Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/table

Hungary

I added a footnote, clarifying the FoP law. The text of the Hungarian law is narrowly drawn:

Section 68 (1) Taking and using an image of a work of fine art, architecture and applied art creation that is permanently exposed outdoors shall not require the consent of the author and shall be free of charge.

The definitions are:

Section 1 (1) This Act shall protect literary, scientific and artistic creations.

(2) All literary, scientific and artistic creations, whether or not specified by this Act, shall be protected by copyright. Such creations shall be in particular

(a-g) not relevant

h) creations produced by drawing, painting, sculpting, engraving, lithography or by any other similar means as well as their designs,

i) photographic works,

j) maps and other cartographic creations,

k) architectural works and their designs, as well as the designs for complexes of buildings and urban architecture,

l) designs for technical structures,

m) applied art works and their designs,

It seems to me that for the purposes of section 68, (h) is "fine art", (k) is "architecture", and (m) is "applied art". Since maps and photographs are listed separately, they are not included in Hungarian FoP. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Useless column

Hi,

The first column of this table, called "Commercial use", is a duplicate of the second, named "Buildings".

Thus I propose to delete it.

1. Concerning the FoP, we all know what is a "Building", an "Artwork", a "Text" or a "Building interior". But what is a "Commercial use"? Nonsense in this context. This "Commercial use" is necessarily linked to something. And apparently the tacit link is the second column (Buildings). Otherwise, what would mean for example the case of Argentina? => Artworks not allowed [No] but commercial use [OK] okay?? Impossible. In this row, the column "Commercial use" seems misleading.
2. Actually, all these columns implicitly implies a "commercial use" dimension for each country, because we are here on Wikimedia Commons, and all the hosted medias of this platform should be reusable commercially, per the nature of all the available licenses, and per COM:L: "Commercial use of the work must be allowed". So, that's not a particular case in FoP.
3. For Sweden and Mexico, the photographs of buildings are [OK] accepted, but "Commercial use" unsure ?? What does that mean? It would be paradoxical to find a cross in this column, instead of a tick [OK]. Even leaving uncertainty is not recommended in my opinion, because unnecessarily complicated.

Suppressing the redundant / counter-informative column should facilitate the readers' understanding.

All opinions welcome -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Basile Morin IMO, the history of this table page suggests that commercial use must be indicated as uploaders are supposed to follow COM:L, which means freely-licensed contents are only allowed (non-commercial FOP like those of France, Kyrgyzstan, and Slovenia are thus not acceptable). Though in practice that is not being followed, as evidenced in continued deletion requests to photos of buildings in UAE, France, Saudi Arabia, etc.., as well as photos of public art in the United States.

Though I find it "superfluous," because in some countries listed like France and Slovenia, there is freedom of panorama actually but only for non-commercial use. If the commercial use box is crossed out for them, all the rest of the boxes in the row for buildings, 3D artwork etc. are also crossed out.

I may suggest focusing the entire table page on Wikimedians' perspective, in which even non-commercial FOP is treated as not OK (crossed out box/es). In this way, the Wikimedian perspective stands out among non-Wikimedian perspective which may treat France, Lithuania, etc. as having FOP rights (but non-commercial only). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, JWilz12345, for your feedback. You find the column "superfluous" and I agree. If there is freedom of panorama in France or Slovenia (non-commercial FOP), why should we display a cross in the cells of this row, after all? Let's just delete this 1st column of the table, and the information will appear more exact in a Wikimedians' perspective, won't it?

Also, you say that "If the commercial use box is crossed out for them, all the rest of the boxes in the row for buildings, 3D artwork etc. are also crossed out". Is that not another clue to verify that this column is useless?

Let's take the example of Albania. According to the table, all photos of Public interiors in Albania are refused. Then, in the perspective of a lambda reader, the first column saying "commercial use okay" is just distracting, right? Since this column only applies to "Buildings", let's suppress it, and we'll read the table faster.

Instead, the caption of the table could be specified with a wording like "Freedom of panorama (by country), in a commercial use perspective". Lighter. -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed for your insights @Basile Morin: . Though I'm not sure for other Commons users here, let's wait for their inputs/insights. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Everybody's welcome -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

As per Basile Morin's comment above, only if Sweden and Mexico are addressed. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 21:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cmglee re: Mexico 🇲🇽, the attached note is "The Mexican law only mentions that artists don't receive payment and doesn't explain if use for commercial purposes is possible. It is supposed that it's possible." If the law doesn't mention, then by default it should be OK. I have seen some FOP rules that do not even explicitly mention commercial use, like COM:FOP São Tomé and Príncipe (see also Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/09#São Tomé and Príncipe FOP revisited). So in my opinion, Mexico should be OK. Mexico only becomes not OK if there is a wording similar to "except if the work is the main subject" or "except if the representation is made for commercial purposes."

Re: Sweden 🇸🇪, I think it has already been addressed at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Swedish FOP?. The fact that the 2016 case only explicitly targets the Wikimedia Sweden-managed database (not Wikimedia Commons or Wikimedia Foundation in general) means there is still FOP in Sweden, but now limited to commercial printed media. As pointed out by both @LPfi and Esquilo: there, it is still perfectly legal for commercial publishers of postcards and tourism souvenir items in Stockholm to sell their paraphernalia without the need of license permissions from the sculptors. Swedish FOP is still OK, as long as the commercial uses by postcard makers, calendar printers, and T-shirt printers are still allowed there and Wikimedia Foundation's advice to not delete photos of Swedish buildings and monuments just because of the 2016 case targeting offentligkonst.se prevails. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably the most pointless comment in the world but the whole commercial / non-commercial thing baffles me so I have no opinion here - If those who understand this better than me believe this change is for the good of this project and our viewers/users then I'm all for it. But then of course if it turns out this hinders our readers then I would oppose it, As I said the most pointless comment in the world, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Davey2010 for the commercial/Non-commercial, in some countries that we consider as having no suitable FOP like France and Slovenia, there is FOP but only for non-commercial purposes. Same applies to Bulgaria, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, and Romania. The case is similar for "partial FOP" countries of Denmark, Finland, Japan, Norway, and Russia: they have FOP legal rights for non-buildings but non-commercial only too. Wikimedia Commons cannot accept non-commercial FOP as it is against the fundamental pillar which Commons stands: to provide freely-licensed media that anyone can use/reuse however they like, without copyright restrictions. Non-commercial FOP are already copyright restrictions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Delete it and add a note at the top saying "Must include commercial use." Nosferattus (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Action: Thanks everyone for the comments. As I understand the messages, there is no major objection to remove the first column, on the contrary a few voices support the initiative. Thus I'm going to handle the modification in the next days, and add the line "Must include commercial use" at the top of the table. -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Basile Morin, let's say I have a picture and need to assess whether I can rely on some French freedom of panorama provision for my upload. Right now, the table tells me (in some overly complicated manner) that I cannot upload it. Under your proposed course of action, the "France" row would be removed—but then one can no longer tell whether the creators of the table so far simply haven't added France or whether they have affirmatively determined that the French freedom of panorama provision falls short of Commons' requirements. It seems to me, therefore, that we would actually lose relevant information. I support removing the first column, but I do think the information that a given country's freedom of panorama provision does not meet Wikimedia Commons' requirements (for whatever reason) should be preserved in some way. — Pajz (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Pajz, for your input. To make things clear, I have no intention to remove any row from the table. Neither France nor other countries should disappear. Just the first column, called "Commercial use", will be deleted. Apparently this action is fine for you too, so no worry. The content will remain as helpful as it currently is. Best regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)