Commons talk:Freedom of panorama

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from CT:FOP)
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: CT:FOP

Christmas lights in Spain[edit]

Are Christmas lights installed as arches on a Spanish street OK as free images, or should I not bother nominating s picture showing several of them at COM:FPC? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess no-one follows this board regularly, so whenever anyone answers this, please post a pointer in my user talk page or at least ping me. Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Nazi graffiti in Germany[edit]

Firstly, graffiti may be copyrightable. Secondly, German criminal law has a section against Nazi symbolism. And thirdly, only permanently displayed works fall under German freedom of panorama. --84.61.140.85 20:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're bringing this up here. That's conflating three issues, and doesn't seem to be responding to anything on this page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Mass deletion requests being issued for Saudi cities[edit]

I can not see how is it okay to issue mass deletion requests of the sort user Ras67 has doing recently for Saudi cities in the light of the FOP policy without consulting the community, as he did here, here, here and here. These few deletion requests have erased over 200 photos of the already scarce and struggling content of Saudi Arabia's photos on Wikimedia Commons. If this is actually the case we want it be, it could be relevant as well just to ban all users from third world countries with poor legislation laws to use Commons uploader at all, since all their efforts are going to waste anyway. User groups in the Middle East have been hosting Wiki Loves Monuments and various other events for promoting Commons' usage in the region throughout the last few years, such enormous efforts would have rather been orientated towards Arabic Wikipedia and other local language versions if everything they have worked on for Commons can be just momentarily mass-erased in such requests. This problem applies to a ridiculously large pool of images that it cannot, and should not, be handled on such a short notice and unresponsible manner, as though if it is only affecting few individual images or categories. This matter requires urgent look through and, meanwhile, similar deletions should cease for the moment --Abbad (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC).

We have had the same problem with Russian photos for years, and thousands of useful images have been lost. To my knowledge, there is no interest in solving this problem here, because the majority of Commons users simply pride themselves on running such massive deletions again and again. They don't even care about figuring out the details, they just say that something may be copyrighted and delete the image. The only solution is to stop using Commons and switch to local uploads. --Alexander (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
A DR is a means of consulting the community and the Commons community cannot be blamed for respecting relevant copyright legislation. Obviously, FOP is only relevant for photos of copyrightable works, i.e. not photos of nature, society or utilitarian objects. Using the other stuff exists argument, you seem to be suggesting that we stop respecting copyrights in that area, a suggestion that is neither helpful nor realistic.    FDMS  4    14:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The "other stuff exists" means that it won't make any difference if FOP-related files are deleted in 14 days or 21 days or 30 days instead of 7 days. Since it is Commons community who decides to nominate files for deletion, it is their sole responsibility to inform end users and give them enough time to transfer images that can be uploaded locally (under fair use, or due to a different interpretation of FOP rules; this difference does exist for many of the Russian photos, and it affects thousands of images that are used by different projects).
The Commons community should be definitely blamed for not doing any of that and simply elaborating on covert file deletions, as if other Wikimedia projects (who actually brought these files to Commons) did not exist. --Alexander (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
FDMS4, So you are actually convinced that deleting ten thousand photos or so by hundreds of single DRs is the same level of community consultation as a discussing in, say, the village pump, or it is just the first argument you thought of to defend the 'community' which apparently you felt was being blamed? In either case, claiming of this process is a kind of 'copyright respect' is only a part of the terribly unthoughtful interpretation of the situation here. I have to agree with Alexander that there seem to be a fair amount of pride causing trouble here. Commons' users from European or developed countries, with a completely different legislation, are expecting legal processes in every part of the world to work exactly the way it does for their governments. If you consulted a lawyer from Saudi Arabia about copyright issues for any of these photos, he could laugh his ass off about it. This is what I had like to call a false interpretation; you want to respect something that, in the sense you are conceiving, does not even exist. It is not just the laws are different, but they are even executed differently; therefore, what is required for FOP to be viable in, for example, Norway's legislation might not and will not make any sense for Saudi laws. When Saudi Arabia's government had to concerned with such a problem, it issued the decree which is referenced right here in the policy's page. It is not possible that the government will present us with any further documents on this matter because, the way things work in Saudi Arabia, it is absolutely quite enough. We can even, fairly easily, contact Saudi Wikimedians to consult lawyers or confirm FOP rules from government sources. In Saudi Arabia, this is as far as we can go. If there is any reasons this is not enough, I can not help but to feel it is the 'pride' and false perspective --Abbad (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC).
No, I am disputing that number. No-FOP enforcement isn't something that started yesterday, on the contrary, for many years thousands of different volunteers have been nominating files for deletion for exactly that reason. Just like there are probably thousands of blatant copyright violations on Commons right now there will always be still-to-be-detected no-FOP cases. If copyright didn't exist in Saudi Arabia (it does), what would the point in uploading content to a repository of media with a certain copyright status be anyway? Also, do you consider France or Italy developing countries?    FDMS  4    23:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
If you want a confirmed number, I am sorry that I can not provide you one, but how does that even matter other than the fact we have a vast number of pictures in question? Certainly, it is not the individual category case that is usually handled by regular DRs, which is the sole point I was making of this reference. I can not really see how any previous execution of DRs is relevant to the fact that it is wrong to do it this way. I never said Saudi Arabia had no copyright laws, what I said was merely a discussion of how FOP rules could apply to Saudi law. If you want to re-ask the question again for the concept of FOP in itself and if it ever existed in Saudi Arabia, then I daresay that the answer may very well be no, it never did. For France and Italy, I will say again that the sole point of this reference is to explain perspective difference, it is not really relevant whether they allow FOP or they do not --Abbad (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC).
You are free to make that point, I just believe the number of files is actually very small compared to the overall number of SA-related files. Furthermore, I believe that the amount of files affected by itself is irrelevant here since consensus to delete no-FOP cases does not need to be established on a per-county basis (if an individual DR-batch-nominated file's no-FOP status is disputed that file should of course be renominated and discussed separately). It might very well be that this is absolutely obvious to you, still I'd like to remind you that "the concept of FOP" is an exemption; a lack thereof thus doesn't mean that we can keep files otherwise affected by it. Your point was that European developed countries (I hope that "or" there was accidental, btw :) ) and Middle Eastern ones have "completely different legislations", I fail to see how this is relevant here since FOP exemptions are actually exactly the same in some countries of both groups (i.e. nonexistent).    FDMS  4    01:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
this kind of mass deletion is what makes commons hated among the larger community. you can be rigorous without being an asshole, but why start now? having periodic purges after the uploaders are long gone, and the options for a wiki to migrate as "fair use" are non-existent, tends to cement the bad reputation. we need to put panoramio images in maintenance categories for triage, but why fix when you can mass delete. and hey, if an army of angry uploaders put on "do not transfer to commons" it's less work for you. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
given the fact that there is an EDP at arabic, why don't you use fair use bot to transfer all the deleted images there? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 00:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

India[edit]

The India section is currently being discussed at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#FOP in India (permalink).    FDMS  4    15:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Photos of nonfree works - is there a tag?[edit]

Images in Commons invoking freedom of panorama (FoP) are derivatives of nonfree works. In various places sometimes it is said that Commons hosts only free content, but this is not accurate, nonfree works are the subject of most photos in the FoP photos.

When Commons:De minimis is used to rationalize the upload of an image, then the image gets a tag like this.

Orange copyright.svg Warning: One or more elements in this image are protected by copyright

Some parts of this file (statue) are not fully free but believed to be de minimis for this work. Derivatives of this file which focus more on the non-free element(s) may not qualify as de minimis and may be copyright violations. As a direct consequence it might be needed to review the copyright status if you crop the picture.
The reason given is: This work is illustrating a park and the statue is in the background..


The Dark Knight movie poster - censored copyright.jpg


However if FoP tags go on an image, we have no way to differentiate free and non-free works. Has anyone ever tried to develop a tag on this subject?

The problem which I am seeking to address is how an artist/copyright holder in a country without FoP can apply the same kind of permission which the state government grants in countries with FoP, in order that images of a copyright holder's work can appear in Commons. The challenge is addressing confusion when reviewers in Commons say that if an artist gives permission, such as for a sculpture in a public park, then they have to apply a free license to the entire sculpture for it to be in Commons and not just permission for the photo as a derivative work. Obviously this is not the case, because with our FoP rules, lots of nonfree sculptures are photographed and uploaded to commons as freely licensed images which are derivatives of the original nonfree sculpture.

FoP laws are designed to automatically grant photographers licenses to take photos of certain nonfree works. How can someone express that same kind of license for nonfree works, when there is artist/copyright holder permission, in countries without FoP? Surely it is not the case that we accept government licenses when including nonfree works in Commons, but not copyright holder permission, right?

Also - can people who reply please state whether they recall seeing this issue addressed before? The archives are vast here and even if anyone cannot find a similar previous discussion I would like to hear if anyone remembers one happening. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No-FoP-Iceland template?[edit]

Could someone please create a No-FoP-Iceland template to add to categories of copyrighted public art in Iceland? For some reason, we seem to not have one, and I can't quite figure out how to make on in the style of those already existing for other countries. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Germany: Copyrighted logo on a ship falls under FOP[edit]

Stumbled upon this today: BGH: Panoramafreiheit deckt Foto von Aida-Kussmund (heise.de, in German). Also mentioned: Advertisements on buses, trams etc. --El Grafo (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


Tanzania[edit]

Tanzania is shown red on the map, but in the text it is ok. Who edits the map?Kipala (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)