Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 5

← Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6 →

Status of FoP in Cuba?

Does anyone know what is the status for Cuba? File:Statue of John Lennon in Public Park - El Vedado - Havana - Cuba.JPG is of a statue unveiled in 2000 and sculpted by an artist, who is still alive; it is certainly still copyrighted by the artist (relevant link: w:John Lennon Park). Is there anyone conversant in Spanish willing to dive into Cuban copyright law (http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/text_pdf.jsp?lang=ES&id=908) to find this out? Jappalang (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have found the relevant sections, and it seems Cuba has a non-commercial (no-profits) FoP in place.

Copyright, Law, 28/12/1977, No. 14

ARTICULO 38 - Es lícito, sin el consentimiento del autor y sin remuneración al mismo, pero con obligada referencia a su nombre y a la fuente, siempre que la obra sea de conocimiento público, y respetando sus valores específicos:
c) reproducir por cualquier medio, salvo el que implique contacto directo con su superficie, una obra de arte de cualquier tipo expuesta permanentemente en sitio público, con excepción de las que se hallen en exposiciónes y museos;
ch) representar o ejecutar una obra, siempre que la representación o ejecución no persiga fines lucrativos;

Google translation:

ARTICLE 38 - It is permissible, without the author's consent and without payment to it, but with obligatory reference to his name and the source where the work is public knowledge, and respecting individual values:
c) to reproduce by any means, except that involve direct contact with its surface, a work of art on permanent display in any public place except those who are in exhibitions and museums;
ch) represent or perform any work, provided that the representations are not for profit;

Is this more or less correct? Jappalang (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be correct. Note that paragraph 38(ch) is not relevant for FOP. The Cuban law normally uses the word "publicación" for "publication". 38(ch) applies apparently to literary or musical and theatrical works; paragraph 38(c) alone covers FOP sufficiently. I don't know what they meant by "siempre que la obra sea de conocimiento público"; I would guess it means publicly accessible—in other words, placed on public roads and squares, or visible from there, or within publicly accessible buildings other than museums and exhibition halls. A sculpture placed in a private villa probably does not satisfy the criterion "de conocimiento público". (I think we can translate "de conocimiento público" as "known to the public".) Lupo 07:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I am a bit confused here. Is 38(ch) not applicable to 38(c)? There are sections where the prefixing goes "(a), (b), (c), (d), ...", so I thought for those with "(a), (b), (c), (ch), (d), ...", (ch) either applies to (c) alone or to (a), (b), and (c), like a sub-point. If (ch) does not apply to (c) as you say, then Cuba has unrestricted FOP for works of art permanently installed in public places (except museums and exhibition halls)? Jappalang (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"ch" used to be considered a separate letter in the Spanish alphabet, until its use was deprecated in 1994 (see es:ch. This and a few other reasons are why Microsoft Word offers "Spanish (modern sort)" and "Spanish (traditional sort)" as choices for marking Spanish text. 38(ch) is a separate section :) And yeah, the conocimiento clause seems to apply to publicly visible works, although it apparently includes some indoor locations except museums (churches are probably safe). -Nard the Bard 02:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added a Cuba section to the page (see Commons:Freedom of panorama#Cuba). Please take a look. Thank you all. Jappalang (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, and I'm unsure of how to interpret the "y respetando sus valores específicos" provision. I think "and respectful of his (the artist's) specific values" is a reasonable translation, but my reading of valores is that it means values in the sense of principios morales (moral principles). Is the requirement to be respectful of the artist's principles then a restriction on derivatives? For example, if an artist places a newly-created work of a religious figure in a public place, which is then photographed and that photograph altered into something "demonic", would that not then be in non-compliance with Cuban law? Эlcobbola _talk 14:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably a "moral rights" issue: the artist's right to the integrity of the work, which Cuban law has in article 4(b). This right to the integrity of the work must also be respected by derivatives, see article 9. BTW, I have read "sus valores específicos" as "its specific values", i.e., I think the clause refers to the work, not to the author. Lupo 15:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with "its specific values"; it's what I had thought and I don't know why I wrote otherwise above, apologies. It doesn't impact the concern, though, as integrity needs to be respected in either case. Is this restriction on derivatives sufficient to be considered non-free? Would I be allowed to "deface" the photo of the Lennon statue (e.g. make it something anti-peace/anti-Beatles/usw)? Эlcobbola _talk 15:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, lots of countries have this right to the integrity of the work. Moral rights issues were discussed several times on this talk page, the outcome was always "we ignore moral rights". Lupo 15:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That we most certainly do, among other things. Thanks. Эlcobbola _talk 15:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't know about "ignore" -- we should always attribute and show respect to the artist if we can -- but we don't treat it as a valid reason for deletion (as it is not possible to obtain a work free from those restrictions). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I should have written "we ignore moral rights for purposes of determination of freeness". Lupo 19:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction to South Korea's FoP

Currently, aside from being hard to read (to me), the FoP section for South Korea claims that it is okay for architectures, and quotes from Korean language sources (whose 2 links to a blog are dead).

The Consolidated Act, 1989, No. 3916 (No. 5015) is, however, available at http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/text_pdf.jsp?lang=EN&id=2743.

From it, I would say that there is FoP in the country, but not for commercial purposes, specifically Section 32(2).4 "[except] where reproduction is made for selling its copies." and reproduction is defined in Section 2.14,

“Reproduction” means the reproduction of works in a tangible form by means of printing, photographing, photocopying, sound or visual recording or other means; in the case of architectural works, it includes the construction of an architectural work according to its plan and model; and in the case of plays, musical scores or other similar works, it includes the sound and visual recording of a public performance, broadcast or performance of a work;

Nowhere does it say that reproduction of an architecture is only via an exact reconstruction from its plans (photographs of the structure and such are still reproductions of it). Before I amend the statements to that of "no FoP in line with the project's purpose (i.e. none applicable at all)", are there any other views that I have missed something here? Jappalang (talk) 06:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done: implemented. Jappalang (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Czech Republic

After I opened a DR on one of his images because of concerns regarding FOP, ŠJů simply decided to modify our policy to match his interpretation of the law. I reverted once and asked him to discuss it here, but he reverted me instead.

So can an admin please revert COM:FOP#Czech republic to what it was before, and then maybe we can have a proper discussion here. Not only is it rather bad practice to unilaterally modify our policy, but the current wording is rather hard to understand. –Tryphon^☂ 13:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Conversely. I came to Tryphon's notice that COM:FOP#Czech republic confuses law wording with somebody's controversial and not binding interpretations, thus I corrected the text according the law wording and specified origin of the interpretation. Simultaneously I corrected several others inaccuracies (the legal term "public place" - veřejné místo - isn't identical with "public space" - veřejné prostranství - etc.). I brought no my own interpretation or wishes but only a description of the law content (and current practices, in case of "in public place" - "near by public place"). Every change can be discussed if there will appear any objection, but I see no factual objection in Tryphon's contribution yet. Language corrections are welcomed (I'm not very good in English) but the discussed text handles and describes only the Czech law, not the Commons policy. Surely, the law is very ambiguous and Commons can create its own policy how to handle this ambiguity and vagueness, but the policy and private interpretations should be obviously separeted from the pure description of the law estate. I didn't modify "our policy", that's mendacious allegation. I modified (corrected) an information about Czech law. Czech law isn't identical with Commons policy and I cannot to modify Czech law, I can only to describe Czech law. --ŠJů (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as the “meta-rules” go, I agree with ŠJů: COM:FOP#Situation in different countries does not contain Commons policy, it contains factual explanation of the real-world situation regarding FOP laws (and the possible consequences for Commons). ŠJů did not try to modify “Commons policy”, he tried to (in his opinion) correct the explanation of the relevant laws of the Czech Republic.

However, his version is worse than the previous version (both in factual correctness and readability).

So, do you want to discuss the current state of affairs of the Czech copyright law here? I don’t think there is any “Commons policy” to talk about…

--Mormegil (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe policy was not the right term. Guideline? Summary of the commonly accepted interpretation of local copyright laws? Whatever you call it, it's what we refer to when dealing with DRs, or when copyright issues arise. So unilaterally changing it, especially if someone objects (that would be me), is bad practice. So yes, as I said many times, I would like to discuss this before we actually make changes. –Tryphon^☂ 15:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I don't know how you got from my comments that you should modify FOP. I merely pointed out that your arguments for keeping the image were in contradiction with our policy; it usually means I think you're wrong, and here's why, and not the policy says something different than from you're saying, so please change it. I thought that was clear.
As for providing factual objections, you're actually going at it the wrong way. What you call corrections are in fact a complete rewrite of the section; there was a bunch of references there, presumably supporting what was written, but you made those changes without citing any source or reference. Are those sources wrong? Misinterpreted? All this should be discussed here before doing anything. –Tryphon^☂ 14:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

All works which are not architectonic or sculptural can be in conflict with one extensive and poorly well-founded interpretation of the law. Btw., every work can be controversial because nothing is absolutely permanent. We can discuss whether Commons policy should adopt this interpretation or whether Commons will addopt some additional voluntary restrictions without (ultra) the law. But an apparent fact is that the law insufficiently defined the word "permanently" and that the law wording itself make in this case no distinction by type or material of the work. The wording of law is certain, every interpretation uncertain. There is an apparent distinction between Czech law and Norwegian or Finnish law and we should respect it. Shortly, what the law don't say, that isn't said by the law. --ŠJů (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the changes by ŠJů are best reverted. The quote that is given supports a rather strict interprewtation of "permanently". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

And what the other changes (corections) made by me? You didn't remark them? Or didn't understand? We can discuss your objections if you will make any one. --ŠJů (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Can some by the way made and badly backed remark of some jurist have higher gravity than the act wording approved by 281-members legislative body? Can quote of some mistaken (but somewhere thoughtlessly repeated) deduction in the explanatory report have greater importance than quote of the law act itself? The quoted explanatory report don't occupy explicitly by other forms of works which can by located permanently on public places and don't occupy seriously by meaning of the word "permanently". The deduction in the explanatory report is rather a wishful thinking of the law proposer than an interpretation of the proposed law wording. But the parliament netogiated the wording, not some unstated wishings. --ŠJů (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten the text; my version starts with a short factual description of the law text, and then goes to a more detailed explanation and commentary, with proper references. I hope the text is also a bit more readable/understandable, even though proofreading/copyediting by a native English speaker would be most welcome. Factual objections or comments are also welcome. (Since my version favours ŠJů’s interpretation that the Czech FOP can be, in principle, applied to 2D objects, I hope he won’t be completely against.) --Mormegil (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetic Order

Would anyone object if I rearranged the list of countries into straight alpha order? It seems to me a nuisance that this is in a different order from the list at Commons:Licensing.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There being no objection over the last six weeks, I have done this. Along the same lines, should we split the country list from the introductory matter to reduce page size?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Latvia

Maybe I should read something about the Wikipedia's policies, but why Latvian law is "not OK" for putting the photographs in the Wikipedia? As I understand, such an action has no commercial purpose - or ... ? Thanks in advance.

See Commons:Licensing, especially the section Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. Non-commercial-only licenses are generally not acceptable on Commons, they are not free content, and Commons accepts only free content. --Mormegil (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

United Arab Emirates

I've seen a number of images of Dubai buildings nominated for deletion. I came here to read up on FOP and it seems that the images taken by private individuals and added to the commons are okay as the buildings are permanently located in public places. On this page there is an excerpt and even the excerpt seems to allow photographs of buildings that are located in public places. Are skylines okay, but individual buildings not? Are only specific individual buildings allowed? I believe this issue applies to many images in the UAE thus greater clarity would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.0.133 (talk • contribs) 18:51, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Argentina

Should change to {{OK}}, according to the legal doctrine:

Se ha admitido pacificamente que los edificios puedan ser reproducidos mediante pinturas o fotografías, sin estimarse que esta reproducción lesione los derechos de autor. (Dr. Emery, Miguel Angel (profesor of Intellectual property law in Argentina), Propiedad Intelectual, Astrea Editors 4th. edition ISBN 9 789 505085231. p.40 op cit

Translation by MotherForker (talk · contribs): "It has peacefully been accepted that buildings can be reproduced by paintings or photographs, without considering that this reproduction infringes copyright". See [1] Patricio (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done, please check if it's ok --by Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 06:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted. I think it is too risky to base the OK status only on the doctrine, because it can be contradicted anytime. Without a statement in the copyright law, the architect/artist still holds copyright over the derivative picture, and the photographer cannot release it under a free license, even though an Argentinan judge may consider that it does not infringe the original artist's copyright (and we have no guarantee about that). The doctrine statement is probably worth mentionning, but I think the status should remain NOK, with the explanation: there's no exemption in the law. Besides, it is difficult (for us) to evaluate to what extent this statement by an academic in a book is really the common doctrine or only an isolated interpretation. --Eusebius (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed that the author's exclusive rights and the definition of a "copy" do mention literary and artistic works but do not include architectural works, but this may be too vague to base FOP on. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 12:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If the law in Argentina is interpreted in the way cited, I see no reason to delete images here. There are lots of room for interpretation of the law anyway (e.g. whether architecture is artistic work), so the common understanding in the country concerned is more important than the letter of the law. The cite is perhaps not enough to be sure, but saying not ok is quite strong. I suggest using "unclear" until we are confident in one way or the other. --LPfi (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Notice that here we are contrasting the opinion of an expert in the topic with... nothing, just a legal vacuum. Giving copyright protection to the Eiffel Tower or the Great Pyramids is an extravagant procedure of some countries; others do not even consider such an angle. Case law is more important here than the written text of the law, to determine whenever there is such protection or not. If someone could link some specific case of copyright protections of buildings being enforced in Argentina, we may point a "No OK" here. Of course, we can't "point" via case name the absence of case law on a matter, if such matter has never been raised to begin with: the only way to prove that would be with some expert pointing so.

Does this opinion cited reflect common usage, or just an isolated opinion? I would suggest following the rules in Wikipedia about Verifiability on this. Something stated as fact by a reliable source may be countered by another reliable source that says the opposite, but not from a user from the project that says the opposite. Thus, my opinion: having a reliable source that says that photos of buildings do not violate copyright in Argentina, that's good enough to be taken as fact unless we find another author who says the contrary or some case law in the matter. Belgrano (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Article 19 of the 1994 (latest) version of the Argentine Constitution says: Las acciones privadas de los hombres que de ningún modo ofendan al orden y a la moral pública, ni perjudiquen a un tercero, están sólo reservadas a Dios, y exentas de la autoridad de los magistrados. Ningún habitante de la Nación será obligado a hacer lo que no manda la ley, ni privado de lo que ella no prohíbe. So when there are no explicit prohibitions in the law, the Constitution says that the action is permitted. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In English, the bold quote from the Constitution cited by Alperon means: "No inhabitant of the Nation will be required to do what the law does not require, nor forbidden to do what the law does not forbide" Belgrano (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This article in Spanish about where taking photos are forbidden or not in Argentina is written by the professional photographer Becquer Casaballe who started his career in 1972: http://www.fotomundo.com/nota.php?id=248 . According to his writings there are no problems with FOP except in a few militar places. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I found this: http://www.mail-archive.com/wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg01071.html Alakasam (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Argentine constitution says in its 19th article: ...No inhabitant of the Nation shall be obliged to perform what the law does not demand nor deprived of what it does not prohibit. reading that we can say that FOP is a customary right in Argentina, because no law talks about buildings in public places. Alakasam (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Are useful arguments posted in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Buenos_Aires-Recoleta-P2090056.jpg ? Alakasam (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There are no Delete votes by either Argentine professional photographers or lawyers there, but in the opinion of the Argentine professional photographer cited above these pictures have no problems. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, can we resolve this situation? I don't like that "unclear" adjective. What is missing for definitely authorize FOPs from Argentina? Thanks. Alakasam (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We need some authoritative answer from an Argentine lawyer about this issue. As far as I know not only buildings can be photographed, but we need a written statement about this. I have several pictures I took in Santiago del Estero and Tucuman provinces on hold at this moment. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Si alguien que quiere aportar algo y no entiende inglés solicítemelo, lo traduzco lo mejor que pueda. También, a modo de salvavidas, puede usarse la web http://translate.google.com.ar Alakasam (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Miguel Angel Emery is already authoritative enough. See his curriculum, he's not just a book author. He has been university teacher since 1967, vicepresident of the Interamerican Copyright Institute, vicepresident of the consulting comitee of the en:World Intellectual Property Organization (1980-1983), as well as consultant, legal consultant of the Latin American Federation of phonograms and videograms productors (1979-1996). In the political level, he was designated by the Ministry of Justice to be part of the Commision No. 123/91 that would study refors to the Argentine copyright law, and was part of Argentine delegations at diplomatic conferences about copyright law held in Madrid.

I think this makes things clear enough. Miguel Angel Emery is clearly an authority in legal topics of Argentine Copyright law, more than any of us in this project. If there is no futher argument against, I will update the section in a few days Belgrano (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Article 1 of the Argentinian copyright law protects "las obras de dibujo, pintura, escultura, arquitectura." There appears to be no case law saying that images of buildings would not be infractions. The professor may need to rewrite his book when an architect like I.M. Pei sues an Argentinian postcard publisher for copyright infraction. Belgrono changing status for buildings to Ok is not Ok. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have knowledge of any such case in any country? --Elekhh (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there any case law saying that such images are infractions? I would certainly like more evidence (from more than one source) than the one legal scholar, but I can't bring myself to ignore it completely -- that is likely a better authority than any of us. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I remind Pieter Kuiper that so far there hasn't been any strong reasons to justify the "not OK" beyond the mere legal vacuum, and many have been provided to justify the "OK". Even so, by that point I announced that I would proceed to change the status if no futher complains were given. A week passed, nobody said anything, so I changed the section. But only after such time passed.

In any case, I mantain what I said: case law is stronger than the mere text of the law, and just because a few countries are over-zealus in applying copyright protection even to mere buildings that doesn't mean that all countries do the same. In Argentina, those photos are accepted, nobody has ever attempted to test the contrary in the courts, and there is a strong copyright authority confirming so. Checking his curriculum, his opinion on the topic is clearly way more authoritative than that of any of us, mere users of a web page with good intentions.

Of course that there's always the chance that some day someone may actually attempt to bring this into force, declare his buildings to be copyright protected and demand an economic compensation from postcard publishers. What will happen then? What happens everytime when a creative legal approach with no previous case law is taken to the courts: a long period of discussion. And after it, the result. Which may be either one: we can not predict it. When facing those creative approaches, courts may ignore even the text itself of a law, if they consider that it contradicts other laws, some semi-related case law or relies too much on legal technicalities. In short, in the hypothetical case that someone makes a sue, we can't take it as a fact that the courts will consider photos of buildings to be copyright violations. What should we do in the meantime? Follow the judgement of a real-life copyright authority seems a better idea than making up our own one, as we're completely umprepared to do so Belgrano (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason why Wikimedia should be the first in the world to declare FOP for buildings in Argentina as not OK, when the best reliable source we have sais is OK. --Elekhh (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Notice that the freedom is not limited to buildings: according to the professional photographer Becquer Casaballe I mentioned before who wrote about this exact issue: "Is it legal to take pictures in Argentina?" in a photography magazine: http://www.fotomundo.com/nota.php?id=248 (written in Spanish). Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant; the issue is whether one is at liberty to reproduce artistical works and sell those images for any purpose. But Argentinian law has no such general exemptions for copyright protection. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you think _professional_ photographers do? They take pictures and then sell them. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Pieter Kuiper has been indefinitely blocked. It's for reasons unrelated with this discussion (so that doesn't automatically invalidate his comments), but unless the block is lifted, he may not be able to answer the questions and comments directed to him in this discussion Belgrano (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being rude: Comments given for somebody that lives as far as Pieter and that doesn't contribute with nothing shouldn't be taked in account. He only stops in the law text but the law talks too about: "the way in which (works) were showed" I don't think a building is a protected form of reproduction. Alakasam (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Belgrano purpose. If an architect feels wronged, and if justice gives course, we will see what happens. But that possibility does not exist. FOP is a customary right in Argentina. No doubt. Alakasam (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

An argentine lawyer and wikipedian told me [2]: "What I mean is that there isn't a person, ie that has no personality to claim rights to self-image. For a building the issue is different, or about a bridge or a road, because I can not think anyone can claim rights over a photograph of a field planted because of the rights of the farmer, or a photo of a car or an airplane, boat, etc etc etc. If so, directly photography should be forbidden, don't? Regards" Alakasam (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The same Argentine lawyer said from two questions from me [3] that "[...]La fotografía no es una copia de la escultura, monumento, etc. sino sólo una reproducción en dos dimensiones lo que no es lo mismo, como antes dije, parece ridículo y adolece de vicio insalvable pretender que nada puede fotografiarse, sobre todo cuando no se trata de personas,[...]". This means: "[...]A photograph is not a copy of a sculpture, monument, etc. but a just a reproduction in two dimensions which is not the same, so as I said before it is ridiculous to pretend that nothing can be photographed, especially when there are no people in the pictures,[...]" Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that we're taking advice from a lawyer that denies the notion of derivative work? --Eusebius (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but it appears that there is nothing in the copyright law that prevents to perform a 2D representation of a 3D object, so if it is not explicitly forbidden, it is permitted, as expressed in Article 19 of the Argentine Constitution, and that was ratified by the lawyer I mentioned above. As far as I know no professional photographers pay anything to the architects or artists in order to take pictures of their buildings or sculptures. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No. What is not explicitly exempted from the general protection against unauthorized reproduction of artistic works, is not allowed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read the text of the law? Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

There isn't an entry at the moment for Saudi Arabia. There is a summary of the law here but it doesn't specifically address FOP. Benchill (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

In the - unofficial - English translation at http://www.copyright-watch.org/state/sa, FOP is not mentioned, thus it probably does not exist. I will add an entry for S.A.. Kameraad Pjotr 12:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This bears more research I don't have time for at the moment, but "architecture" isn't even counted among the definitions of a protected work in Saudi Arabia. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 12:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask an Arab user to check it? I strongly doubt that in the original version "architecture" won't be included. Kameraad Pjotr 12:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The main portion of the law is here (I think the above link is for subsequent regulations); architecture is definitely listed (and even in the first link, it is mentioned in passing). The nature of a "derivative work" isn't as clear from reading that. There is explicit mention that rephotographing a scene seen in a previous photograph is not an infringement; not sure that directly applies though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I missed that. You're right. Definitely no FOP. Recreating a photographic scene would be like copying Marylin's upskirt photo with a similar photo. That would not be an infringement. Not applicable to FOP. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 01:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Correction for The Netherlands

In COM:FOP#The Netherlands, the translation of the law is slightly misleading. According to the translation, the law refers to artwork "which are made to be permanently located in a public place". The correct translation would in fact be: "which are made to be permanently located in ["a" is striken] public places".

"Om permanent in openbare plaatsen te worden geplaatst" is a plural form, meaning that the object is supposed to be displayed in public places, but not necessarily in one single place for eternity, never moving from one public place to another public place.

The current wording is not false, in the sense that it is to be understood as referring to any or some public place at any particular moment, not a single public place for ever, but I suggest the translation be changed to be more correct and avoid misunderstanding. (note: question raised further to this discussion) Asavaa (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's right. Fixed. Lupo 14:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Asavaa (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean that if a work was not supposed to be placed in a public space there is no freedom of panorama? That is, you have to know the history of a sculpture to be able to publish photographs of it? --LPfi (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are correct, and the penultimate paragraph of COM:FOP#The Netherlands says that "article 18 is limited to works that were originally made for being placed permanently in public places." I guess this must be interpreted as meaning that a work that was originally not meant to be placed permanently in a public place will not be eligible for FOP even if it is place in a public place some time after the creation. On the other hand, the mere fact that some work of art was not placed in a public place in first instance does not mean that it was not meant to be placed in a public place.

I do not know how dutch case law treats this, but I guess you might say a stamp will never be considered for FOP even if it is once exposed in a public place, while a large statue will, even if it stayed in for years in a private area before being diplayed publicly. Asavaa (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"a large statue will" : not every large statue will, I'm afraid. Some large statues ordered by a purchaser who told the sculptor the purpose is to decorate one or more public place(s) will, while other large statues, for example those ordered by purchasers who told the sculptor they wanted them for their private homes, won't. Teofilo (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Where's the Discussion?

Where is each discussion and resulting consensus which dictated the interpretation of each individual country's law in this matter (ie. the discussion for Jamaica and Portugal and Israel and so on and so forth)?
--K10wnsta (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Some discussions are in the archives (links at the top of this page). For some countries it is pretty obvious by just reading the law. In some cases like Jamaica, the specific wording is derived from UK law, so the same or similar concepts would apply. As with anything, if you are aware of more detailed information anywhere which could help in understanding, please provide the references :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons is really mellow when it comes to these types of information pages, in that we extend alot of trust to the person who did the research(or had a working knowledge), only if someone disputed/questioned it has a discussion taken place. Even then the majority of discussions dont look to have a formal process of recording consensus but rather they just look to verify/fix the concerns. If you have a specific issue either be bold or drop a note here to get additional thoughts. Gnangarra 16:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the #Italy paragraph. Traditionally we see the Italian restrictions regarding cultural heritage as "non copyright"-restrictions and ignore them. I therefore don't think we should list them in the FOP-policy. --h-stt !? 20:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

They are not a reason for deletion, but they are in fact laws that people in Italy (living there or visiting) should be aware of. It seems quite relevant to mention them, as this is the situation where they can come into play, but it should be clear that they are not reasons for deletion, and do not relate to our copyright policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

France: help requested

Could someone who knows French law in this area (and, preferably who can write in French, which I read more or less decently but cannot write), please weigh in at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Les gaudinelles.JPG? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 16:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

UAE FoP situation under dispute

Their is a rather heated discussion on the FoP situation in Dubai occurring on File talk:Dubai 051.JPG, given that entire basis of Commons:Freedom of panorama#United Arab Emirates is under dispute, I thought it would be worth leaving a note here so other established users could comment. CT Cooper · talk 20:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama and derivative works

The question has arisen regarding whether derivative works may be created of works used under freedom of panorama, and in particular under the German implementation of such, in these deletion reviews:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erich Kaestner cropped.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erich Kaestner cropped bw.jpg

If either of these works were deleted, it would be most unfortunate, since it would imply that works permitted under Panoramafreiheit do not meet the standards of allowing reuse required of Commons works under Commons:Licensing, and so would have to be deleted en masse. This would be a major policy change, so please consider this question carefully. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No. I would say those are no longer a derivative of the photograph (even if it was used); it is a direct derivative of the original work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss it, although the results of the cited DRs might cause us to modify the description here. I note, though, that if the subject image was the original (and not a crop from another), it would certainly be permitted -- Panoramafreiheit is very broad in that respect,

"It shall be permissible to reproduce, by painting, drawing, photography or cinematography, works which are permanently located on public ways, streets or places and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies."

The law does not say that you must include a context -- indeed, there is no restriction on photographing, drawing, or painting a work that is in a public place, as defined.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Many FOP laws include clauses like "cannot be used for the same purpose as the original" or "cannot prejudice the normal exploitation of the original", which to me means something which amounts to a copy of the original should not be allowed (such as cropping everything else out). But on further reading, I don't see any such clause in the German law, which is the relevant one there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Advertising facility

Please help to discuss, correct and improve a draft of a new template Template:Advertising facility/en. --ŠJů (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Cyprus

I want to propose that Cyprus be labeled "OK" for FOP. I am looking at http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=126086 where page 7 has section 7 (1) with an exception (c): "the reproduction and distribution of copies of any artistic work permanently situated in a place where it may be viewed by the public;". Am I reading that correctly? Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 19:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure looks like it. About as "OK" as you can get. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Are paintings under FoP in Australia?

... the section Commons:FOP#Australia is not clear about it. In UK (which Australia's copyright is based on - according to this section - paintings are not okay. Please comment at this DR and help improve the section about Australia. Thanks! --Saibo (Δ) 16:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think paintings or murals are OK. They pretty much keep to the UK interpretation, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• FOP in Australia applies to any work perminently displayed in a public area, a mural on a wall, statue/sculpture in a park Gnangarra 03:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Have a reference for that? Everything I've seen indicates otherwise. It applies to "sculptures and to works of artistic craftsmanship" only, just like the UK. The latter term is not defined but does seem to require craftsmanship, which does seem to imply physical objects and excludes purely artistic works like paintings. Some articles here, here, and particularly this archived paper. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Legal murals and paintings (really anything that is 2D) are copyrighted and do not have FoP in Australia, illegal murals (graffiti) is not clear (and is still debated on Commons) and is assumed that they are not covered by FoP. Bidgee (talk) 09:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Portugal: interiours of buildings? paintings?

Could someone please clarify Commons:FOP#Portugal regarding:

• photographs of paintings
• photographs inside of buildings of copyrighted works (like it is allowed in Austria)

I could not find portugal in the talk archive and not in en:Freedom of panorama or de:Panoramafreiheit. Thanks a lot! Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

UK law

The UK gov has created a new site for legislation http://www.legislation.gov.uk which includes all the updates, and allows linking directly to sections, so I've updated the links. I've also pasted in the actual definition of graphic art, as a good number of the techniques on the list would otherwise appear to fall into the category of works of artistic craftsmanship, so it's significant to record that engravings and woodcuts are specifically excluded from the category. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Slovenia

Does anyone know its status? See File:Tone Čufar bust.jpg for an example. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

FOP in Chile?

FOP information about Chile seems to be totally missing. --Túrelio (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Per their article 43 and 44 it appears so, although there may be odd wording when it comes to photos of buildings. I asked before at Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama/Archive_4#Chile but it never made it further than that. Spanish speakers may help; the link is now here. The law at that link has been amended several times (there is even a 2010 amendment, but I haven't found text of the changes), but I'm not sure anything has modified those two sections in particular. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

As per Article 43. The reproduction of works of architecture

through photography, film, television and

any similar procedure, as well as

publication of the photographs for

newspapers, magazines and textbooks, is free and not

Compensation is subject to copyright.

Confusing??....--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess the concern is if the freedom is limited to publishing the photos in newspapers, magazines, and textbooks only. I'd be inclined (particularly given article 44) to think that it is OK, but I also don't want to rely on a Google translation for this (which I believe is what the above is; wipo.int has some Google translation built in now), which is why I was hoping Spanish speakers could look at the original text. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I speak Spanish, so I will translate this myself.

• Article 43: The reproduction of works of architecture through photography, film, television and any other analogous procedure as well as publication of the aformentioned photographs at newspapers, magaznes and textbooks, is free and not subject to copyright compensation.
• Article 44: All monuments and, in general, the artistic works that decorate plazas, avenues and public places can be reproduced freely through photography, drawing or any other procedure, being lawful the publication and sale of these reproductions.

I think that the text is absolutely clear, and it should be an "OK" Belgrano (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think its OK now, as there was a translation error...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 05:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Kyrgistan is OK

See the below quote from Kyrg....law

Article 21. Free Use of Works Permanently Located in a Public Place

The works of architecture, photography or fine arts permanently located in a place open to general public may be reproduced, broadcast, or communicated to the public by cable without the author’s consent and payment of author’s remuneration, with the exception of cases where the presentation of the work constitutes the main feature of the said reproduction, broadcast or communication to the public by cable or if it is used for commercial purposes. ...Please comment so that it can be changed--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"with the exception of cases where the presentation of the work constitutes the main feature of the said reproduction, broadcast or communication to the public by cable or if it is used for commercial purposes" So, not if it is the main subject, and can't be used for commercial purposes. Those are generally treated as Not OK (this wording is very common in the copyright laws for former Soviet republics). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

By cable makes sense, as it is limited to media's so there is no chance of De_minimis also....I got stressed upon exception of cases in the law....Agreed Not OK...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible FOP in Russia in the near future

Council for Codification and Improvement of the Civil law under the President of the Russian Federation published official project of changes to the Civil Code of Russia (see [4], w:ru:ВП:Ф-АП#Новый ГК4). If these amendments will be adopted, then Russia would get commercial FoP for buildings permanently standed in (or near to) places of public resort. Of course, it's just a project (though it's official), it can be changed, but I think we should seriously consider this possibility. At the very least we should 1) never delete Russian FOP pictures speedily 2) add to DRs category Category:Russian FOP cases to make possible to easy undelete all these pictures. Trycatch (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Important hint, furthermore the interpretation that any public building or architecture object falls under the prohibition mentioned in this law is far from trivial. No court case has been filed to "protect the copyright" for these cases, and no russian legal expert has commented the classification "Not ok" on this project page. Deletions (like here) are based on superficial research, if any. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. A file is unfree unless proven otherwise, not the other way around. Multichill (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Loose argument. How do you derive from the "Precautionary principle" this conclusion? How did the users of other "legal" pictures proove that they did not violate any law in any country? And foremost: How could one _ever_ "proove" that a certain picture is legal to publish if there is never any court case filed? - You can not force a non-existant entity to sue you if you misunderstood the respective legal text in the first place. ;-) --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of judicial system (which is merely an arm of executive corporation), the only public FOP cases to date concerned suppression of local politicians who hired sloppy advertizing agents... and if they didn't they'd be jailed for farting in public. There's nothing to count on and nothing to wait for: wikipedia itself must pronounce it's own judgement.

But you have a good point about superficial: as if absence of judiciary system was not enough, there's no Freedom of Information Act (and no other freedoms), so there's far less reliable sources on authors and dates. Painting, poetry, music are usually simple cases - there's one or two sole authors. Movie casts are printed right on the film. Engineering, architecture, even public sculpture - one big void. Often it's livejournal or nothing at all. NVO (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

An identifiable private house labelled as a McMansion

I am referring to File:Salinas mcMansion.jpg.

• The pejorative label is in the title,
• the file description identifies the street, and
• the house number can be seen in the image.

And yes, I found it on the Wikipedia page about McMansions. At the very least it needs to be renamed, but a scrub of the file description (which is repeated indelibly in the file history) might be a good idea. Xanthoxyl (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Eh... I could certainly see renaming the photo, but that is about as far as I would go. It's a bit (too) pejorative for my tastes, but I hardly think that rises to slander. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to "depersonalize" the place and saved the doctored version at a neutral name File:Salinas_California_Residential_Area.jpg. But then the whole Category:Salinas, California is filled with similar stuff with names like "million dollar home" etc. P.S. - one lousy million for this? lucky bastards. NVO (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

To correct the name of a file, please use {{Rename}} (Commons:File renaming). Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

does FOP in Spain also apply to interiours of public buildings

Does FOP in Spain also apply to interiours of public buildings like it is in Austria? According to our nice image it does not. However, this and Spain's section seem not to be clear enough. Please clarify someone the section with a clear statement. I was not successful in asking the eswp article about this. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares" does seem to imply outdoors only. Some countries say "public places", which is often construed to include inside museums and the like. You could well interpret that to say that the interior of the building itself is OK, since the building is presumably located on a public street or thoroughfare, but based on the above I would have to think that it would not apply to separate works of art located inside those buildings, which seems to be the issue in the photo you link. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In English or American law, no one would read the sentence to include interiors -- specificity precludes generality. Since specific public places are listed, more general public places are not included. If the drafter wanted it to include interiors, he or she could have said "Works permanently located in public places". I also note that the German law reads almost the same in translation:

"works which are permanently located on public ways, streets or places"

and our clear understanding of that is that it is only exterior public places that are covered. The UK law, on the other hand, clearly calls out interiors

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

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two separate questions -- one, is the inside of the architectural work included, and two, are separate works located inside subject to FOP. I don't think there is any way to read the above such that separate works are included (as you mention, the UK uses separate wording which does allow it), but I see nothing which divides the architectural work -- the building is located in public, therefore photos of it are OK, either the inside or outside surface. Countries which only want FOP to apply to the outer surface spell that out specifically in their law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you for describing the distinction clearly. Both the German and UK law are clear on the subject of the interior of the building itself (the former is not OK, the latter is). My reading is the same as yours -- as long as the Spanish building is located on a public road or in a park, it is OK, inside and out.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Do freedom of panorama laws apply to other countries?

Could anyone elaborate on whether pictures of public buildings taken in other countries are copyrighted in the US or not? It seems to me that the American FOP laws apply irregardless of the location of the building and thus Wikimedia should ignore foreign laws as it's servers are located in Florida. 147.32.120.237 01:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It is unlikely that photos of buildings (taken anywhere) would be considered derivative works under U.S. law. However, Commons serves projects in *all* languages; so we primarily use the law in the country of origin (there are reasons for that, mostly due to the terms of the Berne Convention). Using just U.S. law would help in some areas but probably hurt in others. Individual projects can be different -- for example, I believe that the English Wikipedia only uses U.S. law, so such photos should be uploadable there with no problem, since that project does ignore foreign laws. Commons has heavier restrictions than all the other projects though. It is more than policy; all projects have been mandated to host "free" works, but Commons specifically was forbidden from using any kind of "fair use" rationales for hosting images, due to the wider scope where images here get used. They get used by all the wikipedias, wikisource, wikibooks, and even other non-Wikimedia Foundation sites, so there is a certain expectation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Even the English Wikipedia doesn't allow uploading high-resolution photos of copyrighted buildings. It's a Project-wide problem that could only be resolved by strict adherence to Florida's laws on copyright. 147.32.120.237 17:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two kinds of images that may be uploaded at wikipedia in English but not here: non-free images under a non-free use rationale, and images that are free in the US, but not at the source country. Both cases are different. Belgrano (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Almost every photo featuring modern buildings of Dubai has been marked for deletion on the English Wikipedia (for example). There should be a clear policy regarding such images to prevent copyright-nazism. 147.32.120.237 19:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that image is hosted here, on Commons Belgrano (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be moved, not deleted. I'd do it myself but my Wiki skills are low :( 147.32.120.237 19:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the related section below, the only law that should apply here is that of the United States, where Wikimedia Commons is based. Wikimedia Commons cannot and should not be in any way responsible for how someone in a particular country uses an image posted at Commons. That is a matter between the person who takes an image at Commons and uses it, and the government of the country he is in. Vidor (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

China (People's Republic) and non permanent works outdoors

In most countries, FOP applies only if the work is permanent. Are we sure a poster, most likely not permanent like the one on File:3waterjing'anshi.jpg are OK ? Teofilo (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Its beyond FOP concept, Its a derivative work of a copyrighted poster...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

FOP is a little fuzzy. What matters is if it is within Article 22 of Chinese law. I wonder why we don't see more theatre or cinema posters uploaded on Commons under this article. Teofilo (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The poster does not constitute a significant part of the photo and therefore falls under Fair Use. 147.32.120.237 13:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't use fair use here. We use de minimis, but it's used in w:zh:Kenzo, and if it's used in an article for that one item, that item can't be de minimis. My personal rule when confronted with a de minimis claim on something on the edge of a picture is to crop it off and remove the issue. We could cut 400 pixels from the top of that image without touching the temple, so instead of arguing about de minimis, we should do that, and what's left of the sign will surely be de minimis. If we can claim FOP, that's another matter, and one I have no opinion on.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Submission on FOP to Wikimania 2011

To those that are interested, I have made a submission for a presentation and discussion on the issue of FoP and Wikimedia Commons at Submissions/Freedom of panorama and Wikimedia Commons, as I thought this was something worth diving into at Wikimania. The submission can be changed as necessary if significant changes occur to Commons' approach to FoP between now and Wikimania 2011. CT Cooper · talk 14:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Where i can give opinion's.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Likely here. --Túrelio (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to change our Policy on photographs of modern buildings

I've created the page Commons:Proposed Policy on photographs of modern buildings as the first step to find out whether there might be a consensus for change or not. 9carney (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Austrian FOP

Resolved

• Is Austrian FOP available inside a museum with an entrance fee ?
• Is Austrian FOP available inside a museum with no entrance fee ?
• Does Austrian FOP apply to bidimensional works ? My answer is no because of Austrian copyright law §54-5 this provision shall not extend to [...] the reproduction of a painting or a graphic work for the purpose of placing such reproduction permanently in a place of such kind is not free enough for Wikimedia Commons.

This is the opinion I expressed at :

* Commons:Deletion requests/File:Klagenfurt - Musilhaus - Robert Musil.jpg

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Klagenfurt - Musilhaus - Ingeborg Bachmann.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Klagenfurt - Musilhaus - Christine Lavant.jpg

Teofilo (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree the part you quote is an exception and the exception should be read in complete context, Austrian FOP 54-5 Free Uses of Works of Art; 54(1)It shall be permissible ..54(1.5)to reproduce, distribute, present in public by means of optical devices and broadcast works of architecture after their construction or other works of art permanently located in a place used as a public thoroughfare; this provision shall not extend to the replication of a work of architecture and the reproduction of a painting or a graphic work for the purpose of placing such reproduction permanently in a place of such kind, or to the three-dimensional reproduction of a three-dimensional work. to my reading it says that if the work isnt located permanently located in a public place then reporducing the work to permanently place it in a public isnt permitted. As this is in already in a public place this clause doesnt apply. Gnangarra 03:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Even reading it in context, I read it the way that Teofilo does; that photos of 2-D works of art can not be used publically. It doesn't say anything about museums, but I'd agree it's not free enough for us.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that copying for the purpose of selling postcards in a shop (which is public use, but not permanent) or for the purpose of inserting the picture in a book (not a permanent display) seems to be OK for Austria. So it is very close to "free enough for Commons". But I think the Werke der bildenden Künste versus Werke der Baukunst problem which I mention below is a sufficient reason to delete a bidimentional artwork belonging to Werke der bildenden Künste if the picture is taken in a free museum (which is not, in my view, a public transport place [einem dem öffentlichen Verkehr dienenden Ort : de:Panoramafreiheit#Österreich ] like a street or a railway station). Teofilo (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that Austrian bidimensional FOP is for private use only (you can display the picture at your home, but not in public) and this is not free enough for Wikimedia Commons. It is a big difference with German FOP which says "publicly communicate such copies" (German copyright law §59). Teofilo (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Some sources for German-readers: Austrian FOP on :de and latest version of Austrian Urheberrechtsgesetz. --Túrelio (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the artworks by Jef Aérosol belong to Werke der bildenden Künste (works of finearts) rather than Werke der Baukunst(works of architecture) so I think the pictures must be deleted. Teofilo (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have withdrawn all 3 deletion requests, because it turns out that the pictures are taken outside the museum in the street rather than inside the museum. Teofilo (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)