Commons talk:Freedom of panorama
- My two cents:
- Copyright is generally dependent on the place of first publication of a work rather than the place where a work is created, so the first thing that needs to be ascertained is whether a photograph taken on Antarctica is in fact published elsewhere.
- Assuming that Antarctica is in fact the place of first publication, then it depends on exactly which part of Antarctica the publication occurred. According to "w:Antarctica", "Antarctica has no government, although various countries claim sovereignty in certain regions. Although a few of these countries have mutually recognized each other's claims, the validity of these claims is not recognized universally." Thus, a photograph first published on, say, British Antarctic Territory would presumably be regulated by UK copyright law (setting aside the difficult issue of how many other nations actually recognize UK's claims over the territory).
- — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- FOP depends on the country in which the court is located, not on the country in which the photograph was taken or first published. This is given by Article 5 (2) of the Berne Convention, which says that you can't pay any attention whatsoever to what the laws of the source country say about FOP. This means that you can publish photos of buildings located in Antarctica in the United Kingdom but not in France. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The previous section claiming that Zambia does not allow FOP was unsourced. I looked up the law, while Section 2 does indeed state that "works of architecture in the form of either buildings or models" are covered by copyright, Section 4 goes on to make a very clear exception for FOP. I have changed the text accordingly, and set Zambia to OK. Jpatokal (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Actually no, your cited section merely states that such works do not constitute publication for the underlying work. That has nothing to do with whether such works are not considered infringements, and is not a FOP clause. The limitations on copyright section (article 21) does not seem to have any FOP clause, unfortunately, and that is where it would need to be. Zambia should still be a full "Not OK". Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- I remain unconvinced. Sec. 17(3) covers "The controlled acts in relation to an artistic work", and (a) forbids "reproduction in any material form" (emphasis mine), but surely a digital photograph of a building is not a "material reproduction" of the building itself? And per sec. 4, a photograph of a building does not qualify as "publication" (b) either. Jpatokal (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't count as publication of the building, but it's still communication to the public (UK-based laws usually distinguish those two; TV broadcasts are generally not publication but are communication to the public). And communication to the public is one of the rights controlled by the original author. A close reading suggests that private photographs of copyrighted artistic works are OK, but trying to publish or sell those photographs is not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)