Commons talk:Freedom of panorama
Inconsistent enforcing FoP
In theory, pictures from no FoP countries with copyrighted elements are not allowed. In practice, we all know we have hundreds of thousands if not millions. Every day, a few are nominated at deletion and often end up deleting, but even when the nominator mentions 'there are other pictures in the category' nobody bothers to follow them up. Mass nominations are a pain, and dealing with all of those images would paralyze deletion process, drowning the more serious issues. Because, let's face it, FoP is not a serious problem - almost nobody knows it is an issue, and the copyright owners are much more likely to complain because, well, nobody on the Internet respects this facet of copyright law but us. Anyway, the problem is that we are not handling this issue, just letting it fester. We do waste time on deletion tackling the tip of the iceberg, but we refuse to deal with the iceberg. I think we need to have a major discussion/RfC on whether to delete million+ images or stop deleting few random images each day that got reported. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nobody on the Internet respects any facet of copyright law. Archive.org hosts full copies of 25-year-old magazines, though occasionally the works of Harlan Ellison® and a few other authors who demanded their works be removed are excised. YouTube is stuffed full of music videos and TV shows and even movies. There's authors and owners who are loud enough and persistent enough to get rid of their works on major websites, but you don't have to go to the dark web to get copies of anything popular enough. I don't see FoP as much different. The reason that FoP exists is so people can take photos of their surroundings, so it's likely more frequently innocently violated, but also more of the violations are likely to be fair use; "photos of my vacation" are almost invariably going to be treated nicer than "a copy of Return of the Jedi".
- What do you mean by saying FoP, anyway? Buildings we could completely legally ignore, as photos of buildings aren't derivative of the building in the US anyway. The most extensive forms of Freedom of Panorama like UK's, are likely to get us negative response from copyright holders, and adopting a generous interpretation of FoP not supported by most nations doesn't help in making Commons a Free archive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
FOP in Taiwan
Article 58 of the Taiwan copyright law says:
- "Artistic works or architectural works displayed on a long-term basis on streets, in parks, on outside walls of buildings, or other outdoor locales open to the public, may be exploited by any means except under the following circumstances:
- 1.Reproduction of a building by construction of another building.
- 2.Reproduction of a work of sculpture by production of 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."
(1) and (2) don't concern us. We are concerned only with photographs.
(4) prohibits the selling of copies. That means that FOP does not extend, for our purposes, to photographs, but we are not concerned with the sales of copies of paintings or other works.
(3) is a little vague, but I take it to mean literal reproduction, not a photograph of an object.
Therefore, my reading is that we have been too restrictive -- that photographs of any created work except another photograph are permitted. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: It doesn't say the reproduction of an existing building is banned. The Taiwan wording on FOP is a bit vague but doesn't explicitly say a picture of a building is banned. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- I read Article 58 closely, and I consider architectural works to also be artistic works, and thus FoP in Taiwan is " Not OK for buildings" due to the prohibition of selling copies (commercial use) in (4). Is that wrong? If so, where do we draw the line between mundane buildings and buildings with unique architectural designs by sought-after architectural designers who want their designs protected for 50 pma? How can case law in Taiwan inform this discussion? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- No offense but I trust Admin (Jameslwoodward)'s reasoning here much more. Also, one shouldn't change FOP policy on one country without a discussion at least. He will respond when he is free. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- It is incorrect to say that a work of architecture is also an artistic work. By that line of reasoning there would be no FOP for architecture in the eight countries that allow FOP only for architecture. It is true that surface decoration on a building -- gargoyles or murals -- can have a copyright separate from the architecture, so that there are buildings whose photographs cannot be kept on Commons despite in FOP , but that is already well understood here.
- In the USA, at least, the case law is clear that there are no "mundane" buildings -- even the simplest of buildings has a copyright because even a simple building requires hundreds of creative decisions.
- Note that "reproduction" in this context means just that -- reproducing the original. Except for a photograph of a photograph, a photograph is not a reproduction. So (4) prohibits making and selling copy paintings of paintings and photographs of photographs. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- I can't read it that way. "Reproduction of a building by construction of another building." is a weird phrasing if "reproduction" just means in the same form; there is no non-scif-fi way to reproduce a building into another building except by construction. Reproduction of a painting as a poster seems a quite normal reading, and much more commercially relevant than reproduction of a painting by a painting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Here are two relevant blog posts by a Taiwanese copyright law researcher and professor 章忠信: . In his opinion, selling postcards with a photo of the Taipei 101 tower, and selling pencil cases with a 2D drawing of a permanent outdoor sculpture are both ok, whereas selling plastic miniatures of the said sculpture is not. --Wcam (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I was interpreting copyright protection for buildings in Taiwan too broadly, in that I thought photos of them would violate their copyrights. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Freedom of Panorama in UZ
My understanding that Uzbekistan amended the laws and allowed FOP. Please see
point 9 paragraph 2.
- @Armenius vambery: Google Translate (from Russian) says that is for tourists. Does it apply to people who are not tourists, too? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
My understanding that yes. There is no definition of "tourist" in the doc. So they use the word tourist in a sense "someone who shows an interest in the historical places". --Armenius vambery (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Armenius vambery: Yes, I Support such a change. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I do not know what should happens next. If no objections, apparently, someone with sufficient knowledge and skills, should create the tag "FoP UZ".--Armenius vambery (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Is this an actual change to copyright law? Seems like it is a directive to make changes, but the actual law change may not have happened yet. I may be completely misunderstanding it though. Is there a link to the change to the copyright law itself? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution! It is definitely not a decree to make the change, it is a direct order of the President. Why do you think the copyright law should be changed? I did not find anything in conflict. Used this text UZ Copyright Law --Armenius vambery (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure how the legal system works there, if laws have to be approved, or if a law needs to be explicitly changed, etc. As it stands, the copyright law would be in direct conflict with the language in the decree, which (in translation anyways) more sounds like a direction that he wants the laws to go, and not an actual change to the law. Can a president simply decree laws there? Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Updated Albanian FOP according to the new Copyright Law and Others Right relatad.
According to the new Law approved in the Parliament of the Republic of Albania, Law no. 35/2016 of 31.3.2016 "On Copyright and other rights related thereto" (in Albanian language). The Article 82 of this law (which is a new article added) defines:
Reproduction of permanently placed works in public places 1. Reproduction of works may be authorized, without the authorization of the author or copyright holder, and without remuneration, which are permanently placed on public roads, streets, shuttles,parks or squares, and distribution, follow-up to the public of these reproductions. 2. The works referred to in paragraph 1 of this article can not be reproduced in three-dimensional form. 3. With regard to the reproduction of architectural structures, paragraph 1 of this article applies only to the external appearance of the architectural structure. 4. In the cases provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article, the source and authorship of such copies shall be indicated, where applicable.
- Yeah, that looks like a straightforward FoP clause, clearing up any ambiguity from previous laws. Excellent. Category:Albanian_FOP_cases/deleted may need to be revisited. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Basically the new Albanian Law on "Copyright and Others Rights Related" resembles much the German Copyright Law. The law states that: 1) It is allowed taking pictures or otherwise reproduce works that are permanently found outside public places, streets or places (such as squares, plazas) and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies. 2) It is specified that reproduction in 3-D for the cases provided in the first paragraph, is not allowed (in 2-D it is not specified if the reproduction of a work is allowed). It is therefore permissible to photographing a 3-D work or other similar forms (e.g sculptures, monuments, etc.), but not their reproduction in a 3-D form. 3) It is stated that the reproduction of architectural structures cases provided in the first paragraph is allowed only for their external appearance. 4) It is stated that the cases provided in the first paragraph of this law, e.g reproductions, photographs, etc., should be mentioned by their source or author whenever possible --(Bes-ARTTalk) 20:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC))