Commons talk:Freedom of panorama

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

Shortcut: CT:FOP

alt= link=
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15

EU and FoP[edit]

Am I reading this correctly in that the EU is moving to restrict FoP to non-commercial only?

On the “freedom of panorama” principle, such as the right to create and share images and photographs of public buildings, the text cautions that the commercial use of such reproductions should require authorization from the rightholder.

Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you been absent from Commons/Wikipedia for the last days? ;-)
--Túrelio (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

South Sudan[edit]

South Sudan needs to be included into the list. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 12:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:とある白い猫: Then check what it says in the copyright law of South Sudan and add a section with information reflecting what the law says. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
They seem to use old laws from Sudan as all laws mentioned predates the country. So is it just a copy of Sudan?
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 17:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If that is truly the copyright law there, then yes. It appears South Sudan has not yet passed a copyright law of their own. The U.S. Copyright Office's page on copyright relations says the South Sudan copyright relations are "unclear", so they may not be a member of Berne. Usually though previous law stays in place unless explicitly revoked or replaced by the new government, so yes a copy of Sudan is the best guess. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

North Korea[edit]

NK should be added to the list. --Pitke (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Then add it. If someone here know what to add, they probably would have added it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
See COM:FOP#Korea (North). --A.Savin 18:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Can a sculptor CC license a photo of a traditionally copyrighted artwork?[edit]

At Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Sculptor_wishes_to_donated_images_of_copyrighted_sculpture I am seeking clarity on what it means for the copyright holder of a 3D artwork to allow their work to have CC-licensed photographs made of it.

What I think might happen is that the photo is CC-licensed but the copyright of the 3D artwork not change. If this is the case, then I would like Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#3D_art_.28sculptures_etc..29 to reflect that, which it does not.

I would appreciate comments. This relates to much of the discussion about freedom of panorama, and I was hoping to describe the precedent from freedom of panorama discussions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't think it relates directly to the issue of freedom of panorama. They are really separate issues. Although both issues relate to the notions of derivative works or reproductions and although they might interact for a given photograph, as any two issues may sometimes interact, the respective basic explanations of each issue are better kept separate, to avoid causing confusion more than help. The matter of the consent of the author of an artwork to the appearance of views of his/her artwork in photographs offered under free licenses by the photographers, is related to the help page Commons:Derivative works (there may be some marginal question in the doctrine about whether a photograph of an artwork is a reproduction or a derivative work, but it is of little practical consequence for reusers and Commons refers to such photograph as a derivative work). If you add more developments about it in help pages, I suppose it could be in that page Commons:Derivative works or, as you suggest, in the 3-D art section of the casebook collection page now renamed Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter. I would advise against mixing the specific issue of FoP (the possibility of some types of uses in some countries in the absence of the sculptor's consent) into an explanation of the issue of the consent actually given by a sculptor to some uses (unless I'm missing something about what you want to do exactly).
  • On the issue of the consent of the author of an artwork to free-licensed photographs, I guess the reason why the help pages do not extrapolate about the consequences on the status of the artwork may be because help pages provide general information but Commons would not want its help pages to seem to give legal advice about potentially unclear or controversial points. When there is evidence (external or through OTRS communication) that the author of an artwork has explicitly consented to the view of his/her artwork in a specifically free-licensed photograph, we can say that it is okay to reuse this particular photograph under the terms of the license. But if one wants to extrapolate about other consequences, your view, that the photo is validly licensed and that does not affect the otherwise non-free status of the artwork, represents, I think, the opinion generally expressed by Commons users in discussions and it is logical. But would Commons want to represent it as a certainty?
-- Asclepias (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
example of copyrighted sculpture, hosted on Wikipedia because of Freedom of Panorama
Asclepias Thanks for talking this through with me.
On your second point, I think that Commons should say something, even if it is "the community has no idea what to say about this issue." I hope that something more certain can be said, because it is a very common case that people take pictures of 3D art. The reason why I think that Commons should say something is because this is such a common situation.
About your first point - "does this relate to freedom of panorama" I am not sure. Here are the situations -
  • There is a public sculpture. Its copyright holder keeps a restrictive copyright on it. The place has freedom of panorama. Wikipedians do not get permission to photograph from the copyright holder. Wikipedians photograph and upload the photo of the sculpture. This does not change the copyright status of the sculpture, right?
  • There is a public sculpture. Its copyright holder keeps a restrictive copyright on it. The place might or might not have freedom of panorama. Wikipedians get permission to photograph from the copyright holder. Wikipedians photograph and upload the photo of the sculpture. This does not change the copyright status of the sculpture, right?
The cases seem somewhat related to me, because the end effect is the same - the sculpture gets a photo on Wikipedia. I am trying to get opinions on whether giving permission to photograph also releases other rights to the 3D work. With a 2D work, I think the consensus is that permission to photograph is the same as permission to reproduce the work at the highest quality and resolution. I want to find out if Commons has said anything about 3D work.
In a place with Freedom of Panorama, are artists supposed to tell everyone to not photograph their work even when they know people will anyway, because they might lose their copyright if they give permission for it to be photographed?
I am not sure what is correct - I just want other thoughts at this point. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Artists letting people photograph their sculptures is not a big deal. The deal is letting them make derivative works without limit, which implicitly includes 3D derivative works. If Commons permitted the use of a license that explicitly said that 3D derivative works were excluded, then that would be fine, but I don't think Commons would, and that's not part of the CC licenses. FoP is one of those things where we take advantage of what the law gives us, even though it's not what we might ask for, I think.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems what you seek is really about the various possible types of a copyright owner's permission/licensing and their consequences. IMO, in the help pages, it still shouldn't be mixed with the different question of "Freedom of panorama" (FoP). The effects of a given permission, decided by the copyright owner, are determined by the scope and wording of that permission. The effects of a given FoP exception on the use inside a given country are determined by the scope and wording of the relevant sections of the law of that country. The copyright owner (c.o.) can grant a permission for use, which, in a each country, can be more permissive than the use without permission that is allowed in that country by the law of that country. So, in a given country, someone can use the work under the terms of the broader of: the c.o.'s permission or the FoP exception in that country or some other type of exception in that country. If the objective is clarity about permissions granted by a c.o., a reference to FoP seems unnecessary. The effects of a permission are determined by the wording of that permission. But I think I get your point for the discussion: In your quest to determine the effects of a c.o.'s permission, you use the effects of FoP as one possible comparison. In a way, you note that, among the many different possible terms and conditions under which a c.o. could choose to license his/her work, one of the possibilities is that he/she could happen to write a license in terms that might resemble the wording of a FoP provision found in the law of some given country, and to grant that license for one, several or all countries. We can imagine some types of permissions:
  • The c.o. of the artwork places explicitly that work under a universal free license (for example CC-by-sa). Anyone can reuse according to the terms of that license anywhere for any purpose.
  • The c.o. declares a permission for anyone to make and publish two-dimensional representations of the artwork, for any purpose, in some countries only. For example, if a copyright owner wrote "I grant my permission for any person to represent, in a painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or cinematographic work, the sculpture Sculpture and to publish such representation for any purpose in Belgium and in Romania." (You might say that the effect, on a photo, of this type of permission, is to add some types of uses in some countries to the combination of all the FoP exceptions existing in all countries.)
  • The c.o. declares a permission for anyone to make and publish two-dimensional representations of the artwork anywhere, for some purposes only. (If the artwork is situated in a public place, somewhat comparable to some types of exceptions in the laws of some countries.)
  • The c.o. grants permission to one or to some identified persons to publish a particular photo or a particular set of photos under a specified free license, with the understanding that the c.o. of the artwork won't be able to restrict the legal free reuse of those particular photos, but that he/she retains all rights to restrict any other use of the artwork, including to restrict the publication of any other photographs of the artwork not specified in that permission, and that the fact that the c.o. of the artwork has allowed a representation of the artwork to be embedded in the photographic work of the photographer, which photographic work is under a free license granted by the photographer, does not have the effect of placing the sculptural work of the sculptor under that free license. One could say that the permission from the c.o. of the artwork implies that this particular representation of the artwork, as it is represented in two-dimensional form on the particular photo, can be freely reused, but does not imply that the artwork can be reused in three-dimensional form. That seems to makes sense as a principle, and Commons seems ok with that situation, but Commons can't guarantee that someone might not interpret or misinterpret the situation differently.
When there is a permission from the c.o., a potential question may be the interpretation of the c.o.'s wording and intention and of what should or should not be included. Under FoP, where there is a legal reuse without permission from the c.o., that question does not arise.
-- Asclepias (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Asclepias Thanks, yes, you identified my concern. This articulates it exactly - " c.o. of the artwork has allowed a representation of the artwork to be embedded in the photographic work of the photographer, which photographic work is under a free license granted by the photographer, does not have the effect of placing the sculptural work of the sculptor under that free license. One could say that the permission from the c.o. of the artwork implies that this particular representation of the artwork, as it is represented in two-dimensional form on the particular photo, can be freely reused, but does not imply that the artwork can be reused in three-dimensional form".
It seems that FoP is that sort of permission. Photographers may represent a sculpture in their photos, but that does not place the sculptural work into the copyright license of the photograph.
I am having trouble thinking about this and I think I need time to reflect more on this. My concern was to determine if there were something viral about a photograph that can change the copyright status of works which are photographed. It seems that the precedent with FoP is that this does not happen. I recognize that just because the precedent exists with FoP, that does not necessarily mean that the same would be true if the c.o. of a sculpture gave permission for the sculpture to be photographed. I agree that FoP and the "permission to photograph" situation are different.
I will think more about this.
If you have other thoughts then please share. I live in the United States and I have been talking with a city level government policymaker about whether they should apply free licenses to the public art in a few cities. The United States has no FoP, and it would be nice to have photos, but the concern is that the copyright holders routinely sell photos of their sculptures and do not want to give blanket permission for anyone to photograph them. They wish to provide a single image of each sculpture for Wikipedia, but to otherwise not allow free photography. I have to give them some recommendation, and I am still trying to imagine whether it is possible for them to safely upload their photos to Wikimedia Commons. The sculptures are described at en:Category:Outdoor sculptures in Portland, Oregon. This is a difficult issue in the United States.
I appreciate your help. I could not have gotten the insight you shared from anyone other than you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
And I'm still troubled about this. A Free license of a photograph should give someone enough rights to use that photo as, say, the basis for a scene in a game or movie, including a three-dimensional model of whatever is in the photo. That wouldn't necessarily give them rights to use details of the statue not in the photo. I realize this is not how FoP works.
I'm sometimes frustrated by the way some people who aren't really cool with Free licenses upload their stuff to Commons in a way designed to frustrated or deter Free use. It doesn't really make a body of safely reusable work, and it opens up room for nasty surprises on both sides. If people who don't want to give a freely licensed copy of their work, they probably shouldn't be pushed into doing so.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
... that is basically the question. The author of the underlying work certainly can license just the photograph -- basically blessing the photograph as itself, and allowing derivative works of the photograph (say using it as part of a collage in a film or something), but still restricting other derivative works of the original (such as making a 3-D model, which is using none of the licensed expression from the photograph and is thus a derivative work of the original only). The question is if that is "free" or not and if we'd accept it -- I personally think that is just as good as FoP photos, which we allow, and realistically then allows us to get similar photos of works in non-FoP countries, while still respecting the separate copyright of the underlying work (which in many cases the author understandably would not want to license). As a general copyright thing, authors can definitely do that; I'm not entirely sure it's possible within CC's terms, and I don't know if everyone considers it "free". But if we don't allow it, then basically we are preventing our ability to ever get photos of copyrighted works. We seem OK to host FoP photographs, which carry the same restrictions -- if we are happy to do that, I don't see why we wouldn't think it would be OK for authors of underlying works to give the OK to the license of photos in non-FoP locations under similar terms. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I could take a Free painting and use that to make a 3D model of the world therein. I certainly couldn't take a random photograph and legally make a 3D model of what's in the photograph without license; take File:Wishbone Ash 2015 - 03.jpg. File:Keble College Dining Hall 2, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg is more independent. To add a note that the 3D work is not included is as good as FoP, and authors certainly can do that, but I don't know how it interacts with the CC licenses. I will note that FoP is better in that artists have by law given up their ability to control photos of the work, which can be vastly better when the statue is just in the way.
As for preventing our ability to ever get photos of copyrighted works... as I said in the last paragraph, our desire to get photographs for Wikipedia sometimes clashes with our desire to be a collection of Free works, and the example in Blue Rasberry's last post of sculptures who permit one Wikipedia picture is definitely a case where I feel that we could be accepting a frustratingly non-free picture as Free instead of just more honestly using it as non-free.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind that a photographic copyright covers just the expression of the photographer, such as the angle, framing, possibly lighting, and things like that. The CC-BY etc. license of a photograph is *just* licensing those aspects. So yes, in many cases you can make a 3D model of what's in the photograph -- the photographer usually does not have a copyright over that, so even with a copyrighted photo you can do that (free or not). If a photographer selected and arranged the subject though, then that is an additional copyright (which is fixed in the same photographic work), and that is where making a 3-D version is an issue -- it is derivative of the selection and arrangement copyright, not the photographic expression per se. That is what got Jeff Koons in trouble in the Rogers v. Koons case. So with a photographic copyright, the license is for that -- and I guess the underlying author can certainly OK the picture without licensing the statue's copyright directly -- that is basically granting the equivalent of FoP for that photograph in places without FoP. As you say, I'm not exactly sure how that interacts with CC licenses either, but it sure seems like it should be possible, if we accept CC-BY-SA (etc.) licensed photos of FoP works. You could even argue that CC's answer as regards to low-resolution versions of a painting would actually support this case, where the sculptor can agree with a license on a separate work without directly licensing the original. For a low-resolution version of a 2-D work, the only copyright is that of the original work, so that would have to be licensed directly (at least in part -- that is where I do not understand their answer, as I think it should be possible to just license a portion of the work.) There is some question as to how the CC licenses interact with it I guess, as I don't think anything like that has ever gotten to court, but if CC licenses are OK with FoP works then I don't see any real problem with a sculptor granting the equivalent of FoP rights on a particular photo or photos. I would tend to think the courts would also tend to side with the authors, letting them do what they want with their copyright. In the case of adaptations / derivative works, I think it's "free" to just be able to use the underlying work in the context of the adaptation only. That at least allows adaptations to be free, as a stricter interpretation would mean they can never be free unless the original is also completely "free" with no restrictions, and I think that is actually damaging to the "free" movement itself (as well as Wikipedia). It will severely limit a lot of types of possible free material which could be used. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Allow panoramas that are not free for commercial use[edit]

It is my opinion, that Wikimedia Commons should allow photos of artwork, where we do not allow commercial use of the photo. That way we would be able to illustrate articles about artwork or constructions created with special architectural skills. That is, we would also allow NC versions of the Creative Commons license, but only for photos of artwork located in public space. The reason for this proposal, is that several countries do not allow unrestricted commercial use of photos of artwork located in public space. Meaning Wikipedia/Wikimedia can not have photos of them.--BIL (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia can host such images under a fair use rationale; Wikimedia Commons though cannot host images using that rationale as works here are not tied to a specific use. This goes well beyond Commons policy so it is not something we can change; it is mandated by the Foundation (see wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy), and we use the definition found at , which does state the copies must be allowed to be sold (and that has long been part of the "free" principle). Yes, such a policy does somewhat harm Wikimedia projects which are all educational and thus noncommercial, but when trying to produce a free encyclopedia, that comes with the territory. The fair use rationales are part of bridging that gap though. Also, note that while some countries do allow noncommercial use of works permanently placed in public, not all countries even allow that, so such photos would still be an issue there. The U.S. concept of "fair use" usually does not apply in those countries either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

South Korea[edit]

Hello. I recently saw that there is no freedom of panorama in South Korea. However, I made a lot of pictures there and also uploaded them here, especially of Sungkyunkwan University and the Blue House. Are these okay? And for the licences, do I have to choose something that prohibits commercial use? --Christian Bolz (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

No, unfortunately the photos which show modern buildings - not all photos in the categories show modern buildings - are not ok.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Pakistan[edit] changes Pakistan to say no to 2D art, but there's no support:

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".

This is obviously a bad quote; I don't know what the first sentence fragment is supposed to say. What it definitely doesn't say is no to 2D art and yes to 3D art; the first sentence lumps architecture with painting, for example, and it's unclear what "sculpture or other artistic work" means.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same as India and UK. 2D "works of artistic craftsmanship" means things like tapestry, but most 2D art is not included (painting, photography, etc.). Regards, Yann (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not the same as the UK. Pakistan does have "works of artistic craftsmanship" in their definitions, but the FoP clause clearly states: 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. The clause includes artistic works, which are defined in article 2(c) as (i) a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph, whether or not any such work possess artistic quality; (ii) an architectural work of art; and (iii) any other work or artistic craftsmanship. So "artistic works" clearly includes works of artistic craftsmanship along with paintings, drawings, maps, diagrams, charts, paintings, photographs, and 2D works of the kind. I don't see anything in that law which limits FOP to works of artistic craftsmanship -- the law would explicitly use that term if it did. (I suspect there was some OCR issues which changed "of" to "or" in a couple places in the linked WIPO text; I assume that the FOP clause should be making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of an architectural work of art, and in the clause I quoted, any other work of artistic craftsmanship.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I reverted my addition. It is surprising because in (almost?) all ex-British colonies (India, Australia, New Zealand, Burma, Canada, Hong Kong, Malta, Singapore, USA, etc.), FoP does not apply to 2D art. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it is a little odd. Pakistani law reads very very close to the Indian copyright law (which is what it was more directly based on, and which does have "of" instead of "or" in those places btw), but the FoP article eliminated the language from the Indian law which limited it to works of artistic craftsmanship. Not sure why, but that does seem to be the law. I think Bangladesh is similar. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Yann: As far as I can tell, yes 2D art (paintings, drawings, maps, pictures, engravings, etc.) are not okay in Pakistan, including work or artistic craftsmanship. --Saqib (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
As far as you can tell from what? The law we are quoting in on the page right now, the text I quote at the top of this section does not say that. I'd rather we didn't change things based on vague remembrances instead of actual law or relatively authoritative interpretations of the law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Map needs to be updated[edit]

The current map does not show Kosovo separated but rather within Serbia. Please update it if you happen to have the right skills. --Altin.ukshini (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)