Commons:Freedom of panorama

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from FOP)
Jump to: navigation, search
This project page in other languages:

Deutsch | English | فارسی | français | español | italiano | 日本語 | português | +/−

Portugal Spain France Italy Switzerland Belgium Netherlands United_Kingdom Ireland Luxembourg Germany Denmark Norway Iceland Sweden Finland Greece Turkey Austria Poland Russia Russia Czech_Republic Slovenia Croatia Albania Bulgaria Serbia Montenegro Bosnia_and_Herzegovina Hungary Slovakia Romania Moldova Ukraine Belarus Lithuania Latvia Estonia Republic of MacedoniaFreedom of Panorama in Europe.svg
About this image
Freedom of panorama in European countries
   OK, including public interiors
   OK
   OK for buildings only
   Not OK
   Public interiors are OK, but schools, opera
buildings, entrance halls of businesses,
and museums are not public places for the
purpose of Dutch law, while railway stations are.

In almost all countries, art, architecture, and other works are copyrighted for a specified period. That means any photograph taken of such a work during the copyright period is a derivative work.

A derivative work usually requires a license from the creator of the work. However, in many (but not all) countries there is an exception in copyright law which eliminates the need for a license. We call this exception freedom of panorama (FOP), after the term used in German copyright law, Panoramafreiheit.

The works to which the FOP exception applies vary widely from country to country. The exception generally applies only to works on permanent public display. In some countries, this is only in outdoor public places; in others it extends to indoor places where admission is charged. It may cover only architecture, only architecture and sculpture, or all copyrightable works including literary works.

Note that in every country, even one without an FOP exception, once a work goes out of copyright it may be freely photographed. Also, the exception does not eliminate the need for a license from the photographer.

Contents

Legal status[edit]

Buildings and sculptures as works of art[edit]

[pl], the author of the work depicted in the photograph is Grzegorz Sadowski.

Every building and sculpture we can see in our neighbourhood is subject to the copyright law, as far as it incorporates artistic creativity. The Berne convention, art.2-1 explicitly states so: "The expression "literary and artistic works" shall include [...] works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography".

Usually, the copyright law acts mention such an object explicitly as their subject matter. This is reproduced in national laws (for instance the US Copyright Law in §102-8).

Legal status of pictures[edit]

The Berne convention Article 9 explicitly states that:

  1. Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form.
  2. It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.
  3. Any sound or visual recording shall be considered as a reproduction for the purposes of this Convention.

This has been reproduced for instance in §106 of the US Copyright Law, and corresponding national laws.

According to copyright laws, then:

Taking pictures of buildings is a reproduction, which must theoretically be authorized by the architect if the right to reproduction is not in the national copyright law.

This is the situation for any derivative work based on any artistic creation.

Photographs of buildings[edit]

A photograph of a building or even any scene in a city or a village inevitably depicts some pieces of architecture or even sculptures. The photograph may or may not have its own creative element, making it a work of its own, but the value of this work clearly depends on the value in the works that are depicted on it. In case of such a dependency the photograph is deemed to be a derivative work.

This restriction on building photographs is often weakened by a separate clause for photographs or pictures of buildings in public places. However, this clause is not always made explicit in national laws.

Choice of law[edit]

The question of what country's law applies in a freedom of panorama case is an unsettled issue. There are several potentially conflicting legal principles, any of which might be used to determine the applicable law (see en:Choice of law). The law used is likely to be one of the following: the country in which the object depicted is situated, the country from which the photograph was taken, or the country in which the photo is used (viewed/sold). Because of the international reach of Commons, ensuring compliance with the laws of all countries in which files are or might be reused is not realistic. Since the question of choice of law with regard to freedom of panorama cases is unsettled, current practice on Commons is to retain photos based on the more lenient of the country in which the object is situated and the country in which the photo is taken. For example, North Korea has a suitable freedom of panorama law, while South Korea's law, limited to non-commercial uses, is not sufficient for Commons. As a result of the practice of applying the more lenient law, we would generally retain photos taken from North Korea of buildings in South Korea (e.g., File:Joint Security Area from North Korea.jpg) as well as photos taken from South Korea of buildings in North Korea (e.g., File:070401 Panmunjeom3.jpg).

Uploading images covered under Freedom of Panorama to the Commons[edit]

When uploading images subject to Freedom of Panorama provisions to the Commons, please tag them with an FoP template, which contains a legal explanation on the copyright status of the work, and sorts the image into a category of images subject to these provisions. If the country the image is taken in does not have these provisions, or only allows them for non-commercial purposes, they cannot be licensed under a license compatible with our Licensing policy and must be deleted. Please file requests for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests.

For images of artwork that are covered by Freedom of Panorama in the country where the photo was taken, the {{Not-free-US-FOP}} template can be included to advise reusers that the US (where Commons is hosted) has no Freedom of Panorama provisions for artwork and that the image might not be freely reusable in the US. This template should not be used for images that only show architectural works, which are covered by US Freedom of Panorama provisions.

Nuances in the panorama freedom[edit]

We will discuss here the case of the German legislation. Here is the content of §59 of the German Copyright Law (Urheberrechtsgesetz, UrhG):

  1. It shall be permissible to reproduce, by painting, drawing, photography or cinematography, works which are permanently located on public ways, streets or places and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies. For works of architecture, this provision shall be applicable only to the external appearance.
  2. Reproductions may not be carried out on a work of architecture.

Quoted from an English translation.

Publishing of reproductions[edit]

The article above allows one to reproduce and publish photographs taken in public places. It is understood that this includes publishing the pictures in a commercial way.

Public places[edit]

German law allows photographers to take pictures that are visible from publicly accessible places. This includes private ways and parks with common access. However, it does not include railway station buildings or platforms. The picture must be taken from a publicly accessible point. It is not permitted to take a picture of such a building from a private house or from a helicopter.

In other countries, these restrictions are sometimes less stringent. For instance, the Australian, Austrian, British, Mexican and Indian law allows taking pictures of publicly accessible interiors.

Permanent vs temporary[edit]

The exhibited objects must be exhibited in a permanent way. If a work is presented on a public place temporarily, one may be obliged to get the explicit permission to take its picture.

Whether a work is installed at a public place permanently or not is not a question of absolute time, but a question of what the intention was when the work was placed there. If it was put there with the intention of leaving it in the public place indefinitely or at least for the whole natural lifetime of the work, then it is "permanent".

A sculpture is typically placed with the intent of leaving it for an indefinite time. But if it was clear from the beginning that it would be left there only, say, for three years and then be moved to a museum, then the placement was not "permanent". On the other hand, if a sculpture was placed with the intent of leaving it "open end", but is then removed due to new construction plans some time later, its placement remains "permanent" even if the sculpture is eventually removed.

Even quickly decaying works can thus be "permanent" and therefore be subject to freedom of panorama. Street paintings, ice, sand, or snow sculptures rarely last more than a few days or weeks. If they're left in public space for their natural lifetime, they are considered "permanent" all the same. But if, for instance, an ice sculpture is exhibited only for a few hours and then moved to cold storage, it may not be permanently placed. (See also archived discussion of 09/2013).

Architecture vs sculptures[edit]

The German law allows photography of both buildings and sculptures. The situation in the United States is different. See below.

Music, literature etc.[edit]

Sometimes, a literary work is a part of a building or sculpture or is presented on a publicly accessible plaque. In most jurisdictions, the literary work has a separate copyright which must be considered separately unless it is an integral part of the building or sculpture. A plaque describing the building or sculpture will not qualify unless the work is in one of the eleven jurisdictions which include an exception for literary works.

Acknowledgment of source[edit]

The copyright law usually obliges the photographer to credit the authors of works depicted in his photograph. That usually means that the photographer must provide a description of the depicted objects and the authors thereof. However, the photographer can be exempted from the obligation when the authorship is difficult to deduce. For instance, German copyright law says in §62 that the photographer does not need to credit the author if authorship is not clearly present on the object that is depicted.

The right to modify[edit]

The panorama freedom is restricted to taking pictures of the actual objects. Generally, the freedom to modify such pictures is restricted. For example, the German law in §62 forbids any modifications except those technically required by the method of replication.

Further derivative works[edit]

A derivative work based on a photograph is most often also a derivative work based on the depicted object. The panorama freedom usually does not include the delegation of the right to authorize the derivative works. The author of a photograph has the right to authorize the derivative work based on the photograph only to the extent that results from the creative element of his work. However, he does not have the right to authorize the derivative work in the extent associated with the original object.

Pictures of public domain objects[edit]

Public domain objects are not protected by copyright, so objects of this kind can be freely photographed and the pictures can be published both royalty free and commercially, at least so far as copyright law is concerned (there may be contractual or other restrictions on picture-taking, though, especially on private property). Moreover, pictures of public domain objects can be freely modified and derivative works can be freely developed. For example, old buildings and statues where the architect or artist died more than a certain number of years ago (depending on the country), are in the public domain.

Situation in different countries[edit]

This section presents more detailed accounts of the legal status of freedom of panorama in different countries and regions. This is not legal advice, but just for educational purposes.

Map[edit]

Freedom of Panorama world map.png

Summary table[edit]

Freedom of panorama laws (by country)
Country Commercial use Buildings 3D artwork 2D artwork Text Public interiors
Albania No No No No No No
Algeria Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes[1]
Argentina Yes Yes No No No  ?
Armenia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  ?
Australia Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
Austria Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Belgium No No No No No No
Brazil Yes Yes Yes Yes No  ?
Bulgaria No No No No No No
Canada Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
China Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Czech Republic Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  ?[2]
Denmark Yes Yes No No No Yes
Finland Yes Yes No No No Yes
France No No No No No No
Germany Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  ?
India Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
Israel Yes Yes Yes Yes No  ?
Italy No No No No No No
Mexico  ?[3] Yes Yes Yes  ?[4] Yes[5]
Japan Yes Yes No No No  ?
New Zealand Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
Norway Yes Yes No No No Yes
Poland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  ?
Portugal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  ?
Spain Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  ?
Sweden Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes[6]
Switzerland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  ?
Russia Yes Yes No No No  ?
United Kingdom Yes Yes Yes Some[7] No Yes
United States Yes Yes No No No Yes
Notes
  1. With the exception of museums and art galleries.
  2. Limited to veřejná prostranství (public spaces), the listed examples and some interpretations not include interiors but they are not excluded explicitly.
  3. 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.
  4. The Mexican law doesn't have a posture about this use.
  5. Due to the Mexican law not mentioning what public means, it's supposed that it's also possible.
  6. Does not include artworks.
  7. "Works of artistic craftsmanship" are OK, "graphic works" are not.


The following countries have no freedom of panorama:
Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, DR Congo, Costa Rica, Estonia, Ethiopia, France, Gambia, Georgia, Greece, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mali, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Oman, Philippines, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vatican City, Zambia

Afghanistan[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK, for personal uses only

According to Article 39 of "The law of support the right of Authors, Composers, Artists and Researchers (Copy Right Law)" of Afghanistan (signed 21 July 2008),[1]

"Article 39:
(1) Reproduce of published Work is permitted by a natural person without the Author’s authorization provided that it is exclusively for the personal use, the followings are exceptions:
1- Reproduction of architecture Work in the form of a building or construction."

Albania[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK, Not Commercial only

According to article 12 of the Albanian copyright law, when a publicly displayed copyrighted work is the main subject of a derivative work, that derivative work cannot be used for commercial purposes.

Article 12: "It is allowed without the author’s approval and without payment or remuneration the reproduction, broadcasting or the communication to the public by wire of a picture of an architectonic work, of a fine arts work, photographic work or applied arts work placed in a public area, excluding the cases when the picture is the main theme of the reproduction, broadcasting or communication and when it is used for commercial purposes."
System-search.svgSee also category: Albanian FOP cases

Algeria[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Algeria}}

According to article 51 of the Algerian copyright law, it shall be lawful to reproduce or to communicate to the public, without authorization of the author and without remuneration, a work of architecture or the fine arts, a work of applied arts or a photographic work that is permanently situated in a public place, with the exception of art galleries, museums and classified cultural or natural sites.

Article 51: "Est considérée licite sans autorisation de l'auteur ni rémunération, la reproduction ou la communication au public d'une oeuvre d'architecture ou des beaux arts, d'une oeuvre des arts appliqués ou d'une oeuvre photographique lorsqu'elle est située en permanence dans un lieu public, à l'exception des galeries d'art, musées et sites culturels et naturels classés."
System-search.svgSee also category: Algerian FOP cases

Andean Community of Nations (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru)[edit]

✓OK Decision 351 of the Andean Community of Nations provides for FOP as follows:

  • "Artículo 22.- Sin perjuicio de lo dispuesto en el Capítulo V y en el artículo anterior, será lícito realizar, sin autorización del autor y sin el pago de remuneración alguna, los siguientes actos:...h) Realizar la reproducción, emisión por radiodifusión o transmisión pública por cable, de la imagen de una obra arquitectónica, de una obra de bellas artes, de una obra fotográfica o de una obra de artes aplicadas, que se encuentre situada en forma permanente en un lugar abierto al público" (translation):
  • "Article 22.- Without prejudice to that put forth in the Chapter 5 and in the previous article, it will be legal to realize, without authorization from the author and without the payment of any remuneration, the following acts:...h) Realizing the reproduction, emitting by radio diffusion or public transmission by cable, of the image of an architectural work, of a work of fine arts, of a photographic work or of a work of applied art, that is found situated in permanent form in a place open to the public".
System-search.svgSee also category: Ecuadorian FOP cases

Andorra[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK Andorran law includes buildings and sculptures and fine arts works among the works subject to rights of copyright (article 2) and there is no "freedom of panorama" exception.

Argentina[edit]

  • ✓OK for buildings {{FoP-Argentina}}
  • X mark.svg Not OK for sculpture and other works

Argentina has no "freedom of panorama" provision in its copyright law, neither are buildings mentioned among works to which copyright apply. At least some think there is de facto freedom of panorama in Argentina regarding buildings:

English It is uncontroversially accepted that buildings can be reproduced by paintings or photographs, without this reproduction infringing copyright.

Se ha admitido pacificamente que los edificios puedan ser reproducidos mediante pinturas o fotografías, sin estimarse que esta reproducción lesione los derechos de autor. (Dr. Emery, Miguel Angel (profesor of Intellectual property law in Argentina), Propiedad Intelectual, Astrea Editors 4th. edition ISBN 9789505085231. p.40 op cit

System-search.svgSee also category: Argentine FOP cases

Armenia[edit]

Freedom of Panorama applies to works "which are located on streets, parks, squares and other places open for attendance" (Article 25 of Law on Copyright and Related Rights). Prior to late April 2013, there were commercial restrictions on such works similar to other former Soviet states, but an amendment removed that restriction.[3]

  • ✓OK for sculptures: {{FoP-Armenia}}
  • ✓OK for buildings and models of buildings: {{FoP-Armenia}}
  • ✓OK for other art works (paintings, graphics, design and other works of fine arts, works of applied decorative art and stage graphics. maps, plans, sketches and plastic works related to geography, topography, geology, urban planning, architecture and other sciences (as defined in Article 3)): {{FoP-Armenia}}
System-search.svgSee also category: Armenian FOP cases

Australia[edit]

  • ✓OK for sculpture "that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public": {{FoP-Australia}}
  • ✓OK for buildings and models of buildings: {{FoP-Australia}}
  • ✓OK for "works of artistic craftsmanship" such as ceramics, embroidery, metal smithing, woodworking, crafted glass, and jewellery: {{FoP-Australia}}
  • X mark.svg Not OK for: paintings, drawings, engravings or photographs.

Freedom of Panorama applies to eligible works "situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public".

Freedom of Panorama is dealt with in the Australian Copyright Act, sections 65–68, and is based on the laws of the United Kingdom. See the United Kingdom section for more details. For “Work of artistic craftsmanship” under Australian law, see this article.

System-search.svgSee also category: Australian FOP cases

Austria[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Austria}}

Freedom of panorama in Austria is similar to Germany, but there are a few differences: it includes also the publicly accessible interiors of buildings, and the photo does not need to have been taken from a public place (c.f. Hundertwasserentscheidung). Also, the law limits the provision to works of the "bildende Künste" (fine arts, applied arts, photography, and architecture, see §3(1)).

System-search.svgSee also category: Austrian FOP cases

Azerbaijan[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK see Former Soviet Union

System-search.svgSee also category: Azerbaijani FOP cases

Bahamas[edit]

✓OK

The Bahamas has freedom of panorama for architecture, and 2D and 3D artistic works on display in places or premises open to the public.

"78 (1)The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing or public display of pictures,

paintings, photographs or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or is ordinarily visible from a public place."

"79. (1) The copyright in an artistic work does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs or other pictorial representations of the work if the work is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.
(2) This section applies to —
(a) buildings;
(b) sculptures, models of buildings and artistic works, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public."
"2 (1) In this Act... “artistic works” include two-dimensional and three dimensional work of fine, graphic and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models,architectural plans and technical drawings;"

Bahrain[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK, Non-Commercial Only

According to Article 25 of Act No. 22 of the Year 2006 relating to the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, there is FOP for artwork permanently located in a public place, but only for non-commercial uses:

It is lawful, without the consent of the author and without paying compensation, to broadcast to the public for non­commercial purposes, works of the fine, applied, visual or architectural arts, if those works are permanently located in a public place.

Copyright copyright expires after 50 calendar years from the death of author or last surviving author (Joint work).

Source : English & Arabic

Bangladesh[edit]

✓OK: {{FoP-Bangladesh}}

According to the "2000 Copyright Act of Bangladesh", artistic recreations of public architecture and art work are exceptions to the rights of authors.

Exceptions to infringement states:

Article 72. Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright. -(1) The following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright, namely:—
[...]
(19) the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of architecture or 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;

Belarus[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK see Former Soviet Union

System-search.svgSee also category: Belarusian FOP cases

Belgium[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK There is no panorama freedom in Belgium. Modern pieces of art cannot be the central motive of a commercially available photograph without permission of the artwork copyright holder. See also the talk page.

  • Note: De minimis principle is stated in art. 22 of the law: "Once a work has been lawfully published, its author may not prohibit [...] reproduction and communication to the public of a work shown in a place accessible to the public where the aim of reproduction or communication to the public is not the work itself [...]".
  • Note: "Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1 of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free."
System-search.svgSee also category: Belgian FOP cases

Belize[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Belize}}

Article 78 of the Belize Copyright Act of 2000 states that photographs, films, or graphic works depicting a building, sculpture, or work of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public, do not infringe the copyright of the original work.

Bolivia[edit]

✓OK see Andean Community of Nations

Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK
Article 52 of the 2010 law on copyright and related rights states that reproductions of copyrighted works (including buildings) "permanently located in squares, parks, streets or other places accessible by the public" are only allowed "provided they are not used for gaining economic profit".

Brazil[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Brazil}}

Article 48 of Law nº 9.610 of February 19, 1998 states:

Works permanently located in public places may be freely represented by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes.

The original Portuguese text:

As obras situadas permanentemente em logradouros públicos podem ser representadas livremente, por meio de pinturas, desenhos, fotografias e procedimentos audiovisuais.
System-search.svgSee also category: Brazilian FOP cases

Bulgaria[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK Freedom of panorama is limited in Bulgaria to informational "or other non-commercial purposes". (Article 23(5) of the Bulgarian copyright law of 1993, with amendments up to 2000.)

  • Note: "Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free."
System-search.svgSee also category: Bulgarian FOP cases

Burkina Faso[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK

Freedom of panorama in Burkina Faso forbids reproduction of "a work of architecture, a work of fine art, a photographic work or a work of applied art ... where it is used for commercial purposes". However, since this only applies "where the image of the work is the main subject of such reproduction", a photo that only incidentally includes architecture or sculpture should be fine. (Article 25 of Law No. 032-99/AN of December 22, 1999 on the Protection of Literary and Artistic Property.)

Burma[edit]

✓OK for 3D works, buildings and models of buildings; X mark.svg Not OK for most 2D works.

According to section 2(1)(iii) of the First Schedule to the Burma Copyright Act 1914, which is based on the UK Copyright Act 1911, it is not an infringement of copyright to make or publish paintings, drawings, engravings or photographs of (1) a work of sculpture or artistic craftsmanship permanently situated in a public place, or (2) an architectural work of art (except that architectural drawings or plans may not be produced).

Artistic work is defined as including "works of painting, drawing, sculpture and artistic craftsmanship, and architectural works of art and engravings and photographs", which suggests that works of artistic craftsmanship do not include paintings, drawings, sculptures, engravings, photographs and architectural works of art. An "architectural work of art" is any building or structure having an artistic character or design or any model for such building or structure, but does not include processes or methods of construction: First Schedule, section 35(1).

Burundi[edit]

✓OK for buildings only

Under Title III, Chapter I, Section I, Article 26 (c)4 Law No. 1/021 of December 30, 2005 on the protection of copyright and related rights in Burundi.

"Similarly, the reproduction of works of architecture through photography, cinematography, television or any other similar process, in addition to the publication of corresponding photographs in the press, periodicals and textbooks, shall be free and may not give rise to copyright payment. "

Cambodia[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK - Copyright protection will be from the Creation of work + life of the author + 50 years after his/her death. As per Article 30 of Cambodian copyright law

Unfortunately, it seems like FOP is only allowed for incidental inclusion (Art. 25):

"If there is a clear indication of the author's name and the source of work, the following acts are not subjected to any prohibitions by the author: ... The reproduction of graphic or plastic work which is situated in the public place, when this reproduction doesn't constitute the principle subject for subsequent reproduction."[2]

Cameroon[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK, only non-commercial use is allowed.

According to §32 of Cameroon's Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, enacted in 2000, there is freedom of panorama for artwork and architecture permanently located in a public place, but only for non-commercial uses:

(1) Works of art, including works of architecture, permanently kept in a public place, may be reproduced and made available to the public through photographic and audiovisual means. (2) Any exploitation for profit of these reproductions without the prior authorization of the author of the works referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be unlawful.

Canada[edit]

✓OK (for 3D works, not usually for 2D) ({{FoP-Canada}}):

Under Section 32.2 (1)(b) of the Canadian Copyright Act 1985 (PDF, 786 kB), it is not an infringement of copyright for any person to reproduce, in a painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or cinematographic work … (i) an architectural work (defined as any building or structure or any model of a building or structure"); or

  • (ii) "a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship, that is permanently situated in a public place or building".

Canadian law was originally derived from UK concepts and some of the United Kingdom section may therefore be of relevance, in particular the restricted legal meaning of "work of artistic craftsmanship". Some non-sculptural works can qualify for Canadian FOP under this clause, such as Body Shop Yonge.jpg for example. The freedom provided by the quoted section does not apply to typical two-dimensional works such as paintings, murals, advertising hoardings, maps, posters or signs. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder even if they are permanently located in a public place, unless they are in the public domain.

System-search.svgSee also category: Canadian FOP cases

Chile[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Chile}}

Article 71F of the Chilean copyright law 17336 provides freedom of panorama:

The reproduction of architectural works through photography, cinema, television or any other similar process, as well as the publication of the corresponding photographs in newspapers, reviews, books and texts intended for educational purposes, shall be free and not subject to payment, provided that this is not in a complete or partial separate collection, without the author's consent.

Similarly, the reproduction through photography, drawing or any other process, of monuments, statues and, in general, those artistic works that adorn squares, avenues and public places on a permanent basis, shall be free and not subject to payment, provided that the publication and sale of the reproductions is lawful.

System-search.svgSee also category: Chilean FOP cases

China, People's Republic of[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-China}}

The "Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China" (2001) Article 22, clause 10 states that:

[A] work may be exploited without the permission from, and without payment of remuneration to, the copyright owner, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned and the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law are not infringed upon...
in the case of:
copying, drawing, photographing, or video recording of an artistic work located or on display in an outdoor public place
System-search.svgSee also category: Chinese FOP cases

Colombia[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Colombia}}

Congo (Democratic Republic of the)[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK

"The reproduction of an architectural work by means of photography, cinematography, television or any other similar procedure, as well as the publication of the corresponding photographs in newspapers, journals and school textbooks, shall be lawful and may not give rise to payment of copyright."[3]

Article 28 of the 1986 copyright law allows reproduction of architectural works in newspapers, magazines and school textbooks. Article 29 allows incidental inclusion of artworks into films or television. Neither is free enough for Wikimedia Commons.

Costa Rica[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK: Copyright law allows photographs and pictures made from statues, monuments and other works acquired by the authorities, but it doesn't allow commercial use.

Spanish (original): Es lícita la reproducción fotográfica o por otros procesos pictóricos, cuando esta reproducción sea sin fines comerciales, de las estatuas, monumentos y otras obras de arte protegidas por derechos de autor, adquiridos por el poder público, expuestos en las calles, los jardines y los museos.
English: It is lawful to reproduce photographic or other pictorial processes, when this reproduction is noncommercial, of statues, monuments and other works of art protected by copyright, acquired by the government, exposed in the streets, gardens and museums.
System-search.svgSee also category: Costa Rican FOP cases

Côte d'Ivoire[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK Law No. 96—564 of July 25, 1996 on the Protection of Intellectual Works and the Rights of Authors, Performers and Phonogram and Videogram Producers, article 34:

"Works of art, including works of architecture, permanently located in a public place may be reproduced and made available to the public by means of cinematography or television."

Croatia[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Croatia}}; in regard to architecture, for the outer appearance only.

Croatian law from 2003 allows 2D reproductions of permanently publicly displayed works, i. e. the full Freedom of Panorama (translation of relevant Article 91):

Article 91.
(1) It is permitted to reproduce copyrighted works permanently located on streets, squares, parks or other places accessible to public, and to distribute and publish such reproductions.
(2) Works from chapter 1 of this article cannot be reproduced in a three-dimensional form.
(3) On the instances of work from chapter 1 of this article, source and authorship must be stated, except when not possible.
Article 92.
In the case of architectural works, the first sentence of Article 91 applies only to their outer appearance.
System-search.svgSee also category: Croatian FOP cases

Cuba[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Cuba}}

Cuban law from 1997 allows 2D reproductions of works of art permanently installed in publicly accessible places, except museums and exhibition venues under Article 38 (c) (translation as follows):

Article 38 — It is permissible, without the author's consent and without remuneration, but with obligatory reference to his name and provided the work is public knowledge and respectful of the artist's specific values:
c) to reproduce by any means, except those involving direct contact with its surface, a work of art of any type on permanent display in a public place, except those in exhibitions and museums;

Cyprus[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Cyprus}}

"Copyright Laws 1976 to 1993", page 7 has section 7 (1) which includes exception (c): "the reproduction and distribution of copies of any artistic work permanently situated in a place where it may be viewed by the public;"

Czech Republic[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Czech Republic}}

An analogy of Freedom of panorama in the Czech Republic is defined by § 33 of the law No. 121/2000 Coll., Copyright Act (as amended).

The law allows anyone to create and further use (e.g. distribute) drawings, paintings, graphics, photographs, movies or other works recording or expressing a work permanently located in any public space (e. g. streets, squares, parks and public ways), without the original work’s author’s consent. The name of the author and the title of the work should be indicated if possible. However, it is not allowed to make a three-dimensional reproduction of the work.

The act itself does not explicitly define the meaning of the phrases “public space” (veřejné prostranství) and “permanently located” (trvale umístěno). (As with all copyright exceptions, the use must fulfill the Berne three-step test,[cz 1] i.e. this is a special-case exception, not a normal case, the uses allowed by this exception do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder.)

Works located on streets, squares, in public parks etc. (a common interpretatation includes also works which are visible from such places, although they aren't mentioned in the act) can be pictured freely. According to Telec's interpretation, the exception cannot be applied to e. g. parts of a building not visible from a public place, even if the building is generally visible.[cz 2]

With regard to the used term veřejné prostranství (public space) instead of veřejně přístupné místo (publicly accessible place) and the fact that the act use exterior examples only, some interprets mean that copyright exception does not apply to some (or all) types of interiors, as shopping center interiors, waiting rooms, museums, galleries, concert halls etc., even if they are accessible to general public.[cz 3] Other authors perceive such places as private.[cz 4] However, the act itself doesn´t distinguish nor mention exteriors or interiors explicitly. Veřejné prostranství are more precisely defined in the Municipal Act (§ 10 letter a), 128/2000 Sb.) as "all squares, streets, markets, walkways, public vegetation, parks and other areas (prostory) accesible for everybody without restriction, thus serving to public use, disregarding ownership of this area.". The Constitutional Court in their decision No. Pl. ÚS 50/03 presumed that areas which are made accesible only from the voluntariness of the owner or operator need not to fall under the term veřejné prostranství.

The spaciousness of the interior, a type of regulation of the public access (entrance fee zone, night closure, obligatory passability of the place etc.) and a purpose of the place can be relevant for the interpretation and application. There is lack of judicial precedents for more accurate distinction.

The exception is limited only to works permanently located in a public space. This restriction (added during the transposition of the European Parliament copyright directive,[cz 5] which contains a similar restriction[cz 6]) means, according the explanation report, the socalled freedom of panorama is usually applied to three-dimensional artistic and architectonic works (sculptures, memorials, buildings, etc.) which are in the European Directive named as examples; however, the law text does neither preclude nor exclude (de lege lata) an application of the exception to two-dimensional works, if all conditions are met (e. g. paintings permanently incorporated into a building facade, street art, permanent informational boards etc.).[cz 3] Temporary exhibitions etc. are not covered by this exception.[cz 2] The word permanently is generally understood as for indefinite period and is not presumed that the work is really eternal and unremovable.

References:

  1. Telec, p. 368, section I.5
  2. a b Telec, p. 367, section I.4
  3. a b Telec, p. 366, section I.2
  4. Chlumská, Karla (2005-02-16). "Veřejně přístupná díla a jejich užití [Publicly Accessible Works and Their Use]" (in Czech). IHNed.cz : Marketing&Media. Praha: Economia, a.s. ISSN 1213-7693. Retrieved 2010-07-19.
  5. Explanatory report of Law No. 216/2006, amendment of Law No. 121/2000. Amendment changed § 33, added word "permanently". (Czech) – Sněmovní tisk č. 1111/0, část 1/3. Praha : Poslanecká sněmovna České republiky, 2005. Kapitola Důvodová zpráva, § 33.
  6. The text of the Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament (as corrected), Article 5(3)(h)
System-search.svgSee also category: Czech FOP cases

Denmark[edit]

✓OK for buildings only {{FoP-Denmark}}

Article 24(3) of the Danish copyright law permits photographs of buildings, without any restriction on where they are located.

"(3) Buildings may be freely reproduced in pictorial form and then made available to the public."

Other types of copyrighted works are not subject to the same full exception. However, works of art are subject to the limited exception of section 24(2), which allows commercial publication when they are permanently situated in a public place or road and when they do not constitute the central element of the picture.

"(2) Works of art may be reproduced in pictorial form and then made available to the public if they are permanently situated in a public place or road. The provision of the first sentence shall not apply if the work of art is the chief motif and its reproduction is used for commercial purposes."
System-search.svgSee also category: Danish FOP cases

Djibouti[edit]

✓OK Djibouti allows "communicating works permanently in public[...] only if use is incidental" [4].

Dominican Republic[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Dominican Republic}}

Dominican law allows reproduction of works by painting, drawing, photograph or audiovisual fixations those works that are permanently located in public ways, street or places and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies. For works of architecture, this provision is applicable only to the external appearance. Note that in the law, "works" is not modified, so this covers everything copyrightable, including text.

Se podrá reproducir por medio de pinturas, dibujos, fotografías o fijaciones audiovisuales, las obras que estén colocadas de modo permanente en vías públicas, calles o plazas y distribuir y comunicar públicamente dichas reproducciones. En lo que se refiere a las obras de arquitectura, esta disposición es sólo aplicable a su aspecto exterior.

español Copyright Law from 2000. Title IV, chapter I, article 39
English WIPO translation

Ecuador[edit]

✓OK see Andean Community of Nations {{FoP-Ecuador}}

System-search.svgSee also category: Ecuadorian FOP cases

Egypt[edit]

✓OK even for 2-D artworks. {{FoP-Egypt}}

Article 171 of Law No. 82 of 2002:

Without prejudice to the moral rights of the author, pursuant to the provisions of the law herein, the author may not prevent third parties, after the publication of his work, from undertaking any of the following acts:
[Section 2]
...Nevertheless, the author or his successors may prevent third parties, after the publication of his work, from undertaking any of the following acts, without permission therefrom:
- Reproducing, photographing or copying fine, applied or plastic arts, unless existing in public, or is an architectural work;...

By expressly denying the copyright holder the ability to enforce his copyright on fine, applied or plastic arts "existing in public...or architectural work" freedom of panorama for these items is implied. "Applied art" means art incorporated into useful articles. Plastic arts are three dimensional artworks. Fine arts are painting, photography, and sculpture, so Egypt's FOP is relatively broad, covering everything except text.

El Salvador[edit]

✓OK, more or less

Article 45: "the following shall be allowed without the consent of the author or remuneration: . . . the reproduction of a work of art on permanent display in a street, square or other public place in an artistic medium different from that used for the making of the original; with regard to buildings, this right shall be limited to the outer walls" [5]

Original Spanish: "es permitida sin autorización del autor ni remuneración: . . . f) La reproducción de una obra de arte expuesta permanentemente en las calles, plazas u otros lugares públicos, por medio de un arte diverso al empleado para la elaboración del original. Respecto de los edificios, dicha facultad se limita a la fachada exterior"

System-search.svgSee also category: Salvadoran FOP cases

Estonia[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK, only non-commercial use allowed regarding the main subject {{FoP-Estonia}}

According to §201 of Estonian copyright law, "It is permitted to reproduce works of architecture, works of visual art, works of applied art or photographic works which are permanently located in places open to the public, without the authorisation of the author and without payment of remuneration, by any means except for mechanical contact copying, and to communicate such reproductions of works to the public except if the work is the main subject of the reproduction and it is intended to be used for direct commercial purposes."

This essentially means that the freedom of panorama in Estonia can be exploited non-commercially only.

System-search.svgSee also category: Estonian FOP cases

Ethiopia[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK

  • Ethiopian law includes buildings and sculptures and fine arts works among the works subject to rights of copyright (Part 1 - article 3 : Scope of application ) and there is no "freedom of panorama" exception.
  • The duration of copyright in Ethiopia is 50 years and 25 years for a photographic work (Part 2 - article 20 : Duration of economic rights) :
l/ Economic rights shall belong to the author during his lifetime and to the heirs or legatees for fifty years from the date of death of the author.
2/ Incase of a work of joint authorship, the term of fifty years shall commence to run from the death of the last surviving author.
3/ The term of 50 years of a posthumous work shall commence to run from the date of publication of the work.
7/ The economic rights relating to a photographic work shall be protected for twenty-five years from the making ofthe work.
8/ The economic rights relating to an audiovisual work shall be protected for fifty years beginning from the date of making of the work or communication of the work to the public, which ever date is the latest.

European Union[edit]

There is a European Parliament directive on the harmonisation of the copyright law 2001/29/EC which asserts in article 5 section 3 letter h that the copyright law of the member states may restrict the copyright rights for sculptures and buildings exposed in public places:

Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 in the following cases: (...) (h) use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places;

Finland[edit]

✓OK for buildings only {{FoP-Finland}}

Section 25a(4) of the Finnish copyright act permits panorama freedom for buildings, both exteriors and interiors, regardless of whether the place is public (laws of privacy do apply).

Freedom of panorama (section 25a(3)) does cover taking photos (or otherwise reproduce in pictorial form) of art in or in the immediate vicinity of a public place, but the reproductions may not be used commercially (and thus not uploaded to Commons), when the work of art is the central element of the picture. Pictures of works of art permanently located in public places can be used non-commercially or as illustrations to texts in newspapers and periodicals. Published works of art may according to section 25 also be used e.g. as illustrations to scientific texts or criticism.

System-search.svgSee also category: Finnish FOP cases

Former Soviet Union[edit]

Most of the successor nations of the Soviet Union have identical provisions on freedom of panorama and restrict it to non-commercial uses only. The legal information for the member state is available at the web page of the Coalition for Intellectual Property Rights.

Note: The three Baltic states Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (that have never been member of CIS but only of the former USSR before their independence) also have similar provisions in their copyright laws.

Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan
X mark.svg Not OK Non-commercial
All these countries' laws only allow this limited form of freedom of panorama: images of copyrighted architectural works, photographic works, or works of fine art (which includes sculptures and statues) that are permanently located in publicly accessible places may be published only if the depicted copyrighted base work is not the main subject of the image and the image is for non-commercial purposes.
Moldova and Armenia
✓OK - Moldova and Armenia are the only former Soviet-countries which have full Freedom of Panorama both for architecture and for artwork as of July 2010 and March 2013, respectively.
Russia
✓OK for buildings only: in Russia, commercial FoP exception for buildings has come into force on October 1, 2014.

France[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK {{NoFoP-France}}

Please tag France no-FoP deletion requests: <noinclude>[[Category:French FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude>

There is no freedom of panorama in France, neither for sculptures, nor for buildings, nor for 2D-artworks that pass the threshold of originality. A court recently (TGI Lyon, 4 avril 2001, Buren & a. c/ Tassin & a.[4][5]) emphasized that "droit d'auteur unquestionably applies to the reproduction of artworks placed in public space" (« le droit d'auteur s'étend incontestablement à la reproduction de l'œuvre installée dans un espace public »). Concerning buildings, case law defines several criteria for originality:

  • "a definite artistic character" (« un caractère artistique certain »), as opposed to the building being purely functional, and not being part of a series (as is the case in housing development) (CA Riom, 26 May 1966) [ this decision has been criticised as the law explicitly states copyright protection is granted regardless of merit, art.L.112-1 of the French copyright act but another decision of French supreme court concludes on 20 october 2011 that creation must be original as required by art 111-1 of French copyright act and that it is up to appeal court to decide if it is original work or not [6] ]
  • a harmonious combination of its composing elements, like volumes and colours (TGI Paris, 19 June 1979)
  • an “esthetic preoccupation ”, here the choice of a sphere and of a mirror surface (CA Paris, 23 October 1990, about en:La Géode)
  • a choice which cannot be ascribed to purely technical reasons (CA Paris 20 November 1996, about stairs and a glass roof)
  • Works are protected if the creation is original, but not if the realization is purely technical [7]. Works without a particular or original character, which are a trivial reproduction of building types largely found across the country, are not protected. [8].
  • It is up to the author or an architectural, art or picture work to prove that it is original and not just application of a technical knowledge [7]

Case law traditionally admits an exception if the copyrighted artwork is "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" (CA Paris, 27 octobre 1992, Antenne 2 c/ société Spadem, « la représentation d'une œuvre située dans un lieu public n'est licite que lorsqu'elle est accessoire par rapport au sujet principal représenté ou traité »). Thus, ruling #567 of March 15, 2005 of the Court of Cassation denied the right of producers of works of art installed in a public plaza over photographs of the whole plaza:

Because the Court has noticed that, as it was shown in the incriminated images, the works of Mr X... and Z... blended into the architectural ensemble of the Terreaux plaza, of which it was a mere element, the appeals court correctly deduced that this presentation of the litigious work was accessory to the topic depicted, which was the representation of the plaza, so that the image did not constitute a communication of the litigious work to the public

Case law states that the said artwork must not be intentionally included as an element of the setting: its presence in the picture must be unavoidable (CA Versailles, 26 janvier 1998, Sté Movie box c/ Spadem et a.):

Can be considered as an illicit representation of a statue by Maillol, the broadcasting of a commercial in which it appears, as it was not included in a film sequence shot in a natural setting—which would explain the brief, and non-essential to the main subject, appearance of the sculpture, which is set in the Tuileries gardens—but used as an element of the setting (« Constitue une représentation illicite d'une statue de Maillol la diffusion d'un film publicitaire dans laquelle elle figure, alors qu'elle a été utilisée, non pas dans une séquence tournée en décor naturel, ce qui justifierait une apparition fugace de la sculpture, placée dans le jardin des Tuileries, totalement accessoire au sujet traité, mais comme un élément du décor. »).

Courts are traditionally lenient with pictures showing urban landscapes, cf. Tour Montparnasse, C.A. Paris - 7 novembre 1980.[8]

  • Note: "Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free."
System-search.svgSee also category: French FOP cases

Gambia[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK The 2004 copyright act Gambia does not contain any special provision in regard to the works displayed in public premises.[9]

Georgia[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK see Former Soviet Union

  • It shall be permitted to reproduce or communicate to the public without the consent of the author or other copyright holder and without remuneration thereof images of works of architecture, photography, and fine arts permanently displaced in public places, except for the cases when the image of a work is the main object for such reproduction or communication to the public, or is used for commercial purposes. (By Copyright law of Georgia, §24)
  • Note: "Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free."
System-search.svgSee also category: Georgian FOP cases

Germany[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Germany}}

See also: de:Panoramafreiheit#Deutschland

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 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.

“Public”: The criterion “public” requires the way/street/place to be both dedicated to the public and publicly-accessible. Note that despite the ambiguous wording, this restriction refers to the place from which the picture is taken; the shown work itself does not need to be publicly-accessible (although, depending on the object shown, there may of course be restrictions based on privacy or personality rights).[10] “Public,” here, is not to be understood in a public-law sense; it bears no importance who owns the way/street/place as long as the aforementioned criteria are fulfilled.[11] It is consensus among legal commentators that the use of accessories, such as ladders or helicopters, disqualifies from the application of § 59 UrhG[12]; whether telephoto lenses constitute “accessories” in this sense is controversial[13]. In this spirit, the Federal Court of Justice found that a photograph taken from a balcony of a privately-owned flat in a neighboring house the key to which was handed out freely to everyone who asked for it, does not comply with the restrictions imposed by § 59 UrhG because it was not taken from a public way, street or place (BGH, I ZR 192/00 = GRUR 2003, 1035 – Hundertwasserhaus) In the literature, station halls, subway stations or departure halls at airports that are publicly-accessible are nevertheless mostly not assumed to satisfy the “public” criterion due to their lack of dedication to the public.[14] Private ways fulfill the criterion if they are open to the public; the status of atria and passages is controversial[15]. Graveyards, in turn, are often used as an example for a place which is public despite the fact that it might not be accessible all day.[16] Private property that cannot be freely accessed, e.g. because it is enclosed by a fence or there is some form of admission control, does not qualify for § 59 UrhG.[17]

For works of architecture, the provision is applicable only to the external appearance, barring, for instance, the application to pictures of interior staircases, interior courtyards or sculptures exhibited in a museum. (The reproduction of a work that otherwise would not be covered by § 59 UrhG is also not allowed if that work is visible only by accident, e.g. through an open door or window.[18]) As is the case more generally with § 59 UrhG, this applies irrespective of whether or not permission was given to take photographs there.

“Permanent”: The second important criterion for the application of § 59 UrhG is the permanent display of the work. The Federal Court of Justice held in 2002[19] that neither does this require the work to remain at its place for the entire duration of its existence, nor is it purely a question of the author’s dedication. The relevant criterion, then, is the original intention of the work display as perceived by an “objective observer.” Based on this, the Court ruled that the photographic reproduction of a work photographed in the context of a two-week long exposition cannot be subsumed under § 59 UrhG because the temporary character of the exposition clearly showed that no permanent presentation was intended, noting that it also did not matter that the work—the Wrapped Reichstag—had only been created for the purpose of the exposition and was destroyed afterwards. On the other hand, ephemeral works whose lifetime is restricted by natural conditions, such as ice or sand sculptures, chalk paintings on streets but also graffiti on exterior walls (which are likely to be painted over at some point) are typically considered permanent.[20] It should be emphasized again that, in all these considerations, what matters is the intended, not the actual duration of the presentation: If, say, a building is accidentally destroyed two days after its construction, this does not affect the applicability of § 59 UrhG. Further examples: Works displayed in shop windows do not fall under § 59 UrhG due to a lack of permanent display[21]; advertisements on advertising columns are not considered permanent by most of the literature[22]; the same is true for artwork on cars temporarily parked on the street[23].

Prohibition of alteration: German copyright law does not allow the publication or public display of modifications or derivative works of works created under the provision of § 59 UrhG. However, it is generally common sense in the literature that modifications inevitable due to the reproduction method used do not already constitute a violation of § 62 (1) UrhG (c.f. § 62 (3) UrhG); the partial reproduction of works is also generally considered to be in accordance with the law[24]. Note that pursuant to § 63 UrhG, it is also necessary to properly attribute the author.

Application to all protected works: § 59 UrhG applies to all copyrighted works, regardless of their category, as long as they are reproduced “by painting, drawing, photography or cinematography” (§ 59 (1) UrhG).[25] Most importantly, this includes works of artistic art, such as paintings, fountains or sculptures, but, for instance, also poems or songs displayed on a commemorative plaque.[26] It does, however, not apply to, e.g., the recording of a musical performance in the public.

Germany’s implementation is one of the best-known, known locally as Panoramafreiheit (which roughly translates to “panorama freedom,” hence our usage of the term “freedom of panorama”).

Examples from court rulings:

  • Brandenburg Higher Regional Court (OLG Brandenburg), 2010 / Federal Court of Justice (BGH), 2010: No applicability of FOP with respect to images taken inside of several parks (most importantly, Sanssouci Park) owned by a foundation under public law. The objects shown on the photographs could mostly be seen only from the inside. The BGH in this respect upheld the decision under appeal (without elaborating on the specific question of “FOP”). OLG Brandenburg outlined that the “parks and the ways therein [i.e. in the park] from which the photographs were taken do not qualify as public. That would require them to be dedicated to public use, though not necessarily in a public-law sense, and the provision of free entrance [references omitted]. Based on that, it is not sufficient that the parks, surrounded by fences, are intentionally accessible through gates that stand open throughout the day.” The OLG notes that the fact that gates are closed over night does not necessarily mean that the park cannot be considered “public,” but helds that based on the treaty governing the purpose of the foundation and its statutes based on this treaty suggest otherwise. The use by the public is marked by “recreational, educational and cultural purposes. The ways inside the parks also are not for general traffic, but serve the purpose of leading visitors to the individual formative elements.” Furthermore, the OLG helds that at the time of their erection, the buildings within the parks “served the purpose of use by the royal/imperial family and were not supposed to be accessible by the public.” (BGH, V ZR 45/10 = GRUR 2011, 323 – Preußische Gärten und Parkanlagen, decided on December 17, 2010; OLG Brandenburg, 5 U 13/09 = GRUR 2010, 927 – Verwertung von Fotografien von öffentlich zugänglichen Gärten, decided on February 18, 2002)
Liebe deine Stadt-Köln-3839.jpg
  • Higher Regional Court of Cologne (OLG Köln), 2012: A famous five year old installation of the words “Liebe deine Stadt” (considered a work of fine art) on the roof of a building qualifies for FOP. The court makes lengthy reference to the 2002 Wrapped Reichstag decision by the BGH (see above) and concludes that “under these standards, it cannot be denied that the work is ‘permanently’ located in the public space—regardless of the plaintiff's intentions, the fact that the property owner only gives permission for one year or a few consecutive years at a time, and the particular characteristics of the installation. By now, the installation has been at the same place for five years, which is significantly longer than the typical duration of a temporary exhibition. Its removal would be tantamount to the destruction of the art piece, even if the sign were to be used elsewhere.” (OLG Köln, 6 U 193/11 – Liebe deine Stadt, decided on March 12, 2012)
  • Mannheim Regional Court (LG Mannheim), 1997: The sculpture—the so-called Holbeinpferd—was created in 1936 and originally unicolored; however, it has repeatedly been painted over and otherwise modified (without the owner's permission) in recent years. The defendant published a photograph of such a modified version and digitally manipulated it, adding a Santa Claus costume to the horse. LG Mannheim found that FOP would have applied to an ordinary photograph of the sculpture even in its modified form, but that the digital manipulations by the defendant violate § 62 (1) UrhG. (LG Mannheim, 7 S 4/96 – Freiburger Holbein-Pferd, decided on February 14, 1997)

Links:

  • Text of the Copyright Act:


System-search.svgSee also category: German FOP cases

Ghana[edit]

Probably X mark.svg Not OK

Article 19(1)(f) of this online version of Copyrights Act, 2005 restricted panorama freedom to cinema or television or in a broadcast by television.

Greece[edit]

Possibly X mark.svg Not OK {{NoFoP-Greece}}

According to §26 of the Greek Copyright Law as last amended in 2003, "occasional/casual reproduction and communication by the mass media of images of architectural works, fine art works, photographs or works of applied art, which are sited permanently in a public place, shall be permissible, without the consent of the author and without payment."

It remains unclear what exactly "occasional/casual reproduction and communication by the mass media" (η περιστασιακή αναπαραγωγή και διάδοση με μέσα μαζικής επικοινωνίας) encompasses. Even if "communication by the mass media" is seen as an extension of mere "reproduction", the interpretation of "occasional/casual" reproduction remain to be clarified by jurisdiction or an scholarly interpretation.

The copyright ends 70 years after the author's death. After that, the government might claim some rights under certain conditions (see § 29).

System-search.svgSee also category: Greek FOP cases

Guatemala[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Guatemala}}

Article 64 of Guatemala's copyright law says "ARTÍCULO 64. Respecto de las obras ya divulgadas también es permitida, sin autorización del autor, además de lo dispuesto en el artículo 32:

d) La reproducción de una obra de arte expuesta permanentemente en lugares públicos, o de la fachada exterior de los edificios, realizada por medio de un arte distinto al empleado para la elaboración del original, siempre que se indique el nombre del autor, si se conociere, el título de la obra, si lo tuviere, y el lugar donde se encuentra."

"Article 64. With respect to already published works it is permitted, without the author's consent, besides what is set forth in article 32:

d) The reproduction of a work of art exposed permanently in public places, or of the outer surface of buildings, realized by means of an art distinct from that used in making the original, provided that the name of the author, if known, the title of the work, if it has one, and the place it is located are indicated."

System-search.svgSee also category: Guatemalan FOP cases

Guernsey[edit]

✓OK According to the Copyright (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Ordinance 2005 [9]:

Representation of certain artistic works on public display.
82. (l) This section applies to -
(a) buildings, and
(b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.
(2) The copyright in any of those works is not infringed by -
(a) making a graphic work representing it
(b) making a photograph or film of it, or
(c) making a broadcast of a visual image of it.
(3) Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the communication to the public, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.

The extent of law covers the whole Bailiwick, and therefore covers Guernsey, Sark, and Alderney (and for the avoidance of doubt, Herm, Jethou, Brecqhou, Burhou and any other territories of the Bailiwick).

Honduras[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Honduras}}

The Law on Copyright and Related Rights, Decree No. 4-99-E, published in the official journal "La Gaceta" No. 29,072 of January 15, 2000, states:

Title IV
"Limitations and Exceptions to the Copyright Law"
Chapter II "Limitations to the Protection"
Article 52.- It is lawful to reproduce a work of art on permanent display in the streets, plazas or any other public place by means of an art different from that used for the making of the original. With respect to buildings, this right is limited to the exterior facade.

The original Spanish text:

"TÍTULO IV
LIMITACIONES Y EXCEPCIONES AL DERECHO DE AUTOR
CAPÍTULO II LIMITACIONES A LA PROTECCIÓN
ARTÍCULO 52.- Es lícita la reproducción de una obra de arte expuesta permanentemente en las calles, plazas u otros lugares públicos, por medio de un arte diverso al empleado para la elaboración del original. Respecto de los edificios, dicha facultad se limita a la fachada exterior."

Hong Kong[edit]

✓OK for 3D works, not always for 2D {{FoP-Hong Kong}}

According to Sect 71 of the Copyright Ordinance of Hong Kong, it is not a copyright infringement to make graphic representations, take photographs, or broadcast the images of buildings, sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if the object is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public. Because Hong Kong was a territory of the United Kingdom until 1997, Hong Kong law is modeled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be similar. See the United Kingdom section for more details.

Similar to the UK law, 'works of artistic craftsmanship' is defined separately from 'graphic work'. The latter includes any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, and any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work. Therefore freedom given in Sect 71 does not apply to posters or maps in public places.

System-search.svgSee also category: Hong Kong FOP cases

Hungary[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Hungary}}

According to article 68 of the Hungarian copyright law (1999/LXXVI), if a fine art, architectural or applied art creation is erected with a permanent character outdoors in a public place, a view of it may be made and used without the authorization of the author and paying remuneration to him.

Iceland[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK The copyright law of Iceland basically allows freedom of panorama for both buildings and works of the arts in general that have been permanently placed outdoors. If the work is the main subject of the photo and the photo is used commercially, the author of the work (this applies to both buildings and other works!) is entitled to remuneration, unless the publication of the image is in a newspaper or a TV broadcast.

In essence, Icelandic "freedom of panorama" images are free only for non-commercial uses. Overview photos in which no single copyrighted work is the main subject of the image should be fine.

System-search.svgSee also category: Icelandic FOP cases

India[edit]

  • ✓OK for 3D (architecture and sculptures) {{FoP-India}},
  • X mark.svg Not OK for 2D (paintings, drawings, maps, pictures, engravings, etc.)

According to the Indian Copyright Act of 1957, Section 52, as currently revised:

52. Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright—(1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely:
...
(s) the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a work of architecture or the display of a work of architecture;
(t) the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture, or other artistic work failing under sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of section 2 ["any other work of artistic craftsmanship"], if such work is permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access;

Note that this does not include copies of paintings, drawings, or photographs, as they do not fall under the referenced sub-clause (iii). They fall under sub-clause (i).

(u) the inclusion in a cinematograph film of-
(i) any artistic work permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access;

Indian law is modelled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be similar. See the United Kingdom section for more details.

System-search.svgSee also category: Indian FOP cases

Indonesia[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK, with exception on educational purpose and non-commercial use.

Excerpted from Indonesian copyright law:
Part Four
Works Protected under Copyright

Article 12
(1) In this Law, a work that is protected shall be the work in the field of science, arts and literature which includes:
[...]
f. all forms of art, such as paintings, drawings, engravings, calligraphy, carvings, sculptures, collage, and applied arts;
g. architecture;
[...]
(2) Works as referred to in item l are protected as a work of its own without prejudice to the Copyright over the original work.
(3) The protection as referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) includes all works that are not or have not yet been published but have already been in an obvious form, which would enable its reproduction.

However, in most of the cases copyright is restricted, and in some publications of works there shall be no infringement of Copyright:

In Indonesia, monuments and landmarks in public spaces are owned by the government. The state shall hold the copyright for works of popular culture that are commonly owned.
Article 10, Copyright to Works of Unknown Authors
(2) The State shall hold the Copyright for folklores and works of popular culture that are commonly owned, such as stories, legends, folk tales, epics, songs, handicrafts, choreography, dances, calligraphies and other artistic works.

Part Five
Copyright Restrictions

Article 14
There shall be no infringement of Copyright for:
a. [...]
b. publication and/or reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government, except if the Copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by a statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published; or
c. [...]
Article 15
Provided that the sources are fully cited, the following shall not be deemed as Copyright infringement:
a. the use of a work of another party for the purpose of education, research, scientific thesis, report writing, criticising or reviewing an issue, provided that it does not prejudice the normal interest of the Author;
[...]
c. the excerpt of a work of another party, in whole or in part, for the purposes of:
(i) lecturers of which the purpose is solely for education and science; or
(ii) free-of-charge exhibitions or performances, provided that they do not prejudice the normal interests of the Author.
[...]
Article 29 of Indonesian copyright law states that the term of protection for the author’s work is protected for a period of fifty years after the author's death. Thereafter, the work will become public domain. In the case of joint authorship, the 50 year time period will be calculated after the death of the last author.
System-search.svgSee also category: Indonesian FOP cases

Iran[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK There is no usable FoP provision in the copyright law of the Iran.

According to article 2 of copyright law of Iran (passed on January 1, 1970) architectural works, designs, sketches and buildings and sculptures of all types are protected by copyright law.

According to article 12 of copyright law of Iran, such works remains on protection for a period of 50 years (Reformation of article 12 - 22 August 2010) after the death of its author(s). Also according to article 13, copyright of the works which produced on order by an employer belongs to the employer for a period of thirty years from the date of production. In cases where the work belongs to a legal personality or rights are transferred to a legal personality, it will go into the public domain after 30 years from the date of publication or public presentation (Article 16).

System-search.svgSee also category: Iranian FOP cases

Iraq[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK Excerpted from most recent amendment to Iraq's Copyright Law No. 3 of 1971 passed by Coalition Provisional Authority in 2004.

Article 2 amendment includes the following provisions relevant to FoP:
The protection shall include the works whose method of expression is in writing, sound, drawing, painting or movement, and in particular the following:

[...]
4. Works entered under the arts of drawing and painting with lines and colors, engraving, sculpture and architecture.

Article 8 amendment includes the following provisions:

The author holds the exclusive right to exercise the rights in his/her works. Without the written permission of the author or his/her successors, no person shall do any of the following acts:
Reproduce a work in any manner or form, whether transitory or permanent, including onto photographic (including cinematographic) film or onto a digital or electronic storage medium.

Article 20 amendment includes following provisions relevant to FoP:

1. The author’s economic rights provided for in this Law shall be protected throughout the lifetime of the author and for 50 years from the date of his death.
2. The economic rights relating to works of joint authorship shall be protected throughout the lives of all co-authors and for 50 years from the death of the last survivor.
System-search.svgSee also category: Iraqi FOP cases

Ireland[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Ireland}}

§93 of the Irish copyright law permits photographers to take pictures of sculptures, buildings, and works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently located in a public place or premises open to the public, and to publish such pictures in any way. Irish law is in this respect modeled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be identical. See the United Kingdom section for more details.

System-search.svgSee also category: Irish FOP cases

Israel[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Israel}}

Section 23 of the 2007 Copyright Act states that "Broadcasting, or copying by way of photography, drawing, sketch or similar visual description, of an architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of applied art, are permitted where the aforesaid work is permanently situated in a public place."

According to Dr Sarah Presenti, an Israeli copyright lawyer, the scope of the term "work of applied art" in Israel is broader than the equivalent term in Commonwealth jurisdictions (see the United Kingdom). Presenti suggests that "it includes art work (like adverts, advertising, maps etc.) which transfers useful information" and that "it does not matter if it is 2D or 3D as long as it is a work of art that is meant to deliver useful information. Therefore, an artistic work created for artistic purpose is by no means applied art (e.g. painting)."

System-search.svgSee also category: Israeli FOP cases

Italy[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK {{NoFoP-Italy}}

Please tag Italy no-FoP deletion requests: <noinclude>[[Category:Italian FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude>

Pictures from public places don't enjoy any exception in Italian copyright law; rather, they are subject to additional law restrictions, a sort of reverse FOP.

  • X mark.svg Not OK Object still under copyright (as recent buildings, subjects to architect's copyright) only allow "quotation right" minimal "fair use" (according to general copyright act, §70 and §70 1-bis).
  • X mark.svg Not OK Additionally, photos of any cultural heritage asset are subject to pre-emptive authorisation, a fee and other restriction due to the cultural heritage and landscape law.[27]

The following are considered cultural heritage assets: state owned things with some artistic, historic, archeologic or ethnoantropologic interest; libraries, galleries, museums and archives collections; other items declared cultural heritage by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities unless explicitly removed on a case by case basis. The national catalog of cultural heritage assets[28] is not publicly accessible or doesn't exist yet; any art work, or building older than 20 years, should be assumed actively forbidden.

  • Note: Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free.
  • Note: Italian law permits to publish for free pictures of panorama on websites for "teaching or scientific purpose", but only "no profit". (art. 70, c.1-bis: "È consentita la libera pubblicazione attraverso la rete internet, a titolo gratuito, di immagini e musiche a bassa risoluzione o degradate, per uso didattico o scientifico e solo nel caso in cui tale utilizzo non sia a scopo di lucro.")
System-search.svgSee also category: Italian FOP cases

Jamaica[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Jamaica}}

Copyright legislation in Jamaica follows closely that of the United Kingdom, in particular §74, dealing with freedom of panorama, is identical to section 62 of the relevant British law.

Japan[edit]

  • for artistic works: X mark.svg Not OK {{NoFoP-Japan}} except in cases governed by article 46.
  • for buildings only: ✓OK {{FoP-Japan}}

Japanese copyright law allows the reproduction of artistic works located permanently in open places accessible to the public, such as streets and parks, or at places easily seen by the public, such as the outer walls of buildings, only for non-commercial purposes; therefore, such photographs are not free enough for Commons.

Architectural works (i.e., buildings) located in such places may be photographed and the photos may be reproduced for any purposes; §46(iv), which contains the "non-commercial" restriction, applies only to "artistic works". Some buildings like the Tower of the Sun can be regarded as artistic works (discussion).

Note: According to Article 51 of Japanese copyright law, Japan has a copyright lifetime of 50 years after the death of the author (ie. creator/designer) or following "the death of the last surviving co-author in the case of a joint work." Henceforth, the author's works shall become copyright free and enter the public domain.

System-search.svgSee also category: Japanese FOP cases

Jersey[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Jersey}}

According to the Intellectual Property (Unregistered Rights) (Jersey) Law 2011[29]:

Representation of certain artistic works on public display
(1) This Article applies to –
(a) buildings; and
(b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.
(2) The copyright in such a work is not infringed by –
(a) making a graphic work representing it;
(b) making a photograph or film of it; or
(c) making a broadcast of a visual image of it.
(3) Nor is the copyright infringed by anything done in relation to copies of, or the communication to the public of, anything whose making was, by virtue of this Article, not an infringement of the copyright.

Jordan[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK, for private personal, and educational use,

According to Articles "(17): Use of Published Works" and "(20): Copy of Work without Author’s Consent" of The Copyright Law, No. (22) of 1992 of Jordan.[30] Works of architecture are not mentioned there explicitly, but are defined in Article (3) as "Works Enjoying Copyright Protection." Protection also include the title of the work, unless it's generic and is used to describe the subject of the work.

Kazakhstan[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK see Former Soviet Union

System-search.svgSee also category: Kazakhstani FOP cases

Kenya[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Kenya}}

Kenyan copyright law (Copyright Act 2001), states that copyright on artistic works "does not include the right to control reproduction and distribution of copies, or the inclusion in a film or broadcast, of an artistic work situated in a place where it can be viewed by the public." Note that the definition of artistic works under Kenyan law includes paintings, drawings, sculptures, photographs, and architecture. Furthermore, unlike freedom of panorama exemptions in some other countries, in Kenya it is not restricted to only works permanently located in a public place, and can include works in private places if viewable by the public.

Korea (North)[edit]

✓OK: {{FoP-North Korea}}

Copyright Law (Translated English version) of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Article 32 (Original version in Korean 조선민주주의인민공화국 저작권법) states that "A copyrighted work may be used without the permission of the copyright owner [...] When a copyrighted work in public places is copied."

System-search.svgSee also category: North Korean FOP cases

Korea (South)[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK, non-commercial only for artistic works

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. [31]

System-search.svgSee also category: South Korean FOP cases

Kosovo[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK, non-commercial only

Only a limited form of freedom of panorama exists in Kosovo. Works permanently placed in public streets, squares, parks or other generally accessible public places may be used freely. However, they may not be reproduced in a three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work, or used for direct or indirect economic gain: Law No. 2004/45 on Copyright and Related Rights adopted by the Assembly of Kosovo and issued by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), Article 54.

Kyrgyzstan[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK see Former Soviet Union

Latvia[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK The Latvian copyright law permits taking pictures of architectural works, photographs, visual arts, design works and the works of applied arts when displayed permanently in public places. The pictures can be used for non-commercial purpose. Such permission is not valid on Commons.

Article 25 states (original):

25.pants. Publiski izstādīta darba izmantošana

(1) Publiskās vietās pastāvīgi izstādīta arhitektūras, fotogrāfijas, vizuālās mākslas, dizaina, kā arī lietišķās mākslas darba attēlojumu drīkst izmantot personiskai lietošanai, informācijā ziņu raidījumos vai aktuālo notikumu apskatos vai ietvert darbos nekomerciālā nolūkā.

(2) Šajā pantā minētais neattiecas uz gadījumiem, kad darba attēlojums ir objekts tālākai darba atkārtošanai, raidorganizācijām raidīšanai vai darba attēlu izmantošanai komerciālos nolūkos. (Ar grozījumiem, kas izdarīti ar 22.04.2004. un 06.12.2007. likumu, kas stājas spēkā 05.01.2008.)

System-search.svgSee also category: Latvian FOP cases

Laos[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK According to the Lao People's Democratic Republic's Intellectual Property Laws No. 08/NA of December 24, 2007, in force on April 14, 2008, there is a limited form of freedom of panorama in Laos which does not appear to be sufficiently free for purposes of the Wikimedia Commons. On the one hand, works of fine art, photographs, reports and adapted arts for presentation to the public may be photographed or video-recorded without authorization from copyright owners and without the payment of remuneration: sections 96(1) and 96(1.8). On the other hand, the reuse of the photographs and video-recordings is restricted in the following ways: (1) the reuse must not prejudice the rights or normal benefits of the owner of the works; and (2) the derivative works cannot be used in architectural works, works of fine art or computer programs: sections 96(2) and (3).

Lebanon[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK Lebanese copyright law provides for FOP only for the media as follows: "31. The media shall be permitted, without the authorization of the author and without obligation to pay him compensation, to publish pictures of architectural works, visual artistic works, photographic works or works of applied art, provided that such works are available in places open to the public."

http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/text_html.jsp?lang=EN&id=2786#P46_5104
System-search.svgSee also category: Lebanese FOP cases

Libya[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK The Copyright Protection Law of Libya (Libyan Law No. (9) for 1968) does not have any provisions dealing with freedom of panorama.

Liechtenstein[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Liechtenstein}}

The Liechtenstein Copyright Act, in article 29, says that works may be depicted when they are permanently located at or on public ground. The depiction may be offered, sold, sent or otherwise distributed. The depiction must not be three-dimensional and not be usable for the same purpose as the original.

Lithuania[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK Limited freedom of panorama in Lithuania is granted by article 28 ("Limitations to Copyright in Works of Architecture and Sculptures") of the Law Amending the Law on Copyright and Related Rights. This allows a photographer to make and publish pictures of sculptures and works of architecture that are permanently located in public places (excluding works presented in museums and exhibitions), but they cannot be used commercially in any form.

System-search.svgSee also category: Lithuanian FOP cases

Luxembourg[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK The regulation is presented in the article 10 point 7. A copyright holder may not prevent "the reproduction and communication of [his or her] works located in a publicly accessible place, when such works do not constitute the primary subject of the reproduction or communication."

System-search.svgSee also category: Luxembourgish FOP cases

Macedonia, Republic of[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Macedonia}}

Republic of Macedonia have Law on copyright and related rights from 2010 which can be found here. According to Article 52 paragraph 11:

(1) The use of a copyright work without remuneration shall apply to the following cases:
11. Use of architectural or sculptural works permanently located in public places (streets, squares, parks, etc.);

Madagascar[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK There is no Commons-usable freedom of panorama in Madagascar, as per article 48 of the current "Law No. 94-036 of 18 September 1995 on Literary and Artistic Property":

... it shall be permitted, without authorization from the author and without payment of remuneration, to reproduce, ... or to communicate by cable to the public an image of a work of architecture, a work of fine art, a photographic work and a work of applied art that is permanently located in a place open to the public, save where the image of the work is the main subject of this reproduction, broadcast or communication and where it is not used for commercial purposes.

Malaysia[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Malaysia}}

According to Malaysian copyright law (2000) Section 13(2)(d), the right of control is excluded from "the reproduction and distribution of copies of any artistic work permanently situated in a place where it can be viewed by the public". Section 3 defines "artistic work" as any graphic work, photograph, sculpture, collage, and work of architecture or artistic craftsmanship. Layout-designs of integrated circuits are not artistic works.

For the meaning of the term works of artistic craftsmanship, see the commentary under "United Kingdom" below.

Mali[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK Article 36 ii) of the Malian Ordinance of 12 July 1977 allows reproduction for cinematographic or broadcasting purposes and communication to the public of works of figurative art and of architecture permanently located in a place where they can be viewed by the public and included in the film or broadcast only by way of background or as incidental to the essential matters represented. This is not enough for Commons because it deals only with films and broadcasts, allowing nothing for photographs, and allows only "incidental or background" inclusions.

Confirmed by Article 27 b) of the more recent Loi n° 08 - 024 / du 23 juillet 2008 fixant le régime de la propriété littéraire et artistique en République du Mali which allows only incidental use of the artistic material (La reproduction en vue de la cinématographie ou de la radiodiffusion et la communication publique des œuvres d'art figuratif et d'architecture placées de façon permanente dans un lieu public et dont l'inclusion dans le film ou dans l'émission n'a qu’un caractère accessoire ou incident par rapport au sujet principal).

Malta[edit]

✓OK for buildings and sculptures. {{FoP-Malta}}

Article 9 (1) (p) of Malta's Copyright Act states that copyright "shall not include the right to authorise or prohibit (…) the inclusion in a communication to the public, the making of a graphic representation and the making of a photograph or film, of a work of architecture or sculpture or similar works made to be located permanently in public places."

Mexico[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Mexico}}

Mexico's federal copyright law, in Article 148,[32] allows reproduction without compensation in certain circumstances:

"Literary and artistic works that have already been disclosed may only be used in the following cases without the consent of the owner of the economic rights and without remuneration, provided that the normal exploitation of the work is not adversely affected thereby and provided also that the source is invariably mentioned and that no alteration is made to the work:"

The Section VII of Article 148 covers freedom of panorama:

"Reproduction, communication, and distribution in drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual processes of works that are visible from public places."

Section VII uses the term "lugares publicos" (public places), which has been interpreted to include both interior and exterior public places. The public places that applies a fee for admision are public places, and this freedom is allowable, as long as:

  1. The place allows or doesn’t disposes troubles to execute the Freedom of Panorama in the site; and
  2. The place might be accessible and truly open to all the public.

Due to the ambiguity of the article, several public establishments have been given permission not to authorize, in either case, the execution of this exception; perhaps, the permission varies depending of the site owner public. However, the government state places (read libraries, markets, parks and gardens) have no restrictions against Freedom of Panorama.

System-search.svgSee also category: Mexican FOP cases

Moldova[edit]

According to article 28 of the Moldovan Law on Copyright and Related Rights it shall be permitted without the consent of the author or other holder of copyright and without payment of remuneration use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places.

Prior to July 2010, there were commercial restrictions on such works similar to other former Soviet states, but an amendment removed that restriction. Article 26 of the cited law defines exceptions of the commercial restrictions, and reproduction of a work of architecture in the form of a building or similar construction is such an exception.

Free reproduction of artistic works (including commercial purposes) is:

  • ✓OK for buildings or similar constructions; per article 26(2)(a)
  • ✓OK for sculptures made to be located permanently in public places; per article 28(k)
  • X mark.svg Not OK for sculptures not made to be located permanently in public places
  • X mark.svg Not OK for paintings, drawings, engravings or photographs.

Please use {{FoP-Moldova}} to tag images from Moldova which meet Freedom of Panorama conditions.

System-search.svgSee also category: Moldovan FOP cases

Mongolia[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK see Mongolian law on Copyright. Although there is a limited FOP (see Articles 14 and 16), it is for non-commercial use only.

System-search.svgSee also category: Mongolian FOP cases

Montenegro[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK
Montenegro law on copyright and related rights published in Official Gazette of Montenegro No 37/11, article 55 says:

Article 55 (Works in public places):
Without acquirement of the corresponding economic right and without payment of a remuneration, it is permitted to use of works permanently exhibited in parks, streets, squares or other public places.
The works referred to in Par. (1) of this Article may not be reproduced in a three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work, or used for direct or indirect economic advantage.
System-search.svgSee also category: Montenegro FOP cases

Morocco[edit]

✓OK for a work permanently located in a public place if it is not the main subject of the image: {{FoP-Morocco}}.

X mark.svg Not OK if work is the main subject of the image

"Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 10 above, it shall be permitted, without the author’s authorization or payment of a fee, to republish, broadcast or communicate to the public by cable an image of a work of architecture, a work of fine art, a photographic work, or a work of applied art which is permanently located in a place open to the public, unless the image of the work is the main subject of such a reproduction, broadcast or communication and if it is used for commercial purposes."[33]

Note: all works on Commons must be commercially usable; the Moroccan FOP only permits commercial use if the copyrighted work is not the main subject of the reproduction.

System-search.svgSee also category: Moroccan FOP cases

Mozambique[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK for reproductions, broadcasts and cable communications to the public executed in the Republic of Mozambique (since 25 June 1975) There is only non-commercial freedom of panorama in Mozambique, as per chapter III, sec 15:

15. It is permitted, without authorization by the author or payment of any remuneration, to reproduce, broadcast or communicate by cable to the public the image of a work of architecture, three-dimensional art, photography or applied art that is permanently located in a place open to the public, except where the image of the work is the principal subject of such reproduction or broadcast or communication and is used for commercial purposes.

Source : Law No. 4/2001 of 27 February (Copyright Law)- Mozambique

It is not clear if the 2001 copyright law of Mozambique is retroactive. In case it isn't, the applicable law would be the previous 1966 copyright law, which allows FOP (see below). Therefore, the status of reproductions, broadcasts and cable communications to the public executed before 28 May 2001 is undetermined.

The copyright law in Mozambique is currently under revision, and significant changes have been proposed in order to make it less restrictive, including a reduction of protection from 70 to 50 years. FOP cases in Mozambique should be treated with increased care.

✓OK for works executed in the Portuguese territory of Mozambique (before 25 June 1975)

Mozambique was considered Portuguese territory before its independence in 25 June 1975, and current jurisprudence generally use Portuguese law to deal with actions executed in former Portuguese overseas territories before that date. Examples: 02S3074,JTRL00024225, JTRL00024030, 7189/2003-4, 0451/05 (Supreme Court, 2005). Related discussion here.

The applicable law is the current 2008 Portuguese copyright law, which is explicitly retroactive, and allows FOP. In the cases such retroactivity does not cover former Portuguese territories, the applicable law is the 1966 copyright law which allows FOP as well:

Art. 152.º The reproduction and publication by the press, cinema, television or any other mean, of the image of works of architecture or any other kind of plastic arts already divulged by the author is free.
System-search.svgSee also category: Mozambican FOP cases

Myanmar[edit]

See Burma.

Namibia[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK Unauthorized inclusion of works permanently situated in a street, square or a similar public place is restricted to films, television, and transmission in a diffusion service, and the inclusion must be merely by way of background or incidental. copyrights act 1994 §18.

Nepal[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK No freedom of panorama in Nepal. Link

Netherlands[edit]

✓OK for buildings and most 2D and 3D artwork {{FoP-Nederland}}
X mark.svg Not OK for photographs, maps, applied art, industrial design, and models

The article 18 of the Dutch copyright act states that: "it is not an infringement of copyright to reproduce and publish pictures of a work, as meant in article 10, first paragraph, under 6°[1] or of an architectural work as meant in article 10, first paragraph, under 8°[2], which are made to be permanently located in public places, as long as the work is depicted as it is located in the public space. Where incorporation of a work in a compilation is concerned, not more than a few of the works of the same author may be included."

  • [1] drawings, paintings, works of architecture and sculpture, lithographs, engravings and the like
  • [2] drafts, sketches and three-dimensional works relating to architecture, geography, topography or other sciences
    Note that article 18 limits this explicitly to "works relating to architecture", i.e., geography, topography, and other sciences are not included in article 18.

Note that photographs are not included in Item 6. They are separately listed in Item 9 and therefore are not included in FOP. Also separately listed and therefore not included are maps, applied art and industrial design, and models.

Original (Dutch) text:
Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 6°, of op een werk, betrekkelijk tot de bouwkunde als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 8°, dat is gemaakt om permanent in openbare plaatsen te worden geplaatst, wordt niet beschouwd de verveelvoudiging of openbaarmaking van afbeeldingen van het werk zoals het zich aldaar bevindt. Waar het betreft het overnemen in een compilatiewerk, mag van dezelfde maker niet meer worden overgenomen dan enkele van zijn werken.

Public place in article 18 of the Dutch copyright law not only includes open-air spaces such as public roads and squares, but also the interior of public buildings. What exactly is a public building is not defined in the Dutch law, but there are some guidelines that can be taken from the published literature and from the parliamentary debates about this article when it was introduced in this version in 2004. Among the criteria to decide whether the interior of a building is a "public place" in the sense of article 18, parliament said that the building must be freely accessible by the general public and then mentioned two negative criteria: whether an entrance fee was charged, and whether access may be denied on private law grounds. (Other criteria may exist; these two were just mentioned as examples.)[34] The parliament and the literature explicitly mention that schools, opera buildings, entrance halls of businesses, and museums are not public places for the purpose of article 18, but that railway stations are.[35][36] Case law in the Netherlands on "freedom of panorama" issues is scarce. In one case, the interior of the Amsterdam ArenA was deemed not a public place; in a second case, a photo of a building in a private holiday resort was considered covered by article 18 because the building was visible from public ground.

Taking these guidelines and the few court cases into consideration, we interpret "public place" (openbare plaats) in article 18 to cover works on open-air roads and squares as well as works visible from there (as long as they're outside),[37][38] and works in the interiors of only those buildings that primarily serve a transit purpose for the general public: railway stations are explicitly mentioned by the lawmakers, but arguably this would also apply to airports, underpasses, (covered) parking lots. Article 18 also seems to apply in shopping malls[39] (but probably not within the shops in such a mall). In all likelihood it does not apply to other indoors non-private places, such as hotels, cafés, or shops. It certainly does not apply in the locations specifically excluded by the lawmakers: schools, operas, entrance halls of businesses, and museums.[36]

Article 18 is limited to works that were originally made for being placed permanently in public places. The literature mentions that this would also apply to graffiti, even if these normally are removed rather quickly.[36] This is consistent with the interpretation of "permanent" e.g. in Germany as explained above; the "natural lifetime" of a graffito is considered to end with its removal. Furthermore, the picture must show the work as it appears in the public place. (A photograph showing a sculpture in its surroundings is OK. Cutting out the sculpture and using only the image of the sculpture is not covered by article 18.)[39] Dutch legislature seems to favor a strict interpretation of the Berne three-step test; parliament mentioned that creating and selling a postcard from a close-up photo of a copyrighted sculpture (i.e., without the surroundings, not showing the sculpture in context) was not allowed.[35]

System-search.svgSee also category: Dutch FOP cases

New Zealand[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-New Zealand}}

Copyright legislation in New Zealand also follows that of the United Kingdom. In the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be identical. See the United Kingdom section for more details.

Nicaragua[edit]

✓OK As per the article 43 of Nicaragua Law No. 577 on Amendments and Additions to Law No. 312 on Copyright and Related Rights Works located permanently in parks, streets, squares or other thoroughfares may be reproduced, without the author’s authorization, by means of painting, sketching, photographs and audiovisual recordings for personal use. In respect of works of architecture, the previous article shall only apply to their external aspect.

Sources

English

Spanish

Norway[edit]

✓OK for buildings only {{FoP-Norway}}

The Norwegian Copyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works Act, in section § 24 says that

>>Kunstverk og fotografisk verk kan også avbildes når det varig er satt opp på eller ved offentlig plass eller ferdselsvei. Dette gjelder likevel ikke når verket klart er hovedmotivet og gjengivelsen utnyttes ervervsmessig. Byggverk kan fritt avbildes.<<

>>Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. Buildings may be freely depicted.<<

“Byggverk” means “Bauwerk” (German) and “structure” or “edifice” (English).

Since Commons requires that all images be free for commercial use, buildings are the only copyrighted works in Norway for which the FOP exception applies for Commons.

System-search.svgSee also category: Norwegian FOP cases

Oman[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK, personal/educational use only in face-to-face situations, according to Chapter V, Article (20) paragraph 1. in the Law of Copyrights and Neighboring Right by Royal Decree 65/2008 of the Sultanate of Oman. Works of architecture are covered in Chapter II, Article (2), section g and elsewhere.[40]

Pakistan[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Pakistan}}

Pakistani copyright law says that the following shall not be an infringement of copyright: "making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph or an architectural work of art" and "making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture or other artistic work if such work is permanently situated in a public place or any premises to which the public has access".

Panama[edit]

✓OK; in regard to buildings, for the outer façade only. {{FoP-Panama}}

According WIPO translation of Panama copyright law title VI chapter II article 48 says that: "With regard to works that have already been lawfully disclosed, the following shall be allowed without authorization from the author or remuneration: ..... 6. the reproduction of a work of art on permanent display in a street, square or other public place by means of an artistic technique different from that used for the making of the original; with regard to buildings, this exception shall be confined to the outer façade;".

Papua New Guinea[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK; only covers uses for personal, educational (teaching), archival, and newsmaking purposes. Any allowed forms where remuneration is not required must be non-commercial. —

  • As enforced by the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2000 of Papua New Guinea, certified on "08.11.00".[41]

Paraguay[edit]

✓OK Article 39 of Paraguay's copyright law provides for FOP for works permanently present in public places, and for the exterior of buildings, however the work must be attributed. Article 39 also provides that the insignia of political parties, other associations, and non-profit organizations may be freely copied by others.

  • "Article 39 - Respecting already published works, it is permitted without either authorization from the author or payment of remuneration:

4. Reproduction of a work of art exposed permanently in the streets, plazas, or other public places, or of the exterior surface of buildings, realized by a means of art distinct from that employed in making the original, always indicating the name of the author if known, the title of the work if it has one, and where it is found;

[...]

7. When the work constitutes the sign, emblem, or distinctive mark of political parties, associations, or non-profit civil entities.

Reproductions admitted in this article will be permitted only if they do not cross the normal exploitation of the work or cause an unjustifiable damage to the legitimate interests of the author."

  • "Artículo 39 - Respecto de las obras ya divulgadas, es permitida sin autorización del autor ni pago de remuneración:

4. la reproducción de una obra de arte expuesta permanentemente en las calles, plazas u otros lugares públicos, o de la fachada exterior de los edificios, realizada por medio de un arte diverso al empleado para la elaboración del original, siempre que se indique el nombre del autor si se conociere, el título de la obra si lo tuviere y el lugar donde se encuentra;

[...]

7. cuando la obra constituya un signo, emblema, o distintivo de partidos políticos, asociaciones y/o entidades civiles sin fines de lucro.

Las reproducciones admitidas en este artículo serán permitidas en tanto no atenten contra la explotación normal de la obra ni causen un perjuicio injustificado a los intereses legítimos del autor."

Peru[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Peru}}

Peru has full "freedom of panorama", allowing reproducing artworks on streets, squares, or other public places or on the outside façades of buildings by means different from the original technique. The reproduction must not interfere with the author's exclusive rights to exploitation. This is protected both by national law and the Andean Community treaty.

also see Andean Community of Nations

Philippines[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK Chapter VIII ("Limitations on copyright) of part IV ("The law on copyright") of AN ACT PRESCRIBING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE AND ESTABLISHING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE, PROVIDING FOR ITS POWERS AND FUNCTIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (chapter found on pp. 84-90) does not appear to make any exception for photographs of copyrighted works. Bizarrely, the law itself is entirely based on the law of the United States and contains identical fair use provisions, which however are not acceptable.

Ijon met with the Director of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines in November 2011, and asked about FoP. The Director said "The law is silent on the matter", and said they are waiting for case law to settle the question one way or another. The matter has not reached the supreme court yet.

System-search.svgSee also category: Philippine FOP cases

Poland[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Poland}} (exterior only)

The copyright act from July 4, 1994 in article 33 point 1 allows one to propagate works that are permanently exhibited on the publicly accessible roads, streets, squares or gardens provided that the propagation is not for the same use. The name of the creator and source should be provided if it is possible by article 34. This use is royalty free, provided that it does not harm the legitimate interests of the creator by article 34.

System-search.svgSee also category: Polish FOP cases

Portugal[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Portugal}}

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)).

System-search.svgSee also category: Portuguese FOP cases

Qatar[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK No provision for freedom of panorama of any sort under Qatari law.

Romania[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK Per the Romanian copyright law of 1996, images of architectural works, of three-dimensional works of art, of photographic works or of works of applied art permanently located in public places may be published only for non-commercial uses or if the work is not the main subject of the image.

[The following are permitted] "(h) the reproduction, to the exclusion of any means involving direct contact with the work, circulation or communication to the public of the image of an architectural work, work of three-dimensional art, photographic work or work of applied art permanently located in a public place, except where the image of the work is the principal subject of such reproduction, circulation or communication, and if it is used for commercial purposes;"
  • Note: "Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free."
System-search.svgSee also category: Romanian FOP cases

Russia[edit]

  • X mark.svg Not OK for artwork, including sculptures: {{NoFoP-Russia}}

See also Former Soviet Union

Article 1276 of Part IV of Civil Code of the Russian Federation states:

"Free Use of Work Permanently Situated in Places Open for Free Attendance

1. Reproduction, broadcasting to the air or via cable shall be allowed, without the author's or other copyrightholder's consent or payment of royalties, of visual art, or photographic work, that permanently stand in places open for free attendance, except where portrayal of the work by such method is the basic object of that reproduction, or where portrayal of the work is used in commercial purposes.
2. It shall be allowed to freely use, to reproduce, or to broadcast to the air or via cable works of architecture, of urban development, and works of garden and landscape design, which are situated in places open for free attendance or visible from that places."

The FoP exceptions for works of architecture, urban development, and garden and landscape design, which were added under consultation with Wikimedia Russia, have taken effect with the Civil Code amendments as of October 1, 2014.

Concerning non-architectural artwork, there is still a copyright exception for non-commercial use, but non-commercial use only is not allowed on Commons and unfortunately, we don't have sufficient number of court decisions for clarifying situation. An important court decision (discussion) states that the copying of a showcase photo is not a creation of a 3D-object in 2 dimensions.

Before January 1 2008, freedom of panorama was regulated by the similar (but not the same) article 21 of Copyright Law of Russia (in Russian).

  • Note: "Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free."

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.

System-search.svgSee also category: Russian FOP cases

Saudi Arabia[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK

System-search.svgSee also category: Saudi Arabian FOP cases

Senegal[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK {{NoFoP-Senegal}}

There is no freedom of panorama in Senegal. In fact the Senegal's law is very similar to the french law. The Loi 2008-09 du 25 janvier 2008 sur le droit d’auteur et les droits voisins au Senegal, (article 46) (Archive) says that it not possible to reproduce an artwork if it's the main subject of the photo or it is for commercial purpose (source: Bureau Sénégalais du Droit d'Auteur).

« L’auteur ne peut interdire la reproduction ou la communication d'une oeuvre graphique ou plastique située en permanence dans un endroit ouvert au public, sauf si l'image de l’oeuvre est le sujet principal d'une telle reproduction, radiodiffusion ou communication et si elle est utilisée à des fins commerciales. » (Official link) (Archive)

The question still on: does it apply to things before 2008?

Serbia[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Serbia}}, if the work is displayed in an open public space.

Serbian law from 2009 allows 2D reproductions of permanently publicly displayed works, i. e. the full Freedom of Panorama (translation of relevant Article 51):

Article 51:
It is permitted to make two-dimensional reproductions of works permanently located on streets, squares or other open places accessible to public, and to distribute such reproductions, without author's permission or paying author's fee.

Singapore[edit]

✓OK for 3D objects and some 2D objects; X mark.svg Not OK for paintings, drawings, engravings, and photographs {{FoP-Singapore}}

Section 63 provides that sculpture and works of artistic craftsmanship other than paintings, drawing, engravings, and photographs "situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast".

Section 64 allows for reproducing a building or model of a building by "painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the building or model or by the inclusion of the building or model in a cinematograph film", with no restriction on location or permanency.

This means that freedom of panorama does not apply to two-dimensional works such as billboards, posters and paintings in a gallery, even if these are permanently displayed in a public place. It does include some 2D works that are works of artistic craftsmanship, such as textiles.

Slovakia[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Slovakia}}

According to section 27 of the Slovak copyright law, Slovakia has freedom of panorama. Works permanently located at public places may be freely reproduced by drawing, painting, graphics, relief picture or relief model, or by photography or film, and such reproductions may be freely published and sold without the consent of the original author.

Slovenia[edit]

The following applies:[42]

  • ✓OK for all works whose creators died or published them anonymously or pseudonymously (and have remained anonymous or pseudonymous) in 1944 or earlier
    • an exception are the photographs of the photographic and similarly-made works in a public space, and the photographs of the works of applied art, which are acceptable for Commons if the original work was published in 1969 or earlier.[43]
  • X mark.svg Not OK for all other cases[42] Use: {{NoFoP-Slovenia}}

According to Section IV, Article 55 of the Slovenian copyright law, works permanently placed in parks, streets, squares, or other generally accessible premises may be used freely, except that they may not be reproduced in a three-dimensional form or used for the same purpose as the original work or used for economic gain (original Slovene text: "Dela, ki so trajno v parkih, na ulicah, na trgih ali na drugih splošno dostopnih krajih, so v prosti uporabi. Uporaba iz prejšnjega odstavka se ne sme izvršiti v tridimenzionalni obliki ali za isti namen kot prvotno delo ali vršiti za doseganje gospodarske koristi.").

If the name of the creator (author, artist, designer, etc.) of a work belonging to one of the categories mentioned above is given on the work, he or she must be cited (Article 55: "V primerih iz prvega odstavka tega člena je treba navesti vir in avtorstvo dela, če je navedeno na uporabljenem delu.")

In some cases, the creator of a work is not known or the work was produced by a group of people. For these and a thorough discussion of copyright terms in Slovenia, please refer to Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Slovenia.

Note: In addition to copyright, the usage of the reproductions of "cultural monuments" for commercial purposes[44] is restricted by the Slovenian Cultural Heritage Protection Act, which requires consensus of the owner of the monument for any use of the image and name of the monument (Article 44). The definition of a cultural monument is the following (Article 3): heritage that has been statutorily protected as a monument or entered in the inventory of an authorised museum. For immovable cultural heritage, the national catalog is publicly accessible at rkd.situla.org. Wikimedia Commons is not required to comply with the Slovenian Cultural Heritage Protection Act because it is hosted in the United States of America. Users that are citizens of Slovenia are warned that they are solely responsible for any possible violation of local laws.

System-search.svgSee also category: Slovenian FOP cases

South Africa[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK The Copyright Act 1978 of South Africa (as at ), section 15(3), states: "The copyright in an artistic work shall not be infringed by its reproduction or inclusion in a cinematograph film or a television broadcast or transmission in a diffusion service, if such work is permanently situated in a street, square or a similar public place."

A diffusion service is defined in section 1(1) as "a telecommunication service of transmissions consisting of sounds, images, signs or signals, which takes place over wires or other paths provided by material substance and intended for reception by specific members of the public; and diffusion shall not be deemed to constitute a performance or a broadcast or as causing sounds, images, signs or signals to be seen or heard; and where sounds, images, signs or signals are displayed or emitted by any receiving apparatus to which they are conveyed by diffusion in such manner as to constitute a performance or a causing of sounds, images, signs or signals to be seen or heard in public, this shall be deemed to be effected by the operation of the receiving apparatus."

Since section 15(3) does not mention photographs, there is no freedom of panorama exemption in South Africa that would permit photographs of artistic works to be taken without infringing the copyright in the works.

System-search.svgSee also category: South African FOP cases

Spain[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Spain}}

Article 35 of the Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996 of April 12, 1996, and amended by Law 5/1998 of March 6, 1998, states: 2. Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes.

Article 40bis further states the above law "may not be so interpreted that they could be applied in a manner capable of unreasonably prejudicing the legitimate interests of the author or adversely affecting the normal exploitation of the works to which they refer."

The original Spanish text:
El artículo 35 del Real Decreto Legislativo 1/1996 de 12 de abril de 1996, modificado por la ley 5/1998 del 6 de marzo de 1998, establece: 2. Las obras situadas permanentemente en parques, calles, plazas u otras vías públicas pueden ser reproducidas, distribuidas y comunicadas libremente por medio de pinturas, dibujos, fotografías y procedimientos audiovisuales.

Artículo 40 bis. "Los artículos del presente capítulo no podrán interpretarse de manera tal que permitan su aplicación de forma que causen un perjuicio injustificado a los intereses legítimos del autor o que vayan en detrimento de la explotación normal de las obras a que se refieran".

System-search.svgSee also category: Spanish FOP cases

Sri Lanka[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK Sri Lankan copyright law limits reproducing copyrighted artworks and buildings placed permanently at public places or visible from there without the rights holder's consent to film and TV broadcasts only.

System-search.svgSee also category: Sri Lankan FOP cases

Sudan[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK

Sweden[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Sweden}}

Stockholms stadshus september 2011.jpg Ernst Nordin Non Serviam.JPG
Buildings ✓OK Outdoor Art ✓OK
Helmstedt-Harbke-See 2010 Informationstafel.jpg
Swedish protected compound sign.PNG
Maps X mark.svg Not OK Protected object
X mark.svg Not OK

The Swedish copyright law (1960:729) allows in the article 24 to take pictures of works of art that are located permanently at public places outdoors and publish them, also for commercial purposes.

Artworks are only covered by freedom of panorama if permanently (stadigvarande) placed at a public place outdoors (på eller vid allmän plats utomhus). Buildings are not subject to these restrictions.

The law requires works to be a work of art (konstverk). Information boards and maps are considered works of literature (litterära verk) and are not covered by article 24.

Buildings may be freely reproduced in pictorial form. However, photographers should be aware that some buildings and other facilities are covered by the Swedish security law (2010:305) (Skyddslagen). Such facilities have clearly visible yellow signs with the text "Skyddsobjekt" and it is forbidden to depict them in any form, although this does not form part of Swedish copyright law.

"Picture" and "pictorial form" above is meant to indicate two-dimensional reproduction.

Texts, maps and photographs which are freely licensed or in the public domain and are placed in the open may of course be reproduced.

Some, such as Bildkonst Upphovsrätt i Sverige (BUS), hold the position that there is no freedom of panorama on the Internet. Others, such as the Swedish Wikimedia chapter, reject this position. The Swedish Wikimedia chapter was recently sued by BUS for alleged copyright violations of outdoor sculptures by providing a website with photos of such sculptures.[12][13]

System-search.svgSee also category: Swedish FOP cases

Switzerland[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Switzerland}}

Pursuant to Article 27 of the Copyright Act (German version; French version; Italian version) (English translation), a work permanently situated in a place accessible to the public may be depicted and the depiction offered, transferred, broadcast or otherwise distributed. The depiction must not be three-dimensional and it must not serve the same purpose as the original.

"Accessible to the public":

  • The place must be accessible to the public on a de facto basis. The legal ownership status of the place is irrelevant to the applicability of the provision.[45]
  • The depicted work itself does not have to be accessible to the public. Freedom of panorama also applies to a work on private (not publicly accessible) ground provided it can be seen with the naked eye from a place accessible to the public.[46]
  • The place does not need to be accessible to the public all the time. If a park is closed during night hours, it may still be “accessible to the public” within the meaning of Art. 27 (provided the other criteria are met).[47]
  • Following the majority view in the legal literature, if the place is only accessible to certain categories of persons (such as pupils and high school staff/faculty), it is no longer “accessible to the public”.[48] It is controversial among commentators if the charging of entrance fees also gives rise to such a constellation and henceforth bars from invoking Art. 27.[49]
  • Following the majority view in the legal literature, freedom of panorama does not apply to interior spaces.[50] Hence Art. 27 cannot be invoked for depictions produced in the staircase or the rooms of a building.[51] It is recognized in the literature that in some cases it can be difficult to determine what constitutes an “interior space”. A part of the literature suggests a differentiation of interior spaces (Innenräume) from interior courtyards (Innenhöfe), with only the latter fulfilling the requirements of Art. 27.[52] However, definitorial difficulties remain, for instance, in the case of station halls or shopping arcades which, consequently, are assessed differently by commentators.[53] It is generally held that the interior of a church cannot be depicted under Art. 27.[54]

"Permanently situated":

  • A work is not “permanently situated” within the meaning of the law if it is only visible by accident (e.g. whilst being transported).[55]
  • It is controversial what is required to fulfill the feature “permanently situated”. According to one wide-spread view, this requires that the (objective) intent of the copyright holder is to infinitely present the work in/at a publicly-accessible place.[56] A minority view holds that freedom of panorama can also apply to a work (such as a sculpture otherwise located inside a museum) that is accessible to the public as part of a temporary exhibition.[57]
    Whether Christo’s “wrapped works” can be depicted under Art. 27 is controversial.[58] Posters in public are not considered “permanently situated” by the literature.[59]
  • Works whose lifetime is restricted by natural conditions, such as ice sculptures or chalk paintings on streets, are nevertheless considered permanent.[60]

"General":

  • Applicability to all works: Art. 27 applies to all categories of protected works.[61]
  • Modifications: Modifications of the work are not allowed (Art. 10 URG); however, modifications required due to the reproduction method used are generally considered permitted.[62] Art. 11 prohibits the distortion of the work.
System-search.svgSee also category: Swiss FOP cases

Syria[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK for artistic works ✓OK for buildings

The Freedom of Panorama in Syria is too limited for our needs, see Article 37 of the Copyright Law. However, while architectural drawings are copyrighted, architecture is not (see Article 3(d) ). Therefore images of buildings appear to be OK.

Taiwan (Republic of China)[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK for artistic works ✓OK for buildings {{FoP-Taiwan}}

  • The "Copyright Act" of Republic of China (2004) Article 58 states that:
Artistic works or architectural works on outdoor long term displays on the streets, in parks, on outside walls of buildings, or other outdoor locales open to the public, may be exploited by any means except as specified in the following circumstances:
  1. Reproduction of a building by construction of another building.
  2. Reproduction of a work of sculpture by another sculpture.
  3. Reproduction for the purpose of long term public display in locales specified in this article.
  4. Reproduction of artistic works solely for the purpose of selling copies.

Reproductions of artistic works are thus only for non-commercial purposes; therefore, such photographs are not free enough for Commons : X mark.svg Not OK.

System-search.svgSee also category: Taiwanese FOP cases

Tajikistan[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK see Former Soviet Union

System-search.svgSee also category: Tajikistani FOP cases

Tanzania[edit]

According to article 12 (6) of the "Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act" (1999), reproduction of works of art and works of literature is permitted in audio-visual and video recordings, if the work is permanently located in a place where it can be viewed by the public.

Per Part I, Preliminary provisions, ""audiovisual work" means a work that consists of a series of related images which impart the impression of motion, with or without accompanying sounds, susceptible of beIng made visible, and where accompanied by sounds, susceptible of being made audible."

Zanzibar, which is part of Tanzania, appears to have a separate copyright law. It does not allow for a free reproduction of works in the public premises, except for the works of folklore that are permanently located in a place visible by the public (Article 29-II). In this case, it may be reproduced in the form of a photograph, a film or a television broadcasting.[14]

Thailand[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Thailand}}

Sections 37 to 39 of the Thai Copyright Act of B.E. 2537 (A.D. 1994) state that:

Section 37. A drawing, painting, construction, engraving, moulding, carving, lithographing, photographing, cinematographing, video broadcasting or any similar act of an artistic work, except an architectural work, which is openly located in a public place shall not be deemed an infringement of copyright in the artistic work.
Section 38. A drawing, painting, engraving, moulding, carving, lithographing, photographing, cinematographing or video broadcasting of an architectural work shall not be deemed an infringement of copyright in the architectural work.
Section 39. A photographing or cinematographing or video broadcasting of a work of which an artistic work is a component shall not be deemed an infringement of copyright in the artistic work.
System-search.svgSee also category: Thai FOP cases

Trinidad & Tobago[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Trinidad and Tobago}}

Section 17 of the Copyright Act, Cap. 82:80 states:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 8(1) and 16, the inclusion of an artistic work in a work, broadcast or communication to the public shall not be considered an infringement if the artistic work—
(a) is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public; or
(b) is included in the work, broadcast or communication to the public by way only of background or as incidental to the essential matters represented.

Tunisia[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Tunisia}}

for works permanently situated in public places, with the exception of art galleries and museums[art.10(g)]. Note, though, that Tunisian copyright law also claims to restrict the commercial use of "artistic heritage bequeathed by preceding generations"[art.7], even if situated in public and even if not protected by normal copyright.

System-search.svgSee also category: Tunisian FOP cases

Turkey[edit]

for the exterior surfaces of buildings and all works of fine art permanently displayed on public streets, avenues or squares. Article 4, which defines the term "works of fine art", shows it is ok for all 2D and 3D works permanently displayed on public streets, avenues or squares.

    • Art. 40. Works of fine arts permanently placed on public streets, avenues or squares may be reproduced by drawings, graphics, photographs and the like, distributed, shown by projection in public premises or broadcast by radio or similar means. For architectural works, this freedom is only valid for the exterior form.
    • Madde 40 - Umumi yollar, caddeler ve meydanlara, temelli kalmak üzere konulan güzel sanat eserlerini; resim, grafik, fotoğraf ve saire ile çoğaltma, yayma, umumi mahallerde projeksiyonla gösterme, radyo ve benzeri vasıtalarla yayımlama caizdir. Bu salahiyet mimarlık eserlerinde yalnız dış şekle munhasırdır.
System-search.svgSee also category: Turkish FOP cases

Turkmenistan[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK see Former Soviet Union

System-search.svgSee also category: Turkmenian FOP cases

Uganda[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Uganda}}

According to section 15(1)(g) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006 (Act 19 of 2006) of Uganda, a work of art or architecture may be used in a photograph, an audiovisual work or a television broadcast without infringing the author's copyright and without the author's consent where the work:

  • is permanently located in a public place; or
  • is included in the background or is otherwise incidental to the main object in the photograph, audiovisual work or television broadcast.

Ukraine[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK: {{NoFoP-Ukraine}}

Ukrainian copyright law does not contain a general exception for reproductions of works in public places. Architectural works (plans, models, and actual buildings, §8(1)(9) and §8(1)(12)) as well as a statues and sculptures (§8(1)(8); definition of "work of fine art" in §1) are objects of copyright. The author holds—amongst other rights—the exclusive rights to reproduction, public display, and communication to the public (§15). Architectural and sculptural works are in no way treated differently than other kinds of works in Ukrainian law.

It is claimed [15], though, that article 21(4) of the Ukrainian law on copyright and related rights implied some kind of "freedom of panorama": ...it shall be permitted without the consent of the author (or other copyright holder) and with mandatory indication of the author's name and of the source of borrowing: ... to reproduce, in order to highlight current events by means of photography or cinematography, to carry out public notification or other public communication of the works seen or heard in the course of such events to the extent justified by the informational purpose. This, however, is limited to "informational purposes" and to "current events". It is not general freedom of panorama but a "fair use"-like provision for news reporting.

Note: "Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here in Ukraine--a state with no formal FOP--since the author's works are now in the public domain."

System-search.svgSee also category: Ukrainian FOP cases

United Arab Emirates[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK {{NoFoP-UAE}}

There is no usable FoP provision in the copyright law of the UAE (Federal Law #1 of 1972, Federal Law #15 of 1980, Federal Law #40 of 1992, and Federal Law (7) 2002) Arabic, English. UAE copyright law discusses an FoP like provision in article 22 (7), but it is restricted to "broadcasts". Please see Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 6#Update: UAE FoP situation under dispute for the most recent discussion on FoP in the UAE.

United Kingdom[edit]

✓OK for 3D works
✓OK for 2D "works of artistic craftsmanship"
X mark.svg Not OK for 2D "graphic works" {{FoP-UK}}

Section 62 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is broader than the corresponding provisions in many other countries, and allows photographers to take pictures of

  • buildings, and
  • sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship (if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public).

without breaching copyright. Such photographs may be published in any way.

Note that under UK law, works of artistic craftsmanship are defined separately from graphic works. Graphic works are defined in Section 4 as any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work. The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works - such as a mural or poster - even if they are permanently located in a public place. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder.

The courts have not established a consistent test for what is meant by a "work of artistic craftsmanship", but one of the standard reference works on copyright, Copinger and Skoane James (15th edn, 2005), suggests that for a work to be considered as such the creator must be both a craftsman and an artist. Evidence of the intentions of the maker are relevant, and according to the House of Lords case of Hensher -v- Restawhile [1976] AC 64, it is "relevant and important, although not a paramount or leading consideration" if the creator had the conscious purpose of creating a work of art. It is not necessary for the work to be describable as 'fine art'.

In Hensher -v- Restawhile, some examples were given of typical articles that might be considered works of artistic craftsmanship, including hand-painted tiles, stained glass, wrought iron gates, and the products of high-class printing, bookbinding, cutlery, needlework and cabinet-making. Copinger and Skoane James suggests that original jewellery is another candidate.

Other works that have been held to fall under this definition include hand-knitted woollen sweaters, fabric with a highly textured surface including 3D elements, a range of pottery, and items of dinnerware. The cases are, respectively, Bonz -v- Cooke [1994] 3 NZLR 216 (New Zealand), Coogi Australia -v- Hyrdrosport (1988) 157 ALR 247 (Australia), Walter Enterprises -v- Kearns (Zimbabwe) noted at [1990] 4 EntLR E-61, and Commissioner of Taxation -v- Murray (1990) 92 ALR 671 (Australia).

The practical effect of the broad Freedom of Panorama provisions in the UK and in other countries with similar laws is that it is acceptable to upload to Commons not only photographs of public buildings and sculptures but also works of artistic craftsmanship which are on permanent public display in museums, galleries and exhibitions which are open to the public. According to Copinger and Skoane James, The expression "open to the public" presumably extends the section to premises to which the public are admitted only on licence or on payment. Again, this is broader than 'public place' which is the wording in many countries.

System-search.svgSee also category: United Kingdom FOP cases

United States[edit]

✓OK for buildings only {{FoP-US}}

Buildings are works subject to copyright in the U.S. according to 17 USC 102(a)(8) since the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act was passed in 1990. It applies to all buildings that were completed after December 1, 1990, even if begun before, or where the plans were published after that date.

However, the U.S. federal copyright law explicitly exempts photographs of such copyrighted buildings from the copyright of the building in 17 USC 120(a). Anyone may take photographs of buildings from public places. This includes such interior public spaces as lobbies, auditoriums, etc. The photographer holds the exclusive copyright to such an image (the architect or owner of the building has no say whatsoever), and may publish the image in any way. 17 USC 120 applies only to architectural works, not to other works of visual art, such as statues or sculptures.

This means that for buildings completed before December 1, 1990, there is complete FoP, without regard to whether the building is visible from a public place, because the building is public domain, except for the plans. For buildings completed after December 1, 1990, freedom is given only to photograph such a building, and individual style elements (such as gargoyles, and pillars) are protected, and photos are only allowed for buildings visible from public places.

Note that copyright applies only to "buildings".

"The term building means structures that are habitable by humans and intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and office buildings, and other permanent and stationary structures designed for human occupancy, including but not limited to churches, museums, gazebos, and garden pavilions."

All such works are copyrighted and, therefore, covered by the FOP exemption only if they are visible from a public place.

"Bridges, cloverleafs, dams, highways or walkways are not ‘buildings’ under the definition of architectural works."

Such works do not have a copyright and therefore may be photographed freely, whether or not from a public place.

For a legal discussion, see Wikilegal/Pictorial Representations Architectural Works

Artworks and sculptures Nuvola apps error.png not OK.

For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, the U.S. copyright law has no similar exception, and any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork. However, public artwork installed before 1923 is considered to be public domain, and can be photographed freely. In addition, any public artwork installed before 1978 without a copyright notice is also in the public domain (unless the copyright owner actively prevented anyone from copying or photographing the work until 1978). In these situations, document the date of installation and the creator (sculptor) of the pictured work as much as possible. (A good resource for finding information about U.S. sculptures is the Smithsonian Art Inventories Catalog.)

Applicable templates:

The line of argument that a large sculpture or memorial is a building and therefore covered by the FOP exemption was specifically rejected in Federal claims court (Gaylord v. The United States, 2008), which noted that the building exemption to the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (AWCPA) does not extend to "The Column" sculpture in the Korean War Veterans Memorial because "[t]he structures used in the definition of 'building' by the Copyright Office are intended to house individuals; either for the sake of providing shelter or for another purpose such as religious services."[16] While the court ruled in favor of the defendant under a fair use rationale it was later overturned in favor of the plaintiff; the photograph was deemed a derivative work. The court also contended that had Congress intended to extend the AWCPA to monuments and memorials, the law would have been drafted to reflect that in the first place.

For further legal discussion, see Wikilegal/Copyright of Images of Memorials in the US.

For further information, refer to Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US and the following resources:

For foreign works considered under US law: use {{Not-free-US-FOP}}

Foreign works from countries that have a relevant freedom of panorama may fall under US law for copyright issues within the US. Under the choice-of-law principle lex loci protectionis U.S. courts might apply U.S. freedom-of-panorama standards in such cases, rather than the standards of the source country. However, in practice it is unsettled whether and how this approach would be applied in real world U.S. legal cases involving freedom-of-panorama elements.

See {{Not-free-US-FOP}} and Commons:Requests for comment/Non-US Freedom of Panorama under US copyright law.

System-search.svgSee also category: United States FOP cases

Uruguay[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Uruguay}} Article 45.8 No es reproducción ilícita: [...] La reproducción fotográfica de cuadros, monumentos, o figuras alegóricas expuestas en los museos, parques o paseos públicos, siempre que las obras de que se trata se consideren sólidas de dominio privado;Ley N° 9.739 de 17 de diciembre de 1937 sobre Derechos de Autor (modificada por última vez por la Ley N° 18.046 de 24 de octubre de 2006)

Uzbekistan[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK see Former Soviet Union

System-search.svgSee also category: Uzbek FOP cases

Vatican City (Holy See)[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK Under Law N. XII on Copyright of January 12, 1960 [17], the Vatican decreed that unless church law says otherwise, the precepts of Italian copyright law apply in Vatican City. As noted above, Italy does not allow for freedom of panorama. Thus, sculptures and other works, including buildings, are not ok until 70 years after the death of the architect or designer. The Vatican's publishing house, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, also claims perpetual copyright on the writings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI [18], [19].

Venezuela[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Venezuela}}

The following shall be considered lawful reproductions: (...) (9) the reproduction of a work of art permanently displayed in a street, square or other public place by means of a technique different from that used for the making of the original; with respect to buildings, the said right shall be limited to the external elevations: Law on Copyright, §44 (9).
System-search.svgSee also category: Venezuelan FOP cases

Vietnam[edit]

✓OK {{FoP-Vietnam}}

According to article 25.1(h) of the Vietnamese copyright law, it is allowed to use (i.e. take and publish pictures, or televise) published works of the fine or applied arts or photographs, if the works have already been publicly displayed for "introduction purposes", without obtaining permission from and without paying royalties or other remuneration to the copyright owner.

Zambia[edit]

X mark.svg Not OK According to Section 2 of the Zambian copyright law, "works of architecture" may be objects of copyright. The law provides no exceptions for buildings or artworks visible from public spaces.

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. The law of support the right of Authers, Composers, Artists and Researchers (Copy Right Law) (PDF). Government of Afghanistan (2008-07-21). Retrieved on 2014-04-08.
  2. WIPO, Cambodian Law on Copyright and Related Rights 2003
  3. WIPO, Ordinance-Law No. 86-033 of 5 April 1986 on the Protection of Copyright and Neighboring Rights
  4. Court decision : TGI Lyon, 4 avril 2001, Buren et a. c/ Tassin et a.
  5. court reasoning (french; pdf; 12,5MB)
  6. http://blog.droit-et-photographie.com/originalite-bouillabaisse-et-contrefacon/ counterfeating a picture of a Marseille meal
  7. http://blog.droit-et-photographie.com/originalite-bouillabaisse-et-contrefacon/ Appel court of Aix en Provence confirmed by Supreme court 20 october 2011 : rappele que « l’originalité s’entend du reflet de la personnalité de l’auteur ou de la révélation d’un talent créateur » . que « l’originalité ne se confond pas avec la compétence professionnelle«  En d’autres termes, la simple notoriété et compétence d’un photographe ne fait pas de chacune de ses créations une œuvre originale susceptible de protection . que le photographe ne rapportait pas à suffisance la preuve d’une « activité créatrice révélant sa personnalité, nonobstant la position en arc de cercle des poissons et l’angle de prise de vue utilisé« , avant de considérer, sur le plan technique que « ce cliché n’est révélateur d’aucune recherche dans les éclairages adéquats, la tonalité des fonds, l’environnement mobilier et les angles de prise de vue. Il ne constitue ainsi qu’une prestation de services techniques ne traduisant qu’un savoir faire. »
  8. « s’agissant d’un élément d’un ensemble architectural qui constitue le cadre de vie de nombreux habitants d’un quartier de Paris (…), le droit à protection cesse lorsque l’œuvre en question est reproduite non pas en tant qu’œuvre d’art, mais par nécessité, au cours d’une prise de vue dans un lieu public ; sur la carte postale litigieuse, la Tour Montparnasse n’a pas été photographiée isolément mais dans son cadre naturel qui ne fait l’objet d’aucune protection. » Source: [1].
  9. (5 May 2004). "Copyright Act, 2004". The Gambia Gazette (12). ISSN 0796-0298.
  10. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (10); Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (2); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (3); Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar UrhR, 3rd ed. (2013), § 59 (4, 5); Götting in Loewenheim, Handbuch des Urheberrechts, 2nd ed. (2010), § 31 (238); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (4); Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 59 (3); Grübler in Ahlberg/Götting, BeckOK, 2nd ed. (2013), § 59 (6).
  11. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (9); Wilhelm and Axel Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (1); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (3); Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar UrhR, 3rd ed. (2013), § 59 (4); Grübler in Ahlberg/Götting, BeckOK, 2nd ed. (2013), § 59 (6).
  12. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (7, 10); Wilhelm and Axel Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (2); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (4); Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 59 (3); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (3); Götting in Loewenheim, Handbuch des Urheberrechts, 2nd ed. (2010), § 31 (241); Cornelie von Gierke, (2002): Die Freiheit des Straßenbildes (§ 59 UrhG). Op. cit., p. 110.
  13. Supportive: Wilhelm and Axel Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (2); Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar UrhR, 3rd ed. (2013), § 59 (5); Gass in Möhring/Nicolini, UrhG, 2nd ed. (2002), § 59 (15); undecided: Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (10); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (3); dissenting: Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (4)
  14. As by Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (9); Wilhelm and Axel Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (2); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (3); dissenting: Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 59 (3); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (3).
  15. Supportive: Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (3); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (3); apparently dissenting: Wilhelm and Axel Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (2)
  16. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (9); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (3); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (3).
  17. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (9) for admission control; Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (3); Axel Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (1); Gass in Möhring/Nicolini, UrhG, 2nd ed. (2002), § 59 (15); Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 59 (3).
  18. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (10); Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar UrhR, 3rd ed. (2013), § 59 (5) („sichtbar ist und sein soll”); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (8); Cornelie von Gierke, (2002): Die Freiheit des Straßenbildes (§ 59 UrhG). Op. cit., p. 110.
  19. BGH, I ZR 102/99 (KG) – Verhüllter Reichstag, decided on January 24, 2002.
  20. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (15); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (5); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (4); Götting in Loewenheim, Handbuch des Urheberrechts, 2nd ed. (2010), § 31 (244); Grübler in Ahlberg/Götting, BeckOK, 2nd ed. (2013), § 59 (5); regarding graffiti: Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 59 (5); Wilhelm and Axel Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (2); regarding graffiti and chalk paintings: Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar UrhR, 3rd ed. (2013), § 59 (8).
  21. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (16); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (5); Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 59 (5); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (4); Wilhelm and Axel Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (3); Grübler in Ahlberg/Götting, BeckOK, 2nd ed. (2013), § 59 (5).
  22. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (16); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (4); dissenting: Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (5) for “advertisements on billboards or advertising columns” because they are “pasted over or destroyed on removal”.
  23. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (16); differing: Ernst, ZUM 1998, p. 477.
  24. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (19); Cornelie von Gierke, (2002): Die Freiheit des Straßenbildes (§ 59 UrhG). Op. cit., p. 109.
  25. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (6–8); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (7); Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 59 (3); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (2).
  26. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (8); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (2); Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 59 (3).
  27. italiano «Il Ministero, le regioni e gli altri enti pubblici territoriali possono consentire la riproduzione nonché l'uso strumentale e precario dei beni culturali che abbiano in consegna, fatte salve le disposizioni di cui al comma 2 e quelle in materia di diritto d'autore» (§107(1)); «Nessun canone è dovuto per le riproduzioni richieste da privati per uso personale o per motivi di studio, ovvero da soggetti pubblici per finalità di valorizzazione. I richiedenti sono comunque tenuti al rimborso delle spese sostenute all'amministrazione concedente» (§108(3)). it:Libertà di panorama#Italia.
  28. italiano §10, §13.
  29. http://www.jerseylaw.je/law/LawsInForce/htm/LawFiles/2011/L-29-2011.pdf
  30. The Copyright Law, No. (22) of 1992 (PDF). Kingdom of Jordan (PDF hosted at portal.unesco.org) (1992). Retrieved on 2014-04-11.
  31. Jin-won Choe, The Right of Exhibition and the Freedom of Panorama
  32. English full text; español Mexican copyright law, article 148, in Spanish. Article 148 says: "148. Las obras literarias y artísticas ya divulgadas podran utilizarse, siempre que no se afecte la explotación normal de la obra, sin autorización del titular del derecho patrimonial y sin remuneración, citando invariablemente la fuente y sin alterar la obra, sólo en los siguientes casos... VII. Reproducción, comunicación, y distribución por medio de dibujos, pinturas, fotografías, y procedimientos audiovisuales de las obras que sean visibles desde lugares públicos."
  33. WIPO, English full text of Law No. 2-00 on Copyright and Related Rights (promulgated by Dahir No. 1-00-20 of 9 Kaada 1420 (15 February 2000) "Nonobstant les dispositions de l’article 10 ci-dessus, il est permis, sans l’autorisation de l’auteur et sans paiement d’une rémunération, de rééditer, de radiodiffuser ou de communiquer par câble au public une image d’une oeuvre d’architecture, d’une oeuvre des beaux-arts, d’une oeuvre photographique et d’une oeuvre des arts appliqués qui est située en permanence dans un endroit ouvert au public, [SAUF] si l’image de l’oeuvre est le sujet principal d’une telle reproduction, radiodiffusion ou communication [ET] si elle est utilisée à des fins commerciales." العربية français Copyright Law of 2000 as amended in 2006
  34. Dutch parliament: Kamerstukken II 2002/03 28.482-8, Nota n.a.v. het nadere verslag, p. 15.
  35. a b Dutch parliament: Kamerstukken II 2002/03 28.482-5, Nota n.a.v. het verslag, pp.36-37.
  36. a b c Spoor, J.H; Verkade, D.W.F.; Visser, D.J.G.: Auteursrecht: auteursrecht, naburige rechten en databankenrecht, 3. Ed., Kluwer 2004, ISBN 90-268-3637-4; in particular p. 290.
  37. Dutch parliament: Kamerstukken II 2002/03 28.482-3, Memorie van Toelichting, p. 52
  38. De Zwaan, M.: Geen beelden geen nieuws, Cramwinkel 2003, ISBN 90-75727-844; pp. 185-188.
  39. a b Engelfriet, A.: Fotograferen van kunst op openbare plaatsen: Openbare plaatsen zijn bijvoorbeeld plaatsen langs de openbare weg, maar ook stationshallen of winkelcentra.
  40. Law of Copyrights and Neighboring Right by Royal Decree 65/2008 (PDF). Sultanate of Oman (PDF hosted by WIPO) (2008).
  41. Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2000 (PDF). Government of Papua New Guinea (PDF hosted at UNESCO) (2000). Retrieved on 2014-04-13.
  42. a b Maja Bogataj Jančič, Luka Virag, Rok Jerovšek. Modeli razčiščevanja avtorskih pravic za izbrane skupine avtorskih del za digitalizacijo in/ali objavo na Dlib.si [Models of Clearing up Copyright for Chosen Groups of Creative Work for Digitalisation and/or Publication at Dlib.si] (in Slovene). 29 September 2010. Retrieved 26 March 2012. Pg. 20.
  43. The copyright on these works lasted for 25 years since the publication per the 1978 Yugoslav copyright act.Zakon u autorskom pravu. Službeni list SFRJ. 14 April 1978. XXXIV/19. Article 84.
  44. Matejčič, Katarina (25 March 2003). "Previdno pri uporabi kulturnih spomenikov v oglasih". Finance.si. "Exploitation does not mean that tourists are not allowed to take photos of themselves in front of a building or that a tourist society is not allowed to promote their place with a prospect that includes a cultural monument. It is different, however, if the photography is part of a postcard, when a trademark of a castle is sold for commercial purposes."
  45. Rehbinder/Viganó, URG, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (2); Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (4); Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300; Dessemonet, La propriété intellectuelle et les contrats de licence, 2nd ed. (2011), marginal no. 153; Hilty: Urheberrecht, 2011, p. 209.
  46. Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (4); Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300; Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (5); Sandro Macciacchini: Die unautorisierte Wiedergabe von urheberrechtlich geschützten Werken in Massenmedien. In: sic! 1997, pp. 361–371, p. 369; Renold/Contel in Werra, Gilliéron, Propriété intellectuelle, 2013, LDA Art. 27 (11).
  47. Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (4); Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (4); Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300; Hilty: Urheberrecht, 2011, p. 210.
  48. Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300; Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (4); Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 17; Rolf H. Weber, Roland Unternährer and Rena Zulauf: Schweizerisches Filmrecht. Schulthess, Zürich 2003, p. 147.
  49. In favor: Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300. No limitation to a particular category of persons but merely a general restriction that applies to anyone: Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (4); Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 17.
  50. Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (2, 4); Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300; Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 17; Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (6); Daniel Csoport: Rechtsschutz für Kunstschaffende im schweizerischen und internationalen Urheberrecht. Dissertation, University of St. Gallen, 2008, Internet http://www1.unisg.ch/www/edis.nsf/wwwDisplayIdentifier/3498, accessed on 1 February 2014, p. 25. Dissenting: Wittweiler: Zu den Schrankenbestimmungen im neuen Urheberrechtsgesetz. In: AJP. Nr. 5, 1993, pp. 588 et seq., p. 591; Auf der Maur: Multimedia: Neue Herausforderungen für das Urheberrecht. In: AJP. Nr. 4, 1995, pp. 435 et seq., p. 439.
  51. Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (4).
  52. Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 18; Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (6); Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (4).
  53. Against applicability to station halls: Rehbinder/Viganó, URG, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (2). In favor: Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (6) (also to “park pavilions, shopping arcades and malls”); Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 18 (also to shopping arcades for both “do not constitute an interior space in the current language”).
  54. Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300; Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (6); Sandro Macciacchini: Die unautorisierte Wiedergabe von urheberrechtlich geschützten Werken in Massenmedien. In: sic! 1997, pp. 361–371, p. 369; Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 18; Rehbinder/Viganó, URG, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (2); Hilty: Urheberrecht, 2011, p. 210.
  55. Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (5); Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (9); Renold/Contel in Werra, Gilliéron, Propriété intellectuelle, 2013, LDA Art. 27 (6); Rehbinder/Viganó, URG, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (3) («erkennbar absichtlich dauerhaft an oder auf öffentlich zugänglichem Grund»).
  56. Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (9) («Werke, die sich für unbestimmte Zeit an dem für sie bestimmten Ort befinden [...] Massgeblich ist die zeitliche und örtliche Bestimmung [...] aufgrund der objektiv erkennbaren Widmung durch den Rechtsinhaber»); Rehbinder/Viganó, URG, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (3) («[...] erkennbar absichtlich dauerhaft an oder auf öffentlich zugänglichem Grund befindet»); similar though apparently based on subjective intent: Dessemonet, La propriété intellectuelle et les contrats de licence, 2nd ed. (2011), marginal no. 153 («A notre sens, le critère décisif est l’intention de laisser l’oeuvre en question durablement sur la voie publique»); Hilty: Urheberrecht, 2011, p. 210 («unbestimmte Dauer»).
  57. Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (5); possibly Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 18.
  58. In favor: Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (5); Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (9) (because they are temporary in nature as the creators intentionally limited the duration of their public presentation to a level below their ordinary life expectancy); Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 18. Ineligible: Rehbinder/Viganó, URG, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (4); Hilty: Urheberrecht, 2011, p. 210 (because the artist’s intent is the temporary display); Mosimann in Mosimann/Renold/Raschér, Kultur. Kunst. Recht, 2009, p. 596.
  59. Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (9) (because it is well-known that they are replaced/removed on a regular basis); Dessemonet, La propriété intellectuelle et les contrats de licence, 2nd ed. (2011), marginal no. 153 (posters presented for one or two weeks); Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 299.
  60. Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (5) (snow and ice sculptures); Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (9) (chalk paintings on streets or the sculpture ‚A WAY‘ by Simone Zaugg that was made of sugar); Hilty: Urheberrecht, 2011, p. 209 (chalk paintings).
  61. Uncontested, see e.g. Rehbinder/Viganó, URG, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (2).
  62. Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (13a); Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue permissible, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (6); more restrictive: Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300 (depiction must not modify the original work).

Bibliography[edit]

  • Vogel. In: Gerhard Schricker (Hrsg.): Urheberrecht. Kommentar. 2. Auflage. Beck, München 1999, ISBN 3-406-37004-7
  • Dreier. In: Thomas Dreier/Gernot Schulze: Urheberrechtsgesetz. 2. Auflage. München: Beck 2006 ISBN 340654195X
  • Cornelie von Gierke: Die Freiheit des Straßenbildes (§59 UrhG). In: Hans-Jürgen Ahrens (Hrsg.): Festschrift für Willi Erdmann. Zum 65. Geburtstag. Heymann, Köln u.a. 2002, S. 103-115, ISBN 3-452-25191-8

External links[edit]


This page is based on the German Wikipedia article Panoramafreiheit