Commons:Freedom of panorama/AllRules

Following are consolidated freedom of panorama rules for all countries for which rules have been defined, transcluded from the "Freedom of panorama" sections of the copyright rules for each country.

Afghanistan[edit]

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

Not OK. The 2008 Law Supporting the Rights of Authors, Composers, Artists and Researchers (Copyright Law) does not contain a freedom of panorama provision. None of the exceptions under Articles 39–44 contain a provision allowing free uses of images of architectural and artistic works that can be found in public spaces.

Article 39 permits reproductions of published works "for personal use only". Article 40 only allows noncommercial uses of extracts of works for teaching purposes. Article 42 is a close provision that allows "the press or other information media" to publish "works displayed openly to the public, provided that the name of the author is clearly indicated," but the types of works are restricted to "speeches, lectures, as well as legal proceedings or similar works," not architectural works or statuaries.

Albania[edit]

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

No information available

Algeria[edit]

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

OK {{FoP-Algeria}}

According to article 50 of the Algerian copyright law 2003, it shall be lawful to reproduce or to communicate to the public, without authorization of the author and without remuneration, a work of architecture or the fine arts, a work of applied arts or a photographic work that is permanently situated in a public place, with the exception of art galleries, museums and classified cultural or natural sites.^{[Law of 2003, Art.50]}

Andean Community of Nations (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru)[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
Andean Community of Nations#Freedom of panorama

OK Decision 351 of the Andean Community of Nations provides for Freedom of panorama as follows:

"Article 22.- Without prejudice to that put forth in the Chapter 5 and in the previous article, it will be legal to realize, without authorization from the author and without the payment of any remuneration, the following acts:...h) undertake the reproduction, transmission by broadcasting or cable distribution to the public of the image of an architectural work, work of fine art, photographic work or work of applied art located permanently in a place open to the public".^{[1993 Article 22(h)]}
File 044-IP-2013 is an example of the commercial use of a property broadcast in a mass media, requiring explicit mention of its author and its publication is for "good commercial practice" (quoted as "buena fe comercial"). Otherwise, as its unlawful appropriation, this is considered as lucrative exploitation.
A crucial passage at the last paragraph (P.39 Noveno) of the said ruling reads "Se advierte que las anteriores previsiones consagradas en la norma comunitaria, al ser tan generales en materia de procedimiento, dejan abierto un gran margen para que el ordenamiento interno de los Países Miembros regule los procedimientos y procesos con base en la norma comunitaria, de conformidad con el principio de complemento indispensable." Translated as: "It is noted that the previous provisions enshrined in the community standard, being so general in terms of procedure, leave open a great margin for the internal regulations of the Member Countries to regulate the procedures and processes based on the community standard, in accordance with the principle of indispensable complement." Interpreting from this, this means the FoP exception of the Decision 351 is binding in all member states, but the member states have the right to regulate or restrict the exception as being applied to them.

Andorra[edit]

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

No information available

Angola[edit]

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

OK, use {{FoP-Angola}} when needed.

Article 51.º 1.c) of Lei n.º 15/14 de 31 de Julho (Angola Copyright Law) states that reproduction of works permanently on display at public locations is allowed without the author's authorization, given that the title and name of the author of the work are stated, and that their genuinity and integrity is respected.^{[15/2014 Art.51.1]}

Argentina[edit]

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

Argentina has no "freedom of panorama" provision in its copyright law. At least some think there is de facto freedom of panorama in Argentina regarding buildings:

It is uncontroversially accepted that buildings can be reproduced by paintings or photographs, without this reproduction infringing copyright.
Se ha admitido pacificamente que los edificios puedan ser reproducidos mediante pinturas o fotografías, sin estimarse que esta reproducción lesione los derechos de autor. - Dr. Emery, Miguel Angel (professor of Intellectual property law in Argentina)^[1]

In accordance with this discussion from July 2010, this de facto freedom of panorama for architecture in Argentina is acceptable on Wikimedia Commons:

OK for buildings {{FoP-Argentina}}
Not OK for sculpture and other works

As recent as 2022, this de facto freedom of panorama for Argentine architecture is brought to some skepticism, see these relevant discussions from December 2022 and from September 2023.

Infojustice.org tells of a proposal in 2017 to add more limitations/exceptions for 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).

Armenia[edit]

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

No information available

Australia[edit]

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

OK for 3D works {{FoP-Australia}}
OK for 2D "works of artistic craftmanship" {{FoP-Australia}}
Not OK for other types of artworks

Freedom of Panorama is dealt with in the Australian Copyright Act, sections 65–68, and is based on the laws of the United Kingdom.

"Artistic work" is defined under section 10 of the Copyright Act 1968 as:

(a) a painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving or photograph, whether the work is of artistic quality or not;

(b) a building or a model of a building, whether the building or model is of artistic quality or not; or

(c) a work of artistic craftsmanship whether or not mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b);

The main concern stems from what is a work of "artistic craftmanship", which the statutory law does not clearly define, but was defined in case law under Burge v Swarbrick ^[2] The High Court ruled that whether a work has that quality depends on whether it is a work of craftsmanship the artistic form of expression of which is sufficiently "unconstrained by functional considerations".

In the Australian Federal Law Review, Justine Pila wrote an article in light of of the High Court ruling in Burgess that:

"I suggest the requirement for artistic quality is simply a requirement for a [work of artistic craftmanship] 'not imaginary, unreal or apparent only' ... As those cases reflect, even conceived in historical terms, WACs are not exceptional works but rather paradigmatic works, contrary to the orthodox view above. The fact that they are functional too does not lessen their need for artistic quality".^[3]

Furthermore, she stated that:

"what constitutes a work of artistic craftsmanship is the same as what constitutes other works — their properties of form and the history of their individual production." ^[3]

Several users claim that this implies two-dimensional flat arts like paintings and street art are considered as "works of artistic craftsmanship" in Australia, but others doubt about this interpretation and it has not been completely accepted by Wikimedia Commons community. Moreover, according to an information sheet of the Australian Copyright Council concerning street art (dated November 2019), the exception provided by Section 65 "applies only to sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship, not to other artistic works such as murals and graffiti. Therefore, the copyright in a mural or graffiti may be infringed by taking a photograph of it." It adds that licensing permission from the copyright holder is needed, for uses of Australian street art "to feature on a website; to photograph, particularly for commercial purposes (e.g. to sell as postcards or prints); to use as the location of a film shoot; or to publish in a book or magazine."^[4]

Austria[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
Austria#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}}.

Azerbaijan[edit]

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

No information available

Bahamas[edit]

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

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

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

Bahrain[edit]

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

No information available

Bangladesh[edit]

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

OK for architecture, sculptures, and works of artistic craftsmanship: {{FoP-Bangladesh}}

Not OK for other types of artistic works.

According to the 2000 Copyright Act of Bangladesh, copyright is not infringed by,

The making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of architecture or the display of a work of architecture.^{[28/2000 Section 72(19)]};
The making or publishing of painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture or other artistic work falling under section 36(c), if such work is permanently situated in a public place or any premises to which the public has access.^{[28/2000 Section 72(20)]};
The inclusion in a cinematograph film of (i) any artistic work permanently situated in a public place or any premises to which the public has access; or ii) any other artistic work, if such inclusion is only by way of background or is otherwise incidental to the principal matters represented in the film.^{[28/2000 Section 72(21)]};

Under 2000 Copyright Act of Bangladesh, the "artistic works" are enumerated as: (a) a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality; (b) a work of architecture; and (c) any other work of artistic craftsmanship.^{[28/2000 Section 2(36)]} Thus the Bangladeshi freedom of panorama only applies to works of architecture, sculptures, and works of artistic craftsmanship "permanently situated in a public place or any premises to which the public has access."

As expected in most of the former British colonies, the Bangladeshi law is modelled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be similar. See the COM:FOP United Kingdom for more details.

Barbados[edit]

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

OK for 3D works and works of artistic craftsmanship, Not OK for 2D artwork. Use {{FoP-Barbados}} for images of compliant public artistic works of Barbados.

Under the Copyright Act 1998 revised up to 2006, copyright in a work is not infringed by its incidental inclusion in an artistic work, sound recording, film, broadcast or cable programme.^{[Cap.300/2006 Section 54(a)]}

This section [73] applies to buildings; sculptures, models of buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or on premises open to the public.^{[Cap.300/2006 Section 73(1)]} The copyright in a work referred to in subsection (1) is not infringed by making a graphic work representing it; making a photograph or film of it; broadcasting or including in a cable programme service a visual image of it; or issuing to the public copies, or the broadcasting or including in a cable programme service anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of copyright.^{[Cap.300/2006 Section 73(2)]}

Barbadian law is modelled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be similar. See the COM:FOP United Kingdom for more details.

Belarus[edit]

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

No information available

Belgium[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
Belgium#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

Article 13(1°) of the 2022 amendment to the Code on Economic Law made Belgian freedom of panorama clause clearer by removing "en wanneer die reproductie of mededeling geen afbreuk doet aan de normale exploitatie van het werk en geen onredelijke schade wordt berokkend aan de wettige belangen van de auteur" (in Dutch, "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"). Therefore, the current Belgian freedom of panorama since 2022 as per the current version of Code on Economic Law reads:

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.^{[2022 Art.XI.190]}

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.^[5]^[6] 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.

Belize[edit]

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

OK {{FoP-Belize}} The Belize Copyright Act of 2000 states that photographs, films, or graphic works depicting a building, sculpture, or work of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public, do not infringe the copyright of the original work.^{[Cap.252/2000 Section 78]}

Prior to 2000, freedom of panorama was granted by the Copyright Act 1956 of the United Kingdom.

Bolivia[edit]

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

OK, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Andean Community#Freedom of panorama. {{FoP-Bolivia}}.

Law No.1322 of April 13, 1992, on Copyright does not give a freedom of panorama provision. However, Decision 351 of the Andean Community of Nations (of which Bolivia is part of) provides for a freedom of panorama provision.

Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
Bosnia and Herzegovina#Freedom of panorama

No information available

Brazil[edit]

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

OK, {{FoP-Brazil}} with caveats. Freedom of panorama is allowed in Brazil, including commercial use, to some extent. According to the Copyright Law 9.610 as of 2013,

Works permanently located in public places may be freely represented by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes.^{[9.610/2013 Article 48]}

Representation is allowed, but reproduction is forbidden. Works of art placed in locations with access to the public can be freely represented by photography, painting, drawing and audiovisual means, to the extent that it does not reproduce the artwork. Commercial use is allowed, as long as the artist's work is properly attributed and the representation does not consist of a reproduction. The existing jurisprudence consistently allows commercial use of artworks under freedom of panorama, as long as the artwork is accessory, and is not detached from its surrounding elements, and therefore not unfairly used to produce revenue that by law belongs to the artist.

According to the available jurisprudence, and the ongoing debate about Article 48 in Brazil, "Public places" means "places available to the public", including private property and building interiors. Lawyer Marcelo Frullani Lopes says on the question of commercial use of representations of the Rio de Janeiro iconic landmark Christ the Redeemer: "although the area is privately owned, public access to the site is not restricted. One cannot ignore, also, that the Christ Redeemer is part of the landscape of Rio de Janeiro. From this point of view, the place where the work is located must be considered a public place."^[7]

Examples of public places quoted in a 2017 court case include squares, gardens, sidewalks, parks, avenues, streets, museums, cultural entities.^[8]

Article 48 of Law nº 9.610 of February 19, 1998 must be interpreted with other articles of the law, as established by case law.^[9]

Article 5 of Federal Constitution of Brazil states: XXVII – the exclusive right of use, publication or reproduction of works rests with their authors and is transmissible to their heirs for the time the law shall establish.
Under the Copyright Law as of 2013, unless otherwise agreed, the author of a work of art, when disposing of the object in which it materializes, transmits the right to exhibit it, but does not transmit to the acquirer the right to reproduce it.^{[9.610/2013 Article 77]} Authorization to reproduce a work of art in any form must be in writing and is assumed to be costly (se presume onerosa).^{[9.610/2013 Article 78]}

Sample freedom of panorama court cases[edit]

In Frederico George Barros Day vs. Edipress (2016): A mural in a public alley was represented by photography in a commercial publication, deformed and without attribution. The court considered the artwork was not being used in a way that took away revenue from the artist, even by being in a commercial publication. However, it considered that the artist's moral rights were violated due to lack of attribution and misrepresentation of the work in an improper way (deformed mural), causing damage to his reputation. An indemnization was granted.^[10]
In a more recent case involving the same artist, Frederico George Barros Day (graffiter) vs. Editora Abril (2017), the artwork was reproduced on magazine covers, without attribution and with clear commercial intent, due to freedom of panorama being confused with Public Domain. An indemnization was granted.^[11]
In Ricardo Fernandez Costa (artist) vs. Leo Burnett Publicidade Ltda (2017): Use of mural graffiti placed in a public alley in publicity campaign for shopping center, the court considered there was no breach of moral or material rights of the author, and that the use was allowed under Article 48.^[12]
Cleir Ávila Ferreira Júnior (artist) vs. Confederação Brasileira de Futebol - CBF & Outplan Sistemas (2017) concerned representation of the artist's sculpture "Araras" in tickets sold for a soccer game. Commercial use of the representation was considered by the court to be covered by freedom of panorama as it was not detached from its landscape.^[13]
This differs from Sival Floriano Veloso (sculptor) vs. Telemar Norte Leste SA, where a statue was detached from its surroundings on commercialized phone cards.^[14]
In Frederico George Barros Day (graffiter) vd. Edições Globo Conde Nast, commercial use of a representation of the mural in a fashion presentation was deemed to be correct under Article 48, as it was contained within the street landscape.^[15]
In the Panda / Mochilheira case (2015), commercial use of a representation of a mural in a fashion presentation was deemed to be correct under Article 48. Use of the "Panda" mural as background for the Mochilheira fashion show was deemed by the court to be accessory, and therefore covered by Article 48.^[16]
In Camila Pavanelli & others (mural artists/graffiters) vs. Lew’lara/TBWA Publicidade Propaganda, casual presence of artwork in a commercial spot was not in breach of the law under Article 48.^[17]
In a much quoted 2011 court case, Sival Floriano Veloso (sculptor) vs. Telemar Norte Leste SA, commercial use of representations of sculptures in a public place was deemed to be unlawful in court. On the phone cards being sold, the sculptures had been detached from their surrounding elements, which was considered to be in breach of Article 48. The court case lasted from 2007 to 2011, dealing with use of representations of sculptures placed in a public place in phone cards sold by the phone operator. The sculptures had been detached from their surrounding elements, which was considered to violate the spirit of Article 48. Of the three judges that voted on the final sentence, two considered that Article 48 does not cover commercial use of representations of artworks, when that representation was only about the artwork. The third judge considered that commercial use was allowed by Article 48, even when the only represented subject was the artwork.^[18]
Compare the above with Cleir Ávila Ferreira Júnior (artist) vs. Confederação Brasileira de Futebol, where the commercial use of an image of an artwork under copyright was considered to be covered by Article 48, as unlike this case, it had not been detached from its surrounding elements.^[19]
The situation was repeated in 2016, when a representation of a house on a commercial product was detached from its surrounding elements and used commercially by a paint manufacturer without consent by the architect, and without proper attribution.^[20]
Other cases, in particular related to Rio de Janeiro's iconic Christ the Redeemer which has been widely used commercially, have been quoted in court and in technical opinions to support the notion that Article 48 does indeed allow for free and unrestricted representation of works of art in public places.^[21]
In a 2017 juridical technical opinion, statues in public squares used in selling products were presented as an example of what is covered by Article 48. Recent jurisprudence related to Article 48 reinforces the notion that freedom of panorama in Brazil cannot be used in any way that provenly takes or diverts revenue that by right would belong to the artist.^[22]
In 2016, a controversial court case arose about a paint brand who used the representation of a copyrighted architectural work (house) to sell the paints, without attributing the work, and under the payment of a fee to the house owners (not the copyright holders). While the court considered the commercial use of the artwork representation unlawful, and granted compensation to the copyright holder, it based its sentence on the fact that there was payment for the use of the specific artwork to someone who was not the copyright holder of the work, thus taking away revenue from the artist and damaging his rights. The court also emphasized the architect's moral rights violation, from commercializing his work without properly attributing it, and said this fact alone was enough to warrant compensation.^[23]
- Use of the above decision to imply an interpretation of Article 48 as forbidding commercial use in general is disputed and contradicted by other evidence.^[24]
- Also, in this case, the image of the house on the commercialized product was detached from its surrounding elements.^[25]
- The Superior Court has written, "The point is not merely representation of the surroundings of the architectural work, but of representation of the architectural work solely for the purpose of profit."^[26]
In any case, the ongoing debate on Brazilian jurisprudence over Article 48 is limited to the resulting financial damage to the artist, which has to be consistently demonstrated by palpable proof, and not to the use of artwork representations.^[27]^[28]
More recently, in June 2018, a 2nd instance Brazilian court affirmed the a hospital had the right to commercially use the image of the Rio de Janeiro Monument of the Redeemer even without any landscape context. "Article 48 of Law 9.610/98 in its literal sense authorizes the free representation of works located permanently in public places, and does not require maintenance of the landscape context."^[29]

Brunei[edit]

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

OK for 3D works and works of artistic craftsmanship = {{FoP-Brunei}}. Not OK for 2D graphic works.

Under the Emergency (Copyright) Order, 1999 of Brunei Darussalam,

It is not a copyright infringement to make graphic representations, take photographs, broadcast the images of buildings, sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship given that the object is permanently situated in a public place, nor to reproduce aforementioned works to the public.^{[1999 Section 66]}
"Work of artistic craftsmanship" is defined separately from "graphic work".^{[1999 Section 6]} "Graphic work" includes any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, and any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work.^{[1999 Section 6]} These works are not covered by the Section 66 exception.^{[1999 Section 66]}

Bulgaria[edit]

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

Not OK, non-commercial uses only of images of permanent works in public spaces. {{NoFoP-Bulgaria}}. Under the Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights (as amended up to 2011):

Art. 24. (amend. - SG 77/02, in force from 01.01.2003) (1) Without consent of the owner of the copyright and without payment of compensation shall be permissible:
- 7. use of works, permanently exhibited at streets, squares and other public places without mechanical contact copying, as well as wireless broadcasting or transmitting by cable or other technical device, if done with informatory or other non-commercial purpose.^{[2011 Article 24(7)]}

Notes:

Please tag Bulgarian no-FoP deletion requests: <noinclude>[[Category:Bulgarian FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude>
"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."

Burkina Faso[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
Burkina Faso#Freedom of panorama

Not OK, noncommercial only: the Burkinabe freedom of panorama is limited only to noncommercial purposes (which is incompatible with Commons:Licensing). However, a photo that only incidentally includes architecture or sculpture should be fine.

In derogation of the author’s rights, reproducing, broadcasting or communicating to the public by cable an image of a work of architecture, a work of fine art, a photographic work or a work of applied art which is permanently located in a place open to the public shall be permitted, except where the image of the work is the main subject of such reproduction or communication and where it is used for commercial purposes.^{[1999 Article 25]}

Burma[edit]

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

Not OK Chapter 12 (Sections 24–33) of the Law No. 15/2019 of May 24, 2019, containing the limitations and exceptions to copyright, does not contain a provision resembling freedom of panorama.

The repealed Burma Copyright Act 1911 had a British-style freedom of panorama that covered depictions of works of architecture, sculpture, and artistic craftsmanship permanently found in public spaces through paintings, drawings, engravings, and photographs, as well as publication of such depictions.^{[1914 Section 2(1){iii)]} This did not cover paintings, drawings, sculptures, engravings, and photographs found in public spaces.

Notes

As the 2019 act appears to be retroactive, the British-style freedom of panorama is rendered void.
"Copyright protection expires 50 years after the death of the original author (who may be the architect, sculptor, or muralist) of a public artistic work of Myanmar (Burma). On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 51st Year), freely-licensed images of the author's sculptures, buildings, murals, or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for sovereign states with no formal FOP legal rights since the author's works are now copyright free."

Burundi[edit]

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

Not OK: the Burundian freedom of panorama is not free enough to allow publications of images of protected works of architecture and public art in commercial media like advertisements and websites, thus does not meet with Commons:Licensing. See also a related discussion here.

Under Burundi Act 1/021 2005 Article 26/4:

The reproduction of works of art or of architecture through cinematography or television and the communication of such works to the public if such works are permanently located in a place where they can be viewed by the public or are included in the film or program by way of background or as incidental to the essential matters represented.
Similarly, the reproduction of works of architecture through photography, cinematography, television or any other similar process, in addition to the publication of corresponding photographs in the press, periodicals and textbooks, shall be free and may not give rise to copyright payment.

Cambodia[edit]

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

Not OK, only incidental ("not the main subject") inclusion is allowed. {{NoFoP-Cambodia}}

Cambodian copyright law does provide some form of freedom of panorama, but does not allow if the artistic works become the main subject of the subsequent reproduction (that is, further depictions). The "principle" on the English version is likely a typographical error, as "principle" is not used as an adjective in the English language. More likely, it should have been "principal".

"If there is a clear indication of the author's name and the source of work, the following acts are not subjected to any prohibitions by the author: ... The reproduction of graphic or plastic work which is situated in the public place, when this reproduction doesn't constitute the principle [sic] subject for subsequent reproduction."^{[2003 Article 25]}

Note: "Copyright protection expires 50 years after the death of the original author (who may be the architect, sculptor, or muralist) of a public artistic work of Cambodia.^{[2003 Article 30]} On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 51st Year), freely-licensed images of the author's sculptures, buildings, murals, or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for sovereign states with no formal FOP legal rights since the author's works are now copyright free."

Cameroon[edit]

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

Not OK, only non-commercial use is allowed.

Under Cameroon's Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, enacted in 2000, there is freedom of panorama for artwork and architecture permanently located in a public place, but only for non-commercial uses:

Works of art, including works of architecture, permanently kept in a public place, may be reproduced and made available to the public through photographic and audiovisual means.^{[2000/011 Section 32(1)]}
Any exploitation for profit of these reproductions without the prior authorization of the author of the works referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be unlawful.^{[2000/011 Section 32(2)]}

Canada[edit]

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

OK for 3D works and "works of artistic craftsmanship": {{FoP-Canada}}
Not OK usually for 2D works
Under Section 32.2 (1)(b) of the Canadian Copyright Act 1985, it is not an infringement of copyright for any person to reproduce, in a painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or cinematographic work … (i) an architectural work (defined as any building or structure or any model of a building or structure"); or

(ii) "a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship, that is permanently situated in a public place or building".

Canadian law was originally derived from UK concepts and some of Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom may therefore be of relevance, in particular the restricted legal meaning of "work of artistic craftsmanship". Some non-sculptural works can qualify for Canadian FOP under this clause, such as Body Shop Yonge.jpg for example. The freedom provided by the quoted section does not apply to typical two-dimensional works such as paintings, murals, advertising hoardings, maps, posters or signs. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a license from the copyright holder even if they are permanently located in a public place, unless they are in the public domain.

Chile[edit]

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

OK for most works permanently located in "squares, avenues and public places." {{FoP-Chile}}
Not OK for copyrighted literary works, as such works are in a separate category – Article 3(1) and (2) – as opposed to lithography (Article 3(7)), finished architectural projects (Article 3(9)), two-dimensional works (Article 3(11)), and three-dimensional works (Article 3(12)).

The Chilean copyright law 17336 provides freedom of panorama for architectural and artistic works:

The reproduction of architectural works by means of photography, film, television and any other analogous procedure, as well as the publication of the corresponding photographs in newspapers, magazines and books and texts intended for education, is free and is not subject to to remuneration, provided that it is not in a separate, complete or partial collection, without authorization of the author.^{[17.336/2017 Art.71F]}
Art. 1 Nº 8 Likewise, reproduction through photography.^{[17.336/2017 Art.71F]}
Drawing or any other procedure, of monuments, statues and, in general, artistic works that permanently adorn squares, avenues and public places, is free and is not subject to remuneration, the publication and sale of the reproductions being lawful.^{[17.336/2017 Art.71F]}

China, People's Republic of[edit]

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

In general, OK , with attribution {{FoP-China}}, for outdoor and indoor works (since June 2021 with the 2020 amendment of the copyright law allowing indoor works^[30]) but practically may be problematic with regards to images of 2D works like murals and permanent outdoor paintings (reference: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mao Zedong portrait.jpg). To summarize:

OK for architecture,
OK for 3D works like sculptures (and possibly things like handicrafts, ceramics, and tiles), and
generally Not OK for 2D works like murals and outdoor paintings, unless their presences in images are not being main subjects.

The reproduction of artistic, architectural, or applied artwork, is covered under the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, which allows reproduction of works in an outdoor public place if the author and the name of the original work is attributed.

Article 24: In the following cases, a work may be exploited without the permission from, and without payment of remuneration to, the copyright owner, provided that the name or designation of the author and the title of the work are mentioned and the normal use of the work, or unreasonably damage the lawful rights and interests of the copyright owner shall not be affected:
(10) copying, drawing, photographing, or video recording of an artistic work located or on display in a public place;...
The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall apply to restrictions on copyright-related rights.

The "Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China" (2020) Article 24, clause 10 states that:

[A] work may be exploited without the permission from, and without payment of remuneration to, the copyright owner, provided that the name or designation of the author and the title of the work are mentioned and the normal use of the work, or unreasonably damage the lawful rights and interests of the copyright owner shall not be affected:

copying, drawing, photographing, or video recording of an artistic work located or on display in a public place

Regulations and court decisions regarding to freedom of panorama:

Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases of Civil Disputes over Copyright, Article 18: Artistic works in outdoor public places stipulated in Article 22, Item 10 of the Copyright Law refer to sculptures, paintings, calligraphy and other works of art that are set up or displayed in outdoor public places.
Copying, painting, photographing, and video recording of the artistic works specified in the preceding paragraph may be used again in a reasonable manner and scope without causing any infringement.
Reply on the "Report on the Request for Infringement of Copyright Disputes between Shandong Tianyi Advertising Co., Ltd. and Qingdao Hisense Communications Co., Ltd." of the Shandong Provincial Higher People's Court, the Supreme People's Court: (Dispute on using May Wind sculpture in advertisements) ... Here, for 'reasonable approach and scope', the 'approach and scope' for profit purposes should be included. This is the original intention of formulating the Judicial Interpretation. This provision of judicial interpretation is in conformity with the basic spirit of fair use as stipulated by the Berne Convention, and it is also in line with the legislation of most countries in the world."
Wang Juxian vs. Shaoxing Water Conservancy Bureau on Other Copyright Ownership Infringement Dispute Trial Supervision, The Supreme People's Court: As mentioned above, China's Copyright Law exempts the public from the obligation to attribute the author's name and the name of the work while exempting the author from the obligation to authorize and pay for the copying of the sculpture in the outdoor public place. Under normal circumstances, the public can only rely on the annotation of the outdoor art work itself to confirm the author's name and the name of the work without any obligation to verify.

The following examples are OK:

Photos of the Tian Tan Buddha sculpture. See the court ruling of a civil law case, in which the court ruled that commercial use of a photo of the Tian Tan Buddha by a telecommunications operator on their IP phone cards is permissible.
Photos of the May Wind sculpture. Shandong Province Higher People's Court ruled in a civil case that the usage of an image of this sculpture as a wallpaper in cellphones by a cellphone manufacturer is permissible. China's Supreme Court later on endorsed this ruling.

Some limitations to the Chinese freedom of panorama as ruled by courts

The Chinese FOP provision can hardly apply to works temporarily displayed in public places according to the reply by Supreme People's Court in 1995, which stated that works displayed only during the festival cannot be considered as "an artistic work located or on display in a public place".
More recently, however, Chongqing Yuzhong District People's Court ruled in 2016 that the use of a photo of an outdoor sculpture on postcards for sale (commercial use without attribution) to be an infringement of the sculpture creator's rights (source: [1][2]). Note that the judge applied criteria pertaining to "fair use", including the purpose of reuse, the nature of use, and the consequences of use. Regarding the nature of use, the judge comments, "in this case, the photo contained in the 'Folklore Heritage' postcard issued by the advertising company is a full-body frontal photo of the sculpture of the 'Ciqikou night watchman', which is featured prominently in the picture and is the main vehicle for the postcard to express the design theme of 'Folklore Heritage', so this kind of use is not incidental."
Regarding 2D works like outdoor paintings permanently installed in public spaces and murals, a recent court case by Beijing IP court (2020) gave a negative decision: "The Court believes that the general use of 2D art works by copyright owners is relatively simple, that is, copying works, creating derivative works on the basis of the original works for commercial use or authorizing others to do so. If a 2D art work is displayed in a public place, others can freely use it for commercial purposes after photographing, drawing or copying, the licensing and copyright owner's income will be seriously threatened, then the normal use of the work will be affected and the legitimate rights and interests enjoyed by the copyright owner will be prejudiced."

Colombia[edit]

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

No information available

Congo (Democratic Republic of the)[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
Democratic Republic of the Congo#Freedom of panorama

Not OK: According to the 1986 copyright law,

The reproduction of an architectural work by means of photography, cinematography, television or any other similar procedure, as well as the publication of the corresponding photographs in newspapers, journals and school textbooks, shall be lawful and may not give rise to payment of copyright.^{[86-033/1986 Article 28]}
The reproduction in a film or television program of figurative works of art that are permanently located in a public place or included in the film or program in a way that is incidental to the main subject, shall not require authorization from the author.^{[86-033/1986 Article 29]}

Neither is free enough for Wikimedia Commons.

Costa Rica[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
Costa Rica#Freedom of panorama

Not OK: Non-commercial use of public art and architecture only. ({{NoFoP-Costa Rica}}) According to Law Nº 6683 as amended up to 2021:

It is lawful to make photographic reproductions or other pictorial processes, when this reproduction is without commercial purpose, of statues, monuments and other works of art protected by copyright, acquired by the public authority, exhibited in the streets, gardens and museums.^{[6683/2021 Article 71]}

This non-commercial restriction is identical to the 2010 version of the law; in any case, image files of copyrighted Costa Rican architecture and public art are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons and must be nominated for deletion; such content does not conform to Commons:Licensing which requires commercial uses.

Original Spanish text:

Es lícita la reproducción fotográfica o por otros procesos pictóricos, cuando esta reproducción sea sin fines comerciales, de las estatuas, monumentos y otras obras de arte protegidas por derechos de autor, adquiridos por el poder público, expuestos en las calles, los jardines y los museos.

Croatia[edit]

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

OK. {{FoP-Croatia}}; in regard to architecture, for the exteriors only.

The Copyright and Related Rights Act amended up to 111/2021 allows 2D reproductions of permanently publicly displayed works, i. e. the full Freedom of Panorama:

It shall be permitted, without the right holder’s authorisation and without payment of remuneration, to reproduce, except in a three-dimensional form, the copyright works, which are permanently located on streets, squares, parks or other places available to the public, and to distribute and communicate to the public such reproductions.^{[111/2021 Article 204(1)]}
The limitation referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall apply only in respect of the outer appearance of an architectural structure.^{[111/2021 Article 204(2)]}

Cuba[edit]

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

No information available

Cyprus[edit]

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

OK {{FoP-Cyprus}}

The WIPO version of Copyright Laws 1976 to 1993, section 7(2)^[31], includes exception (c): "the reproduction and distribution of copies of any artistic work permanently situated in a place where it may be viewed by the public;"

Czech Republic[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
Czech Republic#Freedom of panorama

No information available

Denmark[edit]

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

OK for buildings only: {{FoP-Denmark}}
Not OK for any public art still in copyright: {{NoFoP-Denmark}} (category-only template)

Under the Consolidated Act No. 1144 of 23 October 2014,

Buildings may be freely reproduced in pictorial form and then made available to the public."^{[1144/2014 Art.24(3)]}
Works of art may be reproduced in pictorial form and then made available to the public if they are permanently situated in a public place or road. The provision of the first sentence shall not apply if the work of art is the chief motif and its reproduction is used for commercial purposes."^{[1144/2014 Art.24(2)]}

The famous statue of The Little Mermaid by sculptor Edvard Eriksen (1876–1959) is protected by copyright until 2029^[32], and pictures where it is the main motif cannot be used for commercial purposes.^[33]

Djibouti[edit]

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

No information available

Dominican Republic[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
Dominican Republic#Freedom of panorama

No information available

Ecuador[edit]

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

OK {{FoP-Ecuador}}

See Andean Community:Freedom of panorama.

According to Intellectual Property Law (Codification No. 2006-13), "Provided that fair use is respected and normal exploitation of the work is not adversely affected or injury caused to the right holder, exclusively the following acts ... shall be lawful: (f) the reproduction, communication and distribution of works that are permanently located in public places, by means of photography, painting, drawing or any audiovisual process, provided that the name of the author of the original work and the place where it is located are specified, and that the purpose is strictly to disseminate art, science and culture".^{[2006-13 Art.83(f)]}

Decision 351 of the Andean Community of Nations, which is binding on Ecuador, provides for freedom of panorama as follows: "Without prejudice to that put forth in the Chapter 5 and in the previous article, it will be legal to realize, without authorization from the author and without the payment of any remuneration, the following acts:...h) undertake the reproduction, transmission by broadcasting or cable distribution to the public of the image of an architectural work, work of fine art, photographic work or work of applied art located permanently in a place open to the public".^{[351/1993 Article 22(h)]}

Egypt[edit]

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

OK even for 2-D artworks. {{FoP-Egypt}}

According to Article 171 of Law No. 82 of 2002:

Without prejudice to the moral rights of the author, pursuant to the provisions of the law herein, the author may not prevent third parties, after the publication of his work, from undertaking any of the following acts: ...^{[82/2002 Article 171]}
Make a single copy of the work for one's exclusive personal use, provided that such a copy shall not hamper the normal exploitation of the work nor cause undue prejudice to the legitimate interests of the author or copyright holders;

However, the author or his successor may, after the publication of the work, prevent third parties from carrying out any of the following acts without his authorization:

Reproduction or copying works of fine, applied or plastic arts, unless they were displayed in a public place, or works of architecture; ...^{[82/2002 Article 171(2)]}

By expressly denying the copyright holder the ability to enforce his copyright on works "displayed in a public place, or works of architecture" freedom of panorama for these items is implied. "Applied art" means art incorporated into useful articles. Plastic arts are three dimensional artworks. Fine arts are painting, photography, and sculpture, so Egypt's FOP is relatively broad, covering everything except text.

El Salvador[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
El Salvador#Freedom of panorama

OK for exterior architecture and most types of public art. {{FoP-El Salvador}}

"The following shall be allowed without the consent of the author or remuneration: . . . the reproduction of a work of art on permanent display in a street, square or other public place in an artistic medium different from that used for the making of the original; with regard to buildings, this right shall be limited to the exterior façade".^{[2017 Article 45 (f)]}

Spanish text:

Respecto de las obras ya divulgadas lícitamente, es permitida sin autorización del autor ni remuneración: . . . La reproducción de una obra de arte expuesta permanentemente en las calles, plazas u otros lugares públicos, por medio de un arte diverso al empleado para la elaboración del original. Respecto de los edificios, dicha facultad se limita a la fachada exterior.

Estonia[edit]

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

Not OK, only non-commercial use allowed if the work is the main subject. {{NoFoP-Estonia}}

Under the Copyright Act of 11 November 1992 (consolidated text of February 1, 2017): It is permitted to reproduce works of architecture, works of visual art, works of applied art or photographic works which are permanently located in places open to the public, without the authorisation of the author and without payment of remuneration, by any means except for mechanical contact copying, and to communicate such reproductions of works to the public except if the work is the main subject of the reproduction and it is intended to be used for direct commercial purposes. If the work specified in this section carries the name of its author, it shall be indicated in communicating the reproduction to the public.^{[1992/2017 §20¹]}

An obviously unsuitable freedom of panorama for architecture exists, in which architecture can be freely used, but for purpose of "real estate advertisements" only.^{[1992/2017 §20²]}

Ethiopia[edit]

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

Not OK. {{NoFoP-Ethiopia}} Ethiopian law includes buildings and sculptures and fine arts works among the works subject to rights of copyright (Part 1 - article 3 : Scope of application ) and there is no "freedom of panorama" exception.

Note that due to lack of a copyright treaty, most works from Ethiopia are in the public domain in the United States and most other countries. However, files uploaded to Commons must also be free in the country of origin.

European Union[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
European Union#Freedom of panorama

There is a European Parliament directive on the harmonisation of the copyright law 2001/29/EC which asserts in article 5 section 3 letter h that the copyright law of the member states may restrict the copyright rights for sculptures and buildings exposed in public places:

"Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 in the following cases: (...) (h) use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places".^[34]

Finland[edit]

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

OK for buildings only {{FoP-Finland}}. Not OK for other works of art, including sculptures (non-commercial only).

Under the Copyright Act 404/1961, with amendments up to 608/2015,

A work of art may be reproduced in pictorial form ... if the work is permanently placed at, or in the immediate vicinity of, a public place. If the work of art is the leading motive of the picture, the picture may not be used for the purpose of gain. A picture having a material connection to the text may, however, be included in a newspaper or a periodical.^{[404/1961–2015 Sec.25a(3)]}^[35]
A building may be freely reproduced in pictorial form.^{[404/1961–2015 Sec.25a(4)]}

Buildings (works of architecture) are the only copyrighted works in public space from Finland that can be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Non-commercial licensing is not accepted on Commons as per Commons:Licensing (which is backed by the Definition of Free Cultural Works). Images of works of art permanently located in public places in Finland can only be used non-commercially or as illustrations to texts in newspapers and periodicals. Published works of art may also be used as illustrations to scientific texts or criticism, according to Article 25.

Former Soviet Union[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
Soviet Union#Freedom of panorama

Most of the successor nations of the Soviet Union have identical provisions on freedom of panorama and restrict it to non-commercial uses only. Refer to the pages describing the copyright rules for each member state for current rules.

France[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
France#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.^[36]^[37]

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:^[38]

"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.^[39]
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.^[40]
Works without a particular or original character, which are a trivial reproduction of building types largely found across the country, are not protected. (#13).^[41]
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.^[39]

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.^[42]

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.

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.

Gambia[edit]

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

Not OK The 2004 copyright act of Gambia does not contain any special provision in regard to the works displayed in public premises.

Georgia[edit]

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

No information available

Germany[edit]

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

OK {{FoP-Germany}}

General[edit]

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".^[43]

Section 59(1) applies to all types of works as long as they are reproduced by painting, drawing, photography, or cinematography.^[44] 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.^[45]

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[edit]

Despite the somewhat ambiguous wording, a work is located "in" a public place if it can be observed from a public place.^[46] 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.^[47] 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.^[48] 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.^[49] 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.^[50]

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.^[51] Based on the same reasoning, the Federal Court of Justice has held that aerial photography does not meet the requirements of § 59(1).^[52] (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.^[53] In a separate case, however, a higher regional court in 2023 squarely rejected that position.^[54] The court did allow an appeal, though, which as of November 2023 is pending before the Federal Court of Justice.^[55]) 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.^[56]

Whether a place is "public" for purposes of § 59(1) does not depend on whether it is public or private property.^[57] 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.^[58] 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.^[59] The status of atria and passages is controversial.^[60] 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.^[61] 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).^[62] 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).^[63]

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.^[64]

Permanent[edit]

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.^[65] 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".^[66] 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.^[67] 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.^[68] The same position is usually taken with respect to graffiti on exterior walls (which in all likelihood will be painted over sooner or later).^[69]

Works displayed in shop windows do not fall under § 59(1) due to a lack of permanent display.^[70] There is some controversy in the literature over the permanent nature of posters on advertising columns and similar structures.^[71]

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.^[72] 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".^[73] 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".^[74]

Additional requirement for architectural works[edit]

In the case of architectural works, the freedom of panorama provision is applicable only to the external appearance.^[75] Therefore, pictures of interior staircases and interior courtyards cannot be used under § 59(1) even if all of the above-described conditions are met.^[76]

Prohibition of alteration[edit]

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.^[77] 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.^[78] Modifications that directly result from the chosen method of reproduction are permitted.^[79] 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.^[80]

Acknowledgement of source[edit]

The source of the work must be clearly acknowledged.^[81] 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.^[82]

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,^[83] 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;^[84] 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);^[85] 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.^[86]

Ghana[edit]

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

Not OK. ({{NoFoP-Ghana}}) Article 19(1)(f) of the Copyrights Act, 2005 restricts freedom of panorama to cinema or television or in a broadcast by television.

Greece[edit]

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

Not OK {{NoFoP-Greece}}

Note: Please tag Greek no-FoP deletion requests: <noinclude>[[Category:Greek FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude>

Under Law No. 2121/1993 as amended up to Law 5043/2023:

The occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media of images of architectural works, fine art works, photographs or works of applied art, which are sited permanently in a public place, shall be permissible, without the consent of the author and without payment.
— ^{[2121/2023 Article 26]}

It remains unclear what exactly "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media" encompasses. Even if "communication by the mass media" is seen as an extension of mere "reproduction", the interpretation of "occasional" reproduction remain to be clarified by jurisdiction or an scholarly interpretation. See talk page for a discussion.

Copyright ends 70 years after the author's death. After that, the government might claim moral rights under certain conditions.^{[2121/2018 Article 29(2)]}

Guatemala[edit]

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

Not OK. Pictorial representations of public art and architecture are permitted for personal use only. Effectively disallows commercial uses, which Commons:Licensing requires.

Section 64 of Guatemala's copyright law as of 2006 says:

"With respect to already published works, is permitted, without the author's consent, besides what is set forth in article 32: [...]

d) The reproduction for personal use of a work of art permanently exhibited in public places or on the exterior façade of buildings, made by means of an art different from that used in the making of the original, provided that the name of the author, if known, the title of the work, if it has one, and the place it is located are indicated".^{[33-98/2006 Art.64(d)]}

Original language (Spanish) text:

ARTÍCULO 64. Respecto de las obras ya divulgadas también es permitida, sin autorización del autor, además de lo dispuesto en el artículo 32: [...]
d) La reproducción para uso personal de una obra de arte expuesta en forma permanente en lugares públicos o en la fachada exterior de edificios, ejecutada por medio de un arte que sea distinto al empleado para la elaboración del original, siempre que se indique el nombre del autor, si se conociere, así como el título de la obra, si lo tiene, y el lugar donde se encuentra.

See the discussions here and here for more information.

Guernsey[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
Bailiwick of Guernsey#Freedom of panorama

No information available

Guinea-Bissau[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
Guinea-Bissau#Freedom of panorama

OK: For 3D objects. The applicable law still is the colonial copyright law, which says "The reproduction and publication by the press, cinema, television or any other mean, of the image of works of architecture or any other kind of plastic arts already divulged by the author is free".^{[46.980/1972 Article 152]}

Haiti[edit]

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

Not OK - noncommercial only (but noncommercial licensing is not compatible to Commons:Licensing).
OK if the work is not the main subject (in other words, de minimis).

According to Article 15 on page 9 the Décret du 12 Octobre 2005 sur les Droits d'Auteur, a reproduction of an architectural work of art, a fine arts work, a photographic work of art or an applied arts work that is situated in permanence in a location open to the public is allowed, except if the work of art is the primary subject of said reproduction and said reproduction is used for commercial purposes.^{[2005 Article 15]}

Nonobstant les dispositions de l'article 7, il est permis, sans l'autorisation de l'auteur et sans paiement d'une rémunération, de reproduire, de radiodiffuser ou de communiquer par câble au public une image d'une oeuvre d'architecture, d'une oeuvre des beaux-arts, d'une oeuvre photographique et d'une oeuvre des arts appliqués qui est située en permanence dans un endroit ouvert au public, sauf si l'image de l'oeuvre est le sujet principal d'une teIle reproduction, radiodiffusion ou communication si elle est utilisée à des fins commerciales.
— in: 2005 Article 15

Notwithstanding the dispositions of article 7, it is permitted, without the authorisation of the author and without payment of a remuneration, to reproduce, broadcast over radio or communicate via cable to the public an image of an work of architectural art, a work of fine arts, a work of photographic art or a work of applied arts if it is situated in permanence in a location open to the public, except if the work of art is the primary subject of said image, radiodiffusion or communication if it is used for commercial purposes.
— Translation of Article 15

The "Article 7" being referenced is simply a list of a copyright holder's exclusive rights. It says that "With the exception of the dispositions of articles 8 to 19, the author of a work of art has the exclusive right to perform or authorize the following acts (...)".

Honduras[edit]

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

No information available

Hong Kong[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
Hong Kong#Freedom of panorama

No information available

Hungary[edit]

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

OK. {{FoP-Hungary}} Under the Act No. LXXVI of 1999, updated to 2019, if a fine art, architectural or applied art creation is erected with a permanent character outdoors in a public place, a view of it may be made and used without the authorization of the author and paying remuneration to them.^{[LXXVI/1999-2019 Art.68(1)]} Please note that – as determined in this deletion request – "fine art, architectural or applied art" does not include photographs, maps and text (e.g. content of informational boards) and thus FOP does not apply to them.

Iceland[edit]

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

No information available

India[edit]

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

OK. For 3D (architecture and sculptures) {{FoP-India}},
Not OK. For copyrighted 2D (paintings, drawings, maps, pictures, engravings, etc.)

Under the Copyright Act, 1957 (Act No. 14 of 1957, as amended up to Act No. 27 of 2012), the following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright:^{[1957-2012 Section 52]}

The making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a work of architecture or the display of a work of architecture;^{[1957-2012 Section 52(s)]}
The making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture, or other artistic work falling under sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of section 2, if such work is permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access;^{[1957-2012 Section 52(t)]}
Section 2(c)(iii) reads "any other work of artistic craftsmanship;".^{[1957-2012 Section 2(c)(iii)]} Paintings, drawings, or photographs fall under Section 2(c){i).^{[1957-2012 Section 2(c)(i)]}
The inclusion in a cinematograph film of (i) any artistic work permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access;^{[1957-2012 Section 52(u)]}

Case/s

The Daily Calendar Supplying ... vs The United Concern on 16 January, 1964, by J. Ramakrishnan (by Indian Kanoon)

Indian law is modelled on UK law, and in the scarcity of more specific case laws to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be similar. See COM:FOP United Kingdom for more details.

Indonesia[edit]

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

Not OK ({{NoFoP-Indonesia}}), with exception on educational purpose and non-commercial use. There is no usable provision under the Chapter VI ("Copyright Limitations", Articles 43–51) in the 2014 Copyright Law allowing unrestricted uses of images of copyrighted artistic works in public spaces for commercial purposes. Fair use-like provisions exist, such as use for educational and research purposes (Article 44.1), personal use (Article 46), and reporting of current events or short excerpts of the works by the broadcast media (Article 48.b).

This position was upheld by Creative Commons Indonesia in their November 2018 statement on freedom of panorama status in Indonesia.^[87]

Several users and contributors have claimed that freedom of panorama exists by virtue of Article 43(d). However, the 2018 statement of Creative Commons Indonesia asserts that this is a restrictive provision, in which every image showing copyrighted architecture and public art must bear a statement claiming that the use is not for profit. Otherwise, direct permission from the creator or copyright holder is totally required when the use involves commercial interest, to avoid acts of copyright infringement.^[87] The provision in question:

The production and distribution of the copyrighted content through information technology and communication media that are not commercial and/or lucrative for the Author or related parties, or the Author expresses no objection to the manufacture and dissemination in question.^{[28/2014 Article 43(d)]}

It should be noted that Commons:Licensing forbids fair use and non-commercial licensing, as these types of licenses prevent files from "being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose."

Throughout 2020-21, an extensive discussion, which does not reach any form of meaningful consensus, about the status of FoP in Indonesia can be found here and here.

Iran[edit]

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

Not OK There is no usable FoP provision in the copyright law of Iran. {{NoFoP-Iran}}

According to article 2 of copyright law of Iran (passed on January 1, 1970) architectural works, designs, sketches and buildings and sculptures of all types are protected by copyright law.

According to article 12 of copyright law of Iran, such works remain on protection for a period of 50 years (Reformation of article 12 - 22 August 2010) after the death of its author(s). Also according to article 13, copyright of the works which produced on order by an employer belongs to the employer for a period of thirty years from the date of production. In cases where the work belongs to a legal personality or rights are transferred to a legal personality, it will go into the public domain after 30 years from the date of publication or public presentation (Article 16).^[88]

Iraq[edit]

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

Not OK: Under the 2004 revision to Iraq's Copyright Law No. 3,

The protection shall include the works whose method of expression is in writing, sound, drawing, painting or movement, and in particular the following: ... Works entered under the arts of drawing and painting with lines and colors, engraving, sculpture and architecture.^{[83/2004 Art. 2(4)]}
Without the written permission of the author or his/her successors, no person shall do any of the following acts: ... Reproduce a work in any manner or form, whether transitory or permanent, including onto photographic (including cinematographic) film or onto a digital or electronic storage medium.^{[83/2004 Art. 8(1)]}

Ireland[edit]

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

OK for 3D works {{FoP-Ireland}}

OK for 2D "works of artistic craftsmanship" {{FoP-Ireland}}

Not OK for other types of artistic works

Under the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 (No. 28 of 2000), Section 93,

This section applies to the copyright in (a) buildings, and (b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, where permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.^{[28/2000 Sec.93(1)]}
The copyright in a work to which this section applies is not infringed by (a) making a painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart, plan, engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut, print or similar thing representing it, (b) making a photograph or film of it, or (c) broadcasting or including in a cable programme service, an image of it.^{[28/2000 Sec.93(2)]}
The copyright in a work to which this section applies is not infringed by the making available to the public of copies of anything the making of which is not, by virtue of this section, an infringement of the copyright in the work.^{[28/2000 Sec.93(3)]}

The Copyright and Related Rights (Amendment) Act 2004 clarified the position:

For the avoidance of doubt, no infringement of any right created by this Part in relation to an artistic or literary work occurs by reason of the placing on display the work, or a copy thereof, in a place or premises to which members of the public have access.^{[28/2000-2004 Sec.40(7(a))]} This does not, however, allow distribution of copies of artistic works.

Irish law is in this respect modeled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be identical. See COM:FOP UK for more details.

Israel[edit]

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

No information available

Italy[edit]

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

Pictures from public places don't formally enjoy any exception in Italian copyright law. Objects still under copyright only allow "quotation right" ^{[633/1941 art. 70]} and a minimal and never implemented "fair use" ^{[633/1941 art. 70 c. 1-bis]}.^[89] Some objects are even subject to additional non-copyright restrictions (see below).

Not OK {{NoFoP-Italy}}

According to the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/10#Italy FOP again and artwork copyrights supposedly held by city councils of Italy, buildings and monuments commissioned and paid for by the Italian state (including regions, cities etc.) are also official works (government works), and the copyright in these cases (20 years from publication) is held by the state or its respective subdivision. This interpretation is backed up by legal guides and verdicts by italian courts.^[90]

However, objects in public places can still be exempt from copyright for other reasons:

OK for objects that are not creative or artistic enough to be copyright-protected, see Threshold of originality ^{[42/2004 art. 11 c. 1e]}. Please use {{PD-structure|ITA}} or {{TOO-Italy}} in this case.
OK for objects where the copyright has expired, see General rules above.

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

Note: A de facto exception for works by deceased authors was discussed extensively. It was initially recognized by the Commons community in April 2021, but abandoned again a few months later after this clarifying discussion.

Additional restrictions for cultural heritage assets[edit]

In addition to copyright concerns, photos of any cultural heritage asset are generally subject to preemptive authorisation, a fee and other restriction due to the cultural heritage and landscape law^[91] which is a non-copyright restriction. The following are considered cultural heritage assets: state-owned things with some artistic, historic, archaeological or ethno-anthropological interest and libraries, galleries, museums and archives collections, unless explicitly removed on a case by case basis; other items declared cultural heritage by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities. The national catalogue of cultural heritage assets is not publicly accessible or does not exist yet. Any artwork or building should be assumed a cultural heritage asset if older than 50 years (or 70 years in some cases since 2017 ^{[42/2004 art. 11 c. 1d]}).

Simplifications were envisioned by law for certain kinds of reproductions ^{[42/2004 art. 108 c. 3-bis]} and collections ^{[36/2006 art. 7]} but are not fully implemented yet as of 2019.

For Wiki Loves Monuments participants, an agreement between the Ministry and Wikimedia has allowed in the past to publish certain photos of cultural heritage assets on Commons, provided that for the ministry-run monuments {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} is added to the respective file descriptions.

Ivory Coast[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
Ivory Coast#Freedom of panorama

Not OK, non-profit use of images of copyrighted public art and architecture only.

Note: please tag Ivorian no-FoP deletion requests: <noinclude>[[Category:Ivorian FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude>. Please also add {{NoFoP-Ivory Coast}} to images that incidentally show copyrighted public art and architecture.

Article 27 of the Law No. 2016-555 of July 26, 2016, on Copyright and Related Rights does not provide an acceptable freedom of panorama that can be used by Wikimedia Commons:

When the graphic, plastic, or architectural work of art has been disclosed, the author may not prohibit:
- the reproduction or representation, in whole or in part, by means of print, audiovisual or online media, for the exclusive purpose of immediate information and in direct relation with the latter, if the name of the author has been clearly mentioned;
- reproductions, in whole or in part, of works of graphic or plastic art intended to appear in the catalog of a judicial sale carried out in Côte d'Ivoire for the copies made available to the public before the sale for the sole purpose of describe the works of art offered for sale;
- the reproduction by audiovisual means and public communication by cable or by any other means, of graphic or plastic works of art, photographic works, and works of architecture permanently placed in a public place and their inclusion in the audiovisual work, when this reproduction is only accessory or incidental to the main subject.^{[2016-555 Article 27]}

The first provision only allows the use of copyrighted art and architecture for pure informational purposes only; the second only permits the use of artworks in catalogs of such during judicial or legal sales within the country; and the third only allows the incidental or accessory inclusion of public art and architecture in audiovisual or broadcasting media only.

The concluding provision of Article 27 further restricts free uses of such works:

Any exploitation for profit of the reproductions mentioned in this article is subject to prior authorization of the author.^{[2016-555 Article 27]}

Wikimedia Commons does not accept non-commercial licenses in accordance with Commons:Licensing and the Definition of Free Cultural Works which this repository strictly follows.

According to the Ivorian copyright law, Côte d'Ivoire has a copyright duration of 70 years after the death of the author (that is, the creator/designer of the copyrighted work in public space) or the last-surviving author (if the work was designed by two or more creators/designers). If anonymous, 70 years after the work was first made lawfully to the public; if collective, 70 years from publication. In any case, the involved copyrighted work of public art and/or architecture in public space becomes copyright free and enters the public domain, and deleted images can now be restored.^{[2016-555 Article 47–51]}

Jamaica[edit]

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

OK {{FoP-Jamaica}}

This section applies to buildings; sculptures, models of buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.^{[13/2015 Section 74(1)]}
The copyright in such a work is not infringed by making a graphic work representing it; making a photograph or film of it; or broadcasting or including in a cable programme service a visual image of it.^{[13/2015 Section 74(2)]}
The copyright of such a work is not infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of copyright.^{[13/2015 Section 74(3)]}

Japan[edit]

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

for artistic works: Not OK {{NoFoP-Japan}} except in cases governed by Article 46.
for buildings only: OK {{FoP-Japan}}

Note: Please tag Japanese no-FoP for public art deletion requests: <noinclude>[[Category:Japanese FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude>

The Copyright Act (Act No. 48 of May 6, 1970, as amended up to Act No. 35 of May 14, 2014), allows the reproduction of artistic works located permanently in open places accessible to the public, such as streets and parks, or at places easily seen by the public, such as the outer walls of buildings, only for non-commercial purposes. Therefore, such photographs are not free enough for Commons.

Architectural works (i.e., buildings) located in such places may be photographed and the photos may be reproduced for any purposes. §46(iv), which contains the "non-commercial" restriction, applies only to "artistic works".^{[1899-1931 Art. 46(iv)]} Some buildings like the Tower of the Sun can be regarded as artistic works per discussion.

Regarding buildings, a 2003 ruling by the Osaka District Court states that in order for a building to be copyrighted, it "must have creativity in aesthetic expression in light of the definition of works stipulated in Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the same Act." This means ordinary-looking buildings are not eligible for copyright protection as "architectural works".

For more information, refer to:

著作権法 – 建築に関する著作物について (Copyright Law – About Architectural Works), by 村田法律事務所 (Murata Law Office) (archived copy) — in Japanese

Note: According to Japanese copyright law, Japan has a copyright lifetime of 70 years after the death of the author (ie. creator/designer) or following "the death of the last surviving co-author in the case of a joint work." Henceforth, the author's works shall become copyright free and enter the public domain.^{[1899-1931 Art. 51]}

Jersey[edit]

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

OK {{FoP-Jersey}} for buildings, sculptures, works of artistic craftsmanship. Not OK for other types of artistic work

According to the Intellectual Property (Unregistered Rights) (Jersey) Law 2011, Section 90: Representation of certain artistic works on public display,

This Article applies to (a) buildings; and (b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.^{[2011 Section 90(1)]}
The copyright in such a work is not infringed by making a graphic work representing it; making a photograph or film of it; or making a broadcast of a visual image of it.^{[2011 Section 90(2)]}
Nor is the copyright infringed by anything done in relation to copies of, or the communication to the public of, anything whose making was, by virtue of this Article, not an infringement of the copyright.^{[2011 Section 90(3)]}

Jordan[edit]

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

Not OK. Copying is only allowed for private personal, and educational use.

Articles "(17): Use of Published Works" and "(20): Copy of Work without Author’s Consent" of The Copyright Law, No. (22) of 1992 of Jordan do not explicitly mention works of architecture, but they are defined in Article (3) as "Works Enjoying Copyright Protection." Protection also includes the title of the work, unless it's generic and is used to describe the subject of the work.

Kazakhstan[edit]

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

No information available

Kenya[edit]

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

OK {{FoP-Kenya}} Under The Copyright Act, 2001 (Chapter 130) (Revised Edition 2014), copyright on artistic works "does not include the right to control reproduction and distribution of copies, or the inclusion in a film or broadcast, of an artistic work situated in a place where it can be viewed by the public".^{[Cap 130 Rev 2014 Section 26(1b)]} Note that the definition of artistic works under Kenyan law includes paintings, drawings, sculptures, photographs, and architecture. Furthermore, unlike freedom of panorama exemptions in some other countries, in Kenya it is not restricted to only works permanently located in a public place, and can include works in private places if viewable by the public.

Korea (North)[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
North Korea#Freedom of panorama

OK: {{FoP-North Korea}}

Under the Copyright Law of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (as amended by Decree No. 1532 of February 1, 2006), A copyrighted work may be used without the permission ... when a copyrighted work in public places is copied.^{[1532/2006 Article 32.8]}

Korea (South)[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
South Korea#Freedom of panorama

Not OK, non-commercial only for artistic works, buildings, and photographs. {{NoFoP-South Korea}}

Note: Please tag South Korean no-FoP deletion requests: <noinclude>[[Category:South Korean FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude>
Under the Copyright Act (as amended up to Act No. 8101 of June 29, 2007),

Article 35 (Exhibition or Reproduction of Works of Art, etc.),

(1) The holder of the original of a work of art, architectural work or photographic work (hereinafter referred to as “work of art, etc.”), or a person who has obtained the holder’s consent, may exhibit the work in its original form: Provided, That where the work of art is to be permanently exhibited on the street, in the park, on the exterior of a building, or other places open to the public, the same shall not apply.

(2) Works of art, etc. exhibited at all times at an open place as referred to in the proviso to paragraph (1) may be reproduced and used by any means: Provided, That in any of the following cases, the same shall not apply:

Where a building is reproduced into another building;
Where a sculpture or painting is reproduced into another sculpture or painting;
Where the reproduction is made in order to exhibit permanently at an open place under the proviso to paragraph (1);
Where the reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies.

(3) A person who exhibits works of art, etc. pursuant to paragraph (1), or who intends to sell originals of works of art, etc., may reproduce and distribute them in a pamphlet for the purpose of explaining or introducing them.

(4) No portrait nor a similar photographic work produced by commission shall be used without the consent of the commissioner.

This permits any reproduction of works permanently installed in "open places", 35.(2).4 specifically states that the rule does not apply "where reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies." Reproduction is defined in Section 2.(22) as "...the fixation or the reproduction in a tangible medium by means of printing, photographing, copying, sound or visual recording, or other means." 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.^[92]

Exception

OK for non-building structures (such as bridges, dams, tunnels, etc.)

Non-building structures are not mentioned in Copyright Act Article 4, so they do not have a copyright in South Korea. Please use {{PD-structure|KOR}} or {{PD-SK-nonbuilding-structure}} for photos of South Korean non-building structures.

Kosovo[edit]

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

OK, {{FoP-Kosovo}}. The freedom of panorama provision of the previous law (Article 53 of Law No. 04/L-065), only permitted non-commercial uses of works found in public spaces.

The freedom of panorama provision of the new law (Law No. 08/L-205) is patterned after the European standards:

It shall be permitted without the consent of the author or other holder of copyright and without payment of remuneration:...use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places.^{[08/L-205 Art.49.1.12]}

Kyrgyzstan[edit]

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

Not OK: Non-commercial use only

Copyright does not prevent reporting of current events by means of photography, broadcasting or communication to the public by cable, with the works that are seen or heard in the course of such events, to the extent justified by the purpose of reproduction or communication of information.^{[2017 Article 19(5)]}
The law allows free use of works permanently located in public places by reproduction, broadcasting or cable communication to the public without the author's consent and without payment of royalties, including works of art, photography and architecture, except when the work is the main subject of the reproduction, broadcasting or cable communication to the public or the reproduction is used for commercial purposes.^{[2017 Article 21]}

Latvia[edit]

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

Not OK: {{NoFoP-Latvia}} Under the Copyright Law of 2000 (as amended up to June 14, 2017),

It is permitted to use images of works of architecture, photography, visual arts, design, as well as of applied arts, permanently displayed in public places, for personal use and as information in news broadcasts or reports of current events, or included in works for non-commercial purposes.^{[2000-2017 Sec.25(1)]}
That which is referred to in this Section shall not apply to cases when the image of a work is an object for further repetition of the work, for broadcast by broadcasting organisations or for the purpose of commercial use of the image of a work.^{[2000-2017 Sec.25(2)]}

The non-commercial use restriction is not acceptable for works uploaded to Commons.

Laos[edit]

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

Not OK. Law No. 38/NA of November 15, 2017, on Intellectual Property allows only incidental use:

"reproducing, by photography or cinematography, images of works of fine art, photographs, and other artistic works, and works of applied art, provided such works have already been published, publicly displayed, or communicated to the public, where such reproduction is incidental to the photographic or cinematographic work and is not the object of the photographic or cinematographic work."^{[38/NA/2017 Article 115.3]}
"For the purpose of reporting current events by means of photography, cinematography, broadcasting or communication to the public by wire, literary or artistic works seen or heard in the course of the event may, to the extent justified by the informatory purpose, be reproduced and made available to the public. The above acts shall not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and shall not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author."^{[38/NA/2017 Article 115]}

Lebanon[edit]

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

No information available

Libya[edit]

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

Not OK The Copyright Protection Law of Libya (Libyan Law No. (9) for 1968) does not have a suitable freedom of panorama provision for Wikimedia Commons.

A similar provision is found at Article(17)(b) but is restricted to limited educational uses in books: "The following shall be allowed in school books and in literature, history, science and art books:...(b) Copying published works on graphic art, sculpture and photography provided that copying shall be limited to the extent necessary to explain what is written."^{[9/1968 Article 17(b)]}

Liechtenstein[edit]

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

No information available

Lithuania[edit]

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

Not OK {{NoFoP-Lithuania}} Commercial use of reproductions of works of architecture or sculpture in public places is not allowed when the work is the main subject and it is used commercially. Under Law No. VIII-1185 of 1999, as amended up to Law No. XII-1183 of 2014, Article 28,

It shall be permitted to carry out the following acts without the authorisation of an author or any other owner of copyright and without a remuneration, as long as the source, including the author's name, is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible: to reproduce and make available to the public works of architecture and sculptures, made to be located permanently in public places, except for the cases where they are displayed in exhibitions and museums;^{[1999–2014 Art.28.1.1]}
The provisions of Art.28.1.1 shall not be applied when a work of architecture or a sculpture is the main subject of representation in the reproduction, and when this is done for direct or indirect commercial advantage.^{[1999–2014 Art.28.2]}

Luxembourg[edit]

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

No information available

North Macedonia[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
North Macedonia#Freedom of panorama

No information available

Madagascar[edit]

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

Not OK, noncommercial only and/or if the architecture or public art is not the main subject.

There is no Commons-usable freedom of panorama in Madagascar, as per Law No. 94-036 of 18 September 1995 on Literary and Artistic Property: "... it shall be permitted, without authorization from the author and without payment of remuneration, to reproduce, ... or to communicate by cable to the public an image of a work of architecture, a work of fine art, a photographic work and a work of applied art that is permanently located in a place open to the public, save where the image of the work is the main subject of this reproduction, broadcast or communication and where it is not used for commercial purposes".^{[94-036/1995 Article 48]}

Malaysia[edit]

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

OK {{FoP-Malaysia}}

According to Malaysian Copyright Act 1987, the right of control is excluded from "the reproduction and distribution of copies of any artistic work permanently situated in a place where it can be viewed by the public".^{[332/2006 Section 13(2)(d)]} Section 3 defines "artistic work" as any graphic work, photograph, sculpture, collage, and work of architecture or artistic craftsmanship. Layout-designs of integrated circuits are not artistic works.

For the meaning of the term works of artistic craftsmanship, see "United Kingdom – Freedom of panorama".

Mali[edit]

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

Not OK: for incidental use of images of public artistic works in audiovisual or broadcasting media only. Under the 2008 law, permitted uses are limited to:

Reproduction for the purpose of audiovisual creation or broadcasting and public communication of works of figurative and architectural art permanently placed in a public place and whose inclusion in the audiovisual work or broadcast is accessory or incidental to the main subject.^{[08-024/2008 Article 27(b)]}
Reproduction and communication of literary, artistic or scientific works that may be seen or heard on the occasion of reports of a news event by means of photography, cinematography or broadcasting.^{[08-024/2008 Article 27(c)]}

Malta[edit]

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

OK for buildings and sculptures. {{FoP-Malta}}

Malta's Copyright Act states that copyright "shall not include the right to authorise or prohibit (…) the inclusion in a communication to the public, the making of a graphic representation and the making of a photograph or film, of a work of architecture or sculpture or similar works made to be located permanently in public places."^{[415/2000-2011 Art. 9(1)(p)]}

Mauritius[edit]

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

Not OK. There is no exception for freedom of panorama for commercial purposes.

Mexico[edit]

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

OK For Government-owned places. Not OK For Private property.

Mexico's federal copyright law, Article 148, allows reproduction without compensation in certain circumstances:

Literary and artistic works that have already been disclosed may only be used in the following cases without the consent of the owner of the economic rights and without remuneration, provided that the normal exploitation of the work is not adversely affected thereby and provided also that the source is invariably mentioned and that no alteration is made to the work:"^{[1996-2018 Art.148]}
Reproduction, communication and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs and audiovisual processes of works that are visible from public places (lugares publicos).^{[1996-2018 Art.148(VII)]}

The term lugares publicos has been interpreted to include both interior and exterior public places. Government-owned places such as libraries, markets, parks and public gardens have no restrictions against freedom of panorama. However, due to the ambiguity of the article, on some occasions, some establishments like the Mexico City Metro (a government-owned system) have required users to request permission to film or photograph inside the facilities. The Federal Law of Telecom and Broadcasting also uses the term "public places". It defines public places as: "...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..." Public places under this law (page 7) would include:

Schools, Universities, and every kind of building used for education;
Clinics, Hospitals, and every kind of building used for health care;
Government offices of all types;
Community Centers;
Free admission and open places such as parks, green areas and sports centers
Places that collaborate in public federal programs.

Moldova[edit]

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

Under Law No. 230/2022 of 28.07.2022 on Copyright and Related Rights,

The reproduction, broadcasting, communication to the public and making available to the public of the following acts shall be permitted without the consent of the author or rightholder and without payment of any remuneration in the following cases:... h) use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, intended for permanent location in public places;^{[230/2022 Art.57(h)]}

Prior to July 2010, there were commercial restrictions on such works similar to those of the Soviet Union, but an amendment (part of Law No. 139 of 2010) removed that restriction.

Free reproduction of artistic works (including commercial purposes) is:

OK for architecture and sculptures made to be located permanently in public places; per article 57(h)
Not OK for sculptures not made to be located permanently in public places
Not OK for paintings, drawings, engravings or photographs.

Please use {{FoP-Moldova}} to tag images from Moldova which meet Freedom of Panorama conditions.

Mongolia[edit]

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

Not OK {{NoFoP-Mongolia}}. The Mongolian copyright law does not provide freedom of panorama. Instead, it only allows incidental inclusion of works in public spaces for reporting purposes. It also provides conditions that are similar to United States fair use conditions.

Under the Law of Mongolia on Copyright and Related Rights (as last amended on January 19, 2006),

It is allowed to publish works of architecture, fine arts and photography located in public places in order to show the surrounding areas of events while reporting the events to the public.^{[2006 Article 24.1.6]}
But the following conditions shall be considered in determining the circumstances provided in Section 24.1 of this law: To have a non-profit purpose; The extent of use and the importance of the used parts; The value of the work and the effect of the used part on the market.^{[2006 Article 24.2]}

Montenegro[edit]

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

Not OK Only non-commercial use is allowed. {{NoFoP-Montenegro}}

The Law on Amendments to the Law on Copyright and Related Rights (Official Gazette of Montenegro, No. 37/2011 and 53/2016) says,

Permission is granted without acquiring the appropriate property rights and without paying a fee, to use works that are permanently exposed in parks, streets, squares and other public places.^{[53/2016 Art.55(1)]} The works ... 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.^{[53/2016 Art.55(2)]}

Morocco[edit]

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

Not OK: non-commercial only if work is the main subject of the image: {{NoFoP-Morocco}}

"It shall be permitted, without the author’s authorization or payment of a fee, to republish, broadcast or communicate to the public by cable an image of a work of architecture, a work of fine art, a photographic work, or a work of applied art which is permanently located in a place open to the public, unless the image of the work is the main subject of such a reproduction, broadcast or communication and if it is used for commercial purposes".^{[1-05-192/2006 Art.20]}

Note: all images of works on Commons must be commercially usable; the exception only permits commercial use if the copyrighted work is not the main subject of the reproduction.

Mozambique[edit]

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

Not OK. for reproductions, broadcasts and cable communications to the public executed in the Republic of Mozambique (since 25 June 1975) There is only non-commercial freedom of panorama in Mozambique:

It is permitted, without authorization by the author or payment of any remuneration, to reproduce, broadcast or communicate by cable to the public the image of a work of architecture, three-dimensional art, photography or applied art that is permanently located in a place open to the public, except where the image of the work is the principal subject of such reproduction or broadcast or communication and is used for commercial purposes.^{[4/2001 Article 15]}
It is permitted ... to reproduce or make available to the public for the purposes of reporting current events by means of photography, cinematography or video, or by broadcasting or communication by cable to the public, to the extent justified by the informatory purpose, a work seen or heard during the said event.^{[4/2001 Article 14(b)]}

The 2001 copyright law of Mozambique appears to be retroactive. In case it is not, the applicable law would be the previous 1966 copyright law, which allows FOP (see below). Therefore, the status of reproductions, broadcasts and cable communications to the public executed before 28 May 2001 is undetermined.

OK for photos executed in the Portuguese territory of Mozambique (before 25 June 1975)

Mozambique was considered Portuguese territory before its independence in 25 June 1975, and current jurisprudence generally use Portuguese law to deal with actions executed in former Portuguese overseas territories before that date. Examples: 02S3074,JTRL00024225, JTRL00024030, 7189/2003-4, 0451/05. Related discussion here.

The applicable law was Decreto-Lei n.º 46980, de 27 de Abril de 1966 which allowed FOP:

The reproduction and publication by the press, cinema, television or any other mean, of the image of works of architecture or any other kind of plastic arts already divulged by the author is free.^{[46980/1966 Art.152]}

Current consensus on Wikimedia Commons holds that the pre-1975 actions that can be referred to in the context of freedom of panorama are the uses of the images, not the completions or public displays of the architecture or artistic works themselves. This means pre-1975 images of copyrighted Mozambican architecture and artistic works can be hosted here under commercial licenses, not post-1975 images of the same works. Related discussion here.

Myanmar[edit]

See Burma.

Namibia[edit]

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

Not OK The copyright in an artistic work shall not be infringed by its inclusion in a cinematograph film or television broadcast or its transmission in a diffusion service, if (a) such inclusion is merely by way of background to the principal matters represented in the film, broadcast or transmission or incidental thereto; (b) such work is permanently situated in a street, square or a similar public place.^{[6/1994 Section 18(1)]}

Nepal[edit]

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

No information available

Netherlands[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
Netherlands#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:^[93]

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.)^[94]

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.^[95]^[96] 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.^[97] 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.^[98]

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.^[99]^[100] 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.^[101] 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.^[96]

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.^[96] 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.^[101] 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.^[95]

New Zealand[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
New Zealand#Freedom of panorama

OK for 3D works {{FoP-New Zealand}}

OK for 2D "works of artistic craftsmanship" {{FoP-New Zealand}}

Not OK for 2D "graphic works". For image files such works, please file deletion requests and tag the resulting case pages with <noinclude>[[Category:New Zealand FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude>.

Under the Copyright Act 1994 as of December 2018, Section 73,

This section applies to the following works: (a) buildings (b) works (being sculptures, models for buildings, or works of artistic craftsmanship) that are permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.^{[1994-2018 Sec.73(1)]}
Copyright in a work to which this section applies is not infringed by (a) copying the work by making a graphic work representing it; or (b) copying the work by making a photograph or film of it; or (c) communicating to the public a visual image of the work.^{[1994-2018 Sec.73(21)]}
Copyright is not infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the communication to the public, of anything the making of which was, under this section, not an infringement of copyright.^{[1994-2018 Sec.73(3)]}

Copyright legislation in New Zealand also follows that of the United Kingdom. In the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be identical. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom for more details.

Real life New Zealander FOP cases[edit]

Murals by Xoë Hall

Artist Xoë Hall outraged over work featured on calendar's cover (by Charlotte Cook of Radio New Zealand, 30 December 2019)
Yes, street art is on public display - but that doesn’t mean we should share it without credit (by Mike Dickison and Bruce White of Stuff.co.nz, 10 July 2020)

Nicaragua[edit]

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

Not OK {{NoFoP-Nicaragua}} As per Nicaragua Law No. 577 on Amendments and Additions to Law No. 312 on Copyright and Related Rights, "Works located permanently in parks, streets, squares or other thoroughfares may be reproduced, without the author’s authorization, by means of painting, sketching, photographs and audiovisual recordings for personal use. In respect of works of architecture, the previous article shall only apply to their external aspect.^{[77/2006 Article 43]}

This article had previously read, "Works permanently located in parks, streets, squares or other public roads can be reproduced, without the author's authorization, by means of painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual recordings. As for architectural works, the previous article will only apply to its external appearance.^{[312/1999 Article 43]}

Nigeria[edit]

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

No information available

Norway[edit]

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

OK for buildings {{FoP-Norway}}. Not OK, non-commercial use only for other works like sculptures.

Under the Act No. 40 of June 15, 2018,

A work can be depicted when it is permanently placed on or near a public space or road or similar 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 depicted freely.^{[2018 §31]}

This seems to imply that photographs of artistic works in public places are allowed if the depiction of the works is de minimis.

Oman[edit]

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

No information available

Pakistan[edit]

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

No information available

Panama[edit]

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

OK; in regard to buildings, for the outer façade only. {{FoP-Panama}}

Under the Law No. 64 of October 10, 2012, reproduction, broadcasting or public transmission by cable of the image of an architectural work, of a work of the fine arts, of a photographic work or of a work of applied arts that is located permanently in a place open to the public is allowed. With buildings, this is limited to the exterior façade.^{[64/2012 Article 69(3)]}

Papua New Guinea[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
Papua New Guinea#Freedom of panorama

No information available

Paraguay[edit]

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

OK {{FoP-Paraguay}} The following is permitted without authorization by the author or payment of remuneration in relation to works already disclosed:

Reproduction of a work of art on permanent display in streets, squares or other public places, or on the outer walls of buildings, where the artistic medium used is different from that used for the making of the original, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work, if known, and the place in which it is located are mentioned.^{[1328/1998 Article 39.4]}
Where the work is used as a sign, emblem or distinctive mark of a political party or non-profit-making civil association or entity.^{[1328/1998 Article 39.7]}

"Reproductions admitted in this article will be permitted only if they do not cross the normal exploitation of the work or cause an unjustifiable damage to the legitimate interests of the author".^{[1328/1998 Article 39]}

Peru[edit]

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

OK {{FoP-Peru}} Based on the 1996 law,

The following shall be permitted without the author’s consent: ... the reproduction of a work of art on permanent display in a street, square or other public place, or that of the outer façade of a building, where it is done in an art form different from that used for the making of the original, provided that the name of the author, if known, the title of the work, if any, and the place in which it is located are specified.^{[822/1996 Art.43(e)]}
In all the cases specified in this Article, any use of works that competes with the author's exclusive right to exploit their work shall be equivalent to unlawful use.^{[822/1996 Art.43 (endnote)]} Outside the copyright law, is illegal use to take economic advantage for others or not to attribute the author of the work.^{[29263/2003 Art.1(218)]}

Notes:

Resolutions No 0372-2006-TPI-INDECOPI and 0760-2010-TPI-INDECOPI (El Comercio v APSAV) specifies the situations in which the work may be legitimately reproduced for acts of exhibition. A "public place" (like MVCS: "bien de dominio público", with exceptions for "dominio privado estatal", see Works by the Peruvian Government)^{[29151/1991, updated in D.S. 008-2021-VIVIENDA Art. 3.3.2]}^[102] is an internal or external location that is permanently available to the public including museums. The freedom of panorama applies even to artistic works: the "permanent" status is not lost to works that have been relocated from one public place to another public place or that are in the process of temporary closure for maintenance. The places declared as cultural heritage, even if they were abandoned or never discovered, are property of the Peruvian State and match the definitions previously mentioned.^{[28296/2008 Title I, Art. 2, 5 and 11]}
Previously, the 1961 law allowed the freedom of panorama for artistic and architectural works, regardless of their legal validity, in public places. There is no mention if the work must be "permanently accessible".^{[13714/1961 Art. 72 and 74]} During the government of Alberto Fujimori, the concept of "public spaces" expands in heavy attended interiors from public institutions, free areas in private institutions and mass transport.^{[25357/1991 Art.2]} In the case of museums, the audiovisual reproduction in newspapers, television channels and movies of works acquired inside the place is also allowed. But, should be noted that these reproductions are "copies of a work" with name of its author, for the copyrighted work itself cannot be used for trade.^{[13714/1961 Art. 73]}
Copyright protection of architectural works expire 70 p.m.a of their original designer. However, for clarification, if the architectural work was inaugurated before 1960 and never attributed by any author, this lacks coverage by recent copyright laws to protect it because limitations from 1849 law that buildings are not designate as works of art.^{[13714/1961 Art. 7(ll) and 153]} The freedom of panorama is applied in Art. 37 and 38 of the Intellectual Property Code of the Peruvian Association of Architects with condition that "the works are open to the public", even indoors unless strictly reserved by their author.^[103]

Philippines[edit]

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

Not OK for majority of the works of art. {{NoFoP-Philippines}} Note: Please tag Philippine no-FoP deletion requests: <noinclude>[[Category:Philippine FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude>

There is no provision in any of the exceptions listed under Chapter VIII ("Limitations on copyright") of the IP Code of the Philippines (Act No. 8293) (2015 Edition) allowing images of copyrighted architectural and artistic works to be made and/or distributed for commercial purposes, such as post cards, stamps, calendars, advertising materials, and T-shirt printing.^{[8293/2015 Chapter VIII Section 184–190]}

According to the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines, street art is "qualifiable for copyright protection" per the copyright law. Accordingly, the artists "enjoy economic rights, which involves generation of profit from others' use, reproduction, or any transformation of their work for commercial purposes. Another right enjoyed by a copyright holder are moral rights or the rights of an author to proper attribution, to make any alterations on his or her works, to withhold or deny publication, and to object to any modifications or mutilation to his or her work."^[104]

Section 184 of Chapter VIII provides the following acts as not constituting copyright infringement:^{[8293/2015 Chapter VIII Section 184.1]}

(d) The reproduction and communication to the public of literary, scientific or artistic works as part of reports of current events by means of photography, cinematography or broadcasting to the extent necessary for the purpose; (Sec. 12, P.D. No. 49)
(e) The inclusion of a work in a publication, broadcast, or other communication to the public, sound recording or film, if such inclusion is made by way of illustration for teaching purposes and is compatible with fair use: Provided, That the source and of the name of the author, if appearing in the work, are mentioned.

None of these provisions are strictly free enough for Wikimedia Commons. In particular, fair use is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons, and licensing limited to noncommercial uses is not allowed either.

Recent developments

See meta:Pilipinas Panorama Community/Freedom of Panorama#Recent developments for the recent developments concerning the attempt to introduce freedom of panorama in the country.

Public domain exceptions for FoP-reliant works[edit]

OK: Buildings completed prior to November 14, 1972: {{PD-Philippines-FoP work}}. The previous copyright laws, the Spanish Law on Intellectual Property (1879)^[105] and Act No. 3134 (1924, which followed the U.S. copyright law),^[106] did not protect buildings. On November 14, 1972, Presidential Decree No. 49 took effect which formally protected works of architecture and made works copyright-protected upon creation, removing copyright registration formalities.^[107] See also the following discussions: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/08#Philippine buildings before 1972 and Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew.

OK: Artistic works (e.g. sculptures) made before 1972 that were not registered, and artistic works made before 1942 that were once registered but not renewed: {{PD-Philippines-FoP work}}. Act No. 3134, the then-prevailing copyright law,^[106] required registration and a notice for a work to be copyright-protected. Such requirements were removed by Presidential Decree No. 49 s. 1972. Works were considered not protected by copyright unless these were registered, and the term of copyright was 30 years from the date of registration. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bonifacio National Monument (Caloocan City)#Files in Category:Bonifacio National Monument (Caloocan City) 2.

OK: literary texts on commemorative markers from the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) and its predecessors: {{WorkDepicted-PD-PhilippinesGov}}. See also this deletion request.

General copyright term for all architectural and artistic works: Copyright protection expires 50 years after the death of the original or last-surviving author (whether the architect, sculptor, painter, or other artist). On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 51st 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 Philippine freedom of panorama is no longer relevant here since the author's works are now copyright free.

Poland[edit]

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

OK. {{FoP-Poland}} (exterior only)

The copyright act from February 4, 1994 in article 33 point 1 allows one to propagate works that are permanently exhibited on the publicly accessible roads, streets, squares or gardens provided that the propagation is not for the same use. The name of the creator and source should be provided if it is possible by article 34. This use is royalty free, provided that it does not harm the legitimate interests of the creator by article 34.

Portugal[edit]

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

No information available

Qatar[edit]

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

No information available

Romania[edit]

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

Not OK, non-commercial only. Under Law No. 8 of March 14, 1996 on Copyright and Neighboring Rights,

The following uses of a work already disclosed to the public shall be permitted without the author’s consent and without payment of remuneration, provided that such uses conform to proper practice, are not at variance with the normal exploitation of the work and are not prejudicial to the author or to the owners of the exploitation rights:^{[8/1996 Art.33(1)]}
... the reproduction, to the exclusion of any means involving direct contact with the work, distribution or communication to the public of the image of an architectural work, work of plastic art, photographic work or work of applied art permanently located in a public place, except where the image of the work is the main subject of such reproduction, distribution or communication, and if it is used for commercial purposes;^{[8/1996 Art.33(1)(f)]}

Wikimedia Commons does not allow content that is restricted to non-commercial uses only, see Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses for more information.

Note

"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."

Russia[edit]

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

OK for buildings: {{FoP-Russia}}
OK for works of garden design: {{FoP-Russia}}
Not OK for artwork, including sculptures: {{NoFoP-Russia}}

Article 1276 of Part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation states:^[108]

Free Use of Work Permanently Situated in Places Open for Free Attendance
1. It is allowed without the consent of the author or other right holder and without paying a fee to reproduce and distribute produced copies, to transmit on air or through a cable, to bring to public knowledge works of fine arts or photographic works which are permanently located in a public place, except if the image of the work is the main object of use or the image of a work is used for the purpose of deriving profit.
2. It is allowed to freely use by way of reproduction and distribution of produced copies, transmission on air or through a cable, bringing to public knowledge in the form of images the works of architecture, town-planning and landscape arts located in a public place or visible from that place.

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.^[109]

Concerning non-architectural artwork, there is still a copyright exception for non-commercial use, but non-commercial use only is not allowed on Commons and unfortunately, we don't have sufficient number of court decisions to clarify the situation.

An important court decision states that the copying of a showcase photo is not a creation of a 3D-object in 2 dimensions. See discussion at Commons:Форум/Архив/2010#Судебное решение о фотографиях трёхмерных объектов.
A recent court case (2019–21) regarding a Yekaterinburg sculpture used commercially by a postcard company concluded in the Supreme Court, which overturned the decisions of the lower courts and returned the case to the court of first instance that denied the sculptor's copyright infringement claim. The latter court ruled that the monument was only reproduced in one of the postcards in a set, making it not the main subject of the entire postcard set.^[110]

Before January 1 2008, freedom of panorama was regulated by the similar (but not the same) article 21 of Copyright Law of Russia.^[111]

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, 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."

It is not clear if copyrighted buildings in Crimea are subject to the Russian or the more restrictive Ukrainian law. Following the Commons precautionary principle, images of knowingly unfree Crimean buildings should not be uploaded to Commons. See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/09#Buildings_in_Crimea. Nevertheless, photographic work created in Crimea before February 19, 1954 is the subject of the Russian law.

Saudi Arabia[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
Saudi Arabia#Freedom of panorama

Not OK {{NoFoP-Saudi Arabia}}

The Copyright Law detailed in the Royal Decree No. M/41, 2 Rajab, 1424 (30.08.2003) and the Implementing Regulations contain no mention of freedom of panorama permitting commercial uses of photographs of architecture and public art still under their designers' copyrights.

Even taking pictures of sites not covered by copyrights may be challenged, and photographers operating in Saudi Arabia have found it useful to carry a copy of a decree allowing taking pictures from public places. For purposes of Wikimedia Commons, such restrictions are non-copyright restrictions and image files that may show restricted sites can be kept, unless these show a recent work by architects or sculptors who are not yet dead for more than 50 years.^[112]^[113]^[114]

Note: "Copyright protection expires 50 years after the death of the original author (who may be the architect, sculptor, or muralist) of a public artistic work of Saudi Arabia. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 51st Year), freely-licensed images of the author's sculptures, buildings, murals, or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for sovereign states with no formal FOP legal rights since the author's works are now copyright free."

Senegal[edit]

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

Not OK {{NoFoP-Senegal}}. Senegalese freedom of panorama is only valid for non-commercial use of images of artistic works in public spaces. However, non-commercial licensing is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Nevertheless, it should be fine if the copyrighted artistic work is not the main subject of the image.

The author may not prohibit the reproduction or communication of a graphic or three dimensional work that is permanently located in a place open to the public, unless the image of the work is the main subject of such reproduction, broadcast or communication and is used for commercial purposes.^{[2008-09 Article 46]}

Serbia[edit]

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

No information available

Seychelles[edit]

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

Not OK for depictions (like photos and videos) of artistic works published on Wikimedia Commons on or after August 1, 2014. {{NoFoP-Seychelles}}
OK for depictions of artistic works published on Wikimedia Commons until July 31, 2014. {{FoP-Seychelles}}

The Seychelles Copyright Act of 1991 sets forth that "4. The reproduction, distribution of copies or inclusion in a film or broadcast of an artistic work permanently on view to the public" are "acts not controlled by copyright." (Schedule 1; Sections 10, 11 12 (sic) and 13).

There is no comparable provision in the 2014 act, as well as the original 1991 term seems removed by this revision. The 2014 act took effect on August 1, 2014. However, a transitional clause exists at 38(2)(b): "the licences or authorisation granted under the repealed Act shall continue to operate as licences or authorisation, as the case may be, for the purposes of this Act, until the expiration or revocation of such licence or authorisation." This indicates the freedom of panorama licence granted by the old copyright act is still in effect for representations made before the aforementioned date, and images that were uploaded on Wikimedia Commons before the aforementioned date are still permitted.

Recent discussion/s: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/09#Clarification on Seychellois FOP.

Singapore[edit]

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

No information available

Slovakia[edit]

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

OK {{FoP-Slovakia}} Under Act No. 185/2015 Coll. as amended by Act No. 125/2016 Coll,

Copyright is not infringed by a person who without authorisation of its author uses the work permanently situated in public places by making copies, communication to the public or public distribution by transfer of title.^{[125/2016 Section 41(1)]}
The above does not apply to making a copy of architectural work by means of building.^{[125/2016 Section 41(2)]}

Slovenia[edit]

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

Not OK Use: {{NoFoP-Slovenia}}. Only non-commercial use allowed. Under the Consolidated Copyright Act as of 2016,

Works permanently placed in parks, streets, squares or other public places, may be used freely.^{[12/2016 Art.55(1)]}
The preceding paragraph does not apply to three-dimensional copies made for the same purpose as the original work, or copies made for profit.^{[12/2016 Art.55(2)]}
The copy should state the source and authorship of the work, if indicated on the work.^{[12/2016 Art.55(3)]}

OK for all works whose creators died or published them anonymously or pseudonymously (and have remained anonymous or pseudonymous) in 1953 or earlier.^[115]

Another exception is photographs of photographic and similarly-made works in a public space, and photographs of the works of applied art, which are acceptable for Commons if the original (non-derivative) work was published in 1969 or earlier. The copyright on these works lasted for 25 years from publication per the 1978 Yugoslav copyright act.^{[1978 Art.84]}

In addition to copyright, the usage of the reproductions of "cultural monuments" for commercial purposes^[116] is restricted by the Slovenian Cultural Heritage Protection Act, which requires consensus of the owner of the monument for any use of the image and name of the monument (Article 44). The definition of a cultural monument is the following (Article 3): heritage that has been statutorily protected as a monument or entered in the inventory of an authorised museum. For immovable cultural heritage, the national catalog is publicly accessible at gisportal.gov.si.^[117] Wikimedia Commons is not required to comply with the Slovenian Cultural Heritage Protection Act because it is hosted in the United States of America. Users who are citizens of Slovenia are warned that they are solely responsible for any possible violation of local laws.

South Africa[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
South Africa#Freedom of panorama

No information available

Spain[edit]

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

Unsure

{{FoP-Spain}} Under the the 1996 Intellectual Property Law as amended up to 14 April 2018,

Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public tracks and passes may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes.^{[1/1996-2018 Article 35(2)]}

In 1998, Article 40bis was non retroactively introduced in the law, limiting this exception:

The above may not be so interpreted that they could be applied in a manner capable of unreasonably prejudicing the legitimate interests of the author or adversely affecting the normal exploitation of the works to which they refer.^{[1/1996-2018 Article 40bis]}

After the introduction of Article 40bis, some Spanish courts have ruled against commercial use of some works situated in public spaces, including Monumento a Los Raqueros and Toro de Osborne. However, in both cases the work had been extracted from its surrounding panorama, and commercialized in that form.^[118] In other cases, such as the verdict nº195/2014 from the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid,^[119] courts have ruled that works situated in "public areas" can be subject to the exception (that is, they have ruled in favor of freedom of panorama, at least for works situated in "public areas").^[120] According to further analysis, authorization from the copyright holder for commercial use of photographs and derivative and composed works of a copyrighted work, could possibly be necessary when the work is "located in a private property that is accessible to public view or that is not considered a public area".^[121]^[122] In the case of the Toro de Osborne, the court considered that only cultural uses were allowed by Article 35.2, excluding any kind of commercial use.^[123]

Toro de Osborne Case

By decision dated January 31, 2006, the Provincial Court of Seville considered that the commercial use of the figure or silhouette of the Toro de Osborne (originally conceived and designed as a trademarked logo in 1956) through items such as hats, t-shirts, keychains, stickers, postcards, ashtrays, tiles, ceramics, coasters, as well as scaled reproductions of the same, constitutes a criminal infringement of the copyright under Article 270 of the Penal Code, as it involves an "intent to obtain direct or indirect economic benefit" and is carried out "to the detriment of a third party." The Court interpreted the limitation of the panorama exception provided in Article 35(2) of the Intellectual Property Law (LPI) in accordance with the provisions of Article 40 bis of the LPI, stating that: "only the exploitation of the same with a strict or predominantly cultural dimension has been allowed, and any use of the same without its consent (from the owner) that exceeds the aforementioned purpose must be understood as unauthorized.".^[122]

Raqueros Case

By decision dated April 5, 2006, the Provincial Court of Cantabria, decided that a sculptural ensemble known as the "Grupo de Raqueros", permanently installed in a public thoroughfare (Paseo Marítimo), commissioned by the Government of Cantabria or by the Santander City Council, is reproduced in an acrylic based material, intended for public sale as tourist souvenirs. According to the decision, the author keeps the exploitation rights over it, and the Provincial Court of Cantabria ordered some of the defendants to compensate the author for moral and economic damages, due to the distribution of unauthorized reproductions.^[122]^[124]

Refer to this discussion for more information. Spanish Wikimedian MarcoAurelio provides an insight on the situation of the Spanish freedom of panorama.

Sri Lanka[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
Sri Lanka#Freedom of panorama

No information available

Sudan[edit]

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

Not OK Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Protection Act 1996, article 14 covers restrictions on copyright, i.e. cases where copyright protection does not apply. It states that "newspapers, magazines, periodicals, radio and television may: ... (c) publish or convey any photograph taken on the occasion of a public event or a photograph concerning an official or famous person; in all such cases the title of the work reproduced and the name of its author shall be mentioned." However, this does not allow other uses of photographs, e.g. for outdoor advertising, so would not be acceptable for Commons.

Sweden[edit]

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

Public art[edit]

Unsure but in accordance with Wikimedia Foundation's 2017 statement,

OK and do not delete photos based only on the court ruling — On 4 April 2016, the Supreme Court of Sweden ruled, that Article 24 does not extend to publication by [Wikimedia Sweden] in their online repository offentligkonst.se, regardless of commercial intent.^[125]^[126] See also: {{FoP-Sweden}}

Under Act 1960:729 with consolidated amendments up to Act (2017:323) Article 24, the first paragraph of which ('works of art...') was ruled not to apply to online publication:

23. Bestämmelsen i 24 § första stycket 1 upphovsrättslagen, där inskränkningen i upphovsmannens ensamrätt är begränsad till avbildningar, ger inte Wikimedia rätt att från sin databas med fotografier av konstverk, stadigvarande placerade på eller vid allmän plats utomhus, överföra verken via internet till allmänheten. Huruvida förfogandet sker i kommersiellt syfte saknar betydelse. De hänskjutna frågorna ska besvaras i enlighet med detta.
— Point 23 of the ruling of the Swedish Supreme Court.

Translation:

23. The provision in § 24, first paragraph, 1 of the Copyright Act, where the restriction on the author's exclusive right is limited to reproductions in pictorial form, does not give Wikimedia the right to transmit the works via the Internet to the public from its database of photographs of works of art, permanently placed in or at a public place outdoors. Whether the disposal is for commercial purposes is irrelevant.

The reason BUS chose to target the site "offentligkonst.se" and not Wikimedia Commons was (probably) the fact that it made an intrusion to a right previously negotiated between BUS and the municipalities of Sweden (owners of the public art). The supreme court also used the requisite of a database for the ruling, not the publication of the images by themselves.

21. ... Det handlar här om en avvägning i förhållande till det syfte som databasen ska tillgodose (se p. 1). Detta syfte ligger i och för sig inom ramen för vad som kan ses som ett allmänt intresse. En databas av nu aktuellt slag öppnar emellertid för en stor användning av upphovsrättsligt skyddade verk, utan att någon ersättning betalas till upphovsmännen. Det blir därmed fråga om en betydligt större inskränkning i deras ensamrätt än vad bestämmelsen syftar till.
— Point 21 of the ruling of the Swedish Supreme Court.

Translation:

21. ... This is a trade-off in relation to the purpose that the database is to serve (see p. 1). This purpose is in itself within the framework of what can be seen as a public interest. However, a database of the current type allows for a large use of copyrighted works, without any compensation being paid to the authors. It is thus a question of a much greater restriction on their exclusive right than what the provision aims at.

Before the ruling, it was widely believed that the exception in § 24 of the Swedish copyright law applied, permitting depiction of works of art. The exception reads as follows:

Works of fine art may be reproduced in pictorial form

if they are permanently located on, or at a public outdoor location,^{[729/1960-2017 §24.1]}
if the purpose is to advertise an exhibition and sale of works of art, but only to the extent necessary to promote the exhibition or sale,^{[729/1960-2017 §24.2]} or
if they are part of a collective work, in a catalog, but not in digital form.^{[729/1960-2017 §24.3]}

Buildings may be freely depicted.^{[729/1960-2017 §24.3]}

Bildkonst Upphovsrätt i Sverige (BUS, a collection society for visual arts), hold the position, that Article 24 does not apply to publication online. Others, such as the Swedish Wikimedia chapter, reject this position.

The Swedish Wikimedia chapter was sued in 2014 by BUS for alleged copyright violations of outdoor sculptures by providing a website that allows users to view locations of artwork on a map with links to photographs hosted on Wikimedia Commons.

On 4 April 2016, the Supreme Court of Sweden ruled that the first paragraph of Article 24 does not extend to publication in an online repository, regardless of commercial intent.^[125]^[126]

The implications of that ruling were discussed.

On 6 July 2017, the Patent and Market Court at Stockholm District Court said it thinks that the Article 24 does not give anyone the right to publish photographs of copyrighted public art on the Internet without the consent of the depicted work's author,^[127]^[128] and ordered the Swedish Wikimedia chapter to cease from further distribution, and to pay damages and court costs.^[129]^[127] The ruling was not appealed.

Following the WMF official statement on 9 August 2017^[130], it's strongly recommend not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged. If for some other reasons than FOP that the affected files must be nominated for deletion, a Swedish-speaking user must be participated in the related deletion request to explain so. See also: Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Swedish FOP?

Information boards and maps[edit]

Not OK Information boards and maps are considered works of literature and are not covered by Article 24.

Architecture[edit]

Unsure but in accordance with Wikimedia Foundation's 2017 statement, OK and do not delete photos based only on the court ruling. Architecture is covered in the second paragraph of Article 24:

Byggnader får fritt avbildas.

The paragraph was not discussed in the BUS vs WMSE case. However, WIPO gives a different perspective. Citing the BUS case, WIPO (2022, p. 20) states that "the Supreme Court of Sweden has held that Wikimedia required a license from the relevant right holder in order to lawfully display images of copyright-protected buildings."

Security[edit]

Swedish security law (2010:305) dictates, that it is illegal to depict certain sensitive locations in any form. However, this is a non-copyright restriction, and has not been upheld by the community as a limitation of copyrights as discussed on this page.

Switzerland[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
Switzerland#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[edit]

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.^[131]
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.^[132]

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.^[133]
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”.^[134] Commentators do not agree whether charging entrance fees also makes the place "not public" and therefore not subject to Article 27.^[135]
Following the majority view in the legal literature, freedom of panorama does not apply to interior spaces.^[136] Hence Article 27 cannot be invoked for depictions produced in the staircase or the rooms of a building.^[137] 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.^[138] However, definition problems remain, for instance, in the case of station halls or shopping arcades which, consequently, are assessed differently by commentators.^[139] It is generally held that the interior of a church cannot be depicted under Article 27.^[140]
Commons opinion is that stained glass windows should be considered part of interior spaces.^[141]

Permanently situated[edit]

A work is not “permanently situated” within the meaning of the law if it is only visible by accident (e.g. whilst being transported).^[142]
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.^[143]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.^[144] Whether Christo’s “wrapped works” can be depicted under Art. 27 is controversial.^[145] Posters in public are not considered “permanently situated” by the literature.^[146]
Works whose lifetime is restricted by natural conditions, such as ice sculptures or chalk paintings on streets, are nevertheless considered permanent.^[147]

General[edit]

Applicability to all works: Article 27 applies to all categories of protected works.^[148]
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.^[149]

Syria[edit]

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

Not OK, {{NoFoP-Syria}}. Legislative Decree No. 62/2013 only allows broadcasting of images of works in public places.

Without the permission of the author and without making any compensation, the author may transfer works of fine arts or applied works, or plastic or architectural works to the public through the materials of the broadcasting stations if such works are permanently present in public places.^{[62/2013 Art. 39]}

Taiwan (Republic of China)[edit]

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

OK for buildings only {{FoP-Taiwan}}
Not OK for artistic works (sculptures, murals, and other non-architecture)

Article 58 of the "Copyright Act" states that:

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

Reproduction of a building by construction of another building.
Reproduction of a work of sculpture by production of another sculpture.
Reproduction for the purpose of long-term public display in locales specified in this article.
Reproduction of artistic works solely for the purpose of selling copies.

Reproductions of artistic works are thus only for non-commercial purposes; therefore, such photographs are not free enough for Commons: Not OK.

The Taiwan Intellectual Property Office upheld this exact and restrictive perspective on freedom of panorama in their two correspondences which are accessible online: Reply No.1111122 and Reply No.1111230. This not only replaces some inconsistent interpretations in the past which Wikimedia Commons accepted in 2018 (for 3D public art) and in 2020 (for 2D public art), but also reinstated the original standpoint of Wikimedia Commons regarding the Taiwanese freedom of panorama. A more recent correspondence from TIPO, Reply No.11260001910, reaffirms the prior replies and explicity states that the use of free Creative Commons licenses on photos of copyrighted public art (such as outdoor sculptures of Ju Ming and Hongtong village murals) as mandated by Wikimedia may result to copyright infringement as the licenses involve the use of those photos on post cards and other media in which the only purpose is to sell copies of the artistic work. TIPO suggested that the Creative Commons license terms should exclude "reproduction of artistic works solely for the purpose of selling copies of the said works."

Also, Article 64 states that:

Who uses other people's works according to Article 44 to 47, Article 48 to Article 50, Article 52, Article 53, Article 55, Article 57, Article 58, and Articles 60 to 63, shall clearly indicate their origin.
The source of the explicit source in the preceding paragraph shall be used in a reasonable manner except for those whose name is unknown or whose works are unknown.

See also these related discussions: in October 2021 and in January 2023 on Commons, and also an extensive discussion and debate over the matter in Chinese Wikipedia.

Architecture vs. artistic works

Reply No.11260001910 reaffirms the standards of what is an architectural work in Taiwan, citing Section 4 the Building Act. Accordingly, a building "refers to the structures or miscellaneous works fixed on the ground or under the ground surface, having top covers, beams, columns, or walls, and used for individuals or the public." According to TIPO, if a certain work belongs to the categories of both architectural works and artistic works, the said work is still subject to the non-commercial restrictions of Taiwanese freedom of panorama at Article 58, paragraph 4.

Tajikstan[edit]

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

Not OK. Under the the Law on Copyright and Related Rights (as amended up to 2009), only incidental and non-commercial use is allowed:

It is permitted without the consent of the author or other owner of the copyright rights and without payment of author's remuneration, to reproduce and broadcast by radio or cable for general information architecture works, photography and graphic arts which are permanently located in a public place, apart from cases where the work is the main subject, or where the image is used for commercial purposes.^{[2009 Article 21]}

Tanzania[edit]

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

Outside of Zanzibar: Not OK for photographs ("still images"), OK for audio-visual works ("moving images or videos", use {{FoP-Tanzania}} only for the latter purposes)
In Zanzibar: Not OK except for photographs of public "folklore"

According to article 12 (6) of the "Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act" (1999), reproduction of works of art and works of architecture is permitted in audio-visual and video recordings, if the work is permanently located in a place where it can be viewed by the public.

Per Part I, Preliminary provisions, ""audiovisual work" means a work that consists of a series of related images which impart the impression of motion, with or without accompanying sounds, susceptible of being made visible, and where accompanied by sounds, susceptible of being made audible."

Zanzibar, which is part of Tanzania, has a separate copyright law, the Zanzibar Copyright Act, 2003. It does not allow for a free reproduction of works in public premises, except for the works of folklore that are permanently located in a place visible by the public (Article 29-II). In this case, it may be reproduced in the form of a photograph, a film or a television broadcasting.

Thailand[edit]

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

OK {{FoP-Thailand}}

The Thai Copyright Act of B.E. 2537 (A.D. 1994) states that:

A drawing, painting, construction, engraving, moulding, carving, lithographing, photographing, cinematographing, video broadcasting or any similar act of an artistic work, except an architectural work, which is openly located in a public place shall not be deemed an infringement of copyright in the artistic work.^{[2537/1994 Sec.37]}
A drawing, painting, engraving, moulding, carving, lithographing, photographing, cinematographing or video broadcasting of an architectural work shall not be deemed an infringement of copyright in the architectural work.^{[2537/1994 Sec.38]}

For artistic works that are not situated in public spaces (not "openly located in a public place"), these can only be photographed freely if de minimis:

A photograph or cinematograph or video broadcast of a work of which an artistic work is a component shall not be deemed an infringement of copyright in the artistic work.^{[2537/1994 Sec.39]}
Note that artistic work as defined by Section 4 of the law does not include works of literature. On the other hand, architecture as defined in the same section includes "design of buildings or constructions, a design of interior or exterior decoration as well as a landscape design or a creation of a model of buildings or constructions." It can be interpreted that elegant bridges are works of architecture that fall under the freedom of panorama, through the element "constructions."

According to several Thai Wikimedians, the Thai text of Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994) gives a more comprehensive clause, containing permanence requirement. (Reference: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prince Dipangkorn Rasmijoti poster for mother's milk.jpg)

Trinidad and Tobago[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
Trinidad and Tobago#Freedom of panorama

No information available

Tunisia[edit]

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

OK {{FoP-Tunisia}}

Allowed uses without permission include "the reproduction or communication of a work of architecture or fine arts, or of a work of the applied arts or a photographic work, when it is located permanently in a public place, except for the museums, art galleries or any artistic heritage bequeathed by the former generations.^{[2009-33 Article 10(g)]}

Turkey[edit]

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

OK {{FoP-Turkey}} Under Law No. 5846 of December 5, 1951 (as amended up to decision no 2020/29 of Constitutional Court of Turkey on July 17, 2020),

Works of fine arts permanently placed on public streets, avenues or squares may be reproduced by drawings, graphics, photographs and the like, distributed, shown by projection in public premises or broadcast by radio or similar means. For architectural works, this freedom is only valid for the exterior form.^{[5846/1951 Article 40]}
Works of fine arts are the following works, which have aesthetic value: Oil paintings or water colors, all types of drawings, patterns, pastels, engravings, artistic scripts and gildings, works drawn or fixed on metal, stone, wood or other material by engraving, carving, ornamental inlay or similar methods, calligraphy, silk screen printing; Sculptures, reliefs and carvings; Architectural works; Handicraft and minor works of art, miniatures and works of ornamentation, textiles, fashion designs; Photographic works and slides; Graphic works; Cartoons; All kinds of personifications.^{[5846/1951 Article 4]}

Turkmenistan[edit]

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

No information available

Uganda[edit]

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

OK {{FoP-Uganda}}

According to the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006, a work of art or architecture may be used in a photograph, an audiovisual work or a television broadcast without infringing the author's copyright and without the author's consent where the work is permanently located in a public place; or is included in the background or is otherwise incidental to the main object in the photograph, audiovisual work or television broadcast.^{[2006 Section 15(1)(g)]}

"Public place" is defined under the law as "any building, or conveyance to which for the time being the public are entitled or permitted to have access, with or without payment which may include cinema, concert, dance or video halls, bars, clubs, sports grounds, holiday resorts, circuses, restaurants, counter vehicles, banks or other commercial establishments."^{[2006 Section 2(1)(g)]}

Ukraine[edit]

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

Not OK, non-profit use only. {{NoFoP-Ukraine}}

A freedom of panorama exception was added in the Law of Ukraine No. 2811-IX of December 1, 2022, on Copyright and Related Rights, under Article 22(10). It is now permissible "creation of images of works of architecture and fine arts permanently located in places accessible to the public on the street, provided that such actions do not have independent economic value."

The condition "provided that such actions do not have independent economic value" seems to imply that images of such works in public spaces should not be made for the purpose of making profit. Regardless of the clarity of the condition, it still does not fit the licensing requirements of Wikimedia Commons, which only allows content that is licensed for any uses, including commercial uses. Non-commercial content is not allowed. See also Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/05#NEW copyright law of Ukraine.

Before 2023, Law of Ukraine No. 3792-XII of December 23, 1993, on Copyright and Related Rights (with latest version from 2017) did not contain a freedom of panorama exception. It is claimed, though, that article 21(4) of the old law implied some kind of "freedom of panorama" (claim was repeated here):

...it shall be permitted without the consent of the author (or other copyright holder) and with mandatory indication of the author's name and of the source of borrowing: ... to reproduce, in order to highlight current events by means of photography or cinematography, to carry out public notification or other public communication of the works seen or heard in the course of such events to the extent justified by the informational purpose.^{[3792-XII/199-2017 Art.21(4)]}

This, however, is limited to "informational purposes" and to "current events". It is not general freedom of panorama but a "fair use"-like provision for news reporting.

Indeed, four separate court rulings during 2007–09 affirmed the lack of commercial freedom of panorama in Ukraine, all involving exploitations of Vasyl' Borodai's (1917–2010) 1982 sculpture Monument to the Founders of Kyiv by four different entities during late 1990s and early 2000s. According to Shtefan (2019), "all these cases went to trial and in each case the courts came to the conclusion that the author's rights were not respected." (article, page 23)

Note: 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 in Ukraine since the author's works are now in the public domain.

However, there's also a consensus that utilitarian buildings such as the New Safe Confinement (cf. a 2021 deletion request) are not considered copyrightable.

United Arab Emirates[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
United Arab Emirates#Freedom of panorama

Not OK {{NoFoP-UAE}}

Note: Please tag Emirati no-FoP deletion requests: <noinclude>[[Category:United Arab Emirates FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude>

There is no usable FoP provision in the copyright law of the UAE (Federal Law #1 of 1972, Federal Law #15 of 1980, Federal Law #40 of 1992, and Federal Law (32) 2006). UAE copyright law as of 2006 discusses an FoP like provision, but it is restricted to "broadcasts".

The author must not prohibit a third person from performing one of the following acts ... Presenting fine arts, applied and plastic arts or architectural works in broadcasting programmes, if such works are permanently present in public places.^{[7/2002 Article 22.7]}

See Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 6#Update: UAE FoP situation under dispute for a discussion on FoP in the UAE.

Note: "Copyright protection expires 50 years after the death of the original author (who may be the architect, sculptor, or muralist) of a public artistic work of the United Arab Emirates. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 51st Year), freely-licensed images of the author's sculptures, buildings, murals, or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for sovereign states with no formal FOP legal rights since the author's works are now copyright free."

United Kingdom[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
United Kingdom#Freedom of panorama

OK for 3D works

OK for 2D "works of artistic craftsmanship"

Not OK for 2D "graphic works" {{FoP-UK}}

Section 62 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is broader than the corresponding provisions in many other countries, and allows photographers to take pictures of

buildings, and
sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship (if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public).

without breaching copyright. Such photographs may be published in any way.

Note that under UK law, "works of artistic craftsmanship" are defined separately from "graphic works". Graphic works are defined in Section 4 as any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work. The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works - such as a mural or poster - even if they are permanently located in a public place. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder.

The courts have not established a consistent test for what is meant by a "work of artistic craftsmanship", but one of the standard reference works on copyright, Copinger and Skone James, suggests that for a work to be considered as such the creator must be both a craftsman and an artist.^[150] Evidence of the intentions of the maker are relevant, and according to the House of Lords case of Hensher v Restawile [1976] AC 64, it is "relevant and important, although not a paramount or leading consideration" if the creator had the conscious purpose of creating a work of art. It is not necessary for the work to be describable as 'fine art'.

In Hensher v Restawile, some examples were given of typical articles that might be considered works of artistic craftsmanship, including hand-painted tiles, stained glass, wrought iron gates, and the products of high-class printing, bookbinding, cutlery, needlework and cabinet-making.

Other works that have been held (by courts in common law jurisdictions outside the UK) to fall under this definition include hand-knitted woollen sweaters, fabric with a highly textured surface including 3D elements, a range of pottery and items of dinnerware. The cases are, respectively, Bonz v Cooke [1994] 3 NZLR 216 (New Zealand), Coogi Australia v Hydrosport (1988) 157 ALR 247 (Australia), Walter Enterprises v Kearns (Zimbabwe) noted at [1990] 4 EntLR E-61, and Commissioner of Taxation v Murray (1990) 92 ALR 671 (Australia).

The word "building" is quite broadly defined by section 4(2), and includes "any fixed structure, and a part of a building or fixed structure".

The practical effect of the broad Freedom of Panorama provisions in the UK and in other countries with similar laws is that it is acceptable to upload to Commons not only photographs of public buildings and sculptures but also works of artistic craftsmanship which are on permanent public display in museums, galleries and exhibitions which are open to the public. According to Copinger and Skone James, the expression "open to the public" presumably extends the section to premises to which the public are admitted only on licence or on payment.^[151] Again, this is broader than 'public place', which is the wording in many countries.

The Design and Artists Copyright Society and Artquest provide further information on freedom of panorama in the United Kingdom.^[152]^[153]

United States[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
United States#Freedom of panorama

OK for buildings only {{FoP-US}}

Buildings are works subject to copyright in the US according to 17 USC 102(a)(8) since the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act was passed in 1990. It applies to all buildings that were completed after December 1, 1990, even if begun before, or where the plans were published after that date.

However, the US federal copyright law explicitly exempts "pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations" of copyrighted buildings from the copyright of the building in 17 USC 120(a). Anyone may paint, draw, or photograph buildings from public places. This includes such interior public spaces as lobbies, auditoriums, etc. The creator holds the exclusive copyright to such an image (the architect or owner of the building has no say whatsoever), and may publish the image in any way. 17 USC 120 applies only to architectural works, not to other works of visual art, such as statues or sculptures.

This means that for buildings completed before December 1, 1990, there is complete FoP, without regard to whether the building is visible from a public place, because the building is public domain, except for the plans. For photos of such buildings, the license tag {{PD-US-architecture}} can be used (along with a license tag for the photo.) For buildings completed after December 1, 1990, freedom is given only to photograph such a building. This includes style elements such as gargoyles and pillars, which are protected only from three-dimensional reproduction (Leicester v. Warner Bros.).

Note that copyright applies only to "buildings".

"The term building means structures that are habitable by humans and intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and office buildings, and other permanent and stationary structures designed for human occupancy, including but not limited to churches, museums, gazebos, and garden pavilions."

All such works are copyrighted and, therefore, covered by the FOP exemption only if they are visible from a public place.

"Bridges, cloverleafs, dams, highways or walkways are not ‘buildings’ under the definition of architectural works."

In the US, such works do not have a copyright and therefore may be photographed freely, whether or not from a public place. For images of such works, {{PD-structure|USA}} can be used. They do have copyrights in many other countries.

Originality requirement for architecture[edit]

This discussion must be considered qualified by the requirement under US law that a work, including a derivative work, must display originality to be protectable under copyright law. See Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. in the English Wikipedia. More specifically, in the case of derivative works, it has been held, in Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp.^[154] and earlier in L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Snyder.^[155] that a derivative work must be original relative to the underlying work on which it is based. Otherwise, it cannot enjoy copyright protection and copying it will not infringe any copyright of the derivative work itself (although copying it may infringe the copyright, if any, of the underlying work on which the derivative work was based). For further discussion of this issue, see the Wikipedia article Derivative work.

For a legal discussion, see Wikilegal/Pictorial Representations Architectural Works.

Artworks and sculptures[edit]

Not OK. {{NoFoP-US}} (category-only template)

Note: Please tag United States no-FoP for public art deletion requests: <noinclude>[[Category:United States FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude>

For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, the US copyright law has no similar exception, and any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork. However, public artwork installed before 1929 is considered to be public domain, and can be photographed freely. In addition, any public artwork installed before 1978 without a copyright notice is also in the public domain (unless the copyright owner actively prevented anyone from copying or photographing the work until 1978). In these situations, document the date of installation and the creator (sculptor) of the pictured work as much as possible. (A good resource for finding information about US sculptures is the Smithsonian Art Inventories Catalog.)

Applicable templates:

For public artwork installed before 1929, use {{PD-US}} or {{PD-US-expired}}.
For public artwork installed between 1929 and 1977 inclusive, use {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}.

The line of argument that a large sculpture or memorial is a building and therefore covered by the FOP exemption was specifically rejected in Federal claims court (Gaylord v. The United States, 2008), which noted that the building exemption to the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (AWCPA) does not extend to "The Column" sculpture in the Korean War Veterans Memorial because "[t]he structures used in the definition of 'building' by the Copyright Office are intended to house individuals; either for the sake of providing shelter or for another purpose such as religious services."[3] While the court ruled in favor of the defendant under a fair use rationale it was later overturned in favor of the plaintiff; the photograph was deemed a derivative work. The court also contended that had Congress intended to extend the AWCPA to monuments and memorials, the law would have been drafted to reflect that in the first place.

For further legal discussion, see Wikilegal/Copyright of Images of Memorials in the US.

Examples[edit]

Charging Bull

Arts, Briefly; Sculptor Files Lawsuit Against Wal-Mart (September 23, 2006 article by New York Times)
Suit Alleges Illegal Use of 'Charging Bull' Image (September 22, 2006 article by Los Angeles Times)
Artist sues Random House in NYC over book cover (August 4, 2009 article by Auction Central News)

Cloud Gate

Kapoor v. NRA: A Fair Use Analysis (by Creative Law Center)

Korean War Veterans Memorial

Korea memorial sculptor wins copyright case (September 20, 2013 article by USA Today)
Gaylord v. United States, 595 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (by US Copyright Office)
FRANK GAYLORD v. UNITED STATES, No. 06-539C (by United States Court of Federal Claims)

Portlandia

So Sue Us – Why the Portlandia statue failed to become an icon (September 9, 2014 article by Willamette Week archived on November 27, 2022)

Statue of Liberty replica, New York-New York Hotel & Casino, Las Vegas

The United States v Davidson—Copyright infringement of a Replica Statue of Liberty. Copyright for creative copycats? (by Infusion Lawyers)
Judge Eric Bruggink's opinion (by United States Court of Federal Claims)

Three Servicemen or Three Soldiers

THE THREE SERVICEMAN STATUE USE REQUEST (by Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund)
Unusual Arrangement Gives Royalties to Sculptor of Vietnam Vets Statue (1987 article by The Associated Press)

For further information, refer to Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US and the following resources:

For foreign works considered under US law:[edit]

Use {{Not-free-US-FOP}}.

Foreign works from countries that have a relevant freedom of panorama may fall under US law for copyright issues within the US. Under the choice-of-law principle lex loci protectionis, US courts might apply US freedom of panorama standards in such cases, rather than the standards of the source country. However, in practice, it is unsettled whether and how this approach would be applied in real-world US legal cases involving freedom of panorama elements.

See {{Not-free-US-FOP}} and Commons:Requests for comment/Non-US Freedom of Panorama under US copyright law.

Uruguay[edit]

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

OK {{FoP-Uruguay}} Reproduction is not unlawful: ... The photographic reproduction of paintings, monuments, or allegorical figures exhibited in museums, parks or public promenades, provided that the works in question are considered to be outside the private domain.^{[18.046/2019 Article 45.8]}

Uruguayan freedom of panorama is applicable to images of copyrighted architecture, monuments, and public art found in public spaces as well as within museums, provided that the said works are dedicated for public view and not confined to a particular private owner ("dominio privado").

See also Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 7#Statues images for the discussion on the Uruguayan FoP.

Uzbekistan[edit]

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

Not OK: Only incidental reproduction for non-commercial purposes is allowed. The law allows without consent of the author or other legal owner, and without payment of remuneration the reproduction, on-air transmission or cable transmission of architectural works, photos, visual art works that are permanently located in a place open for free attendance. This rule does not extend to cases when the representation of work is the basic subject of such reproduction, on-air transmission or cable transmission, as well as in case, when the representation of work is used for commercial purpose.^{[LRU-476/2018 Article 28]}

Vatican City (Holy See)[edit]

Text transcluded from COM:CRT/
Vatican state#Freedom of panorama

No information available

Venezuela[edit]

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

No information available

Vietnam[edit]

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

Not OK: all uploaded photographs of architectural and artistic works in public spaces from Vietnam, uploaded on Wikimedia Commons from 1 January 2023 onwards. Law No. 07/2022/QH15 which considerably amended the copyright law was passed on 16 June 2022, with the amendments coming into effect on 1 January 2023 (ASEAN briefing article, the text of the law in Vietnamese). The amendment added a non-commercial restriction to the Vietnamese freedom of panorama, but non-commercial licenses are not acceptable on Wikimedia Commons: 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^{[07/2022 Article 25.1(h)]}.^[156] Decree No. 17/2023/ND-CP explained "works of art" are works which are expressed by lines, color, shapes, composition, including: Paintings (paintings of lacquer, oil paint, powder, water color, dó paper, and other materials); graphics (wood engravings, metal engravings, rubber engravings, plaster engravings, unique prints, rock prints, propaganda paintings, graphic design, and other materials); sculpture (statues, monuments, relief, memorials, symbolic blocks); installation arts and other forms of contemporary art^{[Decree No. 17/2023 Article 6.7]}.^[157] Works of art, sculpture, installation art, and other forms of contemporary art exist as unique copies; works of graphic art can be depicted to the 50th iteration which must be numbered and signed by the authors^{[Decree No. 17/2023 Article 6.7]}.^[157] "Works of applied art" are works expressed by lines, color, shapes, and compositions with useful functions, potentially associated with a useful item, and manufactured manually or industrially and include: Graphic design (presentation of product logos, identity, and packaging; presentation of characters); fashion design; aesthetic design associated with forming products; aesthetic interior design, interior and exterior decoration^{[Decree No. 17/2023 Article 6.8]}.^[157] Works of applied art are expressed by aesthetic shaping of products, cannot be easily created by persons with average understanding in respective field, and do not require aesthetic exterior in order to function^{[Decree No. 17/2023 Article 6.8]}.^[157] Applicable template: {{NoFoP-Vietnam}}

Note, valid from 1 January 2023 onwards: "Copyright protection expires 50 years after the death of the original author (who may be the architect, sculptor, or artist of applied art) of a public artistic work of Vietnam. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 51st Year), freely-licensed images of the author's sculptures, buildings, applied arts, or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of commercial Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for sovereign states with no formal FOP legal rights since the author's works are now copyright free."

OK: photographs and television broadcasts of plastic arts (sculptures, ceramics etc.), architecture, photographs, applied arts (pottery, furniture etc.) displayed at public places, uploaded on Wikimedia Commons until 31 December 2022. The new amendments are not retroactive. Applicable template: {{FoP-Vietnam}}

Examples of "plastic art" are finearts, graphic arts, sculpture, installation arts and similar forms of presentation, which are available in unique copies. Particularly, a work of graphic art may be presented in as many as 50 copies which are ordinarily numbered and bear the author’s signature.^{[Decree No. 22/2018 Article 13.1]} Examples of "applied art" are graphic designs (expression of logo, identification system and packaging labels), fashion designs, product designs, interior design and decoration.^{[Decree No. 22/2018 Article 13.2]} Under Law No. 50/2005/QH11 of November 29, 2005 amended by Law No. 36/2009/QH12 of June 19, 2009, "Use of published works in which permission and payment of royalties or remunerations are not required includes ... Photographing or televising of plastic art, architectural, photographic, applied-art works displayed at public places for the purpose of presenting images of these works."^{[36/2009 Article 25.1(h)]}

See Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/10#Updated copyright law of Vietnam and no more FOP? for more information on newly-restricted freedom of panorama in Vietnam. See also this discussion on Vietnamese Wikipedia.

Zambia[edit]

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

Not OK: {{NoFoP-Zambia}}

Artistic works are objects of copyright according to section 8 of the Copyright and Performance Rights Act, 1994. An artistic work is defined under section 2, and includes paintings, drawings and engravings (a); works of sculpture (c); works of architecture (d); and photographs (e). Exclusive right of the copyright owner over these works is guaranteed at section 17.

Section 21(h) of the law provides an exception for "incidental inclusion of a work in an artistic work, audiovisual work, broadcast or cable program," but no freedom of panorama.

References[edit]

↑ Emery, Miguel Angel (1999) Propiedad Intelectual (4^th ed.), Astrea Editors, p. 40
↑ (2007) 232 CLR 336 ('Burge')
↑ ^a ^b Pila, Justine (2008). "Works of Artistic Craftsmanship in the High Court of Australia: the exception as paradigm copyright Work". Federal Law Review 36 (3): 363–379. DOI:10.22145/flr.36.3.4. ISSN 0067205X.
↑ Street Art & Copyright. Australian Copyright Council.
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named News20160512
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named legislativeproposal
↑ Marcelo Frullani Lopes (23 August 2014). Representação do Cristo Redentor em filme não pode ser vetada (in Portuguese). "apesar de a área ser de propriedade privada, o acesso público ao local não é restrito. Não se pode ignorar, também, que o Cristo Redentor integra a paisagem do Rio de Janeiro. Por esse ponto de vista, o local em que a obra se encontra deve ser considerado logradouro público para fins de aplicação desse dispositivo."
↑ Superior Tribunal de Justiça STJ - RECURSO ESPECIAL : REsp 1438343 MS 2013/0095665-3 - Inteiro Teor (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
↑ RECURSO ESPECIAL Nº 951.521 - MA (2007/0103380-7) (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
↑ Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo TJ-SP - Apelação : APL 10052213320138260020 SP 1005221-33.2013.8.26.0020 - Inteiro Teor (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
↑ Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo TJ-SP - Apelação : APL 10052213320138260020 SP 1005221-33.2013.8.26.0020 - Inteiro Teor (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
↑ Página 775 da Judicial - 1ª Instância - Capital do Diário de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo (DJSP) de 29 de Maio de 2017 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
↑ Superior Tribunal de Justiça STJ - RECURSO ESPECIAL : REsp 1438343 MS 2013/0095665-3 - Inteiro Teor (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
↑ Superior Tribunal de Justiça STJ - RECURSO ESPECIAL : REsp 951521 MA 2007/0103380-7 - Inteiro Teor (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
↑ Página 545 da Judicial - 1ª Instância - Capital do Diário de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo (DJSP) de 29 de Janeiro de 2016 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
↑ Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo TJ-SP - Embargos de Declaração : ED 10016691920158260011 SP 1001669-19.2015.8.26.0011 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
↑ 1007409-55.2015.8.26.0011 Camila Pavanelli e outro v. Lew’lara/TBWA Publicidade Propaganda Ltda. e outros (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
↑ Superior Tribunal de Justiça STJ - RECURSO ESPECIAL : REsp 951521 MA 2007/0103380-7 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
↑ Superior Tribunal de Justiça STJ - RECURSO ESPECIAL : REsp 1438343 MS 2013/0095665-3 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
↑ Uso de casa para publicidade deve ter consentimento de proprietário e arquiteto (in Portuguese) (8 December 2016). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
↑ Superior Tribunal de Justiça STJ - RECURSO ESPECIAL : REsp 951521 MA 2007/0103380-7 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
↑ Samory Santos Advocacia e Consultoria. Doutor, violaram meus Direitos Autorais, e agora? (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
↑ Superior Tribunal de Justiça STJ - EMBARGOS DE DECLARAÇÃO NO RECURSO ESPECIAL : EDcl no REsp 1562617 SP 2015/0250795-0 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
↑ Marcelo Frullani Lopes (1 March 2017). O STJ e a questão da proteção autoral de obras arquitetônicas (footnote 3) (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
↑ Uso de casa para publicidade deve ter consentimento de proprietário e arquiteto (in Portuguese) (8 December 2016). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
↑ Página 2657 do Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) de 30 de Novembro de 2016 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12. "A hipótese, todavia, não é de mera representação a paisagem, em que inserida a obra arquitetônica, mas sim de representação unicamente da obra arquitetônica, com a finalidade lucrativa."
↑ Página 545 da Judicial - 1ª Instância - Capital do Diário de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo (DJSP) de 29 de Janeiro de 2016 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
↑ Andamento do Processo n. 1008991-90.2015.8.26.0011 - Procedimento Ordinário - Direito Autoral - 01/09/2015 do TJSP (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.
↑ Página 203 da II - Judicial - 2ª Instância do Diário de Justiça do Rio de Janeiro (DJRJ) de 29 de Junho de 2018 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12. "Acórdão claro com relação à aplicação do artigo 48 da Lei nº 9.610/98 em sua literalidade, o qual autoriza a livre representação de obras situadas permanentemente em logradouros públicos, não se exigindo a manutenção do contexto paisagístico."
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Law2020
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Section
↑ Strid mellem dagblad og arvinger til Den lille havfrue er slut: 'Afgørelsen er utrolig vigtig', Danmarks Radio
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Kehlet2007
↑ Freedom Of Panorama. European Parliamentary Research Service (2016). Retrieved on 2019-01-28.
↑ Tekijänoikeuslaki 25 a § (14.10.2005/821) (in Finnish). finlex. Retrieved on 2019-05-25.
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Manara2016
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Rees2016
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Buren2001
↑ ^a ^b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Verbrugge2011
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Franck2008
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Etendueetlimites
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Jactrow2010
↑ Note that in the English translation of the UrhG provided by the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (accessed 18 August 2019), § 59(1) UrhG is incorrectly translated (the means adjunct in the first sentence is missing).
↑ G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 8.
↑ See T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 2; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 18.
↑ Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [22].
↑ Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [22]; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 19.
↑ See Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [35]; Bundesgerichtshof 5 June 2003, case I ZR 192/00 Hundertwasser-Haus, (2003) 105 GRUR 1035, 1037.
↑ Bundesgerichtshof 5 June 2003, case I ZR 192/00 Hundertwasser-Haus, (2003) 105 GRUR 1035, 1037.
↑ Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [37].
↑ Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [35]; see also CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 140ff.
↑ Bundesgerichtshof 5 June 2003, case I ZR 192/00 Hundertwasser-Haus, (2003) 105 GRUR 1035, 1037. See also H Schack, Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht (10th edn, Mohr Siebeck 2021) para 609; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 22. Cf Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [35] (photographs created through use of a ladder not covered by the freedom of panorama).
↑ Landgericht Frankfurt am Main 25 November 2020, case 2-06 O 136/20, (2021) 25 ZUM-RD 155 = openJur 2021, 5952.
↑ Oberlandesgericht Hamm 27 April 2023, case I-4 U 247/21 Drohnenaufnahmen, (2023) 125 GRUR 1018 = openJur 2023, 5924.
↑ Docket No. I ZR 67/23.
↑ See C Czychowski, "§ 59" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 7; G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 6; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 22; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 142ff. Contra T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 4. See the Wikipedia article in German for additional references.
↑ Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [23]; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 19. See also Landgericht Frankenthal 9 November 2004, case 6 O 209/04 Grassofa, (2005) 107 GRUR 577, 577 (holding that a freely accessible park owned by a charitable foundation is public).
↑ M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 20. But see Bundesgerichtshof 17 December 2010, case V ZR 45/10 Preußische Gärten und Parkanlagen, (2011) 64 NJW 749, 751 (affirming the higher regional court's holding to deny freedom of panorama on the grounds that the "de facto free access to the park is based on a decision by plaintiff [...] which they may change at anspany time"), widely criticised, see inter alia H Schack (2011) 66 JZ 371 (note), 376.
↑ C Czychowski, "§ 59" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 7; G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 6; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 20; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 137; S Ernst, "Zur Panoramafreiheit des Urheberrechts" (1998) 42 ZUM 475, 476. Contra S Lüft, "§ 59" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2022) para 3; EI Obergfell, "§ 59" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 3.
↑ In favour of applicability of freedom of panorama: T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 3; EI Obergfell, "§ 59" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 3; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 135f. Opposed: C Czychowski, "§ 59" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 7. See the Wikipedia article in German for additional references.
↑ T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 3; R Kirchmaier, "§ 59" in E-J Mestmäcker and E Schulze (eds), Urheberrecht (Luchterhand R 55 2011) para 9; EI Obergfell, "§ 59" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 3; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 20. See also Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [33] ("The fact that the ship may at times not be located in publicly accessible places [...] does not preclude the application of § 59(1)").
↑ C Czychowski, "§ 59" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 6 ("private property that has constant public exposure but is not freely accessible due to fencing and entry controls"); S Lüft, "§ 59" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2022) para 3 ("private property that is not freely accessible due to fences and controls"); EI Obergfell, "§ 59" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 3 ("fencing, access control, and similar"); M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 20 ("private property with access control").
↑ G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 6; R Kirchmaier, "§ 59" in E-J Mestmäcker and E Schulze (eds), Urheberrecht (Luchterhand R 55 2011) para 9; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 17; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 133. See also the official motives accompanying the draft bill proposing the UrhG, Bundestag Printed Paper IV/270 of 23 March 1962, p 76 (stating that "the artwork permanently exhibited in public museums" shall not be privileged for it is "not to the same degree dedicated to the public as the works erected in public squares"). Cf Oberlandesgericht Köln 5 May 2000, case 6 U 21/00 Gies-Adler, (2000) [53] NJW 2212, 2213 (denying freedom of panorama for photographs of a work of art inside the former house of parliament on the grounds that it is not located in a public street, way, or public open space).
↑ Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [24].
↑ Bundesgerichtshof 24 January 2002, case I ZR 102/99 Verhüllter Reichstag, 150 BGHZ 6, 10f.
↑ Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [32]. It is readily apparent that the actual duration of the presentation does not matter: If, say, a fountain is inadvertedly destroyed two days following its construction, this does not affect the applicability of § 59(1) in respect of the pictures created during the two days of its existence. See M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) paras 26, 28; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 149.
↑ Landgericht Frankenthal 9 November 2004, case 6 O 209/04 Grassofa, (2005) 107 GRUR 577, 577.
↑ C Czychowski, "§ 59" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 8; G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 17; H Schack, Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht (10th edn, Mohr Siebeck 2021) para 610. Contra T Koch, "Von dreidimensionalen Vervielfältigungen und schwimmenden Kunstwerken – Die Panoramafreiheit in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs" in Hans-Jürgen Ahrens and others (eds), Festschrift für Wolfgang Büscher (Heymanns 2018) 205. See the Wikipedia article in German for additional references.
↑ T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 5; G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 17; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 27; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 154f.
↑ T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 5; G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 18; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 27; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 169.
↑ In favour: T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 5; G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 17; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 27 (departing from the view expressed in the previous edition); CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 170. Contra S Ernst, "Zur Panoramafreiheit des Urheberrechts" (1998) 42 ZUM 475, 477. See the Wikipedia article in German for additional references.
↑ Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [32].
↑ Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [33].
↑ Not entirely clear from Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [29] on account of the discussion taking place in relation to the "public" requirement, but see the various notes on the judgement, eg T Koch, "Von dreidimensionalen Vervielfältigungen und schwimmenden Kunstwerken – Die Panoramafreiheit in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs" in H-J Ahrens and others (eds), Festschrift für Wolfgang Büscher (Heymanns 2018) 204; M Stieper, "Die Freiheit des Straßenbildes im Urheber- und Designrecht – Anmerkung zu BGH ZUM 2017, 766 – AIDA-Kussmund" (2017) 61 ZUM 770 [771]; D Ettig (2017) 63 WRP 955 (note) para 13.
↑ Section 59(1), 2nd sentence.
↑ T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 8.
↑ Landgericht Mannheim 14 February 1997, case 7 S 4/96 Freiburger Holbein-Pferd, (1997) 99 GRUR 364, 366.
↑ Oberlandesgericht Köln 9 March 2012, case 6 U 193/11 Liebe deine Stadt, (2012) 16 ZUM-RD 593, 595.
↑ Section 62(3) so provides for artistic works and photographic works. In the literature, this is extended to architectural works. See T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 11; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 33; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 207.
↑ Bundesgerichtshof 19 January 2017, case I ZR 242/15 East Side Gallery, (2017) 119 GRUR 390 [41], [43]. But see M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 11 (arguing that in certain cases the partial reproduction may not comply with the three-step test pursuant to art 5(5) of the Information Society Directive (2001/29/EC), art 10(2) of the WCT, and art 13 of the TRIPS Agreement).
↑ Section 63.
↑ W Bullinger, "§ 63" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2022) paras 11f; A Dustmann, "§ 63" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 6. Cf Oberlandesgericht Brandenburg 15 October 1996, case 6 U 177/96 Stimme Brecht, (1997) 50 NJW 1162, 1163 (in the context of the quotation limitation, which is also subject to § 63).
↑ See eg T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 12; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 34; R Kirchmaier, "§ 59" in E-J Mestmäcker and E Schulze (eds), Urheberrecht (Luchterhand R 55 2011) para 7.
↑ T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 12.
↑ G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 20.
↑ H-P Götting, "§ 31" in U Loewenheim (ed), Handbuch des Urheberrechts (3rd edn, Beck 2021) para 44.
↑ ^a ^b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named CCIDNFoP
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Law1970fa
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named 70c1bis
↑ See Lorenzo Passeri. Il diritto d’autore nell’attività di progettazione (in it) 24. Centro Studi Consiglio Nazionale Ingegneri., Deliberazione n. 253 del 21/06/2001 - rif. US (in it)., Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la regione Siciliana 06/03/1998 n. 131 (in it).
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Normattiva
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Jin-wonChoe
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Art18
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named kamerstuk_28_482_8
↑ ^a ^b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named kamerstuk_28_482_5
↑ ^a ^b ^c Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named spoor_et_al
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named AU5454
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named AT4169
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named kammerstuk_28_482_3
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named de_zwaan
↑ ^a ^b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Engelfriet
↑ Decreto Supremo que aprueba el Reglamento de la Ley Nº 29151, Ley General del Sistema Nacional de Bienes Estatales (in Spanish). El Peruano.
↑ Código del derecho de propiedad intelectual de los arquitectos. Colegio de Arquitectos de Perú (2003).
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named ipophilstreetart
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named SpanishLaw1879
↑ ^a ^b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Act3134
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named PD49
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named CodeIV-1276
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named CCAmend2014
↑ Фирма, связанная с Никитой Михалковым, проиграла суд за права на памятник Татищеву и де Геннину. 66.ru (2021-08-26).
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named WS199353511
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named PhotoDecreAr
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named PhotoDecreEn
↑ Commons:Village pump/Archive/2012/09#Photography in Saudi Arabia
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Dlib2010-09-29
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Matejčič2003
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named RKD
↑ Laukamp, Luis Castellví (2010-01-01). Arquitectura de autor: un análisis de ciertos problemas suscitados en torno a la obra arquitectónica y la propiedad intelectual. Pe. i. revista de propiedad intelec. Retrieved on 2024-03-25.
↑ SAP Madrid 195-2014, 16 de Junio de 2014 (in es). vLex. Retrieved on 2024-03-25.
↑ Cabedo Serna, Llanos (2022-12-22). Difusión cultural y explotación comercial de imágenes de obras arquitectónicas y plásticas: la excepción «libertad de panorama» a examen. Journal of Cultural and Creative Industries 1–19. Retrieved on 2024-03-25.
↑ Fernando Bondía Román, Los derechos sobre las fotografías y sus limitaciones, Anuario de derecho civil, ISSN 0210-301X, Vol. 59, Nº 3, 2006, p. 1111
↑ ^a ^b ^c Isabel Hernando Collazos, La excepción panorama y el uso comercial de las manifestaciones secundarias de las obras de arte - aproximación desde la Ley española de Derechos de Autor, RIIPAC: Revista sobre Patrimonio Cultural, ISSN-e 2255-1565, Nº. 10, 2018, págs. 1-53
↑ M. Teresa Castiñeira Palou, «El denominado toro de Osborne. Comentario a la SAP Sevilla, Penal, Sec. 1ª, de 31.1.2006 (MP: P. Izquierdo Martín)», InDret 3.2006M.
↑ Francisco Fernández Beltrán and Glòria Pérez-Salmerón, El copyright en cuestión. Diálogos sobre propiedad intelectual, Publisher: Universidad de Deusto, Editor: José-Antonio Gómez-Hernández, Javier Torres-Ripa ISBN: 978-84-9830-301-8, 2011
↑ ^a ^b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Sverigeblog
↑ ^a ^b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Ö849-15
↑ ^a ^b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named PMT8448-14
↑ wikisource:sv:Sida:2016-04-04_Ö_849-15_Beslut.pdf/10
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Westman
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named WMF-BUS
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access05
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access10
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access15
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access20
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access25
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access30
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access35
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access40
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access45
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access50
↑ https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=678860856#Swiss_FoP_and_stained_glass_windows_-_outdoor_vs._indoor_views
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named perm10
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named perm20
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named perm30
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named perm40
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named perm50
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named perm60
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Rehbinder-Haas-Uhlig
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Macciacchini-Oertli
↑ Copinger and Skone James on Copyright (18th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2021) vol 1, para 3-155.
↑ Copinger and Skone James on Copyright (18th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2021) vol 1, para 9-289.
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named DACSfactsheet
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Artquest
↑ 630 F.2d 905 (2d Cir, 1980), available at http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/551553 and http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/630/905/238194/
↑ 536 F.2d 486 (2d Cir.) (en banc), available at http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/554959 and http://www.coolcopyright.com/cases/fulltext/batlinsnydertext.htm
↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Law2022
↑ ^a ^b ^c ^d Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Decree2023

[Angel1999-1] Emery, Miguel Angel (1999) Propiedad Intelectual (4^th ed.), Astrea Editors, p. 40

[2] (2007) 232 CLR 336 ('Burge')

[pila-3] Pila, Justine (2008). "Works of Artistic Craftsmanship in the High Court of Australia: the exception as paradigm copyright Work". Federal Law Review 36 (3): 363–379. DOI:10.22145/flr.36.3.4. ISSN 0067205X.

[4] Street Art & Copyright. Australian Copyright Council.

[News20160512-5] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named News20160512

[legislativeproposal-6] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named legislativeproposal

[7] Marcelo Frullani Lopes (23 August 2014). Representação do Cristo Redentor em filme não pode ser vetada (in Portuguese). "apesar de a área ser de propriedade privada, o acesso público ao local não é restrito. Não se pode ignorar, também, que o Cristo Redentor integra a paisagem do Rio de Janeiro. Por esse ponto de vista, o local em que a obra se encontra deve ser considerado logradouro público para fins de aplicação desse dispositivo."

[8] Superior Tribunal de Justiça STJ - RECURSO ESPECIAL : REsp 1438343 MS 2013/0095665-3 - Inteiro Teor (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.

[9] RECURSO ESPECIAL Nº 951.521 - MA (2007/0103380-7) (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.

[10] Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo TJ-SP - Apelação : APL 10052213320138260020 SP 1005221-33.2013.8.26.0020 - Inteiro Teor (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.

[11] Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo TJ-SP - Apelação : APL 10052213320138260020 SP 1005221-33.2013.8.26.0020 - Inteiro Teor (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.

[12] Página 775 da Judicial - 1ª Instância - Capital do Diário de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo (DJSP) de 29 de Maio de 2017 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.

[13] Superior Tribunal de Justiça STJ - RECURSO ESPECIAL : REsp 1438343 MS 2013/0095665-3 - Inteiro Teor (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.

[14] Superior Tribunal de Justiça STJ - RECURSO ESPECIAL : REsp 951521 MA 2007/0103380-7 - Inteiro Teor (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.

[15] Página 545 da Judicial - 1ª Instância - Capital do Diário de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo (DJSP) de 29 de Janeiro de 2016 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.

[16] Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo TJ-SP - Embargos de Declaração : ED 10016691920158260011 SP 1001669-19.2015.8.26.0011 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.

[17] 1007409-55.2015.8.26.0011 Camila Pavanelli e outro v. Lew’lara/TBWA Publicidade Propaganda Ltda. e outros (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.

[18] Superior Tribunal de Justiça STJ - RECURSO ESPECIAL : REsp 951521 MA 2007/0103380-7 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.

[19] Superior Tribunal de Justiça STJ - RECURSO ESPECIAL : REsp 1438343 MS 2013/0095665-3 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.

[20] Uso de casa para publicidade deve ter consentimento de proprietário e arquiteto (in Portuguese) (8 December 2016). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.

[21] Superior Tribunal de Justiça STJ - RECURSO ESPECIAL : REsp 951521 MA 2007/0103380-7 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.

[22] Samory Santos Advocacia e Consultoria. Doutor, violaram meus Direitos Autorais, e agora? (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.

[23] Superior Tribunal de Justiça STJ - EMBARGOS DE DECLARAÇÃO NO RECURSO ESPECIAL : EDcl no REsp 1562617 SP 2015/0250795-0 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.

[24] Marcelo Frullani Lopes (1 March 2017). O STJ e a questão da proteção autoral de obras arquitetônicas (footnote 3) (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.

[25] Uso de casa para publicidade deve ter consentimento de proprietário e arquiteto (in Portuguese) (8 December 2016). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.

[26] Página 2657 do Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) de 30 de Novembro de 2016 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12. "A hipótese, todavia, não é de mera representação a paisagem, em que inserida a obra arquitetônica, mas sim de representação unicamente da obra arquitetônica, com a finalidade lucrativa."

[27] Página 545 da Judicial - 1ª Instância - Capital do Diário de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo (DJSP) de 29 de Janeiro de 2016 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.

[28] Andamento do Processo n. 1008991-90.2015.8.26.0011 - Procedimento Ordinário - Direito Autoral - 01/09/2015 do TJSP (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12.

[29] Página 203 da II - Judicial - 2ª Instância do Diário de Justiça do Rio de Janeiro (DJRJ) de 29 de Junho de 2018 (in Portuguese). Retrieved on 2019-03-12. "Acórdão claro com relação à aplicação do artigo 48 da Lei nº 9.610/98 em sua literalidade, o qual autoriza a livre representação de obras situadas permanentemente em logradouros públicos, não se exigindo a manutenção do contexto paisagístico."

[Law2020-30] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Law2020

[Section-31] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Section

[32] Strid mellem dagblad og arvinger til Den lille havfrue er slut: 'Afgørelsen er utrolig vigtig', Danmarks Radio

[Kehlet2007-33] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Kehlet2007

[34] Freedom Of Panorama. European Parliamentary Research Service (2016). Retrieved on 2019-01-28.

[35] Tekijänoikeuslaki 25 a § (14.10.2005/821) (in Finnish). finlex. Retrieved on 2019-05-25.

[Manara2016-36] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Manara2016

[Rees2016-37] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Rees2016

[Buren2001-38] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Buren2001

[Verbrugge2011-39] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Verbrugge2011

[Franck2008-40] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Franck2008

[Etendueetlimites-41] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Etendueetlimites

[Jactrow2010-42] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Jactrow2010

[43] Note that in the English translation of the UrhG provided by the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (accessed 18 August 2019), § 59(1) UrhG is incorrectly translated (the means adjunct in the first sentence is missing).

[44] G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 8.

[45] See T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 2; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 18.

[46] Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [22].

[47] Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [22]; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 19.

[48] See Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [35]; Bundesgerichtshof 5 June 2003, case I ZR 192/00 Hundertwasser-Haus, (2003) 105 GRUR 1035, 1037.

[49] Bundesgerichtshof 5 June 2003, case I ZR 192/00 Hundertwasser-Haus, (2003) 105 GRUR 1035, 1037.

[50] Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [37].

[51] Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [35]; see also CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 140ff.

[52] Bundesgerichtshof 5 June 2003, case I ZR 192/00 Hundertwasser-Haus, (2003) 105 GRUR 1035, 1037. See also H Schack, Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht (10th edn, Mohr Siebeck 2021) para 609; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 22. Cf Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [35] (photographs created through use of a ladder not covered by the freedom of panorama).

[53] Landgericht Frankfurt am Main 25 November 2020, case 2-06 O 136/20, (2021) 25 ZUM-RD 155 = openJur 2021, 5952.

[54] Oberlandesgericht Hamm 27 April 2023, case I-4 U 247/21 Drohnenaufnahmen, (2023) 125 GRUR 1018 = openJur 2023, 5924.

[55] Docket No. I ZR 67/23.

[56] See C Czychowski, "§ 59" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 7; G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 6; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 22; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 142ff. Contra T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 4. See the Wikipedia article in German for additional references.

[57] Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [23]; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 19. See also Landgericht Frankenthal 9 November 2004, case 6 O 209/04 Grassofa, (2005) 107 GRUR 577, 577 (holding that a freely accessible park owned by a charitable foundation is public).

[58] M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 20. But see Bundesgerichtshof 17 December 2010, case V ZR 45/10 Preußische Gärten und Parkanlagen, (2011) 64 NJW 749, 751 (affirming the higher regional court's holding to deny freedom of panorama on the grounds that the "de facto free access to the park is based on a decision by plaintiff [...] which they may change at anspany time"), widely criticised, see inter alia H Schack (2011) 66 JZ 371 (note), 376.

[59] C Czychowski, "§ 59" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 7; G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 6; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 20; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 137; S Ernst, "Zur Panoramafreiheit des Urheberrechts" (1998) 42 ZUM 475, 476. Contra S Lüft, "§ 59" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2022) para 3; EI Obergfell, "§ 59" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 3.

[60] In favour of applicability of freedom of panorama: T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 3; EI Obergfell, "§ 59" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 3; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 135f. Opposed: C Czychowski, "§ 59" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 7. See the Wikipedia article in German for additional references.

[61] T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 3; R Kirchmaier, "§ 59" in E-J Mestmäcker and E Schulze (eds), Urheberrecht (Luchterhand R 55 2011) para 9; EI Obergfell, "§ 59" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 3; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 20. See also Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [33] ("The fact that the ship may at times not be located in publicly accessible places [...] does not preclude the application of § 59(1)").

[62] C Czychowski, "§ 59" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 6 ("private property that has constant public exposure but is not freely accessible due to fencing and entry controls"); S Lüft, "§ 59" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2022) para 3 ("private property that is not freely accessible due to fences and controls"); EI Obergfell, "§ 59" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 3 ("fencing, access control, and similar"); M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 20 ("private property with access control").

[63] G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 6; R Kirchmaier, "§ 59" in E-J Mestmäcker and E Schulze (eds), Urheberrecht (Luchterhand R 55 2011) para 9; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 17; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 133. See also the official motives accompanying the draft bill proposing the UrhG, Bundestag Printed Paper IV/270 of 23 March 1962, p 76 (stating that "the artwork permanently exhibited in public museums" shall not be privileged for it is "not to the same degree dedicated to the public as the works erected in public squares"). Cf Oberlandesgericht Köln 5 May 2000, case 6 U 21/00 Gies-Adler, (2000) [53] NJW 2212, 2213 (denying freedom of panorama for photographs of a work of art inside the former house of parliament on the grounds that it is not located in a public street, way, or public open space).

[64] Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [24].

[65] Bundesgerichtshof 24 January 2002, case I ZR 102/99 Verhüllter Reichstag, 150 BGHZ 6, 10f.

[66] Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [32]. It is readily apparent that the actual duration of the presentation does not matter: If, say, a fountain is inadvertedly destroyed two days following its construction, this does not affect the applicability of § 59(1) in respect of the pictures created during the two days of its existence. See M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) paras 26, 28; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 149.

[67] Landgericht Frankenthal 9 November 2004, case 6 O 209/04 Grassofa, (2005) 107 GRUR 577, 577.

[68] C Czychowski, "§ 59" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 8; G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 17; H Schack, Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht (10th edn, Mohr Siebeck 2021) para 610. Contra T Koch, "Von dreidimensionalen Vervielfältigungen und schwimmenden Kunstwerken – Die Panoramafreiheit in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs" in Hans-Jürgen Ahrens and others (eds), Festschrift für Wolfgang Büscher (Heymanns 2018) 205. See the Wikipedia article in German for additional references.

[69] T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 5; G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 17; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 27; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 154f.

[70] T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 5; G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 18; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 27; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 169.

[71] In favour: T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 5; G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 17; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 27 (departing from the view expressed in the previous edition); CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 170. Contra S Ernst, "Zur Panoramafreiheit des Urheberrechts" (1998) 42 ZUM 475, 477. See the Wikipedia article in German for additional references.

[72] Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [32].

[73] Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [33].

[74] Not entirely clear from Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [29] on account of the discussion taking place in relation to the "public" requirement, but see the various notes on the judgement, eg T Koch, "Von dreidimensionalen Vervielfältigungen und schwimmenden Kunstwerken – Die Panoramafreiheit in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs" in H-J Ahrens and others (eds), Festschrift für Wolfgang Büscher (Heymanns 2018) 204; M Stieper, "Die Freiheit des Straßenbildes im Urheber- und Designrecht – Anmerkung zu BGH ZUM 2017, 766 – AIDA-Kussmund" (2017) 61 ZUM 770 [771]; D Ettig (2017) 63 WRP 955 (note) para 13.

[75] Section 59(1), 2nd sentence.

[76] T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 8.

[77] Landgericht Mannheim 14 February 1997, case 7 S 4/96 Freiburger Holbein-Pferd, (1997) 99 GRUR 364, 366.

[78] Oberlandesgericht Köln 9 March 2012, case 6 U 193/11 Liebe deine Stadt, (2012) 16 ZUM-RD 593, 595.

[79] Section 62(3) so provides for artistic works and photographic works. In the literature, this is extended to architectural works. See T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 11; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 33; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 207.

[80] Bundesgerichtshof 19 January 2017, case I ZR 242/15 East Side Gallery, (2017) 119 GRUR 390 [41], [43]. But see M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 11 (arguing that in certain cases the partial reproduction may not comply with the three-step test pursuant to art 5(5) of the Information Society Directive (2001/29/EC), art 10(2) of the WCT, and art 13 of the TRIPS Agreement).

[81] Section 63.

[82] W Bullinger, "§ 63" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2022) paras 11f; A Dustmann, "§ 63" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 6. Cf Oberlandesgericht Brandenburg 15 October 1996, case 6 U 177/96 Stimme Brecht, (1997) 50 NJW 1162, 1163 (in the context of the quotation limitation, which is also subject to § 63).

[83] See eg T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 12; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2020) para 34; R Kirchmaier, "§ 59" in E-J Mestmäcker and E Schulze (eds), Urheberrecht (Luchterhand R 55 2011) para 7.

[84] T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 12.

[85] G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 20.

[86] H-P Götting, "§ 31" in U Loewenheim (ed), Handbuch des Urheberrechts (3rd edn, Beck 2021) para 44.

[CCIDNFoP-87] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named CCIDNFoP

[Law1970fa-88] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Law1970fa

[70c1bis-89] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named 70c1bis

[Passeri-90] See Lorenzo Passeri. Il diritto d’autore nell’attività di progettazione (in it) 24. Centro Studi Consiglio Nazionale Ingegneri., Deliberazione n. 253 del 21/06/2001 - rif. US (in it)., Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la regione Siciliana 06/03/1998 n. 131 (in it).

[Normattiva-91] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Normattiva

[Jin-wonChoe-92] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Jin-wonChoe

[Art18-93] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Art18

[kamerstuk_28_482_8-94] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named kamerstuk_28_482_8

[kamerstuk_28_482_5-95] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named kamerstuk_28_482_5

[spoor_et_al-96] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named spoor_et_al

[AU5454-97] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named AU5454

[AT4169-98] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named AT4169

[kammerstuk_28_482_3-99] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named kammerstuk_28_482_3

[de_zwaan-100] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named de_zwaan

[Engelfriet-101] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Engelfriet

[102] Decreto Supremo que aprueba el Reglamento de la Ley Nº 29151, Ley General del Sistema Nacional de Bienes Estatales (in Spanish). El Peruano.

[103] Código del derecho de propiedad intelectual de los arquitectos. Colegio de Arquitectos de Perú (2003).

[ipophilstreetart-104] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named ipophilstreetart

[SpanishLaw1879-105] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named SpanishLaw1879

[Act3134-106] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Act3134

[PD49-107] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named PD49

[CodeIV-1276-108] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named CodeIV-1276

[CCAmend2014-109] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named CCAmend2014

[110] Фирма, связанная с Никитой Михалковым, проиграла суд за права на памятник Татищеву и де Геннину. 66.ru (2021-08-26).

[WS199353511-111] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named WS199353511

[PhotoDecreAr-112] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named PhotoDecreAr

[PhotoDecreEn-113] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named PhotoDecreEn

[114] Commons:Village pump/Archive/2012/09#Photography in Saudi Arabia

[Dlib2010-09-29-115] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Dlib2010-09-29

[Matejčič2003-116] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Matejčič2003

[RKD-117] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named RKD

[Arquitetura-118] Laukamp, Luis Castellví (2010-01-01). Arquitectura de autor: un análisis de ciertos problemas suscitados en torno a la obra arquitectónica y la propiedad intelectual. Pe. i. revista de propiedad intelec. Retrieved on 2024-03-25.

[119] SAP Madrid 195-2014, 16 de Junio de 2014 (in es). vLex. Retrieved on 2024-03-25.

[Cabedo-120] Cabedo Serna, Llanos (2022-12-22). Difusión cultural y explotación comercial de imágenes de obras arquitectónicas y plásticas: la excepción «libertad de panorama» a examen. Journal of Cultural and Creative Industries 1–19. Retrieved on 2024-03-25.

[121] Fernando Bondía Román, Los derechos sobre las fotografías y sus limitaciones, Anuario de derecho civil, ISSN 0210-301X, Vol. 59, Nº 3, 2006, p. 1111

[Collazos-122] Isabel Hernando Collazos, La excepción panorama y el uso comercial de las manifestaciones secundarias de las obras de arte - aproximación desde la Ley española de Derechos de Autor, RIIPAC: Revista sobre Patrimonio Cultural, ISSN-e 2255-1565, Nº. 10, 2018, págs. 1-53

[123] M. Teresa Castiñeira Palou, «El denominado toro de Osborne. Comentario a la SAP Sevilla, Penal, Sec. 1ª, de 31.1.2006 (MP: P. Izquierdo Martín)», InDret 3.2006M.

[124] Francisco Fernández Beltrán and Glòria Pérez-Salmerón, El copyright en cuestión. Diálogos sobre propiedad intelectual, Publisher: Universidad de Deusto, Editor: José-Antonio Gómez-Hernández, Javier Torres-Ripa ISBN: 978-84-9830-301-8, 2011

[Sverigeblog-125] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Sverigeblog

[Ö849-15-126] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Ö849-15

[PMT8448-14-127] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named PMT8448-14

[128] wikisource:sv:Sida:2016-04-04_Ö_849-15_Beslut.pdf/10

[Westman-129] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Westman

[WMF-BUS-130] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named WMF-BUS

[access05-131] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access05

[access10-132] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access10

[access15-133] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access15

[access20-134] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access20

[access25-135] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access25

[access30-136] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access30

[access35-137] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access35

[access40-138] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access40

[access45-139] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access45

[access50-140] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access50

[141] ttps://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=678860856#Swiss_FoP_and_stained_glass_windows_-_outdoor_vs._indoor_views

[perm10-142] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named perm10

[perm20-143] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named perm20

[perm30-144] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named perm30

[perm40-145] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named perm40

[perm50-146] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named perm50

[perm60-147] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named perm60

[Rehbinder-Haas-Uhlig-148] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Rehbinder-Haas-Uhlig

[Macciacchini-Oertli-149] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Macciacchini-Oertli

[150] Copinger and Skone James on Copyright (18th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2021) vol 1, para 3-155.

[151] Copinger and Skone James on Copyright (18th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2021) vol 1, para 9-289.

[DACSfactsheet-152] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named DACSfactsheet

[Artquest-153] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Artquest

[154] 630 F.2d 905 (2d Cir, 1980), available at http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/551553 and http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/630/905/238194/

[155] 536 F.2d 486 (2d Cir.) (en banc), available at http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/554959 and http://www.coolcopyright.com/cases/fulltext/batlinsnydertext.htm

[Law2022-156] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Law2022

[Decree2023-157] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Decree2023

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

[88]

[89]

[90]

[91]

[92]

[93]

[94]

[95]

[96]

[97]

[98]

[99]

[100]