Commons talk:Freedom of panorama

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: CT:FOP

Info non-talk.svg This page is for discussing improvements to Commons:Freedom of panorama. For discussions of specific copyright questions, please go to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Discussions that do not relate to changes to the page Commons:Freedom of panorama may be moved, with participants notified with the template {{subst:moved to VPC|FOP}}.
alt= link=
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14


Can someone check this please, specificity does the FOP cover 2d works as only architecture or sculpture are mentioned in the law. LGA talkedits 23:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

  • FOP in Portugal also incluides 2d works, as well as 3d works, if 2d or 3d works are "made to be permanently kept in public places". The law only mentions works of architecture and sculpture as examples of said works, but doesnt excludes other kinds of works. The IP portuguese law (last modified by "Law n.º 16/2008") is pretty clear it this assertion. Title 1 "Of the protected works and copyright" Article 2 "original works", defines what are original works ("obras originais") and are so protected by copyright:


1 - The intellectual creations in the literary, scientific and artistic domains, whatever the type, the form of expression, the merit, the mean of communication and the objective, comprise namely: (...)

G)" Works of drawing, tapestry, painting, sculpture, ceramics, tile, engraving, lithography and architecture

H) Photographic works or produced by any processes analogous to photography;

I) Works of applied arts, drawings or industrial models and works of design that constitute artistic creation, regardless of the protection given to industrial property; (...)

So 2d and 3d works are considered original works.

But Title II "Of the free use" defines several exceptions and limitations to copyright. The ones that concerns the Portuguese FOP is article 75 paragraph 2 subparagraph q and in this is stated that:


"2- Are lawful, without the consent of the author, the following uses of the work:


Q) The use of works, like, for example, works of architecture or sculpture, made to be permanently kept in public places;"

By readings this article, in articulation with article 2, is pretty clear to someone that has portuguese as its native language, that the portuguese legislator, when made this paragraph, wasnt limiting the FOP to architecture or sculptural works, but was its intention, by mention this two works, to give an example of some of the works that are covered by FOP. So this FOP could be read as "It is lawful, without the consent of the author, to use works made to be permanently kept in public places, like, for example, works of architecture or sculpture." Tm (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It is by no means clear, there are a large number of FOP's that are limited to 3d works to the exclusion of 2d works, are there any reliable secondary sources for that interpretation or otherwise cover this topic ? LGA talkedits 07:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
If the legislature wanted to limit the exception to scultpural/architectural or 3-D works they would have explicitly said so. The addition of a qualifier like "such as" means it is *not* limited to those works. It is any work made to be kept permanently placed in a public place. Most of the laws explicitly excluding 2-D works are usually ones coming from a UK legislative history, I think. In another place in the law, article 149 it looks like (via Google translate), public place is defined to be "It is understood by all that the public place that is offered access, implicitly or explicitly, for remuneration or without it, even with declared reserves the right of admission." In a better translation of an earlier law, which appears to be the same in that article, it says "A public place shall mean any place to which the public has access, either implicitly or explicitly, whether against payment or not, even where the right of admission is reserved." I'm not completely sure the FoP provision necessarily has the same definition, but it very well might be. The one caveat in the law to me is the "made to be kept permanently" clause... that (to me) implies that the original author knew it was going to be permanently in public (or was at least made with that possibility in mind), not something like a museum exhibit which became permanent only later. Plus, of course, the usual Berne stipulation that such uses cannot conflict with the normal exploitation of the original work -- so if you are taking a photo *only* of a 2-D advertisement without showing its public context, that could be an issue. Another clause of the law explicitly says that any incidental inclusion of a work is also fine, so the FoP clause is for the additional case when such work is the primary focus of the photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This (§75(2)q) qnd its text are not hermetic or esoteric that are open to intrpetation, as it is by all means clear to anyone that has a native understanding of portuguese, like me, that 2d and 3d, works are included in FOP, as the article (§75(2)q) is pretty clear in that as the portuguese words "como, por exemplo," are sollely and unambiguously translated to "like, for example", and so the architectural and sculptural works are given as an example of the works that have FOP, but dont excludes other works. As this article clearly states the only requeriment in Portugal, to be covered by FOP, is that the 2d or 3d works, ae made to be permanently kept in public places. So i ask you, do you grasp even a few words of portuguese, when its texts are clear or are ambiguous, to be discussing portuguese laws? Tm (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Also the Commons:FOP#Portugal is pretty clear in that, to the contrary of your statements, the architectural and sculptural works are not the only one covered by FOP. Read it again in full (my bolding:

"Portuguese copyright law allows the use of works permanently installed at public locations. The law explicitly mentions buildings and sculptures as examples of such works (§75(2)q). "Use" includes taking a photograph of such a work and publishing it (§68). However, according to the Berne three-step test, the allowed uses must not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, nor unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder (§75(4))." Tm (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Is FoP covering outdoor advertising?[edit]

The discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Minis as Red Bull campaign car led me to asking this question: is Category:Outdoor advertising covered by FoP? Advertisements are copyrighted, so under what justification can we host pictures of it? FoP comes to mind, but they are not discussed well. In particular, what about US? Buildings are ok, artworks and scultpures, not ok, wouldn't adverts fall into that category? Wouldn't this necessitate deletion of most content of Category:Outdoor advertising in the United States outside de minimis in case of art on buildings? Please echo me if you reply here, thanks. -Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Works prior to 1989 in the US had to have a copyright notice, and prior to 1964 had to have a copyright renewal filed for them to still be under copyright. Also the threshold of copyrightability is fairly high in the US, and many of those advertisements don't reach those standards. Modern advertisements should probably be deleted, but I don't see a lot of problems with the current contents of the "Outdoor advertising in the United States" category.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Piotrus: The current policy on Commons is to allow photos of artwork that were taken in countries with FOP for artwork even though the US does not have FOP for artwork; such photos are sometimes tagged with {{Not-free-US-FOP}}. In countries that have FOP for artwork, it is often the case where FOP applies to 3D works but not 2D works. A question of particular interest is as follows: For countries that have FOP for artwork, does FOP apply if the artwork is permanently attached or applied to a vehicle (i.e., a car, train, ship, or airplane) that is used in public locations as opposed to being attached to an architectural work or a fixed mounting in a public location? (For that matter, if the vehicle and the attached artwork are from a different country from the one where a photo of the artwork is taken, does that matter?) --Gazebo (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Historical markers and Summer of Monuments[edit]

I wanted to mention to those interested/knowledgeable in the Freedom of Panorama rules that I've posted an FOP-related question at the Summer of Monuments talk page. I'm not sure where the best venue is to discuss it (here or there), but I'd value any input. The question's basically whether photographing historical marker text is now permissible... ╠╣uw [talk] 13:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Freedom of Panorama in Europe.svg[edit]

Hi, we need a graphist for updating it with architecture-only FoP in Russia from October 1. Russia (including Kaliningrad Oblast) should be yellow, Crimea probably red-yellow shaded or sth. similar, as it is so far unsure how to handle buildings there. Thanks --A.Savin 21:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I made the changes, but I shouldn't upload it before Oct 1, or should I upload it as a derivative? I think making Crimea grey is the most reasonable solution for now, as nobody knows what applies there. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 08:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@Julian H.: Thanks. If you like, you can upload the version and revert the file to the previous one for now, so that anyone can update the map straight to the right timepoint. --A.Savin 10:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@A.Savin:Sounds good, did that. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 10:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)