Commons talk:Freedom of panorama

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

Shortcut: CT:FOP

alt= link=
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14

Germany - exterior only[edit]

Would it be possible to make the description of FoP in Germany more explicit that FoP only applies to exterior public spaces. I read it through but since it it wasn't made explicit, I then uploaded several photographs of paintings taken inside a museum in Germany, only to realize that FoP does not apply to them. The table at the bottom of the page lists "?" under "interior spaces" but unless I'm wrong, it seems commons is has established a consensus of "no" in this case. Thanks! - Illustratedjc (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems explicit already, but you can suggest a specific rewording that you think would make it better. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It might seem implicit, but since the words "exterior/outdoors/outside" are not included, it's certainly not explicit. =) How about we just add the word "outside"? e.g.:

“It is possible by § 59 (English translation) of the Urheberrechtsgesetz, the Act on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, to take pictures or otherwise reproduce works that are permanently found outside on public ways, streets or places (e.g. squares, plazas) and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies. This suggests two major properties (permanence and public display) which will be outlined below.”

Also, the table could be changed so that the last column in Germany's row says "No" instead of "?". Thanks. - Illustratedjc (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Any opposition to my making these changes? Thanks. - Illustratedjc (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think, based on what lawyer opinions are available on this on the internet, the changes are appropriate to avoid confusion. — Julian H. 13:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Spain - Church interiors[edit]


Does the FoP exemption in Spain includes church interiors? This is needed in this case: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sculpture of Saint George (Sagrada Família). And also in this case: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:L'Eixample (sculpture). Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I understand, it doesn't. Church interiors are not a "public place" (as the text talks about "vías públicas", which actually refers to streets and the like). --Discasto talk 22:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
There was nothing in the law which limited FoP to the external appearance. So, in a recent DR, I thought that photos of buildings (outside or inside) were OK, since the single architectural work itself was located in public. I thought that separate works inside were a different matter, though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Should {{PD-Art|FOP-....}} be considered a license?[edit]

Please join us at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Should_.7B.7BPD-Art.7CFOP-.....7D.7D_be_considered_a_license.3F. --Jarekt (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It can't be a license. PD-Art and FOP-whatever aren't licenses. They are warning/information templates. Combining them wouldn't change anything to it. PD-Art is a warning/information template which tells, with its linked pages, in what countries some reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works may or may not be reused, depending on local laws. The basic PD-Art template must include a parameter stating that the original work is in the public domain in the United States. FOP, as explained in this FOP page, is the notion that images of some copyrighted works displayed in public places may be used in some countries, depending on local laws. By nature, the notion of FOP enters into play only when works are under copyright. The notion of FOP is irrelevant for works that are in the public domain. It is impossible to state, at the same time, that the original work is in the public domain in the United States and that it is under copyright in the United States. It can't be both. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)