Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 16

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 →

Namibia again

We've been there before: Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 13#Namibia. Now there was another deletion request, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pgallert, and some wise Wikimedian once said, roughly, that 'If certain proceedings have your user name as name then you might be in a hole. Stop digging.' So if this cannot be resolved I'll do all of you the favour of not returning here, and not uploading any more photos.

However, the results at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pgallert are astonishing:

This does not give me any indication as to what pictures I can upload here, and I'd rather write articles than wasting time and money on uploads that don't survive. So forgive me all for bringing this up again. --Pgallert (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The law

The law says three main things:

  1. In paragraph 1: "artistic work" means, irrespective of its artistic quality-
    1. a painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving or photograph;
    2. a work of architecture, being either a building or a model of a building; or
    3. a work of craftsmanship not falling within either a model of a building;
  2. In paragraph 3: copyright shall subsist in a work of architecture erected in Namibia or any other artistic work incorporated in a building or any other permanent structure in Namibia, whether or not the author was a qualified person.
  3. In paragraph 16: In addition to reproductions permitted in terms of this Act reproduction of a work shall also be permitted in such circumstances as are prescribed, but in such a manner that the reproduction is not in conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and is not unreasonably prejudicial to the legitimate interests of the owner of the copyright.

The law does not define the terms "normal exploitation" and "unreasonably prejudicial".

View by Pgallert (talk · contribs)

In my view (1) and (2) forbid any reproduction whatsoever, down to road signs, flower pots, pavement, and so on. All buildings and all craftsmanship, whatever the quality, and whatever the qualification of the creator. (3) specifies exceptions if two requirements are met: a) the reproduction is not in conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, and b) the work is not unreasonably prejudicial to the legitimate interests of the owner of the copyright.

Checking what conflicts with a normal exploitation of the work and what does not, we have for instance:

  • A photograph: view, display, sell copies
  • A school: conduct classes (no conflict with photographs)
  • A tombstone: view, display (conflict with photographs)
  • A wall or gate: keep things in or out (no conflict with photographs)
  • A residential building: provide shelter (no conflict with photographs)

However, there can be combinations of "normal exploitations". I'm thinking of a building like the w:Supreme Court of Namibia, which is not just housing judges but was meant to make a statement in itself. That would therefore be an example of a building where publishing a picture conflicts with its intended purpose, at least partially. That's why I think it matters if a creation is art or not: If it is art it is meant to be viewed, then publishing a picture of it conflicts with that. If it is not art, and if it has a purpose other than bein viewed, then there is no conflict.

Checking what is unreasonably prejudicial to the legitimate interests of the owner of the copyright, can afaik not be done currently, as we don't have any court cases from Namibia. To bring up cases from elsewhere is not helpful, as other countries have different verbatim legal texts. But a very strict interpretation leads to the paradox situation that I would not be allowed to publish a picture of my own house, that every newspaper picture is illegal, that our national TV is illegal... Not to mention that in this case, paragraph 16 of the law would not apply to anything. I'm at a loss as to why this reading would be applied here at Commons, even though it makes no sense?

Pinging the participants of the deletion request, and the participants of the archived 2013 discussion: @Stefan4: @Jameslwoodward: @Elisfkc: @Eleassar: @Avenue:

--Pgallert (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

In the text of section 16, one key word is "prescribed". Section 16 applies only to what is "prescribed". "Prescribed" is defined in section 1 and further details are provided in section 61. In short, "prescribed" means prescribed by a regulation made by the minister of Information and Broadcasting by notice in the official Gazette. So, in order to know to what, if anything, section 16 applies, you would have to look what ministerial regulations, if any, were made and published pursuant to the power of section 61 and what those regulations say. (Note that I disagree with the interpretation of Clindberg. IMO, the wording of the section strongly suggests that section 16 does not apply to the permissions that are already specified in other sections of the Act itself. It's the opposite. It applies to the permissions that are not specified in the Act, but in the regulations.) About your concerns about newspaper pictures, that would be covered by the permissions in the Act itself. See section 18 (4), which applies to artistic works mutatis mutandis some paragraphs of section 15, including fair dealing in the use of a work in a periodical. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

First, none of "flower pots, pavement" do not have copyrights unless the flower pots are decorated artistically. Road signs may or may not have a copyright. But. yes, it is true that many things do have copyrights and in no-FOP countries many images cannot be kept.

Second, as I said at the DR, your comments on exploitation completely miss the point. All of your points above focus on the user's exploitation of the work. The issue here is not the rights of the user, but the rights of the creator and in every case the creator -- the architect, designer, sculptor -- has the exclusive right to exploit the work by, among other things, selling photographs of it. This is black letter law and doesn't deserve further discussion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


Going back to the law discussion... points 1 and 2 are correct, obviously, and are normal parts of copyright law -- architectural works are protected. Point 3, on section 16 of the law, is where I think you are going off track. The "normal exploitation" bits are simply copied from the wording of the Berne Convention, article 9(2), and are not defined there either: It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author. I think we have taken that to mean that even for countries with full FoP, you can't say take a picture of a 2-D work which is cropped to the borders of that work and call it OK -- that photo can basically be used as a substitute of the original work, which definitely affects the normal exploitation, as it amounts to a straight copy. Those clauses are a boundary on any "special cases" a country can define. So yes, a country can enumerate several special cases, which is typically where any FoP clauses will be in a law. For the law you linked, those are in sections 15, and 17 through 24. Section 16 is simply a general note which restricts any of the prescribed special cases to the same boundaries in the Berne Convention clause. The key there is the clause "as are prescribed", which means that any exception to the reproduction right must be explicitly prescribed in one of those other articles -- you can't invent others. (Note also Berne article 9(3): Any sound or visual recording shall be considered as a reproduction for the purposes of this Convention. So, a photo would seem to be a reproduction by the Berne Convention.) Article 18(1) seems to be the closest thing to a FoP clause, but that only applies to cinematographic works, and only if the work is in the background. So, it does not appear there are any prescribed cases which would amount to a FoP clause. Yes, photos may be OK in certain educational circumstances, but that does not mean they are "free", which means *all* circumstances. U.S.-style "fair use" is more extensive than the listed special cases, allowing use in a number of circumstances, but it is still not allowed here if that is the only rationale. What you say is basically true -- photos of 3-D objects would not affect the "normal exploitation", which is why FoP clauses can exist per the Berne Convention. However, to not be considered a reproduction of the architectural work, there needs to be a special case listed in the law -- which you have not pointed to. I agree that such photos would not be a problem per Article 16, provided there was another clause in sections 15 or 17-24 which "prescribes" an explicit exception to the general reproduction rule, which would apply in *all* circumstances, not just educational, etc. And as far as I can see, there are no such prescribed cases. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I see. That "as are prescribed" clause is more restrictive than I realised, when I brought up section 16 in one of the earlier discussions. Thanks for explaining that. --Avenue (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
As the nominator for deletion, I feel it is my obligation to comment here. When I was nominating for deletion, I saw that there seemed to be many images from Namibia that violated FOP. Rather than trying to make a decision as to the threshold by myself, I decided to nominate all images from Namibia that you had uploaded that looked like they may have even had the slightest chance of being a FOP violation. That way, if the image was kept, there would be a standing precedent for the image in case someone else tried to nominate it later for a FOP violation. In hindsight, this was probably not the best approach to use, and I will try to refrain from doing it in the future. --Elisfkc (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Carl Lindberg for the comprehensive explanation. I'll go and read again, that's not happening today anymore. For now I probably still need another clue as to the 'you miss the point on exploitation' argument: If I'm a building designer I draw plans and sell them to the developer. I get money for it. Isn't that, my remuneration, the ordinary way to exploit my effort? I don't see how the architect of my house could claim entrance to what is now my property in order to exploit their right to their intellectual property. On top of that, the architect did not erect my building. The architect created the building plans, which are not to be published here. Thanks for your patience, Pgallert (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
That is up to each individual country, to define what is part of the architect's rights and what is not. The Berne Convention default is that such a photo is considered a reproduction. Virtually every country will have exceptions for educational or commentary use being OK; a number further think that making money off a photo of a building should go to the photographer and not the architect (these countries will have a FoP clause for that purpose), and some will let that stay within the architect's rights such that the photographer would need to negotiate a license for any use outside the prescribed cases in the law. This is one area where different countries have different opinions on the matter. It would not be "normal exploitation" of the building itself, quite true -- but it's still a reproduction, and that is where countries can decide whether architects have derivative rights over such reproductions, or not. It appears Namibia, by the list of exceptions in their law, gives the architect some control over such uses. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
As an example, Austria has a FoP clause that photos of buildings are not controlled by the architect. Germany has a similar law, but only if the photograph was taken from a public place. There was a case about the en:Hundertwasserhaus, where a photographer got access to a private apartment across the street and took a photo, and marketed a poster or something like that. That was perfectly legal in Austria, where the building is, but the poster was also marketed in Germany -- and the architect sued over the poster in Germany and won the case. In Germany, the architect was given control over some uses of such photos (typically commercial) by their list of prescribed uses, while in Austria the architect did not have any control. So, if you exploit the work that way in Austria, you are fine by Austrian law -- but if you exploit the same work in Germany, you are now subject to German law for any uses there. You may philosophically disagree, but we need to follow the law. Since this is not "normal exploitation", countries can choose the boundaries for themselves over who controls a reproduction -- and Namibia does not exempt such photos from derivative rights of the architect in commercial cases, looking at their law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I've been reading, and reading again, the law and your respective commentary. If this was an insurance contract I would feel cheated, to be honest. Would it be fair to sum up the reasoning on why any picture of any modern building has to be deleted, thusly:
  1. All copyright on art lies with the artist (common sense)
  2. All buildings are architecture (question of definition, probably ok)
  3. All architecture is art (Here's where I feel cheated on for the first time. Thinking of dog kennels and the like. Doesn't seem to fit well with the definition in (2))
  4. Taking pictures is a reasonable exploitation of one's work (Here's where I feel cheated for a second time. I do not create everyday things with the intention of taking pictures of them, unless I really attempt to create art, in the narrow sense)
This all reminds me of that old joke that you probably all know, of the lawyer insuring his cigars against fire damage. The second chain of argumentation seems to be:
  1. Some text is copied from the Berne Convention (undeniable)
  2. Namibia is a signatory of the Berne Convention (equally undeniable)
  3. Namibia does not grant Freedom of Panorama (undeniable)
  4. Therefore Namibia's law implements the strict additional restrictions on FoP per Berne Convention while not actually permitting FoP in the first place.
(4) is where you're losing me.--Pgallert (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hrm. Not... quite. I may not have been clear enough.
  1. The copyright is owned by the artist, yes.
  2. Buildings are architecture, yes.
  3. Not all architecture would be copyrighted, no. There are also threshold of originality boundaries, but that is another can of worms. For this discussion, I was assuming that the building would have a valid copyright.
  4. Taking pictures does *not* affect the normal exploitation of the building, no. However, that does not help us, since there is no FoP provision.
Maybe we can go down another path.
  1. The architect owns the copyright on the building.
  2. The Berne Convention gives such authors the right over reproductions (including derivative works) by default.
  3. The Berne Convention explicitly calls a visual version of the work a "reproduction", meaning the author of the original work controls such reproductions, by default.
  4. The Berne Convention allows countries to make a set of exceptions to the general "reproduction" rule, naming situations which would be reproductions, but do not require permission from original author. This will often include use by schools, or certain uses by libraries, or use in court cases, etc. This *can* include a FoP provision.
  5. Namibia lists a large number of these limitations. However, FoP is not one of them. Therefore, commercial use of such reproductions falls under the default rule, where permission is needed from the original author. (Non-commercial use is probably OK by one of the exceptions actually listed, like fair dealing -- but those do not result in "free" files.)
  6. The "normal exploitation" clause is just a safeguard if any of the listed exceptions accidentally goes too far -- for example, if a country added a FoP clause saying reproductions of public works is OK, but forgets to mention that you cannot reproduce a work of architecture in another work of architecture, a clause like article 16 would patch that up -- copying a public work in the same form as the original most definitely affects the "normal exploitation". Article 16 is not an exception in itself -- it simply says that the list of exceptions prescribed by all the other articles nearby cannot be construed to allow copying a work in the same form as the original. While photographs of a building do not do that, the main problem is that there is no FoP clause in the first place, so there is no exception "as are prescribed" in the other articles that we can use, so Article 16 really does not hurt nor help us. It's just not relevant.
From your second set, items 1 through 3 are correct, and that's basically the end of the story for us, unfortunately. If there is no FoP exception, the default "visual recording" clause applies and we would need a license from the underlying author to be free. Countries are allowed to list limitations which would normally qualify as "reproductions", so far as those limitations do not affect the "normal exploitation". FoP clauses are within that range, but without such a clause, the photos cannot be entirely "free", even if certain uses are still OK (going by the listed exceptions). So while a photo of a Namibian building would not affect the "normal exploitation", there is nothing in Namibia's law which frees us from it being a reproduction of the building subject to the copyright of the architect. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Clindberg (talk · contribs), and thanks again for your patience with me. Sleeping over the matter several times I think I have located the core of our misunderstanding. If we can agree that, although Namibia is a signatory to the Berne Convention, this convention is not a law of Namibia, then I think here is where the reasoning (to delete for No FoP) fails:
  • Namibian law says any building can be architecture (in 1, "artistic work", b) and that any structure is a building (in 1, "building")
  • Namibian law does not say all buildings are architecture (otherwise 1, "artistic work", b, would say "being any building". Instead, it says "being either a building or a model of a building". This phrase restricts architecture to buildings, as opposed to, maybe, natural formations). "Model of a building" is undefined and should thus be taken in its common meaning.
Furthermore, we have an explicit exemption of what a reproduction of a building can be: "'copy' means a reproduction of a work [...] but an object shall not be taken to be a copy of a work of architecture unless the object is a building or a model of a building;" (in 1, "copy"). This should be a phrase clearly restricting the application of (1, "reproduction") which reads: "'reproduction' in relation to [...] (b) an artistic work, includes a version produced by converting the work into a three-dimensional form or, if it is in three dimensions, by converting it into a two-dimensional form;" So generally, artistic works may not be so reproduced but buildings and structures may. Hope I'm not totally off-track again ;) --Pgallert (talk) 08:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
In some countries, the Berne Convention text is a self-executing treaty, i.e. the text of the treaty becomes law. I'm not sure if that is the case in Namibia (it is not the case in the U.S.). But, OK, we can stick to Namibian law.
  • Yes, buildings and models of buildings are considered artistic works.
  • It is true that a "copy" of a work of architecture can only be another building or a model, not a photo.
  • However, "reproduction" is separately defined, and says in part: an artistic work, includes a version produced by converting the work into a three-dimensional form or, if it is in three dimensions, by converting it into a two-dimensional form. Since works of architecture are included as parts of artistic works, then "reproductions" include photographs of buildings (converting it into a two-dimensional form). Those are two different definitions which do not restrict each other -- they would apply where the terms "copy" and "reproduction" are used in the law, respectively. All copies are reproductions, but not all reproductions are copies.
  • Article 8 says: Copyright in an artistic work vests the exclusive right to do or to authorise the doing of any of the following acts in Namibia: (a) Reproducing the work in any manner or form; So, authors of artistic works (which include architecture) have the right to restrict reproductions (which would include photographs of buildings). If that clause had used the term "copy" instead of "reproduce", you might have had something. But... it does not ;-) That exclusive right may be limited in other sections of the law, namely 15 and 17-24, but there is nothing as liberal as FoP in there. I would imagine that fair dealing (article 15) would cover most non-commercial uses of such photos, meaning those are OK, but not full FoP. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, I figured we would get into grammar soon, admittedly that's not my strongest point. Is it so strange to read "copy" means a reproduction of a work as a declaration of synonymity of (1) "copy", and (2), "reproduction of a work"? What else is this phrase saying than >>You may freely reproduce architectural works but not by building models of it, and not by rebuilding something similar<<? --Pgallert (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
It is saying a "copy" is either a "reproduction" or "adaptation" (as separately defined), but specifically excluding photos or paintings or movies of buildings (just another actual building, or a model, can qualify as a copy of an architectural work). It does not affect the definition of "reproduction" (rather it is based on that definition). It just means that where the word "copy" is used in the rest of the law, it would not include photos of buildings, but where "reproduction" or "reproduce" is used, it would. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The way forward

I still haven't gotten any idea what Namibian pictures will stay, and why. I notice that the ones that were spared happen to be the ones that are currently used in an article somewhere on Wikipedia---Is this intentional? If yes, is it based on the "storage" versus "broadcast" purposes of Commons / Wikipedia, or is it some 'don't poke the bear' kind of reasoning?

So if the FoP clauses of the Namibian law are applied strictly then this should probably be spelled out in the policy. That I cannot take any pic of any building, including things like a politician in front of a wall, unless I can prove that the architect of the wall gave permission. In this case maybe a garish edit notice should decorate the appropriate categories, and hundreds of other pictures should be deleted. I assume it is barely coincidence that only Pgallert gets such pictures deleted, but if it is illegal this should probably be expanded. I'm also thinking of a template that should accompany uploads from Namibian territory (insert artist / construction date / DoD / etc). Any thoughts on that? --Pgallert (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I also think some of the pictures should not have been deleted. Specifically.

More generally, I think we shouldn't be so strict here. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I think, Yann, that most of the above are typical of our ongoing disagreement about what architecture is covered by copyright and what is not. In the USA, it is clear that all architecture, even the simplest house or shed, is covered and there is case law to prove it. That isn't part of our disagreement, though, because of US FOP. I believe, though, that in other countries, the law is similar, particularly in ones like Namibia where the law clearly states that copyright applies "irrespective of its artistic quality". You disagree, and would exempt much architecture from copyright. Since there is little or no case law, there is no way to solve this. Although my attitude is prohibited by PRP -- I think it is unlikely that any Namibian architect is going to act against us, so I shrug -- do what you like here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jim, architecture is not the only issue. Some of the above are not architecture, and in most cases, no details are visible. So even if every hut is covered by a copyright (which I doubt), you can't argue about it when nothing is visible. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I requested undeletion of these files here: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Files by Pgallert. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

When I think of creating a description somewhere of what is okay to upload and what is not I must admit I'm getting even more confused. What's the difference between File:NSX.jpg, an ordinary old urban building, not up for undeletion, and File:Asab General Dealer.jpg, an ordinary old rural building, currently nominated for undeletion? Thanks a lot, Pgallert (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I start to become a real nuisance. The undeletion request gave me an idea of what is just about acceptable. Can someone please give me an example of what is too much architectural detail for Namibia as a non-FoP country, maybe from a country like the US where all sorts of building pics can be taken? This is in order to judge what pics I can take, or even, to stretch the idea a bit, how I should take a picture of a building in a way that we can have it on Commons? Thanks in advance again, and best regards, Pgallert (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@Pgallert: Hi,
The issue is that all admins do not agree here. I would not delete these files, but I won't restore the remaining without a support from others, which I don't see.
The law is not the same everywhere, and the existence or absence of FoP changes the result from everything to very little is allowed. My reasoning is that, in the absence of FoP, there is obviously a threshold of originality and de minimis to take into account, otherwise we could not take a single picture in a modern city. Reading these last 2 links may help you to understand. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Scientific models, schemes and images

Without freedom of panorama, the archaeological, ancient naval and palaeontological models, paintings, drawings or posters can't be shared in the public domain because they are often considered as artworks. Yet it is most often not creative, but collective and anonymous works, in order to stay within the limits of what is allowed by scientists at the time it is made. Given that they are necessarily inspired by other images already scientifically agreed, this is a second unable to share if we consider it as a copyviol. This process, whose most impressive examples are the real size Dinosaurs sitting proeminently in the gardens or in the front square of various Museums, or else prehistorical Hominidae presented in dioramas by many Museums, made more or less « inaccurate » images or models : a such restitution is thereby in main part conjectural, because even in the rare cases of preservation in amber, tar, peat or ice, the original organic material is damaged, particularly concerning its colors. This is a third unable to share.

I removed this from the article, and then User:Amélie Pataud added it back to the article as minor(!) edit, saying "This is a real and important domain concerned by the subject". If it is to go in the article, it desperately needs editing. But why should it go into the article? It doesn't say anything about what the law says or how Commons policy interprets the law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

(Moved from my talk page)
Hello ! :-) Many people and especially a lot of Commons administrators don't see the point at all and this is precisely the problem : they make no distinction between a work of art (drawings, paintings, sculptures, photographies, movies, music, poetry, writings... created by an artist and belonging to their authors) and a scientific work (schemes, diagrams, maps, archaeological or palaeontologic restitutions... anonymous or team-building and belonging by origin to the public domain, except if the Museum where the work is exposed is a private one). Too bad... --Amélie Pataud (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
There is no distinction between a work of art and a scientific work in law. Scientific works are copyrightable, and scientific publishers charge large amounts for even pure science like a mathematical proof.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
As Prosfilaes says, copyright law does not make a distinction either. Artistic merit is actually not often a criteria for copyright -- a child's scribble is still copyrightable. And since the definition of "free" depends on copyright law, we can't ignore it. Yes, scientific works have a far different target audience than purely artistic works, and have constraints of known facts etc., and are much more valuable to an educational resource like Wikipedia, but -- all of that does not matter for copyright. As long as there was some room for creative expression above the threshold of originality, there is a copyright which cannot be ignored. This is part of the difficulty of making a "free encyclopedia" -- the "free" part can make the "encyclopedia" part harder to do. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

FOP Barbados

After this deletion request I managed to find out that Barbados may have FOP. Representation of artistic works on public display according to NATIONAL LEGISLATION - BARBADOS, Copyright and Related Rights Laws and Treaties, Copyright Act, 1998 [1]

„:1. This section 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.
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.”
If this is OK, can somebody update Commons:Freedom of panorama and File:Freedom of Panorama world map.svg? Thanks! Ionutzmovie (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Christmas lights in Spain

Are Christmas lights installed as arches on a Spanish street OK as free images, or should I not bother nominating s picture showing several of them at COM:FPC? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess no-one follows this board regularly, so whenever anyone answers this, please post a pointer in my user talk page or at least ping me. Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Nazi graffiti in Germany

Firstly, graffiti may be copyrightable. Secondly, German criminal law has a section against Nazi symbolism. And thirdly, only permanently displayed works fall under German freedom of panorama. --84.61.140.85 20:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're bringing this up here. That's conflating three issues, and doesn't seem to be responding to anything on this page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Mass deletion requests being issued for Saudi cities

I can not see how is it okay to issue mass deletion requests of the sort user Ras67 has doing recently for Saudi cities in the light of the FOP policy without consulting the community, as he did here, here, here and here. These few deletion requests have erased over 200 photos of the already scarce and struggling content of Saudi Arabia's photos on Wikimedia Commons. If this is actually the case we want it be, it could be relevant as well just to ban all users from third world countries with poor legislation laws to use Commons uploader at all, since all their efforts are going to waste anyway. User groups in the Middle East have been hosting Wiki Loves Monuments and various other events for promoting Commons' usage in the region throughout the last few years, such enormous efforts would have rather been orientated towards Arabic Wikipedia and other local language versions if everything they have worked on for Commons can be just momentarily mass-erased in such requests. This problem applies to a ridiculously large pool of images that it cannot, and should not, be handled on such a short notice and unresponsible manner, as though if it is only affecting few individual images or categories. This matter requires urgent look through and, meanwhile, similar deletions should cease for the moment --Abbad (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC).

We have had the same problem with Russian photos for years, and thousands of useful images have been lost. To my knowledge, there is no interest in solving this problem here, because the majority of Commons users simply pride themselves on running such massive deletions again and again. They don't even care about figuring out the details, they just say that something may be copyrighted and delete the image. The only solution is to stop using Commons and switch to local uploads. --Alexander (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
A DR is a means of consulting the community and the Commons community cannot be blamed for respecting relevant copyright legislation. Obviously, FOP is only relevant for photos of copyrightable works, i.e. not photos of nature, society or utilitarian objects. Using the other stuff exists argument, you seem to be suggesting that we stop respecting copyrights in that area, a suggestion that is neither helpful nor realistic.    FDMS  4    14:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The "other stuff exists" means that it won't make any difference if FOP-related files are deleted in 14 days or 21 days or 30 days instead of 7 days. Since it is Commons community who decides to nominate files for deletion, it is their sole responsibility to inform end users and give them enough time to transfer images that can be uploaded locally (under fair use, or due to a different interpretation of FOP rules; this difference does exist for many of the Russian photos, and it affects thousands of images that are used by different projects).
The Commons community should be definitely blamed for not doing any of that and simply elaborating on covert file deletions, as if other Wikimedia projects (who actually brought these files to Commons) did not exist. --Alexander (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
FDMS4, So you are actually convinced that deleting ten thousand photos or so by hundreds of single DRs is the same level of community consultation as a discussing in, say, the village pump, or it is just the first argument you thought of to defend the 'community' which apparently you felt was being blamed? In either case, claiming of this process is a kind of 'copyright respect' is only a part of the terribly unthoughtful interpretation of the situation here. I have to agree with Alexander that there seem to be a fair amount of pride causing trouble here. Commons' users from European or developed countries, with a completely different legislation, are expecting legal processes in every part of the world to work exactly the way it does for their governments. If you consulted a lawyer from Saudi Arabia about copyright issues for any of these photos, he could laugh his ass off about it. This is what I had like to call a false interpretation; you want to respect something that, in the sense you are conceiving, does not even exist. It is not just the laws are different, but they are even executed differently; therefore, what is required for FOP to be viable in, for example, Norway's legislation might not and will not make any sense for Saudi laws. When Saudi Arabia's government had to concerned with such a problem, it issued the decree which is referenced right here in the policy's page. It is not possible that the government will present us with any further documents on this matter because, the way things work in Saudi Arabia, it is absolutely quite enough. We can even, fairly easily, contact Saudi Wikimedians to consult lawyers or confirm FOP rules from government sources. In Saudi Arabia, this is as far as we can go. If there is any reasons this is not enough, I can not help but to feel it is the 'pride' and false perspective --Abbad (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC).
No, I am disputing that number. No-FOP enforcement isn't something that started yesterday, on the contrary, for many years thousands of different volunteers have been nominating files for deletion for exactly that reason. Just like there are probably thousands of blatant copyright violations on Commons right now there will always be still-to-be-detected no-FOP cases. If copyright didn't exist in Saudi Arabia (it does), what would the point in uploading content to a repository of media with a certain copyright status be anyway? Also, do you consider France or Italy developing countries?    FDMS  4    23:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
If you want a confirmed number, I am sorry that I can not provide you one, but how does that even matter other than the fact we have a vast number of pictures in question? Certainly, it is not the individual category case that is usually handled by regular DRs, which is the sole point I was making of this reference. I can not really see how any previous execution of DRs is relevant to the fact that it is wrong to do it this way. I never said Saudi Arabia had no copyright laws, what I said was merely a discussion of how FOP rules could apply to Saudi law. If you want to re-ask the question again for the concept of FOP in itself and if it ever existed in Saudi Arabia, then I daresay that the answer may very well be no, it never did. For France and Italy, I will say again that the sole point of this reference is to explain perspective difference, it is not really relevant whether they allow FOP or they do not --Abbad (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC).
You are free to make that point, I just believe the number of files is actually very small compared to the overall number of SA-related files. Furthermore, I believe that the amount of files affected by itself is irrelevant here since consensus to delete no-FOP cases does not need to be established on a per-county basis (if an individual DR-batch-nominated file's no-FOP status is disputed that file should of course be renominated and discussed separately). It might very well be that this is absolutely obvious to you, still I'd like to remind you that "the concept of FOP" is an exemption; a lack thereof thus doesn't mean that we can keep files otherwise affected by it. Your point was that European developed countries (I hope that "or" there was accidental, btw :) ) and Middle Eastern ones have "completely different legislations", I fail to see how this is relevant here since FOP exemptions are actually exactly the same in some countries of both groups (i.e. nonexistent).    FDMS  4    01:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
this kind of mass deletion is what makes commons hated among the larger community. you can be rigorous without being an asshole, but why start now? having periodic purges after the uploaders are long gone, and the options for a wiki to migrate as "fair use" are non-existent, tends to cement the bad reputation. we need to put panoramio images in maintenance categories for triage, but why fix when you can mass delete. and hey, if an army of angry uploaders put on "do not transfer to commons" it's less work for you. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
given the fact that there is an EDP at arabic, why don't you use fair use bot to transfer all the deleted images there? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 00:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

India

The India section is currently being discussed at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#FOP in India (permalink).    FDMS  4    15:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Photos of nonfree works - is there a tag?

Images in Commons invoking freedom of panorama (FoP) are derivatives of nonfree works. In various places sometimes it is said that Commons hosts only free content, but this is not accurate, nonfree works are the subject of most photos in the FoP photos.

When Commons:De minimis is used to rationalize the upload of an image, then the image gets a tag like this.

Warning: One or more elements in this file are protected by copyright

Some parts of this file (statue) are not fully free but believed to be de minimis for this work. Derivatives of this file which focus more on the non-free element(s) may not qualify as de minimis and may be copyright violations. As a direct consequence, cropped versions of this file may require a review of their copyright status.

This information template was included because This work is illustrating a park and the statue is in the background..


However if FoP tags go on an image, we have no way to differentiate free and non-free works. Has anyone ever tried to develop a tag on this subject?

The problem which I am seeking to address is how an artist/copyright holder in a country without FoP can apply the same kind of permission which the state government grants in countries with FoP, in order that images of a copyright holder's work can appear in Commons. The challenge is addressing confusion when reviewers in Commons say that if an artist gives permission, such as for a sculpture in a public park, then they have to apply a free license to the entire sculpture for it to be in Commons and not just permission for the photo as a derivative work. Obviously this is not the case, because with our FoP rules, lots of nonfree sculptures are photographed and uploaded to commons as freely licensed images which are derivatives of the original nonfree sculpture.

FoP laws are designed to automatically grant photographers licenses to take photos of certain nonfree works. How can someone express that same kind of license for nonfree works, when there is artist/copyright holder permission, in countries without FoP? Surely it is not the case that we accept government licenses when including nonfree works in Commons, but not copyright holder permission, right?

Also - can people who reply please state whether they recall seeing this issue addressed before? The archives are vast here and even if anyone cannot find a similar previous discussion I would like to hear if anyone remembers one happening. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No-FoP-Iceland template?

Could someone please create a No-FoP-Iceland template to add to categories of copyrighted public art in Iceland? For some reason, we seem to not have one, and I can't quite figure out how to make on in the style of those already existing for other countries. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Germany: Copyrighted logo on a ship falls under FOP

Stumbled upon this today: BGH: Panoramafreiheit deckt Foto von Aida-Kussmund (heise.de, in German). Also mentioned: Advertisements on buses, trams etc. --El Grafo (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Tanzania

Tanzania is shown red on the map, but in the text it is ok. Who edits the map?Kipala (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That's interesting. It was marked "OK" in this edit, but the law appears to only allow use of public works in audio-visual or cinematographic works, *not* any photograph. It would seem to be similar to South Africa in that regard, which is marked red and "Not OK". Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

France:LGV line- and civil engineering

It is a while since I battled with FOP in France and then it was clear. Now I have been asked to explain the rules to other editors and it seems to have become vague.

The French term for civil engineering projects is Ouvrages d´art, it appears that the draughtsman or (his employer) hold copyright on his drawings and the schemes he designs, as I do on any svg I draw for WP. It is not clear whether he holds a CC0, or CC-BY, or something more restrictive. It is not clear if he holds copyright on the built object. In the case of the en:Contournement Nîmes – Montpellier whether he holds copyright on array of realigned roads that he has been employed to workup. There are 188 identified Ouvrages d'Art on this stretch of the (LGV). There is a body of case law that has been established in the last decade that I haven't consulted. But would someone like to say:

In France, FOP is generally accepted but does not apply in these cases.

  • Sculptures and street art, in a public space- this is copyrighted.
  • Buildings and items of architecture in their entirety, which are unique artistic creations rather than construction determined by technical restraints. To prove their eligibility certain tests must be applied:
    • An artistic character
    • Originality not a generic building type used elsewhere
    • an “esthetic preoccupation ”
    • An harmonious arrangement of visual elements
    • Sufficient coverage of the artistic creation to show its originality.

If the building is not a part of the subject of the image, and the image unavoidably includes the building, FOP applies, but if the image is included to deliberately illustrate the building that is a copyvio. Urban landscapes that feature many other building are not copyvios. Civil engineering works, that are not unique or first of a type are not copyvios

Failing that can you guys think an alternative way to represent current French law.ClemRutter (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Updated Saudi Arabia FOP Law

Bases on this Conversation [2]. Ammar shaker (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't read it, but that seems to be a decree allowing photography unless there is a clear sign preventing it. That is about the legality of making photographs in the first place; the copyright is a completely separate matter. The question is when you photograph someone else's copyrighted work, does the photograph count as a derivative work. The usual default if not specified is "yes", given the wording of derivative works clauses. Copyright laws sometimes then have additional clauses for photographs of other works located in public places, to avoid the photos being deemed derivative works, or at least not giving the author of the underlying work normal derivative rights in that situation. Does the linked decree speak to that situation, or just that photography in public is generally permitted? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The FOP entry for Saudia Arabia already explicitly linked to this decree as well as this English translation of it. I've run the decree past an Arabic speaker, and they said with a cursory review the English translation seems to be accurate. It doesn't appear to make mention of copyright or alter KSA copyright law with regards to derivative works. I'm going to revert the change. —RP88 (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


Please hold on and let me translate the whole document. in the other hand, i don't believe there is a copyright law upon Building and Structures photography similar to the ones exist in European countries.
This document states in the first point (Page 4 of the PDF): "Public Photography is allowed, as long as there is no public sign prevents from doing so..., This order goes on effect starting 1 year from now ( 2007 and beyond)"
Jumping to Point 3, "..The concerned Department shall protect People rights and People privacy but to never prevent photography or forfieture films or cameras since good intentions is explained by photographer.."
Long story short, if someone holds a copyright or doesn't want his private ownerships to be photographed, he should place a 4 meter sign says "No Photography". Otherwise, Photography is fully allowed. Ammar shaker (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Please also note that the links in the PDF are directing into public Blog, it is not a reliable place to translate documentsAmmar shaker (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
With regards to your statement "i don't believe there is a copyright law upon Building and Structures", from my reading of Article 2 section 5 of Saudi Arabian copyright law it appears that works of architecture are among the works protected by copyright in Saudi Arabia. —RP88 (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes Perhabs, but that Royal Decree of 2003 was overwritten by the 2006 Royal Decree. Ammar shaker (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
As a signatory to both the Paris Convention and the Berne convention, Saudi Arabia is obliged to notify the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) of all new laws and official texts concerning the protection of industrial property and copyright (see Article 15(2) of the Paris Convention and Article 24(2) of the Berne Convention). WIPO hosts a repository of these at WIPO Lex. As far as I am able to determine, Saudia Arabia has been diligent in complying with their treaty obligation in this regard. While it is possible WIPO's database may be incomplete, they don't show a change to Saudia Arabian copyright law in 2006 (or subsequently). Unless the WIPO database is more than a decade out of date, or Saudi Arabia failed to comply with the treaty, it seems more likely that the 2006 Royal Decree mandated a change to the the legality of making photos in public places, but did not update copyright law (which is the gist of Carl Lindberg's comment). That is, before this decree it may have been illegal for me to take photos of certain public artwork and architecture in Saudi Arabia even if these works were in public, but now it is permitted to take photos of these public works unless there is a "no photography" sign. However, even if I am now permitted to take these photos, if my photo is of a work still protected by copyright, I would, for example, still be obliged to get permission from the copyright holder to sell copies of my photo since my photo is a derivative work of a work protected by copyright. —RP88 (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
i don't know much about WIPO and what the government of Saudi Arabia has to do, but i know that the degree makes it legal - at least internally - . This is not helping sir, we are trying to contribute with tonnes of "Own work" photographs that as you agree are completly legal - since there is no sign- . I beieve that the Copyright is held by Photographers, not the Structure owners, unless they put the Sign. Ammar shaker (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The decree that you link to has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright or FoP, unfortunately. It is simply about the legality of taking photographs in the first place -- i.e. can a photographer be arrested for photographing in an area. I would imagine military installations etc. cannot be photographed. Private individuals cannot control whether photography is allowed, basically -- they cannot put up such a sign -- that is meant for governments to control what can be photographed. Copyright is a completely separate matter. In general, a photographer will own the copyright of any photo taken (even if taken illegally). But, when you substantially include someone else's copyrightable work, it becomes a derivative work, where both the photographer and the author of the underlying work have rights. The Saudi Arabian 2003 law makes clear that works of architecture are protected (Article 2), and describes derivative works (Article 3). These are basically mandated by the Berne Convention. The Convention does allow FoP exceptions -- which limit derivative rights in this situation -- but Article 15 does not have such an exception. If there is a newer copyright law, it does not seem to be mentioned anywhere online, but protection of architecture is required by the Berne Convention so unlikely it was removed. Please link to a newer law if it exists. The law you link to does not affect the above in any way -- it is an unrelated concept. Such photos are probably legal when used in educational contexts, as the copyright law allows those uses, but they are not free by our policies. Yes, copyright laws can be extremely aggravating in this area, when combined with our policies -- it really does harm educational illustrations. Wikipedia though is the "free encyclopedia", not just an encyclopedia -- and the "free" part can make the "encylopedia" part harder. Even for well-meaning illustrations. It's frustrating to me -- I would love to find a good argument, but I don't remotely see it in the document you linked (provided the translation is accurate). Copyright law can be very frustrating in this area (and the amount of time it lasts), but there is no getting around it. Now, such photos can often be uploaded directly on local Wikipedias, depending on their policies. They would be fine on en-wiki, since that uses U.S. law where photos of buildings are fine (just the photographer needs to license it), but I have no idea what the fair use policies on ar-wiki are. That is the usual way that Wikipedias illustrate such things -- but they cannot be uploaded to Commons, which is not allowed to have fair use works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you, i've also found an article that explains "..Pictures of Building and Non-public figure individuals requires personal approvals from the owners.." [3]. Thank you for your time and suggestions. Ammar shaker (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistent enforcing FoP

In theory, pictures from no FoP countries with copyrighted elements are not allowed. In practice, we all know we have hundreds of thousands if not millions. Every day, a few are nominated at deletion and often end up deleting, but even when the nominator mentions 'there are other pictures in the category' nobody bothers to follow them up. Mass nominations are a pain, and dealing with all of those images would paralyze deletion process, drowning the more serious issues. Because, let's face it, FoP is not a serious problem - almost nobody knows it is an issue, and the copyright owners are much more likely to complain because, well, nobody on the Internet respects this facet of copyright law but us. Anyway, the problem is that we are not handling this issue, just letting it fester. We do waste time on deletion tackling the tip of the iceberg, but we refuse to deal with the iceberg. I think we need to have a major discussion/RfC on whether to delete million+ images or stop deleting few random images each day that got reported. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Nobody on the Internet respects any facet of copyright law. Archive.org hosts full copies of 25-year-old magazines, though occasionally the works of Harlan Ellison® and a few other authors who demanded their works be removed are excised. YouTube is stuffed full of music videos and TV shows and even movies. There's authors and owners who are loud enough and persistent enough to get rid of their works on major websites, but you don't have to go to the dark web to get copies of anything popular enough. I don't see FoP as much different. The reason that FoP exists is so people can take photos of their surroundings, so it's likely more frequently innocently violated, but also more of the violations are likely to be fair use; "photos of my vacation" are almost invariably going to be treated nicer than "a copy of Return of the Jedi".
What do you mean by saying FoP, anyway? Buildings we could completely legally ignore, as photos of buildings aren't derivative of the building in the US anyway. The most extensive forms of Freedom of Panorama like UK's, are likely to get us negative response from copyright holders, and adopting a generous interpretation of FoP not supported by most nations doesn't help in making Commons a Free archive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama in UZ

My understanding that Uzbekistan amended the laws and allowed FOP. Please see

http://narodnoeslovo.uz/index.php/uzhzhatlar/item/11899-9

point 9 paragraph 2.

If correct, should we change the UZ tags?--Armenius vambery (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Armenius vambery: Google Translate (from Russian) says that is for tourists. Does it apply to people who are not tourists, too?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

My understanding that yes. There is no definition of "tourist" in the doc. So they use the word tourist in a sense "someone who shows an interest in the historical places". --Armenius vambery (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Jeff G. Do you think the relevant tag should be updated? Thanks. --Armenius vambery (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I certainly do. The country is blessed with historical monuments. I personally would like to upload images from personal archive. --Armenius vambery (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Armenius vambery: Yes, I  Support such a change.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not know what should happens next. If no objections, apparently, someone with sufficient knowledge and skills, should create the tag "FoP UZ".--Armenius vambery (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this an actual change to copyright law? Seems like it is a directive to make changes, but the actual law change may not have happened yet. I may be completely misunderstanding it though. Is there a link to the change to the copyright law itself? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution! It is definitely not a decree to make the change, it is a direct order of the President. Why do you think the copyright law should be changed? I did not find anything in conflict. Used this text UZ Copyright Law --Armenius vambery (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how the legal system works there, if laws have to be approved, or if a law needs to be explicitly changed, etc. As it stands, the copyright law would be in direct conflict with the language in the decree, which (in translation anyways) more sounds like a direction that he wants the laws to go, and not an actual change to the law. Can a president simply decree laws there? Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Can someone create the tag for FOP Uzbekistan? Many thanks!--Armenius vambery (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Updated Albanian FOP according to the new Copyright Law and Others Right relatad.

According to the new Law approved in the Parliament of the Republic of Albania, Law no. 35/2016 of 31.3.2016 "On Copyright and other rights related thereto" (in Albanian language). The Article 82 of this law (which is a new article added) defines: 

Reproduction of permanently placed works in public places
1. Reproduction of works may be authorized, without the authorization of the author or copyright holder, and without remuneration, which are permanently placed on public roads, streets, shuttles,parks or squares, and distribution, follow-up to the public of these reproductions.
2. The works referred to in paragraph 1 of this article can not be reproduced in three-dimensional form.
3. With regard to the reproduction of architectural structures, paragraph 1 of this article applies only to the external appearance of the architectural structure.
4. In the cases provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article, the source and authorship of such copies shall be indicated, where applicable.

According to this new changes the FOP on Albania should be change. --(Bes-ARTTalk) 20:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC))

Yeah, that looks like a straightforward FoP clause, clearing up any ambiguity from previous laws. Excellent. Category:Albanian_FOP_cases/deleted may need to be revisited. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Basically the new Albanian Law on "Copyright and Others Rights Related" resembles much the German Copyright Law. The law states that: 1) It is allowed taking pictures or otherwise reproduce works that are permanently found outside public places, streets or places (such as squares, plazas) and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies. 2) It is specified that reproduction in 3-D for the cases provided in the first paragraph, is not allowed (in 2-D it is not specified if the reproduction of a work is allowed). It is therefore permissible to photographing a 3-D work or other similar forms (e.g sculptures, monuments, etc.), but not their reproduction in a 3-D form. 3) It is stated that the reproduction of architectural structures cases provided in the first paragraph is allowed only for their external appearance. 4) It is stated that the cases provided in the first paragraph of this law, e.g reproductions, photographs, etc., should be mentioned by their source or author whenever possible --(Bes-ARTTalk) 20:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC))
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama/Archive_16&oldid=308695070"