Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 18

← Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19 →

Links to Berne convention

The current links to "Berne convention" is invalid.

• Berne convention, art.2-1
• Berne convention Article 9

Will anyone fix it please? Thanks in advance.--miya (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Freedom of panorama/table colours

Someone had complained about the table colours at Commons:Freedom of panorama/table and that the old colours caused issues with blind or partially sighted people so the table colours were updated[1] however as I note here the new colours also failed WCAG AA (both new and old tables fail and pass certain areas),
Of course it goes without saying we want all projects to be easily accessible to everyone however it seems silly to replace a pass/fail table with another pass/fail table ....
Unfortunately at present there's no WCAG AAA contrast checker and without that it's difficult to know hat colours do and don't cause issues, So I'm leaving a note here - If anyone does have issues ping me here and we can figure something out. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

This map is a stupid joke?

What is this map ?! There's some weird map over there. After all, Crimea belongs to Ukraine. This map was made by some Russian agent? MOs810 (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@MOs810: apparently, Crimea is no longer under Ukraine copyright law, with recent architectural works from there now accepted here with rationale "Crimea is using Russian law." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

and on what legal basis ??? on what basis is Russian law applicable in Ukraine ??? MOs810 (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure copyright issues are at the top of Putin's agenda. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I think we have usually used "de facto" law on the ground for contested regions, for better or worse. The previous map used gray ("unknown") for Crimea, rather than the same as Russia, which would likely be more appropriate here since I don't think we have any idea what the legal situation is there. Ukraine only has non-commercial FoP though, so not sure it makes a real difference here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@MOs810, Baseball Bugs, and Clindberg: setting geopolitics and map accuracy aside, there was a proposal as late as around 2017/18 to introduce freedom of panorama there, spearheaded by Ukrainian Wikipedians (Wikimedia Ukraine community). However, no breakthrough updates since then. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Translating a relevant passage at w:uk:Свобода панорами#Свобода панорами за законодавством України, aided by Google Translate with some modifications (removing superscript citations for ease of reading):

Translated

• On December 29, 2014, Members of the Parliament Taras Yuryk and Taras Kremin filed the Bill № 1677 "On Amendments to the Law of Ukraine" On Copyright and Related Rights (on Freedom of Panorama)." The proposed changes were to adapt the legislation of Ukraine in line with the EU legislation and to create conditions for facilitating the dissemination of information regarding Ukraine. The proposal was withdrawn in August 2019. The NGO "Wikimedia Ukraine" developed the proposal. At the same time, the State Intellectual Property Service of Ukraine formulated another bill to oversee the "freedom of panorama" issue.

Original

• 29 грудня 2014 р. у Верховній Раді України було зареєстровано законопроект № 1677 народних депутатів Тараса Юрика та Тараса Креміня «Про внесення доповнень до Закону України „Про авторське право та суміжні права“ (щодо свободи панорами)». Запропоновані зміни мали адаптувати законодавство України до законодавства ЄС та створити умови для прискорення поширення інформації про Україну. Проект відкликано в серпні 2019 року. Розробником проекту є Громадська організація «Вікімедіа Україна». Водночас, Державна служба інтелектуальної власності України розробляла інший законопроект, який мав врегулювати питання «свободи панорами».

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

"Text"

There does not seem to be a description on this FoP page as to what describes "text" in a freedom of panorama. It seems confusing to me that the page instantly just went to mention what countries accept text. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

That's because text has the same meaning here as in the rest of copyright law. If you have a specific question, we can help, but otherwise...--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

So, what constitutes "text" in the sense of something copyrightable? Would it be better to make at least a mention on discussing the copyrightability of "text" in other countries? Such as New Zealand, which apparently does not have a freedom of panorama for text. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Summary table (useful column)

Hello, you are invited to give your input on Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/table#Useless column. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Architectural works definition

I'm missing a little bit at least mention that the definition of an architectural work may vary from country to country (for example coverage of non-builidng structures like bridges or utilitarian architecture, with no distinctive or creative element). Jklamo (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Jklamo, in most countries, the exception/limitation is not limited to architectural works, so one would not expect to find a definition of architectural works here. Generally speaking, the country-specific details of the provision can often be found if you click on the name of the country in the summary table. — Pajz (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Australia-FoP

The synopsis about freedom-of-panorama rules for Australia is missing practically relevant information wrt Australia's legal terms about the location (outdoors only, or also indoor depending on kind of location) of the artwork or the photographer, for the FoP exemption to be applicable. --Túrelio (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

According to The Copyright Act of Australia, Section 65(2): "The copyright in a work to which this section applies that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast." Technically identical with UK FOP clause. Hence, includes public indoors. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Could we intregrate that into the FoP-Australia synopsis? --Túrelio (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes you may. It appears the original editors of FOP-Australia made a shortcut by stating it is patterned after the British FOP (FOP-UK), even if it may cause incomplete comprehension on Australian FOP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

When pictures of protected works are allowed if they are not the main subject

In countries such as Cambodia reproduction of a protected work that is in a public place is allowed if the protected work is not the main object of reproduction. This seems to allow more than De minimis, including pictures that could easily be cropped to make the protected work the main subject. Should the section "Nuances in the panorama freedom" give guidance on these situations? I see two possibilities, and am not sure which is correct:

1. For Wikimedia purposes, reproduction of protected works in public places is only allowed if the law explicitly allows such reproduction. An exception allowing reproduction when the protected work is not the main subject is not sufficient unless De minimis applies
2. If the law allows reproduction of a protected work in a public place when it is not the main subject of the picture, the file may be uploaded but should be tagged with a warning such as {{Deminimis}}.

Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It's mentioned on the Commons:De minimis page, but yes that is not strictly speaking de minimis. One of the examples there is photos of the entire Louvre square not being derivative of the pyramid, even though centered and prominent. The United States section mentions the Ets-Hokins decision, where a photograph of a bottle is not a derivative work of the label, even if the label is prominent -- it is "incidental", i.e. inherently there when photographing the larger subject. Only photos focusing on the label itself would be derivative. The U.S. had a similar case (Latimer v. Roaring Toyz) of photos of a motorcycle not being derivative of the artwork on the motorcycle -- while the case was decided on contractual grounds, there was a pretty clear indication that otherwise the result was going be similar to Ets-Hokins. There are French cases mentioned in COM:DM France which say when something is an "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject". The COM:FOP France page mentions a case about the Tour Montparnasse which I think used that concept, for a photo which was of a wider city street and the building visible at the end of it, which has been reinforced since. There is a further qualification in France that the work must not be intentionally included, i.e. it had to unavoidably be there -- same as the U.S. incidental. There was similarly a U.S. case where a fashion photographer had the model wear a pair of fancy, copyrighted glasses -- this was ruled infringement, since (although not the main subject) the glasses were not inherently there, and were included intentionally.

Strictly speaking, this is a different theory than de minimis, though analogous enough to be mentioned on those pages. Somewhere, there is a dividing line between what rights sculptors/architects have, before it starts unfairly impeding the rights of photographers. That, it seems to me, is a reasonable dividing line -- I'm not aware of any case, from any country, which has largely deviated from that approach (except with explicit freedom of panorama clauses going further than that line). For example I can't imagine a tattoo artist gets rights over any photograph taken of Mike Tyson (although, its use in the Hangover II movie and publicity materials was stated to not be a parody, thus not fair use, and therefore pretty obvious infringement; the parties later settled out of court and there were no further binding decisions). It would seem that the copyrighted object must be the main subject of a photo (or intentionally included to trade off of it) for there to be infringement. So, I would go with the second interpretation, as there is some legal backing for it, and I'm not aware of any counterexamples. Some laws, like Cambodia, do mention it specifically but I can't think of any which declare that type of photo is a problem -- so I'm not sure I would disallow that from any country, frankly. The wording in the {{De minimis}} tag applies to that situation too, so it's an appropriate tag to add -- once you start focusing on the copyrighted element, a crop could be a problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I think related contents should be added at {{NoFoP-Cambodia}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

New regulations in Vietnam

I'm not sure we understand the new Vietnamese regulations correctly. According to Point h, Clause 1, Article 25 of the Amendment Law 2023, when we take pictures of works of fine art, architecture and applied art displayed in public places in order to introduce the image of that work, not to commercial use is allowed (as an exception not to infringe copyright). This is reasonable because we do not make money, do business from this so do not have to ask for permission. Looking forward to your discussion and guidance for correct understanding. Best regards--Phương Huy (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Phương Huy non-commercial licenses are forbidden on Commons. It is one of the forbidden licenses listed at COM:Licensing#Forbidden licenses. Basically, Vietnamese FOP disallows the use of commercial Creative Commons licensing in photos of recent architecture, applied art, and sculptures from Vietnam made by artists or architects who are not yet dead for more than 50 years, hence copyrighted public art and architecture. Commons, however, cannot accept Vietnamese FOP as it disallows end-users to freely use those photos, like uses in post cards, commercial vlogs, souvenir items, and many more for-profit media without the burden to ask for permits from artists ot architects. Therefore, Commons' perspective on Vietnam as a no-FOP country is correct.

The question now is: will Vietnam revert that non-commercial restriction? Or, is that a clarificatory addition meant to state that Vietnam has been a no-FOP country since the beginning (making sense of "for presentation of those images" that is meant to be non-commercial)? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. In general, Vietnamese law is quite complicated. Article 25 of Law 2023 provides for exceptions that do not infringe on copyright, specifically: Uses of published works that do not require permission, do not have to pay royalties (but name information is required author and origin and origin of the work) including "Photography, broadcasting of works of fine art, architecture, photography, applied art displayed in public places to introduce the image of the work. and not for commercial purposes" (Point h, Clause 1, Article 25). In Vietnam, this will be a regulation that creates freedom for these works without fear of copyright infringement, without having to ask for permission. However, at Commons, the use of works has different rules and interpretations (regarding licenses). I will continue to research to make it right. Looking forward to receiving your guidance attention (if you don't mind).--Phương Huy (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Phương Huy take note that Commons strictly adheres to the Definition of Free Cultural Works, and I do not know if the legislators and artists' groups of Vietnam did not sit well with the free culture movement as being encouraged by Wikimedia and also Creative Commons organizations. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. According to the documents you guide me, there is an inconsistency in the understanding of the freedom to use works of art.

• [2]: "To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be free, and by freedom we mean: the freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it." I understand that "freedom" means use including both profitable and non-profit purposes. Thus, Article 25 of Law 2023 only allows the use of works without permission (freedom) in the case of non-commercial purposes, I consider this to be a restriction on the freedom of approach of the the Definition of Free Cultural Works.
• In enwiki Freedom of panorama: "Freedom of panorama in Vietnam is restricted to non-commercial photography and television broadcasting of public art and architecture. Article 25(h) of the newly-amended Vietnamese copyright law (2022) states it is permitted to photograph and broadcast publicly-displayed works of plastic art, architecture, and applied art "for the purpose of presenting images of these works," but not for commercial purposes". sentence "Freedom of panorama in Vietnam is restricted to non-commercial photography and television broadcasting of public art and architecture" is not correct. if according to Article 25 the correct interpretation should be Freedom of panorama in Vietnam is restricted to commercial photography and television broadcasting of public art and architecture (commercial, not non-commercial) because when we take pictures for non-commercial purposes, we do not have to ask for permission, do not infringe copyright (this is an exception of copyright). It mean will not be restricted for non-commercial use. In case we use the work for profit, we must ask the author's permission (That means it will be limited, and not free). Thus, Vietnamese law has increased freedom, of course not exactly the same [3]--Phương Huy (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Internal contradictions for Sweden

The first image, a map of Europe, shows Sweden in red indicating "Not OK" (while Norway and Finland are yellow for "OK for buildings only"). Halfway down the page, a map of the world, shows Sweden in green for "Maybe OK, unclear."). The table below lists Sweden with green a checkmark under "Buildings", question marks for 2D/3D/Public interiors, and an X for text.

As well as figuring out how to colour Sweden on these maps, it would be nice if both maps used the same colour scheme. - 129.242.129.238 12:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

In Sweden we have a lot of confusion due to the decision Sverige v. Wikipedia Sverige from 2016, see COM:FOP Sweden and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FoP-Sweden. Current position is that the current state of freedom of panorama in Sweden in regard to publications on the Internet is unknown but we will not delete anything from Sweden on the assumption that we do not have FOP in Sweden. This might explain why the map does not match the corresponding guideline. Sweden should probably be marked in grey. This has been discussed at File talk:Freedom of Panorama in Europe.svg#Sweden and Sweden was greyed afterwards. However, this was afterwards turned back into red by Chubit, then to green by Chubit, and finally turned back to red by Brateevsky. This should be best discussed at File talk:Freedom of Panorama in Europe.svg. But please keep in mind that the map just serves to provide an overview, you should always read the corresponding section. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Overzealous people pre-emptively deleting photographs of South African buildings

Hello, there seems to be overzealous people pre-emptively deleting photographs of South African buildings. South African law doesn't explicitly forbid photographs of buildings, and doesn't pursue any person that has taken such photographs. These people are going beyond what the is necessary and are interpreting the law how they see fit.

To me, Wikimedia has crippled itself when deleting wholesale photographs in countries that doesn't explicitly have freedom of panorama laws; especially when anyone on any other site can attribute to even an "All rights reserved" and use that image. Thanks, Maqdisi (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Please provide examples of deleted files. --Túrelio (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Maqdisi images marked with "all rights reserved" are non-free: see Commons:Licensing. Wikimedia Commons does not accept licenses that do not meet with the Definition of Free Cultural Works. Same analogy applies to images that may show unfree objects, and among those objects are works of architecture and sculptures in public spaces. Look again at the law of South Africa: their freedom of panorama exception is too restricted only to free use of public art and architecture in audio-visual media (movies, TV broadcasts), not photos. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)