy by the Wikimedia Ghana User Group 2024. See also Wikimedia Ghana User Group / Freedom of Panorama.

Kazakhstan

[edit]

FoP legal right was suggested by both Kaiyr and Aidyn93 in a meeting in public reception with Deputy of Majilis Ashat Aimagambetov on May 20, 2024. (Wikimedia Community of Kazakh language User Group/Reports/2024#Others)

Sri Lanka

[edit]

See: Wikimedia Community User Group Sri Lanka/Events/FOP (started November 2024)

Iran

[edit]

See: Iranian Wikimedians User Group/Strategic Plan/2025-2026#Outreach.

Successful FoP introductions

[edit]

Note, since the establishment of Wikimedia Commons in 2004

Notable removals or abolitions of FoP

[edit]

Note Note: From yes-FoP to no-FoP since the birth of Wikimedia Commons (2004)

Countries to watch out

[edit]

Note Note: Countries that Wikimedians need to be vigilant.

  • Australia – criticism to Australian FoP, especially the provision related to sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship (Section 65): article1, article2
  • Chile – a proposal in early 2024 seeks to limit FoP; free sharing and distribution planned to require remunerations to the artists who made those works in public spaces (source1, source2, from the website of Wikimedia Chile)
  • Sweden – public consultation on major reforms of the Swedish copyright law in the midst of Internet age was held in early 2024. Per the relevant summary (regarding FoP) of the discussions (pages 27–28), FoP is going to be expanded to also include monumental works inside tunnels, but will be "narrowed in relation to what currently applies in that use of a reproduction where the work constitutes a central theme is not included if it takes place for commercial purposes." The restriction on commercial uses or financial gain is proposed to be implemented on the part of FoP concerning public monuments and art; commercial uses of works of architecture remain unaffected. (document of the public consultation; discussion on Wikimedia Commons)
  • United States – minority criticism of architectural FoP of the U.S., mainly from few architects and scholars that scrutinized the AWCPA of 1990. Varied proposals from abolition of the panorama right to restricting it to non-commercial uses only just like French model (study1, study2, study3)

See also

[edit]
Image undeletions

References

[edit]
  1. ↑ Dulong de Rosnay, Mélanie; Langlais, Pierre-Carl (2017). "Public artworks and the freedom of panorama controversy: a case of Wikimedia influence". Internet Policy Review. 
  2. ↑ Reyes, Mary Ann LL. (2021-11-28). "Changing landscape of copyright". The Philippine Star. 
  3. ↑ "Debate: should the freedom of panorama be introduced all over the EU?". European Parliament. 2015-07-02. 
  4. ↑ Creative Commons (2022). "Towards Better Sharing of Cultural Heritage: An Agenda for Copyright Reform" (PDF). p. 14. Retrieved 2024-04-29. 
  5. ↑ "Copyright Amendments Act of 1990 – Report 101-735" (PDF). U.S. Copyright Office. p. 21–22. 
  6. ↑ See also: Wikilegal/Pictorial Representations Architectural Works#The Berne Convention and the United States Copyright Act.
  7. ↑ Inesi, Andrew (2005). "Images of Public Places: Extending the Copyright Exemption for Pictorial Representations of Architectural Works to Other Copyrighted Works". Journal of Intellectual Property Law (University of Georgia School of Law) 13 (1): 101. Retrieved 2024-02-16. 
  8. ↑ Lodewijk (2016-10-18). "Cultural Heritage Laws & Freedom of Panorama". Wiki Loves Monuments. 
  9. ↑ c:COM:Wiki Loves Monuments/DEI research 2022/Interim report#Primary Research
  10. ↑ Locanthi, John (2014-09-09). "So Sue Us: Why the Portlandia Statue Failed to Become an Icon". Willamette Week. 
  11. ↑ Cushing, Tim (2014-09-12). "Sculptor Says 'Capitalism' Drives His Aggressive Enforcement Of Rights To Publicly-Funded 'Portlandia' Statue". Techdirt. 
  12. ↑ Barrett , Jonathan  (2018 ). "8. Putting Artists and Guardians of Indigenous Works First: Towards a Restricted Scope of Freedom of Panorama in the Asian Pacific Region ". In Corbett, Susan; Lai, Jessica C. . Making Copyright Work for the Asian Pacific . ANU Press. pp. 229–248 . ISBN 9781760462390. doi:10.22459/MCWAP.10.2018 .  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  13. ↑ Stott, Rory (2016-04-07). "Freedom of Panorama: The Internet Copyright Law that Should Have Architects Up in Arms". Archify. 
  14. ↑ Zimand, Margalit (2024). "Deconstructing the Blueprint for Infringement: Remedying Flawed Interpretations of the § 120(a) Exception to Architecture Copyrights". The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 47 (1): 151–152. doi:10.52214/jla.v47i1.12495. 
  15. ↑ Vacca, Antoinette (2005). "The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act: Much Ado About Something?". Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review 9 (1): 126. 
  16. ↑ Ginsberg, Jane C. (1990). "Copyright in the 101st Congress: Commentary on the Visual Artists Rights Act and the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990". Scholarship Archive (Columbia Law School) 14: 496. Retrieved 2024-02-16. 
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JWilz12345/Freedom_of_Panorama&oldid=29719565"