Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 8

← Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9 →

Freedom of Panorama in Albania

The current entry for Albania cites the 1995 law, which has been repealed by a 2005 law: [1]. Could someone familiar with legal talk look through that and update the situation in Albania. Lots of things have changed in Albania between 1995 and 2005. --Terfili (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

As per article 26, sec (d) - Reproduction of the entire work or parts of works for private use on the condition that it does not prejudice the commercial exploitation of the work. Which is falls under fair use and commons cannot include here, as picture in commons may used here for commercial purpose..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama in Nicaragua

Would anyone that can read Spanish please give us their take on FoP and Copyright law in Nicaragua? I've found an archived link that may help.--Rockfang (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

They reworded the relevant section in a 2006 amendment here; the English translation reads:

Article 43.- Works located permanently in parks, streets, squares or other thoroughfares may be reproduced, without the author’s authorization, by means of painting, sketching, photographs and audiovisual recordings for personal use. In respect of works of architecture, the previous article shall only apply to their external aspect.

The law it amended was basically the same, though they seem to have stuck "personal use" in there. Not sure if that is just for audiovisual, or all of them, but that may change things. Photos taken before 2006 would be fine for sure, and maybe still, but not as sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply and sharing that information. I suggest we wait a few days for any more input and then potentially add a section to the project page regarding FoP in Nicaragua.--Rockfang (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It has been approximately 6 days. Based on what has been typed above, anyone have suggestions regarding whether or not anything can be added to project page?--Rockfang (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Its there already...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Whose law applies to exterior photos of embassies?

I have a photo of the exterior of the Embassy of Australia, Paris that I would like to use to illustrate that article. Everything visible in the photo is within the perimeter fence of the embassy. In France there is no freedom of panorama, but in Australia there is, and an embassy is officially part of and subject to the laws of the country whose embassy it is. So can I use {{FoP-Australia}}, or is this still subject to French law and not ok? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Australian diplomatic services does have policy of respecting the law of the country in which its mission exists, I suggest (though unqualified) that if push came to shove it'd be under French law as we(Commons) adhere to a precautionary principle FOP-Australia wouldnt apply. That a side it'd make an interesting case study, personally I've photographed embassys in Australia under the persupmtion of Australian FOP laws but from outside the gates, which I presume you did so it was taken in France under french law. Gnangarra 06:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 4#Cross-border imagery. Apparently according to the Commons policy the "country of origin" refers to the location of the publication (for architecture where the building was built), and not the location in which the photographer was standing when taking the image.

In any case, I would find it hilarious to apply the "precautionary principle" to the extreme that we would assume that your image would make a so well selling postcard that millionaire Penelope Seidler (the heir of Harry) would be tempted to sue you in a French court under a French law, for having taken an image of an Australian building by a deceased Australian architect. For those unfamiliar with the subject, the copyright holder is know for charities such as donating a building. Unfortunately the price of avoiding a lengthy discussion here would be to simply ask her for permission, which she would probably not understand (as all other Harry Seidler buildings are in FOP countries), unless the context of Commons paranoia is also explained. --ELEKHH^T 08:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The Commons precedent is that extra-territoriality does not apply -- see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Japanese embassy in Iceland.JPG -- and, therefore, in this case, French law applies, so no FOP, sorry.

For those of you who don't know him, JackLee (who wrote the above-cited opinion) is a PhD candidate in law and frequent contributor here on questions of international law.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess the article stays unillustrated. Thanks, all, for the quick and definitive response. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

New introductory paragraph?

Our current introduction to this topic reads:

"Freedom of panorama is the term used on Commons for the concept known in German copyright law as Panoramafreiheit, namely a rule that allows for photographs to be freely taken of buildings permanently located in a public place, even buildings that (as works of architecture) may still be in copyright. Typically, the owner of such copyright would be the architect. Many but not all countries include such a rule in their copyright law, and allow photographs taken under the freedom to be published and used without infringing the architect's copyright. Some countries restrict the freedom to photographs of the exterior of buildings, whereas others extend the freedom to internal shots as well, and to sculptures and other works of art that are permanently located in a public place. In a few countries, 2D works are covered including plaques and notices permanently located in a public place."

This has proven to confuse some of our editors. I propose the following replacement:

"In almost all countries, works of art, architecture, and other things have a copyright for a specified period. That means that any photograph taken of them during the copyright period is a Derivative Work.

Usually a Derivative Work requires a license from the creator of the work. However, in many countries there is an exception in the copyright law which eliminates the need for the license from the creator. We call this exception "Freedom of Panorama" (FOP), after the term used in German copyright law, "Panoramafreiheit".

The works to which the FOP exception applies varies widely from country to country. In some countries, there is no FOP at all. It generally applies only to work on permanent public display. In some countries, this is only in public places outdoors; in others it goes as far as indoor places where admission is charged. It may cover only architecture, only architecture and sculpture, or all works, including literature.

Note that in every country, even one without FOP, once a work goes out of copyright it may be freely photographed. Also note that FOP does not eliminate the need for a license from the photographer."

How does this seem to you?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Much more reasoned explanation in this way. --Leyo 15:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is an improvement, and would suggest the following minor changes:

Version with markup

"In almost all countries, works of art, architecture, and other things have a copyright art, architecture, and other works are copyrighted for a specified period. That means that any photograph taken of them such a work during the copyright period is a Derivative Work derivative work. Usually a Derivative Work A derivative work usually requires a license from the creator of the work. However, in many (but not all) countries there is an exception in the copyright law which eliminates the need for the a license from the creator. We call this exception "Freedom of Panorama" freedom of panorama (FOP), after the term used in German copyright law, Panoramafreiheit. The works to which the FOP exception applies varies vary widely from country to country. In some countries, there is no FOP at all. It The exception generally applies only to works on permanent public display. In some countries, this is only in outdoor public places outdoors; in others it goes as far as extends to indoor places where admission is charged. It may cover only architecture, only architecture and sculpture, or all copyrightable works including literature. Note that in every country, even one without an FOP exception, once a work goes out of copyright it may be freely photographed. Also, note that FOP the exception does not eliminate the need for a license from the photographer."

"In almost all countries, art, architecture, and other works are copyrighted for a specified period. That means any photograph taken of such a work during the copyright period is a derivative work.

A derivative work usually requires a license from the creator of the work. However, in many (but not all) countries there is an exception in copyright law which eliminates the need for a license. We call this exception freedom of panorama (FOP), after the term used in German copyright law, Panoramafreiheit.

The works to which the FOP exception applies vary widely from country to country. The exception generally applies only to works on permanent public display. In some countries, this is only in outdoor public places; in others it extends to indoor places where admission is charged. It may cover only architecture, only architecture and sculpture, or all copyrightable works including literary works.

Note that in every country, even one without an FOP exception, once a work goes out of copyright it may be freely photographed. Also, the exception does not eliminate the need for a license from the photographer."

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That's good, thanks -- can I ask you to give us a clean copy without the redlines?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool...need to add the style of challenging the existing FOP interpretations also..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A little help needed

Hi there, today I come across this file. It seems that it has been on dewiki tagged with FOP template. I am quite curious as normally a logo can be fair-use only. So does this mean that, according to Germany's copyright law, we can use this image for any purposes? (not violating rights related to trademark etc) Thanks. --Ben.MQ (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It was taken in Japan. If a country has FOP for two-dimensional works, then photos of the logo in its public situation are fine I guess, but if you remove all aspects of the photo which actually show it in public, you're left with just the logo, and it would have similar rights as an image taken off the website (there would be no real difference, copyright-wise, as the expression is basically the same). For Germany in particular though, they have a very high threshold of originality when it comes to logos, so it's quite possible that logo is not copyrightable in the first place there (rather trademark is the primary protection). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

So this cannot be kept here at commons, because Japan has no FOP for art work?--Ben.MQ (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's borderline to me, at best. It is a photograph of a building, but there isn't much context there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Since Ben,MQ has stated a DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Miraikan-Logo.jpg, this discussion should continue there, not here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

FOP of aircraft factory in France for EN:WP Featured Article in Candidacy

Please comment as to if this photo conflicts with FOP.

P.s. Here is the en-WP FAC TCO (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC),

No, for several reasons: industrial buildings with no artistic creativity, general view, no architectural details visible. Yann (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Also not a photo primarily of a single building but rather a wider scene. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And that is COM:DM --Ben.MQ (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

FOP in Uruguay

There is FoP in Uruguay for pictures and statues placed in musseums and publics places according to [2] Ezarateesteban 00:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read the first thread in this same page: Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Statues images. --Andrea (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

FOP in the Philippines

Include "OK for buildings older than 25 years." Per Philippine copyright law:

171.10. A "work of applied art" is an artistic creation with

utilitarian functions or incorporated in a useful article, whether

made by hand or produced on an industrial scale;

213.4. In case of works of applied art, the protection shall

be for a period of twenty-five (25) years from the date of making.

(Sec. 24(B), P.D. No. 49a)

SEC. 221. Points of Attachment for Works under Sections

172 and 173. – 221.1. The protection afforded by this Act to

copyrightable works under Sections 172 and 173 shall apply to:

(c) Works of architecture erected in the Philippines or other

artistic works incorporated in a building or other structure located

in the Philippines;

Moray An Par (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Provide a link to the source..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have not read this in detail, but architecture is not usually considered to be an applied art and I would doubt that it is here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Architecture is not defined as an applied art, a link to the law is required to see, whether its included or not..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It's on Wikisource: Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is easy enough to look up. But I don't see where you are getting 25 years. Section 213 pretty clearly says they are "protected during the life of the author and for fifty (50) years after his death". Works of architecture are not applied art, as is also made clear by section 172. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the provisions above seem to imply that works of architecture, at least in Philippine jurisprudence, are considered as works of applied art. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how. Applied art is listed as part of section 172(h), whereas architecture is listed as separate and distinct from applied art in section 172(i). The Berne Convention doesn't allow anything less than 50 pma for architectural works, though they do allow less (or no copyright protection at all) for applied art. The definition of "applied art" you mention would only seem to clarify subsection 172(h), and not affect anything else. They seem plainly separate to me by the letter of the above law, but if you know of any court cases, legal scholar opinions, etc. which would deem otherwise, definitely point them out. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama in Soviet Union

I was looking for something on freedom of panorama in the Soviet Union, but couldn't find anything. Does anyone know what the situation is regarding freedom of panorama for pictures taken during the Soviet era? Tangentially related, does freedom of panorama apply to when a statue or other public work of art was erected, or when the photo was taken? (moving specific question to here) Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

So far the "consensus" is that whatever happened in the Union died with the Union. Only present-day laws of successor countries matter (more correct, not the laws themselves, but local interpretation on their meaning, - the "community" reads the codes in isolation from practice. But this practice is too scarce, or too uncertain, so it's not a big deal yet.).

Another unwritten "consensus" for buildings and structures is to use only in rem approach: only location matters. Editors may debate what "country of origin" means (conceived in Italy, designed in the UK, drafted in China, made in Germany, installed in France) - but only location matters (see also this thread). Russian Civil Code extends droit d'auteur prohibition to anything ever published on the territory of present-day country, or anything created by Russian citizens worldwide (this includes deceased Soviet citizens whose heirs have a misfortune of being Russian citizens) - usually, commons "community" does not even consider these claims.

The "consensus" is thin and unpredictable. Today it's deleted, tomorrow it's undeleted, and then "consensus may change".

NVO (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Leoboudv's recent edits

Take a look if you would at the standard formula added:

"Freedom of Panorama ends 70 years after the death of the original author 
(who is defined as the artist, architect or designer) here. 
 On the 71st Year, legitimately taken and freely licensed images (ie. not copyright violations) 
 of the author's 3D works become copyright free and may be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons without any FOP problems." 

• "Freedom of Panorama ends" - more like freedom begins (?). Or, "Freedom of Panorama restriction ends"
• perhaps it needs emphasis that "author" is strictly for persons - in case it's not obvious, "architect" and "designer" is routinely used for businesses.
• "On the 71st Year" - an awkward formula. It could be "death date + 70", or "the 1st of January after death date + 70".
• Why mess up with "legitimately taken" ? Governments invented many ways to make a photograph "illegitimate", Berne Convention is just one of many (and usually the least concern - speaking of photographers' physical security). Commons normally does not heed non-copyright restrictions, and welcomes many images that are not legitimate in their country of origin. You probably thought that adding "not copyright violations" clears all questions about "legitimately taken", but it doesn't.

NVO (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Frankly said, I don't think these additions are necessary at all. The page states at the very top:

"Note that in every country, even one without an FOP exception, once a work goes out of copyright it may be freely photographed."

That is sufficient. Maybe we should make that statement more prominent.

Besides, FOP is not a "restriction". Quite the contrary. FOP is a provision in some copyright laws that allows photos of some copyrighted works to be exploited independently of the copyright of the work shown on the photo. (Subject only to the photographer's copyright on the photo itself.) It is a "permission", not a "restriction". If we think that FOP should be the normal case, then not having a FOP article in some copyright law is a restriction.

Also, Leoboudv's phrasing is a bit unfortunate. FOP does not "end" when the copyright of the work shown expires. Relying on a FOP clause then just becomes unnecessary. FOP provisions in copyright laws apply only to copyrighted works; uncopyrighted works or works on which the copyright has expired can always be photographed, and the photo is subject only to the photographer's copyright on the photo.

Lupo 07:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Freedom is panorama is a freedom which is a positive thing (a "permission" to put it one way), and this needs to be emphasised given that I have noticed a lot of people approach it as a negative word which in some cases results in them saying the opposite of what they mean, which is rather confusing. For example, wordings such as "FoP restriction" is a combination of a positive term with a negative one, which in English grammar makes it negative as a whole i.e. that actually should mean when FOP doesn't exist in a country or is limited e.g. buildings only. "FoP ends" again suggests to me that somehow a freedom is lost and copyright laws become more restrictive, when the opposite meaning is intended. CT Cooper · talk 07:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment: I was going to say this but it looks like perhaps someone can offer a better rewording:
• Note: "Freedom of Panorama restrictions ends 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now copyright free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons without any FOP difficulties."

Can someone reword this rewording...or just reword the whole sentence? I'm from Canada and have to go away now as its past 1 AM here in Vancouver. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Do we even need this statement to be repeated numerous times in the guideline? The lead section was recently revised to read: "Note that in every country, even one without an FOP exception, once a work goes out of copyright it may be freely photographed." Perhaps all that is needed is a cross-reference to "Commons:Licensing" so that people can check when works go out of copyright in particular countries. Also, NVO made an important point in his comment above: the date when copyright lapses differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some cases it is exactly after 70 years from the date of the author's death, while in other cases it is 70 years after 31 December of the year in which the author died. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• The statement will apply to just 5 countries in Europe with no FOP like France, Italy, and Russia. (too many FOP warriors target copyright free buildings and monuments like the Arc de Triomphe in France since their country FOP templates don't include a statement on FOP time limits.) I excluded Japan--pma 50 years--and Greece which already has a statement of 70 years on FOP after the author's death. I've revised the statement somewhat; its not perfect but gets to the point. Its the revised statement above on 'FOP restrictions.' Its better than nothing. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  Then why not add this to the templates? {{NoFoP-UAE}} already mentions it both in the template and in the description, and so can similar templates in other countries. I am still not happy with any wording that describes freedom of panorama as a "restriction" or as "ending" when copyright expires, mostly because it is incorrect, and is likely to cause more confusion than it solves by fuelling the misnomer that freedom of panorama is a negative term. If any such content is needed, it should say that copyright expires after x time, and hence the lack of freedom of panorama is no longer relevant for such countries. CT Cooper · talk 19:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• The additions should not be necessary (although I am well aware of silly deletions like Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2009-07#File:Vatican_Altar_2.jpg); more words do not help people that do not understand copyright. But if there is an addition, the wording should not mention "restriction"; FoP is an exception or limitation of copyright protection. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment: I'll try to reword this again CT Cooper. This statement on the end of FOP restrictions must be put in COM:FOP because too many FOP warriors look at COM:FOP for guidance. If they don't see the fact that 3D works become copyright free 70 years after the author's death here, they frequently initiate a DR which only ends in a speedy keep and wastes other's time. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This is my final third and revised statement:

• Note: "Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now copyright free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free."

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said on my user talk page, these changes resolve my concerns on the wording. CT Cooper · talk 21:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

add Panama

We should add Panama to the list. I have done a quick(!) search due to a question in Commons chat:

http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=129252

§48-6 "With regard to works that have already been lawfully disclosed, the following shall be allowed without authorization from the author or remuneration:" ... " the reproduction of a work of art on permanent display in a street, square or other public place by means of an artistic technique different from that used for the making of the original; with regard to buildings, this exception shall be confined to the outer façade;"

So it seems there is FOP ( OK) for "work of art"s which is not restricted to non-commercial. At least this is what I understand from above.

the definition of "work of art" needs to be quoted.

Nice to know would be if "other public place" does also include e.g. museums - but I think the text does not sound like it would.

RfC. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama and Wikimedia Commons presentation

Since it is obviously highly relevant to this page, I thought I should let note here that I have uploaded my presentation at File:Freedom of panorama and Wikimedia Commons.pdf after presenting it at Wikimania 2011 a week ago. The presentation itself was video recorded, but that is not yet available. In any case, it is recommended viewing for those that are interested in FoP issues but could not attend the conference. CT Cooper · talk 21:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Good presentation on a complex subject, thank you for bringing to our attention.

Comments

1. While we may not have a formal policy, I think we have agreed that as a practical matter FOP issues will not be {{Speedy}}.
2. I think you may well be correct that a US court would not apply foreign law to an FOP case brought here. Choice of law was one of the issues in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. and the second (final) judgement explicitly addressed the issue and concluded that US law, not UK law, was applicable. Judge Kaplan explicitly ruled that US law did not allow foreign law to determine the issue of copyrightability in the the US. That's kind of scary, because it suggests that we might have to give up all images of modern art of any kind. Perhaps we should move the servers to Brazil where, as I understand it, FOP covers almost everything.

Thanks again,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliments. I raised the issue of how US courts would deal with foreign FoP with Clindberg (talk · contribs) after I worked out while drafting the presentation that it might be an issue, and yes there is a serious possibility that art work could be "stripped" of it's FoP status under US law, and since US law always matters on Wikimedia Projects, this could cause problems. Clindberg did make the point however that a US court case on art work from a country with FoP could produce a different result on grounds that "the sculptor had no reasonable expectation of controlling such photos", see User talk:CT Cooper#FOP for the full comment. CT Cooper · talk 18:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Status of FoP in Iraq

I did some research on copyright laws in Iraq and added them to the FoP page. It appears there is no usable FoP provisions in Iraqi copyright law. The most recent amendments to the copyright law of Iraq from 1971 were made by the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2004 and I included a link to that. Please review and correct as necessary. Thanks! Warfieldian ^(talk) 22:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

FOP in the UK (photo taken in the US but first published in the UK)

File:Princeton University old rusty.jpg

Proposed to be deleted

I have recently had a series of photos (e.g. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Princeton_University_old_rusty.jpg) nominated for deletion for impinging on US copyright.

It seems that under US copyright law such objects cannot be photographed and published without the author's consent.

OK under UK FOP

However, I note that other photos of sculptures made by the same sculptor (Richard_Serra) are published on Wikipedia under FOP under UK and German law (see right). These photos were taken in these respective countries i.e. the UK or Germany. It would seem that FOP under UK copyright law protects these photos from deletion, despite the fact that these photos can be viewed in the US (unless regional blocking of these images is used in the US, which I don’t believe is the case). Therefore it seems that to obtain FOP protection for an image, it is necessary to show that UK (or German) copyright law applies to these images rather than US copyright law.

Whilst it is true that the photos which have been nominated for deletion (as mentioned in my first paragraph) were taken in the US, I would like to know whether FOP under UK copyright law would apply to these nominated images if the author of those images were British, or if the photos were first published in the UK? The Berne Convention seems to imply that country of first publication is relevant.

It seems to me that if the photo was first published in the UK, FOP under UK law should apply like it does to the image shown on the right which is not to be deleted.

Thank you for any help that you may be able to provide -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What FOP laws apply across borders is not clear, either on Commons or in the larger world. We've generally applied the law of the place where they were taken. Legally, Commons has to deal with the law of the United States and no other nations; UK or German copyright law does not apply. (w:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. was quite clear on applying US standards of copyrightability to foreign works in a US court of law.) Furthermore, if it were first published on Commons or Flickr, I suspect any US judge would consider the US a country of first publication, and the photos being taken in the US would obliterate any chance of ruling based on foreign FOP.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What can we learn from Google Street View?

As of today, Google Street View has been launched for the whole of Belgium, a non-FOP country. It has also been available for areas of France since some time as well. How comes they may afford doing so overtly and en masse something that we consider illegal? Am I right that it is only that they are big corporation and can take the risk of having to pay when somebody sues them over intellectual property rights? The law should be valid the same for all, of course... Is there something we may learn from Google regarding freedom of panorama? Also, this phenomenon may be further damaging our position as a free knowledge project, because once people get used to Google showing such pictures, they will feel less the pitfalls of their actual restrictive legislation and will have less understanding for people who advocate for it being changed (such as now WM France in their country). Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 09:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting – I wonder what legal justification Google is relying on. Perhaps some sort of fair-use argument, I suspect. One difference between Google Street View and the Wikimedia Commons is that it is our aim to create a repository of media that is available for free reuse (to the best of our ability, of course). Google makes no such promise concerning Street View. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It's simple. Google is in the United States (as is Commons), so there is no legal problem for images of buildings. Don't forget that the reason why some people like to delete those images from Commons is not a legal obligation. It's only a poorly justified internal practice (and not even a reasoned policy). (And for sculptures in Google Street View, in most cases, it should be easy to show that they are only part of the street view and not the specific subject of the image.) -- Asclepias (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. does not allow photos primarily of sculpture, though I suspect that fair use means even those are effectively OK for non-commercial use (i.e. I can't imagine our use being a problem, but it is a "free" issue). But in Google Street View, the idea is to present the entire visible view, and is not focusing on any one copyrightable work. I would think every country would allow that; i.e. allow works to be part of a scene as long as they aren't the focus. I suspect Google has more problems with privacy law than copyright when doing Street View. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reactions. Particularly to Asclepias who put into nice words what I have been feeling about Commons and their non-FOP restrictions lately: The current practice is poorly justified, because if Google advertises Street View mostly in Belgium and Belgian citizens are allowed to use it and all this is OK, then why are we limiting ourselves by the copyright provisions of Belgium? I don't think the right to reuse (as mentioned by JackLee) might be a problem (off course disregarding the copyright of Google itself), with the sole exception of citizens of Belgium who are prohibited by their law from doing so. If Belgians can see the pictures and everyone else in the world can both see and reuse them, why do we still prefer losing pictures because of that single "minority"? Similarly, there are some kinds of pictures that are prohibited by some law (not necessary copyright) in some countries, yet we still allow them on Commons, although they are by law not freely exploitable in all countries. Why is the status in the country of origin that important on Commons? The {{FoP}} template already says that it is the user's responsibility to check if they are allowed to reuse the picture; and I can imagine that in future FoP-optimist Commons it could be sufficient to use a similar template, with "under the copyright law of the country in which the photograph was taken" replaced by "under the copyright law of the United States in which Wikimedia Commons servers are situated" (and, as it is already the case now, it would also be upon the uploader to check if they have possibly not committed an offense by publishing such picture - probably unavoidable, but in a similar fashion we are already tolerating museum and gallery pictures whose authors must have disobeyed the "no photo" house rule of the institution). (P.S. I have just found such a proposal: Commons:Photographs of modern buildings from January 2011.)

It is notable that, according to [3], many public instances in Belgium have welcome and endorsed this Google's initiative, and nobody even thinks of possible copyright breach for a second... Sometimes I feel like everyone is ignorant of the non-FOP issue and that it is only the few of us here in Wikimedia who are obsessed with it and have maybe already done even more research into it than any court so far (non-existance of a court decision about how foreign non-FOP rules apply in the USA, for instance). "More papal than the Pope", one would say in my country... I wonder if Google has explicitely sought permission from SABAM (who claims international copyright) to publish pictures of Atomium: In Street View, you can verbatimly go through it, so I am convinced this does not qualify as de minimis, whatever the officially stated intention of Google Street View is (reaction to Asclepias' note in brackets). Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This issue, and the recent debate about our FoP policies, again raises the point which I have mentioned on various occasions before. Wikimedia's servers are based in the US, so it is primarily US law that Wikimedia has to comply with. (Yes, there is the point the laws of jurisdictions that the Commons is accessible in through the Internet also have to be complied with, but any individual or government wishing to take legal action would have to deal with the problem of how to do so against an entity that is not within the jurisdiction.) Therefore, my understanding is that many of the rules we try and enforce here are really a matter of Commons policy rather than because US law compels them.

A central principle is that Commons content should be as free as possible so that anyone can reuse it. Therefore, our rule is that files must be free for use from a copyright perspective both in the US and in the source country. The difficulty comes when deciding whether the principle should be extended to certain aspects of copyright (e.g., the freedom of panorama issue) or to non-copyright laws (e.g., privacy laws). I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should adopt a "least common denominator" approach – in other words, that we only permit content that complies with all laws applicable in source countries. On the other hand, should we move to the other extreme – a system where our content only complies with US law but may be in (blatant) breach of the laws of source countries, and we simply have warning tags advising users that they are responsible for checking to see if files are usable where they are located? This may lead the Commons to have a bad reputation as a copyright pirate. (Note also that since the US is a signatory of various international copyright treaties, it may actually have a legal obligation to ensure that the copyright laws of other countries are enforced.) Or is there some principled compromise? Is it possible to determine which sorts of foreign restrictions Commons will adhere to, and which ones it will ignore? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how obeying the copyright laws could get us a reputation as a copyright pirate. The US is fulfilling its obligation as a signator of various international copyright treaties through its current legal system. It's legally feasible so long as we stop pretending the US has the rule of the shorter term or that the URAA isn't real. (Without the URAA, most of the non-US world's copyrighted material prior to 1989 is public domain in the US. Which is why the court is never going to overturn it, with the possible limited exception of for reliance parties.)

However, it does mean that the German Wikipedia could not use Commons materials without restriction and then be safely published in Austria. (Of course, it couldn't be safely printed in Germany today, since the Rule of the Shorter Term doesn't apply to US materials in Germany. Which shows the limit of Commons rules.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

My point was that simply complying with US copyright law and ignoring the copyright laws of other jurisdictions (which I said was an extreme position) in which the Commons is accessible might give the Commons a bad reputation. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I understood what you meant. I don't know of any other project trying to pay attention to the copyright laws of other jurisdictions. Project Gutenberg and the Internet Archive follow American law; the IMSLP follows Canadian law; spinoffs of Project Gutenberg follow local law; and Librivox follows American law except for the fact that Agatha Christie scared them good.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Street View is a good analogue to our pictures of architecture anyway. A Street View image is a 360-degree-plus panoramic image and so doesn't show any individual building in significant detail or focus. That's quite different from the types of photos we prohibit, which are photos that focus primarily on an individual copyrighted work of architecture. Powers (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Technically, this is true, however what people see at any given instant is only a part of the photograph, plus the application provides navigation and zooming in those panoramas as its main feature and eventually also many if not most users will actually use it to see a particular building (the house they are living in; an office, a church and the like they are going to visit etc.). Even if we were allowed to have a panoramic image that contains a copyrighted building, we would not be allowed to crop it (not necessarily physically - for instance by hiding the rest by means of a CSS stylesheet) so that it shows only that one building. And this actually what Google Street View works like - you never see the whole panorama picture, only a part of it. And with the linking of address geocoding to Street View, you can even say that pictures for building are "encoded", so if you only need to enter the name / address and click a button to see Street View focused on that particular building, it's then alrady really very close to Commons having pictures of each building apart. (As a pun, we could say that in the same way in which Google Street View maps whole Belgium and therefore Atomium is only a minor part of it and therefore used de minimis, it is Wikimedia Commons that collects photos of notable places all over the world and Atomium is only a minor part of that collection and therefore used de minimis. :-) Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• The simplist solution would be to move commons servers to Indonesia where there are no copyright restrictions then people can upload anything they want, but the foundation isnt going to do that either. Respecting copyright outside of the US its about being a good neighbour, about respecting our contributors efforts, ensuring that our contributors arent being placed in "harms way" we cannot expect to hold reusers to a higher standard then we ourselves are will to accept. Google has a base in many countries and has been reportably known to use those bases to suit the various circumstances its business models need. I'd be reluctant to base any change of policy solely on the actions of one company which cannot be held accountable for our actions and definately not without a direction on legal matters from appropriately qualified people . Gnangarra 04:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No copyright restrictions in Indonesia? Nevertheless, the issue is not only about respecting law in the source country, as our "respect" often involves deleting images contrary to practices in the source country and in absence of full certainty about the correctness of our interpretation, and regardless of possible loss or injustice. --ELEKHH^T 04:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That respect for the uploader mentioned by Gnangarra is not completely irrelevant, but I have already uploaded several pictures taken in museums and the like where I have probably broken the house rules by taking them, so I have voluntarily placed me in "harms way" for the sake of Wikipedia and free knowledge - and the encyclopedia endorses (or, officially, at least tolerates) this practice and can profit from them. It is also interesting to note that this practice, in constrast with the proposed ignoring of non-FOP in countries of origin, is not being seen as getting Wikimedia "a reputation as a copyright pirate"; instead, it has been presented as a statement of our beliefs that cultural heritage should be freely accessible to anyone. Anyway, we are probably the only large community that has been considering the interaction of national copyright laws so deeply (or is there any other one we might try to learn something from?). This is really in most cases contrary to the practices in the source country and even public bodies have no fear of endorsing Google's feat and cooperating with them closely (as pointed out above). No wonder then that the recent French proposal to introduce FoP in Belgium was nicknamed "amendement Wikipédia" by its oponents and rejected, among others, on the grounds that "it is being presented as benefiting all the people, while in fact it is something that only Wikipedia requests for itself" (watch the full video at [4]). No need to say how shortsighted that is, but that's how the world perceives us now. Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 09:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to know how the opponents of "amendement Wikipédia" in Belgium think Wikipedia is "benefiting". It's a non-profit organization, and does not raise money through advertising. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely disgraceful, and rather worrying when it comes to the interests of the project. This is effectively punishing Wikimedia projects for following the copyright laws legislators write to the letter, something they ought to praising, not mocking. One way to kill twenty-seven birds with one stone would be to somehow amend European Union copyright law to harmonize freedom of panorama exemptions across the European Union in a way which favours its existence. Freedom of panorama is mentioned in EU copyright law but currently is just an "optional item" that member states can choose to implement if they like. CT Cooper · talk 19:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note the parliamentary discussion was taking place in France, not Belgium (just to have this detail of JackLee's contribution corrected). My French is limited, but I am going to write a thankful message to the deputy who submitted the amendement and I am very glad that Wikimeda France is being active in this way (unfortunately, Wikimedia Belgium is still non-existing, although already being formed). I have remarked that in some Romance countries you are being looked at as a fool if you follow the rules to the letter (such as in France when you wait patiently until the green light appears on a pedestrian traffic light although there are no cars coming, or when you start wondering why everyone is walking on the grass if there is a sign next to it saying "keep off the grass"). This said, maybe the non-existence of FoP in the very countries of Belgium, France and Italy has not only historical, but also cultural reasons? The EU could indeed be a way to go, although this would still probably need to go through some European chapter that would convince their MEP to raise the issue. I will try to raise it during a conference on intellectual property rights organized by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission that I will be attending this Monday, so hopefully I will afterwards be able to report here with an opinion of some of their experts and may be also with some suggestions on how we could proceed. Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this story above demonstrates that our current practices do not help in the campaign for FOP, as often claimed. Just throwing in another brainstorming idea, how about a glocal "Commons Freedom of Panorama" sister project, with servers in the UK or other FoP friendly country, that would serve both the educational scope and FoP advocacy? --ELEKHH^T 01:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Lack of enforcement makes editors unwilling to contribute

I am getting tired of knowing that I cannot contribute to Commons by pictures of many buildings in Belgium (where I am now living) because of non-existent FoP, while I keep seeing such pictures published by others (obviously illegal according Belgian law) in articles that I read. This is making me feel even more desperate than if there was only the no-FoP hassle yet no such pictures uploaded. Instead, I keep seeing in Wikipedia articles pictures that are illustrative but about which I know they are against the rules. This is the case for instance of File:Woluwe-Saint-Pierre Église Notre-Dame de Stockel 001.jpg (the French article which links to it clearly states it is a 1962 work of architects R. Aerts and P. Ramon), but even of whole categories, such as Category:Charlemagne building, Category:Justus Lipsius building, Category:Delors Building, Brussels, and lots more under Category:EU in Brussels. I am hopeless to see how, for instance, en:Madou Plaza Tower uses File:Tour Madou Brussels.jpg to illustrate its subject while at the same time the image is being kept at Commons under the pretense that its inclusion on this photo taken from a park in Brussels is de minimis. This lack of enforcement of FoP rules while we formally approve of them is hypocritical! I, too, once uploaded a picture of a building that is too new and in France (non-FoP country). Should I delete it? If yes, should I start filing deletion requests for all other similar pictures I run across? Why is there nobody already commissioned by patrolling such cases? Should information on architect and his death date be obligatory part of licence information for all uploaded pictures that show works permanently displayed at public places in non-FOP countries in order to prove that these works are no longer copyrighted? How many pictures do you think would need to be removed if Commons actually started applying its current FoP policy? Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are frustrated, but we are all volunteers here. You may be able to improve Commons by nominating media that violate FOP and by reviewing deletion requests. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The photo of File:Tour Madou Brussels.jpg is really de minimis. For the File:Woluwe-Saint-Pierre Église Notre-Dame de Stockel 001.jpg, it is a border case. The building is very simple. Yann (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering a two-dimensional image of a building a "reproduction" is counter-intuitive to many, and contradictory to architecture theory. In many countries which adopted the Berne Convention (which apparently stipulates that photos are reproductions of architecture), the common-sense cultural attitude is still one of de facto FoP and no legal case searching the enforcement of this peculiar Berne Convention clause is known. The general frustration resulting from the inconsistency of enforcing non-FOP has been noted previously, yet we failed to find a common-sense solution on Commons.ELEKHH^T 22:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please remember that Commons has more than 11,000,000 images. I would not be surprised if 1% of those -- 110,000 -- are problems in one way or another.

Commons Administrators, all volunteers, delete about 1,100 pages every day (six Admins do half of them), so we have little time for searching out problems. We rely on editors such as Marek BLAHUŠ to find and add {{Delete}} tags to problems. Rather than complain here about the problems you list above, I suggest you tag them, along with any others you find.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand we are all volunteers, and the only thing I advocate for is a stronger determination of the community to following its own guidelines. The above mentioned cases of EU buildings are so obvious, yet we have pictures here like File:European Parliament in Brussels.jpg that are not free, but which feature in many articles across many wikis (including en: and fr: while in Belgium and France photos of this building are non-free), are seen each months by tens of thousands of users and have been around since as soon as 2007. And nobody has ever suggested deletion so far. Should I? If I do and it gets deleted, the original uploader will not be happy with me (cf. the Saudi-Arabain case refered to in File:Freedom of panorama and Wikimedia Commons.pdf), and Commons and Wikipedias will lose content. On the other hand, if I do not, nothing bad happens.

So, actually, by tolerating these pictures, we not only save our time, but also avoid lowering Wikipedia's quality, annoying other editors and (if no archive copies of pictures that have been deleted are being kept) possibly losing pictures we may be never able to receive again in the future. While everyone on of us here likes contributing to Commons, let's admit that no one enjoys having to destroy the contributions of others (plus make bad friends with them by doing so). I think this is why we do not really enforce non-FoP limitations and often remain silent. Furthermore, if it will have taken 4 years for that picture before being deleted, how can I, as an uploader, make sure that something similar will not happen in the future with content that I contribute to Commons at this moment? Therefore, what do you think of my suggestion to introduce a template through which one could state that there are no non-FoP issues for a picture, posssibly providing also the name of the architect and the year of his death for reference?

And I do not agree that the use of the copyrighted design of the Madou tower in File:Tour Madou Brussels.jpg is deminis once this image is used in an article to illustrate that tower. As long as you call it "a photo of the Park of Brussels", the tower in the background is no problem, but caling the picture one way and then using it to illustrate something copyright-protected that was originally named trivial inclusion is a hypocritical attempt at circumventing the non-FOP restriction. See for instance the discussion at nl:Wikipedia:De kroeg/Archief 20110331 (and also something in English here) which resulted in cropping the Atomium off from a picture of a tram passing by it -- under the disguise of being a picture on public transport, this picture was allowed in Wikipedia, but was later used in many languages to illustrate the Atomium (because no free pictures of it exist). In the discussion, Bas used the same argument and also referred to a Dutch Wikipedia conference in which Arnoud Engelfriet, a specialist in IT law, confirmed that no such picture use is allowed (and merely speculated about using a satellite picture). Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Is hard to ask for "a stronger determination of the community to following its own guidelines" when the implication is that we have to shoot ourselves in the leg, although nobody else does it. Why couldn't we instead improve the policy and guidelines, to better serve both the educational and free content scope of the project ? --ELEKHH^T 02:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I would have no problem voting for a change of policy, but there are indications that no consensus could be reached in the past. Unfortunately I am not familiar with that part of history, but maybe someone else could provide an insight, tell what the hottest issues then were, and give an opinion whether today the result could be different? One thing is sure: The current state of affairs is illogical. Either we respect current rules, or we change them. And I think that the lack of enforcement (although anyone can help it) indicates that there could be quite strong support for change. Are there any statistics on how many pictures are being deleted daily on basis of non-FOP rationale, and how many people altogether are filing the deletion requests for them? Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how consensus has been reached in the past, but we might have learned a few things since than. The challenge is rather that there might be several different alternatives, splitting the pro-change advocates. --ELEKHH^T 03:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Many people speed every day. Does that mean there's strong support for overturning the speed limits for driving? In any case, we have to try and obey the laws; we can discuss how Berne Convention and US copyright law and non-US copyright law interact, but I have no doubt that when US law says a photo of a copyrighted statue is a derivative work, and Belgium law says a photo of a copyright statue is a derivative work and they both agree the statue is copyrighted, that the law the WMF has to obey is going to be that photos of that statue are derivative works that need permission to distribute.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Since you brought up the traffic metaphor, sometimes removing rules leads to better results. So why shouldn't we search for alternative solutions? --ELEKHH^T 12:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Since long, I have predicted this. Our current policy is avocating shooting ourselves in the foot, so as Elekhh says, it is not surprising that it is poorly enforced. However there are still some hardliners around here, so I would not bet on a policy change. I wonder how big the problem needs to be before people awake and get ready a change. Yann (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, rights-holders are capricious about enforcing their rights, and this often creates the illusion of safety. It may be that architects almost never sue photographers, but what if an artist uses one of our photographs to create a work (such as a campaign ad) that the architect finds politically or morally objectionable? Suddenly, an architect who had no interest in suing anyone is looking for every legal tool they can wield against a political enemy. It's impossible to predict when such an event might occur. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that surely there are alternatives to the current self-harming practice. Why cannot we even contemplate some? Do we need FOP in source country for instance so badly? Do we need to enforce non-FOP in countries where nobody else does, or could we simply use a disclaimer (we don't know the status for sure in that country)? Should we have a sister Commons Educational where to transfer images instead of deleting them? Could there be a process by which the architects would be automatically contacted to see if they care about their rights (although many FOP deletions are of images which are anyway trash and wouldn't be be worth the trouble) etc... I'm sure there are better ideas, just let's not discourage people from thinking about some. --ELEKHH^T 13:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

See for example the advice of Mike Goodwin: "There's a strong risk of reading copyright law in an overreaching way." Just put a clear button on every file page where people claiming copyright can demand removal. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Making it easy for copyright holders to take down works may protect WMF and their websites under the DMCA, but does absolutely nothing to protect uses in print by content reusers, including print versions of Wikipedia, who would still be fully liable. Also, respecting copyright law is a Foundation issue that consensus cannot override. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Walk away from the position that we're going to violate the law, and we can discuss alternatives. But calling current practices "self-harming" and spending 300 words telling us about how we have policy-violating images and therefore we should get rid of the policy doesn't help at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You're completely misinterpreting me, so please read carefully: I wasn't ever calling for violating "the law". And I think for most people is evident that the current practice is problematic in many respects, as raised so many times. So I admit that I don't understand what makes some be complacent with the present situation, and so determined to crush any attempt to investigate possible improvements. --ELEKHH^T 02:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not misinterpreting you. What I want is you to stop ranting about how we're crushing "any attempt to investigate possible improvements" and offer a concrete proposal. The reason we're "complacent" about the current solution is because we see at as compatible with the law and Commons policy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Only because you are repeating the same thing doesn't mean you are right. And please stop wilfully misinterpreting me. I already advised you that your interpretation of my comments is wrong. Thank you. --ELEKHH^T 22:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I admit I don't understand what makes some feel that accusing others of bad faith and ignoring their position on things should make the others more open to the accuser's position.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

One possibility would be to follow U.S. law on photos of buildings (this would not be possible with photos of sculpture), and basically say they are not derivative. Sort of like the PD-Art exception. However, that exception was based on stated desires from the Foundation that that type of work really should not have copyright; in other matters they seem to indicate they want to respect foreign copyright laws in other cases. I don't think any architect (or architectural copyright owner) would have grounds to sue in the U.S. for photos of buildings, technically, so it wouldn't open up any DMCA issues I don't think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I would welcome something like that. Thanks for the constructive comment! --ELEKHH^T 22:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There may be soon an amedement allowing FOP in France. See Commons:Bistro#Bientôt le FOP en droit français ? Crossing fingers... Yann (talk) 03:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That'd be nice. Discussion there seems to say there is only a small chance of passage, but it's better than no chance at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The French copyright law amendment was defeated by 23 votes against, 7 votes for. It was a FOP available indoors inside museums, including for paintings. I think there would have been better chances of success if they had asked only for a German FOP (outdoors only). I copied the full text of the bill and of the National Assembly debate on fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro/25 novembre 2011#Amendement 22. Teofilo (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)