Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 12

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 →

challenge the Slovenian interpretation

The WIPO version of the Slovenian law [1] says under Subsection II Free use ...

“ Article 55

Works located in generally accessible premises
(1) Works permanently placed in parks, streets, squares, or other generally accessible premises may be used freely.
(2) Works mentioned in the foregoing paragraph may not be reproduced in a threedimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work, or used for economic gain.
(3) In cases stated in paragraph (1) of this Article, the source and authorship of the work must be indicated, if the latter is indicated on the work used.

”

To me that clearly indicates that FoP is allowable in 2-D representation of 3-D, ie. you can take photographs, when you are doing such in a public space. I believe that we should be changing our interpretation unless there is case law to the contrary.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The article allows only for free non-commercial use, when the reproduction is 2D, and no reproduction at all in 3D. This has also been stated e.g. here (pg. 67), where the author clearly states that commercial reproduction (e.g. for postcards [which of course are 2D]) is not allowed. There has also been a court case, where a publisher had to pay a sculptor a restitution for having used a photo of his sculpture in a book.[2] --Eleassar (t/p) 09:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
As Eleassar notes, yes that allows for 2-D representations of 3-D objects, but only if not used for economic gain. All three conditions of part (2) must be satisfied. The first two would not be a problem here (the second part just prohibits photos which are essentially copies of other photos or 2-D works), but the third is the problem. So usually legal, but such photos are non-free. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
What's interesting to me is that (as far as I understand) the sculpture mentioned above stands in Croatia (Međugorje), which allows for commercial use of reproductions of works at publicly accessible premises. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
So are you saying that the court case is another example of what de:Hundertwasserentscheidung concluded? If so, consider adding a note to the page Commons:Lex loci protectionis. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Does this restrict FOP even for photographs taken before the current law (previous allowed FOP)? --Sporti (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I've also posted a question about this at Carl's talk page. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Where in the Belgium legislation does it restrict photographs of buildings

Excuse my wikilawyering, however, I have just scanned the WIPO legislation for Belgium, and I am wondering how and where we decided that photographs of buildings are not allowable. The English translation [3] has the following opening sections ...

“ Section 1: Copyright in General ..........................................................................1–7

Section 2: Special Provisions on Literary Works ....................................................8
Section 3: Special Provisions on Works of Fine Art .........................................9–13
Section 4: Special Provisions on Audiovisual Works......................................14–20

”

Buildings will not fall into sections 2 to 4, and definitely not in subsequent sections of the law. There is no evident part of section one that can relate to a constructed building.

  • Article 1 — The author of a literary or artistic work alone shall have the right to reproduce his work or to have it reproduced in any manner or form whatsoever ...
  • Article 2 — The author of a literary or artistic work shall enjoy an inalienable moral right in his work...
  • Article 3 — The economic rights shall be movable, assignable and transferable ...
  • Article 4 — Where copyright is indivisible, exercise of the right shall be governed by agreement ...
  • Article 5 — In the case of a work of collaboration ...
  • Article 6 — Copyright shall belong as of origin to the natural person ...
  • Article 7 — After the death of the author ...

None of those copyright in general areas go near buildings. If we are going to try and uphold and point to a restricting legislative process, then we need to be able to clearly show the section of the legislation that we would breach, and here we have not. Someone clearly needs to demonstrate how the Belgium copyright laws impact Freedom of Panorama, at this stage we have done a pretty poor interpretative approach. Again, is there case law to which we can point?  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Belgium is a member of the Berne convention. The Berne convention, in its article 2, paragraph (1), provides that the expression "literary and artistic works" includes works of architecture (and also a lot of other stuff). A case could be made that the expression "literary or artistic work" in the Belgian law should be interpreted in the light of the Berne convention. Thus, a work of architecture would be a "literary or artistic work" (more artistic than literary, I suppose) for the scope of section 1 of the Belgian law, although it is not a "literary work" for the scope or section 2 and it is not a "work of fine art" for the scope of section 3 of the law. In short, "artistic work" is broader than "work of fine art". And "works of architecture" are included in "artistic works" but not in "works of fine arts". -- Asclepias (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and that gives them rights to their work, but a picture of a building (2-D image of one facet of 3-D construct) is not a copy of a work of architecture, and especially not all buildings are a work of architecture. Many countries signed the Berne convention and do not apply provisions in that sense, so someone is drawing a long bow to say that it specifically should be inferred that way when it is not covered in the legislation. We are not legals, nor international treaty experts, so we should interpret law as it is written, not some inference. Is there a significant legal opinion that supports FoP for Belgium, or is there direct or indirect case law that would do so? The legislation itself has provisions within it for special cases, and one would expect that freedom of panorama would have been equally treated.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Then if you want to make such an inference section 5 would then apply in that articles 21 and 22 could be applied to 2-D images of 3-D objects that equates to publishing when the work is open and in a public place, and all those components could apply. If you are going to say copyright equivalent, there has to be the publishing equivalent.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not a long bow. There have been (European) court cases which have confirmed that (and cases ruled as not derivative works under certain conditions, which directly imply that other types of photos can be derivative works). "Artistic works" is a more generic term, and is generally understood to include architecture and most any kind of copyrightable work. Rather, I think we'd need case law to show that buildings are *not* considered copyrightable -- and I think that's unlikely. Civil law countries are more likely to consider treaties self-executing (i.e. the text of the treaty becomes actual law in that country once ratified). The U.S. often does not, and definitely does not in regards to Berne, but many countries do. It seems pretty clear to me that architecture is included in "artistic works" as Asclepias said. I can't think of a country which does not consider photographs of copyrightable works either reproductions or adaptations (derivative works) -- buildings are treated like any other work, unless there is a specific provision in the copyright law indicating differently. So, we generally need to see the explicit exception listed in copyright laws, and those exceptions can't have non-commercial limitations if we want to make use of them. It's possible that some buildings are too simple to be considered "artistic works" in the first place, but that is a very hairy area where it's difficult to make judgments without specific case law guidance. You are correct that articles 21 and 22 do allow certain limited uses, but they would not extend to usages such as a photo of the work on a postcard, which would be required to be "free". Using photos on Wikipedia articles likely would not violate the law in a great number of countries, but the "free" determination is the larger problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Morocco

The WIPO version of the Moroccan legislation [4] states in article 20

“ Free Use of Images of Works Permanently Located in Public Places

Article 20
Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 10 above, 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.

”

where Article 10 is about economic rights. This clearly contradicts the advice that we give. I believe that we are in error in our advice unless we can demonstrate that there is case law to the contrary.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Why does that contradict the advice we give? If the image of the work is the main subject of the photo, and it is used for commercial purposes, it is not permitted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, if you think that it does, then consider it closed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Our advice contradicts the law because we're saying that uses have to be both incidental and non-commercial, while the law says they have to be either incidental or non-commercial. Incidental here meaning "not the main subject of such a reproduction", this might give us much better FOP than our usual de minimis cases (not similar to France at all). -- Orionist ★ talk 04:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
As explained by billinghurst and Orionist, if I understand them correctly because I don't practice much English, I agree with them, and believe it's a case of logical conjunction. Some people around me, asked for their opinions, agree also. Here is a synthetic table that summarizes my perception regarding the case of Morocco (but not only, I'm also thinking for example of Mozambique).
AND
Main subject Not the main subject
Commercial purposes  Not OK OK
Noncommercial purposes OK OK

It would be different if the text was : unless the image of the work is the main subject of such a reproduction, broadcast or communication or if it is used for commercial purposes.

OR
Main subject Not the main subject
Commercial purposes  Not OK  Not OK
Noncommercial purposes  Not OK OK

--Frenchinmorocco (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

There are some cases where the wording might make a difference, but it's still not FoP usable by us in the general case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Pardon me, but I'm not sure I understand your reply. (1) In which cases ? (2) Does it mean that Commons can't accept images of buildings that are not the main subject and commercially usable ? --Frenchinmorocco (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I toke a look on the Arabic version (p.13) of the Law text (i.e. the "original version") and, as I understood it, it says that it has to be both the main subject and commercially usable to be unfree. I support Frenchinmorocco's interpretation above.
Here you got my opinion, and maybe you should ask more Arabic-speaking people to have more views.
Regards.

--Omar-toons (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It is also my anderstanding that FOP is permitted unless the work is used for commercial purposes.
Best regard. --Indif (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
O.k., but that means it is not usable for Commons, as we require all media to be free also for commercial use. --Túrelio (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
That is, for example, why South Korea and Slovenia are listed as  Not OK. In South Korea, an architect once sued a marketing company because a house appeared in a TV commercial for a bank, and in Slovenia, a sculptor once sued the publisher of a book, and in both cases, the architect & sculptor won. If you can't use buildings in TV commercials, and if you can't publish photos of sculptures in a book, then there is not enough freedom of panorama. Moroccan copyright law doesn't seem to permit photos of sculptures in books, nor does it seem to permit showing buildings in TV commercials --Stefan4 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
@Túrelio: it's not exactly what I'm saying. FOP is not allowed (and thus not usable on Commons) only if the work is not freely (free as in beer) available, in other words if the work is used for commercial purposes. Say you have a protected work permanently located in a museum (which is a place open to the public), FOP is allowed if the entrance is free, otherwise it's not permitted. Regards. --Indif (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Guys, look at the text of the law again: commercial uses are allowed as long as the copyrighted work is not the main subject. See the first table above by Frenchinmorocco which is a correct representation. This makes a difference here because I see images deleted all the time because of buildings that are not the main subject, but at the same time the use is not minimal enough as to accept de minimis. The law doesn't require uses to be minimal, just not dominant, which is an important distinction. Not only this gives us more flexibility when dealing with images of urbanscape, museum halls, public parks etc. but it might also mean that for example, we can have a 10-minute video of Casablanca, that includes a couple of 30-second, full-on shots of the Hassan II Mosque. -- Orionist ★ talk 01:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was wrong. FoP is allowed a long as the copyrighted work is not the main subject of the republication, regardless of its possible commercial use. --Indif (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I am not comfortable with your revert from a no-FOP to a FOP-o.k. version of our entry. To me, the situation still seems to be unclear and our general rule (for the sake of our re-users) is unclear=no.
I have checked our FOP-page for other countries who allow only "incidental use" of copyrighted public works and I found Namibia, Mali, Congo and Cambodia. All these countries are considered to have no Commons-usable FOP. Why should Morocco be different? --Túrelio (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course we should aim for consistency. Can we distinguish the other cases? Mali and Namibia cover incidental audiovisual reproduction only; that's not much use on Commons (though in theory we may have or could have works where it would be relevant). Cambodia covers incidental inclusion only; that's probably covered by COM:DM anyway so no need to use their FoP, which risks confusion. I'll leave Congo as I'm not sure about it (see below). To conclude: Morocco's "not the main subject" is a more useful FoP provision than just "incidental inclusion". So it can be distinguished, and may sometimes be usable, and therefore we shouldn't just label it "not OK". Rd232 (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Congo I'm not sure of - the law actually says 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. Whether that's a usable FoP depends on the meaning of "reproduction". Rd232 (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
More broadly: maybe we should have more sophisticated icons for FoP than ✓[OK] and ✘. Even within the ✓[OK] countries there is wide variation in the coverage. Rd232 (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I modifed Morocco again, as it is simply not clear no-FOP or ok-FOP case. Namibia, Mali and Congo does not allow full commercial use for "incidental use", but Cambodia seems to be similar case (so we can revise it). --Jklamo (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Namibia, Mali and Congo does not allow full commercial use for "incidental use" - I don't see any restrictions on the incidental use there. Rd232 (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
We assume that we can use pictures where the copyrighted work is de minimis already. I'm sure the international law is a lot more complex then we know here, but I don't think the plain text of the law, in absence of known judicial interpretation, can be trusted to give us more then case law from France and the US imply we can have.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

does FOP-Mexico really not require permanent installation?

As 2 images (File:Darth vader hot air balloon.jpg and File:Hot air balloon sans darth vader.jpg) that had remained deleted for nearly 2 years, as it is clearly considered a derivative of a copyrighted character, now have been undeleted [5] on the assumption that Mexican FOP-law regulation does not require a "permanent installation in the public", see this UR with more URs to follow, IMO we need a thorough legal expertise to check whether this serious assumption (Commons:FOP#Mexico and {{FoP-Mexico}}) really holds water both in the actual interpretation of Mexican copyright law and in case-law. The earlier discussions about FOP-Mexico, 1, 2, 3, were rather superficial, IMO.
Per common sense it's hardly imaginable that this assumption is true, as it would allow everybody to display a modern painting (or a poster of it) for 5 minutes in the public, make a reproduction and declare it as free per FOP-Mexico; but lawmakers rarely have common sense. --Túrelio (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The corollary -- and probably more salient -- question is, even Mexican law is indeed so lax, would the United States honor a free license on a derivative work? As I've now said several times, the notion that this exact image (if taken on a sidewalk in Mexico) could be used on a book cover in the United States (i.e., commercial use) without the explicit permission of Disney (i.e., publication/pre-publication of a derivative) is absurd. I know no jurist who would not find infringement of the Mickey character (separate intellectual property from the photo itself) and grant to Disney injunctive relief (i.e., status in US is unfree, or fair use). These discussions seem to be the Dunning–Kruger effect in action. Эlcobbola talk 10:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Anyone actually read Article 148 and see the phrases "provided that the normal exploitation of the work is not affected" and "provided also ... that no alteration is made to the work". Free Cultural Works are these? Question answers itself for me. Edit: reading the previous discussions I can see these are dismissed as referent to moral rights, not copyright –⁠moogsi (blah) 10:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
"Not vague" seems to be true for the letter of the law. However, as this is hardly understandable, we need also to consider case-law. --Túrelio (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Same thing. If you profit from an FOP image taken in Mexico where the creator could have profited then he can sue your ass. In other words the creators should be contacted for any commercial work that could effect their income/exploitation. Just needs a template to warn re-users is all.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
This translates into "no commercial use", which we actually find in several FOP-countries, that we consider as "no usable FOP". Anyway, IMO this situation requires an evaluation by a legal professional. We non-lawyers are just guessing. --Túrelio (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't translate as 'no commercial'. It translates the same as personality rights where you can't profit from the image of a person without permission. If you made a T-shirt with the balloon image you couldn't sell it as a Darth Vader shirt in the Darth Vader section. You could probably sell it as a balloon shirt in the balloon section though. Darth people sell shirts but ballloon people don't so you wouldn't be exploiting the balloon creator's design to make money in his market. The images just need a warning template is all.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
But Commons requires that you should be able to sell the shirt in any section, not just the balloon one. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
They can't sell Justin Beiber shirts in any section with images from commons. This is the same as trademark images that are PD because of TOO. They have no copyright but you can't sell products with those images on them. We host many files with commercial use restrictions.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Please, this is not the question here. Actually this isn't about any specific image. The question is whether FOP-rules in Mexico are really different from all other FOP-countries which do require permanent installation/placement of the original to be covered by FOP. --Túrelio (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
It's OK; I just commented because of the examples shown above. Carry on. JKadavoor Jee 13:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Compare also with this document (page 180) which suggests that ships are included in the definition of "buildings" in the Danish FOP law. COM:FOP#Denmark doesn't require buildings to be permanently installed, and COM:TOO#Denmark suggests that ships easily can be copyrightable. If means of transportation are covered by FOP in Denmark, then why couldn't this also be the case in Mexico? The issue about commercialisation is a bit troubling, though. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes; I noticed it. And the caption under File:WWFbalaobrasilia22032007.jpg says "The WWF panda logo not protected by copyright". I didn't understand the entire points though. JKadavoor Jee 13:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

FoP in USA: text signs

The current section on the USA isn't very clear on whether photos of textual signs (e.g. File:Echo Lake Park sign on tree about trout.jpg, File:Drexel Park Bald Cypress sign.JPG) constitute copyright violation or not. My personal feeling is that these meet the threshold of originality and are copyrighted. Can it be clarified, please? - MPF (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

USA only has FOP for architecture, nothing else. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, but the FoP-USA paragraph still needs clarifying, to make it clear that text is covered as well as artwork, and in particular, some guidelines as to when a piece of text meets the definitions of originality, as opposed to being too simple to copyright. - MPF (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
You're right, I can see how the current wording can be a source of confusion when it arbitrarily specifies only some types of works as being "not OK". The ordinary reader will ask "what of the other types of works?" Why limit the wording to only two specific types of works if the principle applies to all types of works other than architecture? So, yes, that wording should be clarified so as to not be limited to two types of works. However, about the last part of your comment, this page about FoP is not the place to explain the different matter of the threshold of originality between copyrightable works and uncopyrightable works. The matter of FoP implies that the pictured work is copyrighted. If the pictured work is not copyrighted, then there's no reason to examine FoP. Maybe the casebook page could use a little paragraph about images of texts. It is somewhat surprising that it doesn't seem to have one. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Because those are the types of works usually given an exception in copyright laws, though I guess a few countries do allow photos of all public "works". There are also some more clear court precedents for those kind of works; not as sure as some others. Photos of text may have a lot of situational complexities and fair use/fair dealing issues (in ways which may make the photographs completely usable); I'm not sure there are any court precedents which would give clear guidance on that sort of thing, so I'm not sure we can really state anything definite on such matters. The nature of the text may have a lot to do with it -- it maybe OK to depict something in its public context, even if copying the text in other contexts is not OK -- we would be concerned about if the photograph itself is OK in commercial contexts, not what other uses the text itself could be used for. The text in the first image given above is most probably PD-EdictGov and is fine. The text in the second is probably PD-ineligible. Information is not copyrightable, and text which is really just a list of information is really not much different. There are lots of situations which get into more of a gray area to be sure... and I'm not sure we have a lot of guidance to help. A catch-all bit of guidance on all "text" may not really be accurate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
But if the text of the second had been added verbatim to a wikipedia article, it would surely be removed as breach of copyright? - MPF (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
That single partial sentence? Doubtful. You can't copyright facts and that is what most of that sentence is. A plaque of a poem would be different, of course. But again, we are concerned about the copyright of the photograph itself -- that can blur things somewhat. The question is whether the photograph would actually be considered derivative of the text, i.e. if it was the primary focus -- not all text which happens to be in the photo necessarily causes it to be derivative (even if it is fairly prominent). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You could email http://www.valdostacity.com/ about File:Drexel Park Bald Cypress sign.JPG. They may release rights to the image. I agree that it is not probaby not protected as it is simple facts/text. If the syllables were slightly different it would be a w:Haiku and qualify as poetry. I think it can stay and if they don't respond to email then we can just wait for them to contact WMF if they really care about copyright. I doubt they would bother as their lawyers may just charge money to tell them it is not worth more money to take to court. The media may find it a cute story as well once word gets out. An artist would whine much more, probably lose in court but have his 15 min of fame and sell more bad art to people with no taste. Btw Carl I had my w:Ed Miracle painting authenticated. It is an official one but they didn't nail down a year of creation. They may not know or just not wish to state that it was before 1977. I may yet look for evidence of the original purchase date. They told me Ebay value is 1200 to 2500usd so until it goes up in value I may not spend any more effort on it. At the value now it is worth keeping and does look very nice.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

FoP in Armenia

Dear all, Armenian law on copyright has been recently amended and Armenia has now freedom of panorama. Here is the official announcement on the website of Armenian Parliament. English translation:

Amendment on the "Law on Copyright and Related Rights" of the Republic of Armenia
Passed on 18.03.2013

Section 1. Article 25 of the "Law on Copyright and Related Rights" HO-142-N of the Republic of Armenia of June 15, 2006 will be amended and formulated as follows:

Article 25. Freedom of Panorama

Works which are located on streets, parks, squares and other places open for attendance can be reproduced and broadcasted, and reproduced copies can be distributed, including through internet, without permission of the author and without payment to the author, in any tangible medium and by any means and in any form.

Section 2. This law enters into force on the 10th day after its official announcement.

President of the Republic of Armenia: S. Sargsyan

13.04.2013
HO-21

Also I want to add to this that the term "works" is very broadly defined in Article 3 of the same law and includes both art and architecture. I suggest that we now change the section in this page and add that Armenia has FoP. --vacio 19:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that's interesting. May not take effect for a few more days, but it does look like they deleted the "for non-commercial purposes" portion of the previous wording. WIPO does not have this amendment on its site yet, but the law it is modifying is here. The main site does not have an English translation from what I could see, but per the above and Google Translate, it sounds like there is (or will shortly be) FoP for permanently-installed outdoor public works. May need to start going through Category:Armenian FOP cases. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to add this information on en:Freedom of Panorama ? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Looks very good. It may also be a good idea to search for more deletion requests about Armenian FOP cases which aren't in that category. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Images of sculptures in Armenia, which are copyrighted in the United States, should not be undeleted. --84.61.186.60 08:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Can we move {{FOP-Armenia}} from Category:Buildings in Yerevan? --vacio 13:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, that template should be changed to a permission template telling that Armenia does have freedom of panorama, like {{FoP-US}} or {{FoP-UK}}. Once that has been done, the template can be kept on that category page. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
{{FoP-HY}} ? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
"FoP-Armenia" would be better, if changing the actual template without causing problems is possible. We already have PD-Armenia, so the naming would be more consistant. Other possible adjustments could be a new Category:FoP-Armenia (?) and cleaning up of the Category:Armenian FOP cases with 89 old cases - some deleted (permanently?), some kept for other reasons than FoP. Just some random ideas, but i have no technical template knowledge. GermanJoe (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What is this delay for? Can the users/admins responsible for updating the law change finally do it? --Yerevanci (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The page is not locked, feel free to update it (and {{FOP-Armenia}} as well). I do not see there any disagreement about interpretation of the new law. --Jklamo (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I would if I knew how to update it. Commons is not where I usually spent my time. --Yerevanci (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Great news. I'm going to add the FOP cases category to my bookmarks and restore some of them right now. However, don't forget that lots of relevant images have now to be added to articles where they can be used (mainly in Armenian, Russian, and English WP I suppose). As we cannot filter out certain CommonsDelinker edits afaik, it can only be done manually. --A.Savin 09:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

When undeleting, consider being careful with adding {{FoP-Armenia}}. It can help a lot in case some users have missed the change at COM:FOP#Armenia. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry - what's wrong? --A.Savin 18:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you have done anything wrong. What I wrote was mainly meant as a general notice for everyone: if a file doesn't have the {{FoP-Armenia}} template, then someone else might come around at a later point and nominate the file for deletion again because that person hasn't noticed the change in the Armenian law. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Yep, it makes sense to add {{FoP-Armenia}} to all that files being undeleted now (but probably rather unrealistic to expect this template to be added to all relevant pictures of modern Armenian architecture & sculpture on Commons). --A.Savin 18:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
If the restored categories can be added to articles via the commonscat template, that already saves a lot of work, since the Wikipedia users can add the pictures themselves.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I see that many of the previously undeteled images are restored. Great! I hope we can undelete the others as well. --vacio 12:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
There is also a partial list of files to be undeleted here. Please feel free to add more and undelete them. Chaojoker (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

New project

Hopefully when User:Canoe1967/Sculptors gets moved to main space then we could add a link to it on this page. As soon as we get one 'modern' sculptor added then it may be ready for main space as it is. Feel free to pop over there and help get it off the ground.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama in France

Regularly photographs that I have taken in France are removed because they seem to fall under the category: No FOP in France. I have asked an Intellectual Property lawyer in France for his opinion. To which I will add that it is only his opinion, it may not neccessarily be a correct interpretation of the Law.

Freedom of panorama (FOP) in France is restricted to public places. It may be extended to places which are accesible by the public such as museums. The core of this legislation is the transparency principle. You can not take a photograph of anything that is protected by copyright, even if it is in a wider, public setting. The legal argument is that you can evade copyright that way.

Freedom of panorama does not apply on private property if there is no indication that the laws concerning FOP have been extended. If the laws concerning FOP apply, the author, not the owner is considered to be the holder of the copyright. Photographs of graves for example do, in principle, not fall under this law as they are usually on private property (most cemeteries are). Monuments in cemeteries are generally given into the public domain, so the laws concerning FOP do not apply (these monuments are not copyrighted).

In law there is the de facto and the de jure approach.

de jure If a grave is adorned with a statue that is copyrighted, the estate is the holder of the copyright. Publishing a picture of the grave is therefore a violation of the laws concerning FOP. For example the sculpture of le baiser by Brancusi in the Cimetière de Montparnasse is protected by the laws concerning FOP. No pictures can be taken without the explicit permission of the estate.

It is more difficult with the grave of Oscar Wilde. This was commissioned (and thereby authored) by Robbie Ross (whose ashes rest in the monument). It is unclear if the estate of Robbie Ross has released the monument into the public domain.

de facto In Paris the Eiffel Tower will readily appear in a photograph. The image of the Eiffel Tower is protected. However, publishing a photograph (for example a photograph of your girlfriend on Flickr) in which the Eiffel Tower is depicted, does not always mean this is a violation of the laws concerning FOP, as long as the subject matter is clearly not meant to evade copyright.

If the situation is unclear, common sense prevails. Many monuments no longer have an author. Most monuments and memorials have a symbolic function and are erected to help people remember a certain event. Publishing a depiction, especially for non commercial purposes, serves the original intention and therefore does not contravene the laws concerning FOP. Besides, who is going to sue?

There is however also a moral argument. Taking pictures in a cemetery and publishing these, can be hurtful to those left behind. Publishing these pictures should be done sensitively, regardless of the law.

The French Wikipedia must have a legal expert (although I regularly see pictures that are a violation of the laws concerning FOP in the French Wikipedia), why not consult that person to make things absolutely clear?

Blindingly removing images, claiming that there is no FOP in France, especially when those laws do not apply, is a form of censorship that should not be allowed in Wikipedia. In my opinion. Breaking the law is not what I am suggesting. But letting common sense prevail and having the courage to debate the issue, when in doubt, is part of the democratic process that will help build a better Wikipedia. JHvW (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama (FOP) in France is restricted to public places. ... The core of this legislation is the transparency principle. You can not take a photograph of anything that is protected by copyright, even if it is in a wider, public setting. implies that we aren't talking about the same thing. The definition of FoP for Commons purposes is that you can take pictures of things that are protected by copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems we are talking about two different things. The idea of building a repository, even of images protected by copyright, is not what I mean. My point concerns the issue when images cannot be moved from or used in the Wikipedia because they are a violation of the laws concerning FoP. Statues, memorials, monuments which are in the public domain do not fall under the laws concerning FoP. If anything is copyrighted and on private property, it is clear that an image can not be published without consent. If a sign says: "No photography", it is clear that you are not supposed to take photographs. But the statues commemorating the concentration camps in Père Lachaise do not fall under the laws regarding FoP and even if they did, who would object to them being published as examples of Nazi attrocities? If something is removed because it is in bad taste or because it violates some other rule or a persons sensitivities, that should be stated as such. That is the community way.JHvW (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Since answering the argument I have reread the passages a number of times. It seems that the key point in both arguments should be: you can not publish pictures that violate the laws concerning FoP. Taking pictures for personal use is a different matter. I am no legal expert but I can imagine that collecting images is not a violation of the laws concerning FoP as long as they are not published. Especially if the objects that are photographed are in locations accessible by the public. I am aware of some juresprudence in this area which would suggest that it is not illegal, but again, I am not a legal expert. I wish to stress however, that publishing pictures that do not fall under the laws concerning FoP should not be removed or unpublished with the argument: "No FoP". JHvW (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm very surprised this is a French IP lawyer opinion, as there are several inaccuracies in the original post. As Prosfilaes mentions, "freedom of panorama" according to Commons is an exception to copyright for buildings or works in a public place.
Freedom of panorama (FOP) in France is restricted to public places. No, as explained in Commons:Freedom of panorama#France, there is no exception in law or case law for buildings or works in a public place.
If the laws concerning FOP apply, the author, not the owner is considered to be the holder of the copyright. By default French copyright or droit d'auteur lies with the author, not the owner.
Monuments in cemeteries are generally given into the public domain. Consensus in legal writing is that you cannot release your work in the public domain because of moral rights. French IP law doesn't even use the expression "public domain".
If a grave is adorned with a statue that is copyrighted, the estate is the holder of the copyright. By default this isn't the case. The artist owns the copyright.
This was commissioned (and thereby authored) by Robbie Ross. No, unless there is proof that the artist that designed the grave released his rights to Robbie Ross. There's no specific provision for commissioned work under French law. It's one of the main differences between copyright and droit d'auteur.
The image of the Eiffel Tower is protected. It isn't. Gustave Eiffel died in 1923; the French copyright term is 70 years after the death of the author.
Many monuments no longer have an author. They always have an author, even if we don't know their name. French moral rights are perpetual.
Publishing a depiction, especially for non commercial purposes, serves the original intention. This is irrelevant under French law. Case law has stated so explicitly.
I can reference all of this if required. Regarding your last post JHvW, of course you can take whatever picture you like as long as you don't publish it. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 21:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Well it is time for me to give up. As I have indicated I am not a legal expert, but in the text above there are many points with which I do not agree, but there is no need to reference them, de facto interpretation of laws will come down to individual administrators and I have no wish for arguing every decision. The only point that I would still like to see answered is, what does Droits: domaine public in a museum mean? And for your information this is what SNTE has to say about copyright: There are no restrictions on publishing a picture of the (Eiffel) Tower by day. Photos taken at night when the lights are aglow are subjected to copyright laws, and fees for the right to publish must be paid to the SNTE. JHvW (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that in many countries (particularly ones with "fair use" and "fail dealing" explicitly written into the law) many uses of such pictures are OK, and it is usually only in commercial contexts (i.e. when trying to sell the photo say on a postcard) that it might become a real problem. However, for Wikimedia Commons (a separate project from the Wikipedias), a requirement is that such images are "free", one aspect of which means that all images must be able to be used in such commercial contexts without being a copyright problem. For example, there is a U.S. case which determined that a photo of the Korean War Memorial in Washington D.C. when used on a Post Office stamp was a copyright violation, since it was done without the sculptor's permission. Usage on Wikipedia itself would generally not be a problem, and indeed many of the Wikipedia projects (including the English Wikipedia) allow certain images under a "fair use" rationale, normally precisely for situations like this -- when it's impossible to get a fully "free" photo of a copyrighted work but one which needs to be illustrated. The extent of such usage is left to policy on each project -- see en:Wikipedia:Non-free content for en-wiki's -- and is often based on the laws where most usage of a project would come from. However, Commons is not allowed to do so at all. See wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy where this is dictated; each project can create a so-called "Exemption Doctrine Policy" but Commons cannot. Normal copyright law would dictate that photographs of copyrighted sculpture etc. are derivative works meaning the copyright owner of the underlying work has some control over publication of such photos; the "freedom of panorama" discussed here are specific exceptions to that usual right in the law of some countries which mean that the normal derivative rights do not apply in certain situations, meaning in those situations Commons just needs the license to the photograph itself to be considered "free". Without such exceptions in the law though, we have to assume that the normal derivative rights given in the law apply, meaning we would need a license from both copyright owners involved (of the photo and the work) to be able to host such photos. Yes it's frustrating, but it's also the law. France's law has no such explicit "freedom of panorama" exceptions. Some French court rulings indicate that there are doctrines such as the "theory of the accessory" -- i.e. a photo containing a copyrighted object is OK as long as it is just an accessory to the primary subject (even if centered, provided the subject is a wider scene) -- and we would certainly allow those on Commons. I think that was a case involving a photo which contained the Tour Montparnasse which explained that aspect. If you know of any rulings from French court decisions which could guide us in that way, by all means point them out -- we are just trying to follow the law on such matters, the best we can. However, we follow the "de jure" rules, and do not try to assume "de facto" that an author is unlikely to sue -- see Commons:precautionary principle. As for the Eiffel Tower, the tower itself is public domain since its copyright has expired, however yes SNTE claims copyright over the lighting design seen at night (and have a court decision to back them up), so photos which contain that lighting design (at least as a primary focus) are considered derivative works. Photographs of graves might get into some other types of rights which may be owned by the family, but since the definition of "free" is strictly based on copyright (or the exploitation portions of droit d'auteur) those other issues are Commons:non-copyright restrictions and would not likely prevent their usage here per se (though uploaders may want to strongly consider them anyways). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

As you point out I have difficulty understanding when Freedom of Panorama (FoP) is applicable. Fair use is a principle I know from Wikipedia, but I also understand the concept of absolutely free. One of the reasons why I consulted an IP lawyer (he is a friend and was very annoyed that I asked questions about his work, I think he wanted to drink wine and enjoy life rather than being serious) is that I wanted to know the legal standpoint. When I go on holiday I make about 30-40 photographs a day with a digital camera. Some of these photographs I think are good enough for the Commons. But I have difficulty understanding when something is absolutely free. For example, just about everywhere there are monuments to those who gave their life for France. They are usually paid for by public subscription, are the images that are made not free? Images of monuments for the concentration camps (the people who commissioned the work, the organisation they worked for and often the artist(s) are no longer around, so who holds the copyright, if any) are they not free? When there is a sign saying Droits: domaine public does this exclude material that is covered by the laws concerning FoP? As you can see I have lost all motivation for uploading any picture made in France because I do not want to break the law and it is very frustrating when you have taken time to upload something, that the image is removed citing laws I clearly do not understand. JHvW (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

As a general rule under French IP law every original work (building, statue, painting, etc.) is protected for 70 years after the creator's death. It doesn't matter if the work was commissioned or paid by public money, or if it stands on the street where everyone can see it. It means you can't publish a picture of the work without getting proper authorisation from the rights holder, who by default is the artist of their heirs. Freedom of panorama is an exception to copyright that exists in some countries, but not France. So the only question you have to ask yourself is: is the work in the public domain or not?
If the work you have photographed seems rather new, it probably can't be uploaded. In some cases you think the work looks old enough, but when you look up on the Internet to get a proper description for Commons, you realise the author died in the late 1960s. In some cases it's very difficult to know. The building where I live was designed in 1904. The date is engraved on the facade along with the name of the architect. I couldn't find on Google the date of his death. Perhaps he designed the building when he was rather young, and he lived very old, so my building isn't in the public domain. As I don't know I prefer not to upload a picture on Commons. So it's not just you–it's a difficult issue for every Commons user taking pictures in France.
A couple of years ago French politicians weren't even aware of the problem. Last year and thanks to the French Wikimedia chapter, a MP set forth a amendment to introduce a FOP exception into IP law. The amendment was rejected, but we have good hope to get FOP in France in the foreseeable future. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
(expanding on Jastrow's response... ignore if not as clear as his) The nature of the work (e.g. monument to those who gave their life) generally has no bearing on the existence of copyright, although it would matter in a fair use determination. In France, the copyright is owned by the author (sculptor, etc.) unless transferred to someone else. I don't believe that commissioning a work gives the commissioning party the copyright, unless that was part of the contract (which is virtually impossible for us to know unless documented somewhere). In some countries, older laws might have assumed a transfer of copyright for commissioned works, but that is generally not true with modern laws (the U.S. often used to but no longer; no idea if that concept ever existed in France but given their longtime focus on droit d'auteur i.e. giving most rights to the author themselves I would tend to doubt it). The French copyright expires (in almost all cases) 70 years after that author's death; at that point any photos of it (past or present) are generally OK provided we have a license for the photo. Until it has expired, the copyright would be controlled by the copyright owner's estate or heirs (depending on their will). Usually the author is the copyright owner, but the exploitation rights can be transferred/sold to someone else. The copyright term however is always based on the original author's life. If a work is from say the 1870s or before, it's rather likely that it has expired, but if the author is known it's best to look up when they died (and the author is good information to have on the upload anyways). If the author is not named on the work and is otherwise unknown, it might be considered "anonymous", and if so the copyright would expire 70 years after publication (see the {{Anonymous-EU}} tag). There are lots of minutiae to copyright law and it can get extremely complex, meaning simple rules are often impossible, particularly if we want to take advantage of every opportunity afforded us by the law to host (free) images here. If they are photos of buildings or other architectural works, one option is to upload them to the English Wikipedia directly instead of Commons (since they follow U.S. law exclusively, and since photos of buildings are never considered derivative works there, photos of buildings are fine on that project). Photos of sculpture on the other hand can be an issue in the U.S. (as proven by a few court cases) so we would really need more information on the author (if a modern work) to be sure. Actual signs which say Droits: domaine public are interesting... not sure that has come up before. I would normally expect that to mean that the droit d'auteur has expired normally, but it might mean that the author made a special allowance in that case to allow derivative works (i.e. given blanket consent). The existence of such a sign might be very significant. The exact wording in French law (well the unofficial translation) is Any complete or partial performance or reproduction made without the consent of the author or of his successors in title or assigns shall be unlawful. The same shall apply to translation, adaptation or transformation, arrangement or reproduction by any technique or process whatsoever. A photograph of a copyrighted work is normally considered to fall under that article. Most copyright laws have wording which is more or less the same, but a number (not France) have limitations to that right for publicly-displayed works, which mean that photographers can claim full copyright in those situations. "Freedom of panorama" is basically documenting those exceptions to normal copyright in the countries where they exist -- if there is no exception, then the general "derivative work" clauses apply. Keep in mind these would be photos focusing primarily on a copyrighted work; a photo of an entire park which happens to have a statute somewhere in it should be OK -- we just need the license for the photograph. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it: as a rule of thumb monuments for the Franco-Prussian War (and the wars before that) are safe, Monuments for the First World War are safe as long as its clear that they were made before 1940 (the Monuments-aux-Morts, usually made around 1920-1925 are safe) and the artist did not live after the Second World War. Monuments for the Second World War, by definition made during or after 1945, should be considered risky. If a person is (re)buried after 1945, the grave is probably protected by copyright. The grave of Victor Noir (who died in 1870) has a sculpture which is attributed to Joseph Dalou (who died in 1902). The date of death of Dalou is leading and that is more than 70 years ago, so that image is safe. The tomb of Oscar Wilde (who died in 1900) in Père Lachaise was made by Jacob Epstein (who died in 1959) so, unless it can be be proven that Robbie Ross (who died in 1918) became the owner of the copyright, the date of death of Jacob Epstein is leading, which means the copyright will expire in August 2027. Although I do not want to seem to labour a point (I am now reasonably confident about FoP), my original remark about transparancy still stands in my opinion. If I try to upload a picture of a monument (not in a wider setting) that may be protected by copyright, it will not be allowed. Not because of FoP, but because it may be copyrighted. As I understand what Carl Lindberg has written, you can upload panoramas, even when they include copyrighted material, if it is clear that the picture does not try to evade copyright and the copyrighted material is not blatantly visible (this may sound stupid but it would be difficult to take a picture of a street with cars because all the brandmarkings would have to be removed, as they are registered trademarks). The other problem I have is with private property. If a monument is accessible by the public but stands on private property do these rules still apply? For example a monument in a church? Finally and then I will let this go, I think I understand what Droits: domaine public means in legal terms. I will probably go to France next year and make a photograph of such a sign when I encounter it. My apologies for all these questions, but I am trying to understand a difficult issue. Where I live, not knowing the law is not considered a legal argument. JHvW (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You are homing in on it :-) Monuments made for WWII are more than risky, they are 100% copyrighted, since if the author was still alive at the time it is not possible for 70 years to have elapsed since their death. Monuments for the first World War might be OK if they were made towards the end of the sculptor's life -- but it can be amazing how long copyright can last in some specific instances. For sculptures by Joseph Dalou, correct, those are fine. If Jacob Epstein died in 1959, that means the copyright will last until January 1, 2030 (70 years from the author's death, and the remainder of that year -- most countries now have copyrights expire at the end of the calendar year). It does not matter if Robbie Ross acquired the copyright; the length of the copyright term is based on the original author's death and does not change when/if the copyright is transferred. As for FoP, the point to remember is that it is an exception to an author's normal rights. Copyright (or in France, the exploitation rights) generally covers the ability to make and especially distribute copies, plus they control derivative works. Given those wide-ranging rights, most countries have a number of limitations for specific circumstances where it would be too detrimental to everyone else. For example, many countries explicitly allow making private copies of selected pages of books etc. at libraries for research purposes, or maybe the use of copyrighted works for teaching, that sort of thing. News-reporting organizations are given wide latitude for uses necessary to report the news (but not further). *Some* countries additionally have an exception along the lines of "it shall not be an infringement of copyright to reproduce a work permanently displayed in public" -- that type of limitation is what we call "FoP", which has a direct bearing on licensing requirements and is what this page tries to list. For the countries that have them, the wording can differ by a little bit or a lot, and the differences can be important. For example, Austria allows photos of copyrighted public works period, and Germany allows photos if they are taken from a public place. A photographer went to a second-floor private room in Austria to take a picture of an iconic apartment building across the street. That author marketed a poster based on that photo in Austria, which was fine. He then marketed it Germany, was sued, and lost, because he ran afoul of Germany's very slight difference. These little details are why we have country-by-country sections on this page... some define "public place" differently, some have the "permanent" part and some don't, some allow only exterior photos of buildings, some allow only certain types of works (3d but not 2d, or buildings but not sculpture), and some look like they are that type of exception then add "provided it is not used for commercial purposes" (which crosses over the line for Commons). In general, in those countries which have full FoP (as we call it), so long as you are on public ground when you take the picture, it should be fine (and in some countries on private ground is also OK if the work itself is public). France has none of these exceptions to copyright, so the full force of the author's derivative rights is in effect; it doesn't matter *where* you are, the photos focusing on copyrighted works have restrictions. The fact of being on private property has no bearing on the copyright; if a statue is expired then the copyright to a photo you take is yours. (Obviously don't trespass, or violate someone's privacy -- other laws can come into play but those would not affect the copyright, and other than privacy violations would not affect uploads to Commons). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for the clear explanation and the substantial effort put into it. I believe I now know the difference between absolutely free and fair use. I will regard droit d'auteur as a non-transferable right of exploitation (including possible derivatives) rather than copyright. I am a little disappointed because pictures of graves will probably be lost in many cases. Perpetuity on modern concessions usually last no longer than 75 years (sounds weird does'nt it). Which means that a grave will possibly be cleared before the droit d'auteur expires. But that is the law and I shall abide. JHvW (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

FoP in Uruguay

The Article 45.8 of the law regarding copyright says: No es reproducción ilícita: [...] La reproducción fotográfica de cuadros, monumentos, o figuras alegóricas expuestas en los museos, parques o paseos públicos, siempre que las obras de que se trata se consideren sólidas de dominio privadoLey N° 9.739 de 17 de diciembre de 1937 sobre Derechos de Autor (modificada por última vez por la Ley N° 18.046 de 24 de octubre de 2006). The word 'sólidas' in the text of the law is a typographic error and should be readed as 'salidas'. It would translate as: "Its not an ilicit reproduction: [...] The photographic reproduction of paintings, monuments, or allegorical figures exhibited in museums, parks or public walks, provided that the works in question are considered out of private domain". As i understand it, the law only permits the photographic reproduction of paintings, monuments, or allegorical figures exhibited in museums, parks or public walks, as long as they are already in the public domain. What do you think?.--Zeroth (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

There would be no need to list an exception to the scope of copyright if the copyright had expired -- it should go without saying that photos of public domain works are OK. This portion of the law is a limitation in the scope of an existing copyright. There is definitely a typo there, and it did come up before at Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama/Archive_7#Statues_images, but the thought seemed to be it referred to works which have a private owner (and which of course are still under copyright). We could always be wrong of course, so any further information is always welcomed -- if the issue is discussed in literature anywhere that is always a help. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Carl. The dilema seems to be the interpretation of 'Dominio privado' ('private domain'). If it means private owner, there would be FoP in Uruguay. I'll seek legal advise and return :).--Zeroth (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama/Archive_12&oldid=103441127"