Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 14

← Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15 →

Dutch FOP and the URAA

The URAA restored copyrights in the U.S. on many foreign works. For Dutch works, the restoration went into effect on January 1, 1996. However, the Dutch FOP was reintroduced some years after that date. Because the U.S. doesn't have FOP for non-architectural works, this means that photos of Dutch sculptures, which were copyrighted in 1996, and not installed before 1923, should be deleted from Wikimedia Commons. Some photos of Dutch sculptures, such as File:Flying Pins Eindhoven.jpg, have already been deleted, due to DMCA Oldenburg. --84.61.185.16 14:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. FOP does not in any way change the copyright status of a created work, so that the date that FOP in the Netherlands began is irrelevant to the copyright of Dutch works. An image of a UK sculpture, still under copyright in the USA because of the URAA, is OK for Commons because our practice is to apply the FOP rule in the source country. Similarly, an image of a Dutch work, still under copyright in the USA because of URAA, is OK for Commons because FOP is now available in the Netherlands.

This is true because FOP tests are applied as of the date of use of the image, and are not at all related to the date of copyright or the URAA date. In the unlikely event that the Dutch change the law back to eliminate FOP, then Dutch sculptural works will no longer be acceptable on Commons, but as long as the FOP rule remains in place, they as acceptable as works from any other FOP country. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

What about a Dutch sculpture installed in 1930, whose author died in 1950? Should we delete it for the years 2021-2025? --84.61.185.16 16:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Huh? The point is, we rely on Dutch FoP to hold pictures of Dutch sculptures subject to Dutch FoP. As long as something is subject to FoP in its source nation, we accept photos of it. Dutch statues published after 1922 by authors who died after 1944 are in copyright in the US, but that doesn't affect how we apply FoP to it. (I might argue that Dutch FoP doesn't matter under US law, but the law is unclear and seriously making that argument would cause more fuss then I'm willing to start. Either way, I don't see how the URAA gets involved.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

South Korea

Hi, everyone. I don't think I understand the "Not OK, non-commercial only for artistic works" comment for South Korea. Given that all Wikimedia Foundation products are non-profit, I would think South Korea should be OK, if the relevant law is quoted accurately:

Although Article 35.(2) of the Republic of Korea: Copyright, Act of 1957 (Law No. 432, as last amended by Law No. 9625 of April 22, 2009) permits any reproduction of works permanently installed in "open places", 35.(2).4 specifically states that the rule does not apply "where reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies." Reproduction is defined in Section 2.(22) as "...the fixation or the reproduction in a tangible medium by means of printing, photographing, copying, sound or visual recording, or other means." Selling reproduction of artistic works in public place is not allowed, for examples, selling postcard, calendar, collection of photos in which the artistic works have major part is not allowed.

Commons and other Wikimedia projects aren't selling anything, so reproduction is being made only for the purpose of information or enjoyment. Similarly:

[A] company[...]was fined for using a building by architect Min Kyu-am in advertisements for Kookmin Bank without permission from the architect

Yes, for using a building in advertisements. Since advertisements are forbidden on Wikimedia projects, again, it would seem to be fine to reproduce an image of a copyrighted building or other work of public art in South Korea on these pages.

Is there some other relevant South Korean law that we need to be aware of and take into account? (If so, it might be a good idea to post it in the policy page.)

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

All images stored in Commons are licensed with permission to reuse the work for commercial and non-commercial purposes. Since the law explicitly forbids commercial reuse, they cannot be stored in this project. The South Korean images are not "free enough" to be included here. Of course you can ask the individual right holders to release the images with the accepted licenses. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Alpertron. We're having a concurrent discussion at Wikivoyage:Talk:South Korea#Usage of public art from South Korea on Wikimedia Commons, and I was informed there, too, that Wikivoyage's license allows commercial reuse. I made the following point:

Why does our license allow commercial re-use? That would seem to contradict the spirit of a non-profit organization. If we don't allow advertising on this site, we should disallow people from using our images commercially. That would solve the problem.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

In that case you are looking for a different project. Here we store only free media. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't looking for non-free media. However, in the Wikivoyage thread I linked above, my suggestion was effectively dealt with by pointing out that Google is commercial, so if we declined to allow commercial reuse, our content couldn't be indexed by Google, which is obviously a non-starter. So unfortunately, we really are stuck with not being able to allow photos of South Korean public art to be uploaded or used on Wikimedia sites. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"Non-commercial" is a red herring. Almost all uses are commercial. The only significant exceptions are personal web sites that do not carry advertising and that do not in any way advertise the services of their owners. Textbooks are commercial use, as is virtually any use in print unless the printed piece is distributed free and does not carry advertising. Use in schools is commercial unless the school does not charge any tuition or fees. Anything on a charity's website is a commercial use unless the charity never solicits contributions. Any use on a web site by a for-profit corporation is commercial. And so forth. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons (and the rest of the Wikimedia wikis) have an annual donation drive, which can be considered "commercial use". --Carnildo (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why. Non-profit fundraising is not for profit. I realize that part of the discussion is academic, though. To Jim: My point was specifically about selling and advertisement, not really about the definition of "commercial" that includes non-profit organizations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

US copyright and FOP exception for 2D works

An interesting discussion on what is the law and what we actually do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Graffiti_in_Olinda,_Pernambuco,_Brazil Any comments on the discussion? Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Photo of 2D notice in the UK

I have just come across File:Victoria Bridge, Bath - Restoration Notice.JPG which appears to me to be a 2D notice with photos and text. I have looked at Commons:Freedom of panorama#United Kingdom but I'm unclear whether this is covered and therefore whether the image should be nominated for deletion.Rodw (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Freedom of Panorama#Bangladesh

Can someone please review the section and the act, the blub says "The object of these provisions is to enable the encouragement of private study and research and promotion of education" which appears to exclude commercial use, a fundamental requirement of COM:L. LGA _talk^edits 21:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems fine; it is article 72 in the law published here.

The following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright, namely:--

[...]

(19) the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of architecture of the display of a work of architecture;

(20) the making or published (sic) of painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of a sculpture or other artistic work falling under section 36(c), if such work is permanently situated in public place or any premises to which the public has access;

(21) the inclusion in a cinematograph film of--

(i) any artistic work permanently situated in a public place or any premises to which the public has access; or

(ii) any other artistic work, if such inclusion is only by way of background or is otherwise incidental to the principal matters represented in the film;

The existing text appears to be from a summary of the law here, not the actual law text. I'll replace in the main section. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

British Overseas Territories

Does the UK section apply for British Overseas Territories, or do they have their own copyright laws? Cambalachero (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to know that, too. Some islands have their own copyright laws, and some islands appear to be direct dependencies, where laws only have minor differences. I'd like links to UK and Falklands sites with references to laws about Falklands, for example. -Mardus (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• I found a relevant footnote on UK overseas territories here: w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#endnote_tab_ukdep. -Mardus (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Suriname law — translation needed

The Suriname Copyright Act is similar to Dutch law, and is available here in Dutch. Article 18 is the most interesting, with apparent similarities to the same article in Dutch law, and I'd really like a quality translation of that. Since Dutch law also specifies what qualifies as a public interior, then Surinamese law might have something similar, too. -Mardus (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Nigeria

Nigerian Copyright Act (Chapter 28, as consolidated 2010). For context:
PDF page 5 —

6. General Nature of Copyright

(1) Subject to the exceptions specified in the Second Schedule to this Act, copyright in a work shall be the exclusive right to control the doing in Nigeria of any of the following acts, that is—

[...]

(b) in the case of artistic work, to do or authorise the doing of any of the following acts, that is—

(i) reproduce the work in any material form;

(ii) publish the work;

(iii) include the work in any cinematograph film;

(iv) make any adaptation of the work;

(v) do, in relation to an adaptation of the work, any of the acts specified in relation to the work in sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) of this paragraph; ...

PDF page 27 —

51. Interpretation

"artistic work" includes, irrespective of artistic quality, any of the following works or works similar thereto—

(a) paintings, drawing, etchings, lithographs, woodcuts, engravings and prints;

(b) maps, plans and diagrams;

(c) works of sculpture;

(d) photographs not comprised in a cinematograph film;

(e) works of architecture in the form of buildings models; and

(f) works of artistic craftsmanship and also (subject to subsection (3) of section 1 of this Act) pictorial woven tissues and articles of applied handicraft and industrial art; ...

Second Schedule (pages 30/31 in PDF) —

Exceptions from copyright control

The right conferred in respect of a work by section 6 of this Act does not include the right to control—

(c) the inclusion in a film or a broadcast of an artistic work situated in a place where it can be viewed by the public;

(d) the reproduction and distribution of copies of any artistic work permanently situated in a place where it can be viewed by the public;

(e) the incidental inclusion of an artistic work in a film or broadcast;

While all this tells me that Nigeria seems to be OK, the caveat lies with "artistic work" in subsection (e) with "works of architecture in the form of buildings models" (emphasis here and above mine), which makes it rather confusing: is it models of buildings, or buildings themselves, too? -Mardus (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's rather confusing but I think it doesn't matter much regarding to FOP:

• If buildings are not "building models",they aren't "artistic works" and therefore they aren't copyrighted in Nigeria and you can freely photograph and copy them - unless there was a rule somewhere else in the law.
• If buildings are "building models", they are "artistic works" and therefore they can be included in films or copied - e.g. they are covered by FOP-Nigeria.

Therefore, images of buildings in public places in Nigeria can be released under a free license.

The fact if a building is a building model or it isn't would just matter for buildings situated in places where they can't be viewed by the public.--Pere prlpz (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

FoP Kuwait?

We have an FP from Kuwait; so need to know the FoP status. Here Lupo mentioned some points. Jee 07:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Oman

Does anyone can read Arabic? Currently, our page says that FOP is not allowed in Oman under copyright law No. 65/2008 but it was later amended and brought by virtue of the copyright law No. 132/2008. Would anyone please check whether under the amended rule, FOP is allowed in Oman now? Many Omani images are being deleting unless the changes are not made. --Saqib (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hope Tarawneh or Ebraminio can help. Jee 07:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I can not. Hope Meno25 can help −ebraminio^talk 09:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't find anything about FOP in the amended law, so, assume that FOP is not allowed. --Meno25 (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

ِBased ona phone call to Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual Property, there is no protection for any publicly accessible item in Oman. Still it is prohibited to use protected architectural work as the base for new architectural works (architecturally derivative work). Taking Pictures is perfectly OK in Oman. --Tarawneh (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

So that means FOP is not allowed in Oman. Right? --Saqib (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I also think that FOP must be explicitly (!) allowed. No mention in the law = no FOP. --A.Savin 22:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

FOP of Brazil valid indoors?

Our entry about FOP in Brazil Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Brazil is rather scarce by stating "located in public places" without providing any further information what is meant by that. Are works of art located inside of museums, churches, etc. covered by FOP of Brazil? We have quite a number of obvious indoor-shots of works of art from living artists, such as for example in Category:Cláudio Pastro, so the question is quite relevant. --Túrelio (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Bosnia & Herzegovina

The Law on Copyright and Related rights has been misquoted. Article 52 actually states:

Article 52 (Works Permanently Located in Public Places) (1) The free use of the works permanently located in squares, parks, streets or other places accessible by the public shall be permitted. (2) The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage. (3) In the case of the use referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article, the source and authorship must be indicated if they are indicated on the work used.

It is fine to reproduce public buildings and monuments in photographic form. Could the Freedom of Panorama guidelines be updated to reflect this?

That was a summary and not a quote. I think the summary was correct, and I'll attempt to explain the logic. Article 52(1) permits reproduction of works on permanent public display. Article 52(2) then places three limits on the the reproductions authorized by Article 52(1). The first limit is that no 3D reproductions are authorized by 52(1). For example, you can't make tiny souvenir copies of public statues without the permission of the copyright owner. The second limit is that any reproduction authorized by 52(1) must be transformative. For example, you can't make a full-scale copy and use it identically to the original work. The third limit is that the reproductions authorized by 52(1) can only be used non-commercially. For example, you can't sell postcards of a public work of art without the permission of the copyright owner. You are, however, permitted to take photos of public art and distribute copies free of charge to all your friends. Since the copies are limited to non-commercial purposes, they cannot be licensed under a license compatible with Commons. —RP88 (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

For reference, this issue was discussed once before and can be found in the discussion archives at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 13#Bosnia and Herzegovina - misinterpretation of the law. —RP88 (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I will check this with a lawyer in the BiH governmental system (National) for clarification. As this is a National Monument, a clarification from the Commission to Preserve National Monuments as to the legality of distribution of images of this monument (and others of the same level of protection) would be acceptible for Wikipedia, would it not?

I'm not sure what monuments you are talking about, but yes, Commons will indeed accept your photos of copyrighted statutes, buildings, or other works if the copyright owner of the work depicted in your photo gives you permission to license your photo under a Commons compatible license like {{Cc-by-4.0}}. See Commons:OTRS for suggestions about how to ask for permission and what to do after you get it. However, if the monument's copyright has expired you don't need anyone's permission to photograph and you're free to upload your photo to Commons. Feel free to ask at Commons:Village Pump/Copyright if you'd like assistance determining the copyright status of a monument. —RP88 (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Greece

"Since the exemption only allows for distribution by "means of mass communication", and not for other potential uses (e.g. a student wanting to illustrate an assignment), it does not allow everybody free use. It is also unclear exactly what "occasional" reproduction means."

I think that the term "occasional" reproduction by mass communication is meant to describe television. To prevent copyright problems for news broadcasts. So it will not be necessary to blurr out all copyrighted surroundings. (How is this in France, by the way?) What do you think? --Judithcomm (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

In Greece that means no problems for professional photoreportes (equipped with a proper identity card) of any legal mass-media, if in connection with their professional work. And there is plenty of historical photographs of unknown, but domestic origin of authors (and nobody cares then), for the period up to the end of Greek wars (including the civil war ...1949).--79.107.34.129 15:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:FOP#Portugal

Can someone check this please, specificity does the FOP cover 2d works as only architecture or sculpture are mentioned in the law. LGA _talk^edits 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:

(§2(1))

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:

(§75(2)q)

"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 _talk^edits 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?

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

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

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)

Mauritius?

Is there FOP in Mauritius? We have some images of recent sculptures there.[1] FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I suppose this is the relevant law, but it appears to lack any FoP exception. Seems to have been changed this year, but I didn't find further info. --A.Savin 16:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the country have an entry here too? FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Be bold. However that were just two documents quickly googled from the web, so there is no engagement. --A.Savin 16:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Crimea

We should add a section for Crimea, because it is a disputed territory between a FOP country and a no-FOP country. --84.61.138.68 10:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

We have no info yet if Crimean buildings are OK. Should there be one, I'll mention it both in Ukraine and in Russia section. Separate sections are there only for independent states. --A.Savin 11:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"non-fop" in UAE

Thousands of pictures where deleted because of assumption of non-fop. In the UAE non-fop case, an in others, there is no evidence at all, that there is a non-fop law, no evidence ist made by the ones who deleted these files. Because there is no proof of non-fop, some people here are arguing that the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works is forcing the non-fop actions. If this argument, which applies to many files, would be true, then *all* Countries, which signed the Berne Convention, would have a non-fop, and that are a lot of countries, and the people who are trying to delete all presumed non-fop pictures, should also take care of the hundred thousands of pictures from all of the countries who signed the Berne convention: all files from these countries have to be deleted from wiki commons. So, i still have no clue why some pictures are deleted and other pictures, especially the hundred thousands of photographs from the countries which signed the Berne Convention are still seen here on wiki commons.

Ronald Ali-Khan 21:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Photographs are typically derivative works of what they are photographing if that is a copyrighted work. The Berne Convention says they are, except that, under certain conditions, the laws of signing nations can exempt photographs from being derivative works. The US and many other nations take advantage of that exemption, but the UAE and many others don't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Macau?

Noticed Macau wasn't listed, looking for some pointers to its copyright law, and on finding no entry went looking. The relevant decree is here: DECREE-LAW 43/99/M of August 16, 1999, and the relevant parts seem to be

Article 50, Personal and Material Eligibility

...

3. The following shall in any case enjoy the protection granted by the law of Macao:

a) works that are first or simultaneously published in Macao;

b) works of architecture built within the Territory;

c) works of art incorporated in buildings erected within the Territory;

d) audiovisual works produced by residents of the Territory.

Article 61, Fair Use

The following shall be lawful without the consent of the author:

...

j) the fixation of works of art located in public places by means of photography, videography, cinematography or other similar means;

Seems similar to other legal systems, in particular to Hong Kong, the other SAR of China whose laws date from about the same time. Can't see anything else in that file that's relevant but I could have overlooked something. Could Macau be added based on this?--JohnBlackburne (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Stained glasses and Swiss copyright law

Hi, I'm planning to revert the latest change to that section, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AFreedom_of_panorama&diff=141739587&oldid=140474853 (cc Yann). Commons DRs are not an adequate source. As to the users who discussed the topic with a lawyer: Folks, I think your expectations are a little too high here. First, FOP in Switzerland is almost entirely a "scientific" topic in that I know of no case involving a discussion of the statue whatsoever that would have made it to an upper court. In other words, it stands to reason that much is fairly uncertain and practicioners barely have to deal with it. Second, questions at that level of detail can't really be expected to be addressed properly when a lawyer is asked to make an on-the-spot assessment of the situation. Talking to a lawyer can be extremely helpful to get an idea of the "big picture," but extremely specific questions such as this almost always will only receive proper treatment in an opinion letter. I speak from experience here, Wikimedia-wise: I've been part of various dicussions with specialized attorneys, and, believe me, I regularly ask such specific questions as well, but it really doesn't work that well, and that's not because the lawyer is bad but because it's not something they usually have to deal with. (This is true for many legal questions that we have here on Commons.)

To the facts: I won't claim that the assertion in the edit is correct or incorrect, but I believe it is an extremely difficult question to answer. I have read, as far as I'm aware, the entire body of literature on this provision, but from what I remember I haven't noticed a single treatise or an article that addresses that question. (I have also never seen anyone mentioning that it bears any relevance if something was constructed with public funds, and it doesn't seem to fit the ratio legis, so I doubt that argument in the DR really makes sense.) It's difficult because the glass can be seen from the inside and the outside. To illustrate the difficulty, let me draw an analogy to German law (as Swiss courts also do at times): Emplying the line of reasoning of the upper regional court of Munich in Hundertwasser (which was basically: once a work meets the requirements, i.e. is located permanently at a public square/stree, one can take photos from all positions), one could probably argue that this is covered (there is no limitation concerning reproductions of the interior of buildings under Swiss law, unlike under German law); if, on the other hand, you use the argument of the German Supreme Court (which granted the appeal agains the Munich court's decision) (roughly: if a work meets the requirements, i.e. is located permanently at a public square/street, one may take photos only from the public square/street), this couldn't be covered. The important thing is that it's not something that's in the text of the statute, and you can (fairly) reasonably come to different conclusions.

I think we should not include any language in the section that suggests that the action concerned is covered/not covered untill there is a court decision or treatise writers start to discuss that topic. But before that it's a fairly arbitrary guessing game without any real value. Hence I suggest to revert this. — Pajz (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Pajz: I have personally no opinion in one way or the other, but I'd like our decisions to be consistent with our rules. So either we allow recent stained glass and we include that here, or we don't, but then you should renominate for deletion that image (and eventually others) so that images which do not fit our rules are deleted. Otherwise, it creates a discriminatory situation, where some images would be deleted and some would be kept, depending on the mood of the admin, or other non rationale criteria. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I (or Gestumblindi who pointed me to it) can re-nominate that one, but it cannot be my job to go through all sorts of other previous DRs: You decide a DR and add your rationale at COM:FOP (so that all other admins will follow it in all future cases), and when I suggest to remove your claim, you make me go through all sorts of DRs to change their outcome -- that doesn't seem like fair deal. I mean, I'm not suggesting to change the meaning sentence to the opposite, but to remove the sentence, as it is better to have no rule than a rule that's not correct. I don't think we should make up rules if the underlying legal situation is unclear; presumably admins should simply, as always, decide based on Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle on a case-by-case basis. — Pajz (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine for the DRs. But it is not true we have no rule. The rule is quite clearly written (It is generally held that the interior of a church cannot be depicted under Art. 27, with a reference) So unless otherwise said, stained glass is not allowed. And I don't agree with "admins should decide on the precautionary principle" is that case, that is exactly the situation I explained above: decisions will be based on the closing admin's mood, or worse (picture from my friend, etc.). Regards, Yann (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me that you two are in agreement on the subject matter. Pajz only wants to remove the recently added sentence, which removes the "new rule" (which he was referring to), leaving the old rule (that you point out) untouched. BTW, I agree that this recent change should be undone. The only evidence we have (in the form of published legal commentary; the "old rule") points to "no", so we'd really need very convincing published evidence pointing to "yes" if we were to change that. Unfortunately, the point has not been tested in court in Switzerland.

As for admin conduct, yes, PRP applies. If there are other problematic shots, they'll get nominated for deletion eventually. "Other crap exists" was never a reason not to act in a particular case, even if doing so creates a temporary situation in which the handling of a class of cases is inconsistent. (In fact, I rather think the keep closure of that DR was the inconsistent bit. I think interior stained glass shots from Switzerland were otherwise generally deleted under the old rule you cited, if they were nominated for deletion. See for instance this one. I don't think anyone ever went through all Switzerland-related photos and consistently put up interior shots of still copyrighted stained glass up for deletion, though.) Lupo 17:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem I mentioned above. Nobody looks systematically into all potential cases, and your "eventually" translates to practically never. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Heh. That's the problem with a system that depends on volunteer work. You can't press volunteers to do something specific. Nearly nobody is going through the 16000 "Mobile Web" uploads to check, either. And I'm sure we have lots of similar problem spots. Lupo 18:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It's much more than just a lack of volunteers. People rather like to nominate complex borderline cases, than just plain obvious copyvios. The later ones are boring, while the former ones are exciting (for some people at least). Regards, Yann (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Just when I had saved, I realized that I should have written "You can't press volunteers to do something specific, especially if it's not fun, boring, and likely to annoy lots of people and may mean you'll have to take some flak." Anyway, we're sailing quite off-topic here. OK to revert [2]? Lupo 18:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Like I said, I don't have a legal opinion about that. I'd just like our decisions to be consistent. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Undone and re-nominated the file. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cathédrale de Lausanne - Vitrail - Edmond Bille - L'homme de douleur.jpg. Lupo 22:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Indonesian new copyright law (2014)

The Indonesian section need to be updated to reflect the new law. [3] [4] [5] Bennylin (yes?) 18:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Found the said Indonesian law (Law no. 28/2014). At this PDF files, the section 43, point D states that creating and distribution of a copyrighted content through information technology as long as not for commercial purpose or author states no objection on creation and distribution of its content.

Second, section 46, point 2, states "Copying for personal use not covering: .... 1. Architectures in form of buildings or others....."

With these relevant section cited, I think Indonesia still unfriendly with Commons' Freedom of Panorama requirements. (Sorry for bad English) Sabung.hamster (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

De facto entities

{{edit request}} There is a controversial issue here, user Halavar added information about breakaway region of Georgia Abkhazia in the country list. After several reverts user Ymblanter protected this page, but Halavar's edits still remain, please revert his edits, and change only after issue will be solved in discussion. --g. balaxaZe★ 15:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit protected requests should only be used for uncontroversial edits, or ones that have consensus. Your requested edit appears to go to the heart of the dispute, and amounts to an objection that Ymblanter protected "the wrong version". Instead of trying to continue the edit war after protection of the page, please engage in discussion to establish a consensus as to whether or not Abkhazia should have its own entry on this page. WJBscribe (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You WJBscribe or someone else tell me why his controversial edits must appear and my do not? Because he edited first ? — nonsense. I am just suggesting status quo and then discussions and no one interested in this ? --g. balaxaZe★ 15:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Moreover I reverted it only to stable version .... --g. balaxaZe★ 15:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You cannot insist on the page being your preferred version while further discussion takes place. A neutral administrator noticed an edit war and protected the page as he found it. That is normal practice. Now instead of objecting that the page happened to be Halavar's version rather than yours at the time it was protected, I suggest you state clearly your case as to why this page should not include an entry for Abkhazia, so that discussion can result and a consensus hopefully be established. WJBscribe (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• On the list there is a Taiwan (Republic of China) - like Abkhazia, and other similar cases, it is only partially recognized a so called state. According to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Natural_point_of_view we should not decide, which side has right. Both sides has their laws, and our duty is to show them to the other Comons users. So, if we have a laws from Taiwan, we can also have laws about FoP from Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic or Republic of Northern Cyprus. Halavar (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  NPOV is irrelevant; this is not article space. This is about Commons policy and the law it is based on, and we can not just punt on these issues. Each case in this group is unique, and Taiwan has widespread informal recognition and more formal recognition then Abkhazia; see the map on the right. In any case, we can't hand wave this; we can't neutrally not pick a set of FoP laws to apply to a statue in Abkhazia. We have to declare the law is relevant or not relevant for our purposes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  

• Taiwan issue is different, until 1970s it was represented even in UN, instead of revolutionary communist China...... Taiwan's government was real government of China before communists revolution. In December 1949, Chiang (leader of the Kuomintang) evacuated his government to Taiwan and made Taipei the temporary capital of the Republic of China. Taiwan wasn't made by bloody secessionists and foreign occupation forces like Abkhazia. --g. balaxaZe★ 16:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that the Abkhazia section should not be removed entirely, as it contains information that might be relevant for anyone willing to upload photos of Abkhazian buildings or artwork on Commons (@Prosfilaes: ). Instead, we could consider to put it in a subsection of Georgian FoP, and to handle other controversial territories same way. --A.Savin 08:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the Abkhazia section under Georgia. I still think we have to have some system for acknowledging or ignoring these states for the purposes of Commons, that this is a policy issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

FoP in Abkhazia

According to my simple understanding the independence of Abkhazia is not recognized by the US (only 5 countries including Russia recognized it) and therefore copyrightable in US. Most of the countries (including the US) recognize the territorial integrity of Georgia and the Georgian law in their country. Author can't claim to copyright in the US according to Abkhazian low only according to the Georgian low. I think that User:Halavar's addition to COM:FoP (all the section about Abkhazia)was without discussion and incorrect and therefore should be removed until the discussion come to conclusion.

As I am not an expert in that kind of issues, I invite @Clindberg: and @MichaelMaggs: and all others to express their opinion. -- Geagea (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

As I already wrote in the previous thread, I don't think that we should delete infos on FoP laws of disputed territories entirely, as it is in accordance to the precautionary principle for an uploader to respect local laws even if that laws are not recognized elsewhere. In order to avoid conflicts of this kind, we should arrange to use the "4.x" heading level only for uncontroversially recognized, independent states, and to use subsections like "Georgia -> Abkhazia", "Cyprus -> Northern Cyprus", "Serbia -> Kosovo" etc. for disputed cases. Especially in possible cases where the de facto state has a more restrictive FoP law than the rest of the de jure state (it does not apply for Abkhazia and Georgia, but it is not to rule out for somewhere else) we should of course never remove that infos. --A.Savin 10:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph speaks about situation after 2006. So allegedly before that FoP in Abkhazia is o.k. which is definitely not true. In that time none of the countries in the world recognized the independence of Abkhazia including Russia (only in 2008). More then that, the link to the low of abkhazia is that (saved page from 2007). This is not serious. The whole paragraph added by user that does not understand the issue and only meet with it few days ago. This paragraph is not according to the standards that we should have this page which alot of DR's based on him. -- Geagea (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think that now (after the today's changes) the situation looks good, it means the info about no-FoP in Abkhazia within the Georgia section, and with adnotation, that this is a disputed territory. In the future, we should do the same with Kosovo, Northern Cyprus, Transnistria and others disputed regions. Showing the both sides of the coin, de facto and de iure. As A.Savin said, uploader should know the local law and should respect the local law (because the local law made by de facto goverment has the power on that region) but also should respect the law from the other side, so it means the country with de iure status of the disputed region. This is consistent with a neutral point of view. As it was here (on Commons) in the past and with other controversial issues (like for instance last year's situation with Crimea), always win the statement, that Wikimedia Commons is not involving into the political controversial issues. --Halavar (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Copyright claim in abkhazia is according to the Georgian low. This should be the first sentence. Next it may mention the Abkhazian law with link to the correct page of the Abkhazian law. And her two food for thought:
    • What will be the situation of FoP in Abkhazia if the Georgian law will change (but not the Abkhazian law) and FoP Georgia will be o.k.?
    • What will be the situation of FoP in Abkhazia if the Abkhazian law will change (but not the Georgia law) and FoP according to the Abkhazian law will be o.k.? -- Geagea (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, that will be a problem. We've got the same situation in above, in the section Nagorno-Karabakh. Please read, what I wrote there. We know, that we've got FoP in Serbia, but we don't know how the copyright status looks like in the Kosovo. Also, we know, that we have FoP in Moldova, but we don't know, how the situation looks like in Transnistria. Halavar (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• There was a debate about the disputed region of Crimea. In Ukraine there is no-FoP but in Russia is more liberal law, a FoP. According to discussion, there was a statement telling us that: "It is currently not clear yet if copyrighted buildings in Crimea are subject to the Russian or the more restrictive Ukrainian law. So long, as per precautionary principle, images of knowingly unfree Crimean buildings should not be uploaded to Commons."

So now we know, what to do, if there will be a changes in the copyright law in Georgia or in the Republic of Abkhazia. The same sitation would be in other disputed regions. --Halavar (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• IMHO we should use the law actually used in each place, not the law if the place was free of "invaders" and the world perfect. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  Well, we use PRP to avoid lawsuit from copyright holders. But if they will sue in Georgian courts, courts will apply Georgian laws (similar if US courts), because they do not recognize Abkhazian laws.--Anatoliy (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  If a gang takes over Hollywood, can we start uploading any movie we want, since the East Street Raiders deny copyright? How long do they have to hold it for that to happen? International recognition makes a clean line for stuff like that. As I pointed out at the Village Pump, part of the point of Commons' rules is a theory that an extended rule of the shorter term applies; in that case, international recognition matters. If we're ignoring that, then why does paying attention to the law used in each place make sense? Recognized nations are stabler, more likely to have passed clear copyright law, and more likely to be signers of international copyright treaties, whose party nations will use the law of the recognized nation, not the unrecognized, when it matters.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  I talk about realistic situations, not dreams. If Hollywood is taken over by the Pirate Bay, the world may be a better place copyright wise, but that not going to happen any time soon. ;oD Yann (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  Want to try again and respond to the points I made?--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think that the goal of this section is to list laws that can realistically apply to an uploader (or to a reuser). If an uploader or a reuser is located in Abkhazia, it is clear that he is subject to Abkhazian law. However, if an uploader or a reuser is located in any other country, Georgian law will apply. Servers are located in the USA, and USA has no copyright relations with Abkhazia. It is impossible to submit a DMCA claim according to Abkhazian law or stating Abkhazia as a source country, nor it is possible to sue an uploader in an Abkhazian court (if it exists) for images uses that breach Abkhazian law. Thus from practical standpoint I do not think that Abkhazian law can apply to anyone other than Abkhazian citizens or residents, and in all other cases Georgian law will apply — NickK (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• The outcome is that FoP in Abkhazia can be reached only if we have changes in both countries. The funny thing is that we even can't be sure that there is no FoP according to the Abkhazian law as the link give is old (2007) and I am pretty sure that the Abkhazian law look different after the recognition by Russia (2008). I agree with that we should add a link to the Abkhazian law as it may apply in Abkhazia or Russia but we need correct and reliable source. -- Geagea (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh

Okay, I got an FOP case we may want to take a look at. Several images of the statue We Are Our Mountains have been nominated for deletion because Azerbaijan does not have valid FOP rules. However, the art in question is located in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, which is an independent state that is recognized internationally as part of Azerbaijan (which however, "has not exercised power over most of the region since 1991"), but is predominantly Armenian (so much so that Wikipedia describes its political climate as being "intermingled" with Armenia). Unlike Azerbaijan, Armenia does have FOP rules that are allowable on Commons. The nominator also removed the {{FoP-Armenia}} tag I had placed on it due to their technically invalid claim that it is "located in Azerbaijan".

So of course, the real question is, which copyright laws apply in Nagorno-Karabakh? I personally am thinking Armenia, primarily because it is an independent state that has, presumably, modelled their laws after those of Armenia. ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It is the copyright rules of Azerbaijan which apply, since Nagorno-Karabakh is a part of Azerbaijan. It is not even a disputed territory, at least not from the point of international law.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• On the list there is a Taiwan (Republic of China) - like Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Abkhazia, and other similar cases, it is only partially recognized a so called state. According to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Natural_point_of_view we should not decide, which side has right, we should not be involved in the political debate on the topic: this is independent territory or no?. Both sides has their claims, rights and laws, and our duty is to show them to the other Commons users, no matter who, in our believe was right. So we should know, what looks like the regulations about Freedom of panorama in Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. If they've got the same as in Azerbaijan (so it means no-FoP), images from territory of Nagorno-Karabakh should be deleted because they violates the both laws: Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Azerbaijan. We've got the same situation in the topic below, with Abkhazia. But there, the georgian law and abkhazian law is the same - no-FoP. There is no problem with delete or not delete images. Would be good, if someone who knows the Armenian language can find a regulations about the Copyright laws in Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and then we would know, how the situations looks like. Halavar (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ymblanter. The monuments in the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh are under FoP of Azerbaijan. Nagorno-Karabakh is not the part of Armenia. It is a part of Azerbaijan. That is why {{FoP-Armenia}} has nothing to do in these pages. FoP-Azerbaijan should be there. See FOP for Former Soviet Union. --Interfase (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Disregard the "is it internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan" part: does Nagorno-Karabakh even have its own copyright law? Well, {{PD-NKR-exempt}} implies that it does. But the link is broken, and the Word file didn't render correctly from a copy on Archive.org. However, the language used in the template uses the same language as our translation of the Armenia's Law on Copyright and Related Rights, which means that Nagorno-Karabakh's copyright law is most likely modeled after that of Armenia. If this is the case, it must also mean that there's no FoP in Nagorno-Karabakh. Why? Armenia specifically amended their copyright law with allowable FOP. We don't know if N-K did the same, so even with that, we still have to delete it unless it is otherwise proven. ViperSnake151 (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if the law of unrecognized Nagorno Karabakh Republic agrees with FoP, law of Azerbaijan disagrees. Why we should comply with law of NKR, and not of Azerbaijan? Azerbaijan has more rights for these monuments. All states recognize Azerbaijan within its territories, and there is no any state, which recognizes NKR. Even Armenia didn't recognize this state. De-jure this monument is on the territory of Azerbaijan. We know that there is no FoP in Azerbaijan. So all images of monuments in Nagorno-Karabakh, which architect died after 1945, must be deleted. Why are you looking some another law when we have law of Azerbaijan? --Interfase (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I just said that it doesn't have FoP because it's presumed to be based upon Armenia's older copyright law, which also had no FoP. Also, do you have any actual, reliably sourced information stating that people in the republic are subject to Azerbaijani law? ViperSnake151 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of the world considers it part of Azerbaijan. Copyright laws are frequently not well enforced, but we haven't let the presence of Napster or the Pirate Bay, or their widespread use, affect us, nor the fact that we sometimes seem to be the only people who really care about the FoP laws. We consider the source nation in part for purposes of nations that have the rule of the shorter term, and they most all are going to consider Azerbaijani law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Germany - exterior only

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)