Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 4

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

Philippines

I have added a brief section on the Philippines, which I believe I have interpretted correctly. J Milburn (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Chile

I don't speak Spanish, but with Google translate, it appears that the Chilean copyright law, articles 43 and 44, contain freedom of panorama for both works of architecture and artwork in public places. Could a Spanish speaker confirm, and determine if there are any technicalities (i.e. is there a definition of "public place"; did they intend just outdoors or indoors too?). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Article 43 is actually strange. It says "The reproduction of architectural works by means of photography, film, TV, or similar processes, as well as the publication of the corresponding photographies in newspapers, magazines, and scholarly texts is permitted and not subject to royalties (remunerations of copyright)". That seems to limit FOP for buildings in a way that would not be OK here.
Article 44 then goes on to say "All monuments and artistic works in general that are placed on squares, avenues and public places may be freely reproduced by means of photography, drawing, or any other means. The publication and sale of such reproductions is permitted." That make Chilean FOP OK of sculptures and other artworks.
The prize question now is "are architectural works artistic works?" If so, article 43 would be redundant... I don't know what they intended. They do list architectural works separately in article 3, where the protected kinds of works are enumerated, but they also separate paintings and drawings from "sculptures and artistic figurative works" there. They don't define "artistic work" in article 5 (definitions).
In any case, Chile has FOP for non-buildings. Whether it covers 2D works (graffiti, paintings) is unclear. (Again, the question is what exactly do they mean by "artistic work"?) Lupo 20:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Question on cross-country implementation of FoP

English Wikipedia sticks to the US laws, thus allowing en:fair use, for example. Although this concept exists in legislation of quite a few countries, editors are free to use it, even if they hail not from US.

As far as I know Commons is (are?) hosted in US also, so why is something that is legal according to US laws (photo of a sculpture copyrighted building in Russia, for example) is not allowed here? Alaexis (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Commons only accepts media that is free in both the source country and the United States (see Commons:Licensing). As there is no FOP in many countries such as Russia or France, images of sculptures from those countries are not acceptable. Also Fair use imagery is not acceptable on Commons, but can be on en.wikipedia (and certain other projects) if it is used in accordance with relevant local policy. The only real exception to this rule is the {{PD-Art}} tag, which is not relevant to works that are covered by FOP.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Hm, but note that for FOP, we actually only apply the law of the source country in exception of our usual rule to apply both the laws of the source country and that of the U.S. (Otherwise, we would have to remove images of copyrighted sculptures from countries that do have FOP, such as Germany or the UK, too, because the U.S. has FOP only for buildings.) We are being inconsistent in that respect, especially since we chose to apply only U.S. law for PD-Art (i.e., exactly the other way 'round.) Lupo 13:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I know that at the Commons fair use images are not accepted, that was an example of the approach.
As far as I understand there are two possible consistent approaches - to stick to US laws for all the works (no copyrighted sculptures from the likes of Germany) or to stick to local laws (no copyrighted buildings and sculptures from half a Europe, including all the former USSR states). The first one seems to me less damaging to the project. Maybe something else could be thought up. Alaexis (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually yeah, we are saying "source country FOP law applies". I suppose the difference comes from COM:L stating "explicit free license" or "PD in both source and the US". If FOP is invoked the work is not going to be in the PD, so its the "free license" that allows it to be hosted. The legality of that free license depends on the law in the source country, not any other. I think that is consistent with the general rule at COM:L (and contradicts what I initially said :) ), but it is awkward. We can't really ignore the source country law in this situation (the Atomium is example as to why we need to respect local law), so the consistent options are "follow the source country law" or "follow the more restrictive of US and source country law", unfortunately either way we can't stuff from the very restrictive countries. Deciding we had to follow both the local law and the US law in all cases would mean losing a lot of imagery, for little or no benefit.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Cross-border imagery

Above thread made me think of something else: What do we do about cross-border photography? Usually the photographer and the subject are in the same country so its clear what rules apply, but what if that isn't the case? As for a few examples:

  1. If there is a sculpture in France adjacent to the Franco-German border and I take a picture from Germany does German FOP apply?
  2. How about if its a German work and I'm in France?
  3. And what happens if the photo is taken from outside any jurisdiction (such as international waters or low earth orbit). If the US government released a recon satellite image of the Atomium, could we use it?

I'm genuinely not sure what to think on that. Demanding that its acceptable under the FOP of both the country the work is located in and where the picture is taken from is the safe option, but I'm thinking that may be too cautious.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer. Yet, my understanding is that
  1. Yes, German Panoramafreiheit applies
  2. No, you would have to go to Germany to take the picture
  3. Yes, I assume
Anyway, even if I am right, this doesn't offer you any guarantee that you would not have to go to court to defend your rights. ;-) As long as you publish your work in a FOP-friendly country, I believe you are safe. For example, the German law doesn't extend beyond the German border and there I suppose that the copyright of your photos cease to be all yours: you share it whith the copyright holder of the sculpture. — Xavier, 23:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be more important to consider the country of publication. In Germany, you are free to publish photos taking advantage of freedom of panorama according to German law taken anywhere in the world, including the Atomium. This is possible because of the so-called Schutzlandprinzip according to which copyright violations are handled according to the law of that country a protection is looked for. Please be refered to Article 5 (2) of the Berne Convention: Consequently, apart from the provisions of this Convention, the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but not exactly helpful for us. We're generally taking the country where the sculpture (or building) was first published as the source country of the work shown, and that's the country important for our FOP. In other words: for us, the source country is the country where the sculpture or building is located. Otherwise, we'd have to allow for instance pictures of the Atomium (taken in Brussels) by a German tourist who first published the images in Germany. Lupo 07:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
This is really interesting. I didn't know that the Panoramafreiheit exception extended to the whole world, at least in Germany. Does it mean that any free picture that is rejected here, because of the lack of FOP in the country where it was taken, can be safely published on the German WP? Does the German law extend this freedom to something else than pictures, like small 3D reproductions for example? — Xavier, 22:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
To your first question: Usually yes. But the "Schutzlandprinzip" is not specific to Germany, it simply states that each nations law is valid for all rights claimed inside of this nation. Regarding your second question: In Germany Freedom of Panorama allows reproduction only by means of paintings, graphics, photography or film. 3D objects (such as scale models) can't refer to FoP. --h-stt !? 17:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the interpretation above is Lupo's rule irrelevant for us. The country of origin is a well known term in copyright treaties and has nothing to do with the place where a building is situated. The country of origin is the nationality of the creator, nothing else. If we would like to see it like Lupo we have to change our policy --Historiograf (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidently you overlooked this in the Berne Convention. Take a look again at article 5(4)(c)(ii). Either buildings are published by being constructed, in this case the country where the building is located would be the source country. Or constructing a building is not "publication", and then BC §5(4)(c)(ii) says it's again the country where the building is located. Your "nothing else" dictum from above does not apply to architectural works that are in a country that is a Berne Convention signatory, which is most countries nowadays. Lupo 19:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Artwork vs. architectural decorative detail in US

I have long been puzzled by the issue of where the line is drawn between: (a) decorative detail on an architectural work in the US (i.e. FOP applies), and (b) 2D or 3D artwork installed at/on a building but separate from the architectural work (i.e. FOP does not apply). I am involved now in a deletion discussion involving exactly this issue, and I would very much like to find out what a knowledgeable person (in other words, not me) has to say about it.

This is, of course, hardly the only case. A couple of other instances that have bothered me are here and here. I have also normally assumed that FOP does not apply to most murals painted on buildings, but I wonder if there's more nuance to that as well. —Werewombat (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletion due to the lack of FoP

Hi! A mass deletion of pictures of Burj Khalifa has been requested due to the lack of FoP in the UAE: Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Category:Burj Khalifa and Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa.

Wile I'm not against such a deletion when BK if the central element of the image, I've expressed my concern that we also delete pictures as soon as a part of the tower shows up somewhere, even if BK is not the main subject. You can hardly take a picture in Dubai without a (copyrighted) skyscraper in it. So I suppose there must be some kind of reasonable threshold (in terms of percentage of the picture for example) under which we can safely keep a picture that unfortunately contains a copyrighted work.

I would like to read your opinion, here or on the DR page, on my arguments and on the examples I give to refute part of the deletion. Thank you. — Xavier, 19:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Commons:De minimis would apply for photos where the tower is not an essential element of the photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Great! Thank you a lot Carl, that is exactly what I was looking for. BTW, don't you think there should be a mention to Commons:De minimis in the COM:FOP page?
As I understand it, De Minimis covers cases like File:Burj Dubai in Skyline on 29 November 2007.jpg but also cases like File:Burj Dubai Construction Workers on 25 January 2008 Pict 2.jpg or File:Burj dubai 2.jpg where the towers in the background are only secondary, despite their importance.
Yet, I have two cases where De Minimis doesn't apply:
  • Parts of building: a closeup on a small part, considering the the overall building. For example, take File:Burj Dubai 20090121 (close-up of spire).jpg Is that small part really copyrighted? Between a close-up on a steel beam (fortunately not copyrighted) and a picture of the whole building, there must be a threshold where the copyright starts. Any idea what this threshold is?
  • Buildings in construction, like File:Burj2.jpg. My understanding is that the finished building is copyrighted but not its early stages of construction. Here again, there must be a threshold between the first excavation and the finished building. Any idea? — Xavier, 22:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Without any explicit laws or court cases, the only thing we can do is guess :-) Who knows, it is possible that this type of thing would be ruled OK in the UAE if a court case ever actually came up -- it may be that it was never considered by the drafters of the legislation. Every country is different. However, there have been lawsuits in other countries with similar clauses in the law (or lack of any mention of this situation), and the architect's rights were upheld, so... we stay extra careful. Normally, photos of the skyline should not be a violation, correct. The photo of the workers, no so sure -- it is positioned so the building can be seen, and really the workers are not notable themselves, so the picture of the building is the main reason it was uploaded. Under construction is a rather interesting situation... you can make arguments that it isn't (yet) the intended expression copyrighted by the architect, but who knows. If you know of a court case (anywhere) which made that distinction, point it out. The question is, what contains the expression as authored by the architect. Rather difficult question, and we are likely to stay conservative in our guesses, but there may be some arguments there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Carl for your opinion. I understand and will accept the conservative measures Commons will have to take in such a situation. Unfortunately, I'm not savvy enough in copyright law to defend the borderline cases I have listed above and I don't know of any similar court case either (hence my question here). As for the workers, I have to object here:
  • a similar picture exists where the focus is on the building, not the workers. A good candidate for deletion.
  • in comparison, the focus here has clearly been put on the workers and the tower in background (which is already cropped) could be removed or blurred without affecting the overall informational quality of the picture. After all, it's quite difficult to take a photo of workers at work without the surrounding areas.
If anyone else has heard of anything related to the copyright status of buildings in construction, I'd be eager to read it. Cheers. — Xavier, 22:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm somewhat unsure about FoP, in general, with respect to construction and some case law from anywhere would be handy. Just like some buildings are non-copyrighted due to the sheer simplicity of the design, I'm sure that the same would apply to many construction images. Clindberg's comment about "what contains the expression as authored by the architect" is probably the most valid test there, unless we can get guidance from how laws interpret it. One thing I am concerned about: If copyright applies during the construction phases, how does that interact with the "permanent placement" clause in countries with FOP? If the internal elements of the building are visible, like in this image, and these are copyrightable - can we say that they are permanently placed in a public place? After all after a few months they will be concealed behind the permanent outer structure. This strikes me as excessive paranoia, but you never know how extreme it would be in some jurisdictions (without evidence) :)--Nilfanion (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this at all... The law says: the author (...) must not prohibit a third person to perform one of the following acts: (...) 7. Presenting the fine arts, applied and plastic arts works or architectural works in broadcasting programmes, if such works are permanently present in public places.
So this should mean that the author must not prohibit presenting of architectural works, i.e. freedom of panorama exists, right? --Matija (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The crux is that it's limited to "broadcasting programmes". Photos are not broadcasting programmes, and neither are videos unless they're being broadcast by a TV station. Lupo 15:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
But the law doesn't even mention photos, so they are not prohibited, right? --Matija (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Photos are reproductions (or derivative works, as the case may be). Copyright reserves the right to make or authorize reproductions or derivatives of a work to the author(s) of the work. FOP is an exception rule in copyright, so unless it mentions photos, FOP does not include photos. Lupo 11:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, this sucks so much. So what do we do now? Not have a single photo of Burj K.? --Matija (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the real question we need to answer is How does it serve the goals of this project to delete hundreds of images of PD buildings?. In my view the answer is "it doesn't". In August 2008 the community voted to relax the rules for one category. In my opinion we should think about getting a similar exception for buildings. 9carney 9carney (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Mike Godwin recently suggested that Commons should relax its policy, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:2004 Landmark v Ross answer.pdf. For almost all buildings it would be safe to wait for a DMCA takedown notice by the architect. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
With respect to most countries I think you are correct, but there are a few countries that are quite militant as to their non-FOP buildings, France and Italy especially come to mind, and I would think it wise not to ignore the opinions of those members of Commons. -Nard the Bard 23:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Also in those countries, it is just a few buildings and a few architects that try to control photography. Lists have been compiled. Almost everything else is quite unproblematic. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No FOP in Nigeria?

Is that correct? - That's my reading of http://www.nigeria-law.org/CopyrightAct.htm 9carney (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it might do to some degree actually. Under the heading "Second Schedule" it says that "The right conferred in respect of a work by section 5 of this Act does not include the right to control-" ... "(d) the reproduction and distribution of copies of any artistic work permanently situated in a place where it can be viewed by the public;". I'd have to study it more closely to be more confident about this issue though. Adambro (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree - looks like I missed that section. Thanks. 9carney (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ukraine and other OK/not OK wording removals

I think the wording "news only" is a bit awkward. We should say clearly if it is OK or not OK. Is this "news only" free-enough for Wikimedia Commons ? My opinion is that it is not free-enough, and we should write "Not OK" there, instead. This would be free-enough for direct uploads on wikinews, but this is not free-enough for Wikimedia Commons. Teofilo (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I want to be able to quote "COM:FOP#Ukraine" as saying "Not OK", without needing to explain each time that the Ukrainian law is not free enough for Commons (as I had to do on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mazepa-chernigov(zoom).jpg).

I have checked the "history" tab, and it turns out that many "OK/not OK" wordings were removed by ViperSnake151 in this diff and a few others from 26 January 2010 to 30 January 2010. I don't see any explanation for this change, while I see many drawbacks, so I am reverting these changes, back to the "OK/not OK" version of 25 January 2010. Teofilo (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Very disruptive and sneaky change; repeal ViperSnake's rollback rights? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Probably his intention was to improve the English language ("allowed" sounds nicer than "OK"), and thought that this was a minor change, but did not realize some of the consequences. This does not change my general opinion about ViperSnake151 being somebody helpful for Commons. Teofilo (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, so this was not a content change? I thought that he had reversed things. Anyway, something like that should not have been done without discussion. There was not even an edit summary. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Changing "not OK" into "news only", in the case of Ukraine, could have made some users believe that newsworthy items might be allowed on Wikimedia Commons. In that sense it is a content change. All changes are similar to the Ukrainian case, except Algeria, where "OK" had been changed to "non commercial" for unclear reasons. Some longer explanation for Canada had been removed too. Teofilo (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I used "allowed" instead of OK to make the language better, and better explain that it's not allowed on Commons. Maybe I'll clean up the descriptions for the non "not allowed/allowed" situations and say stuff like "Press only, not allowed" or "Non-commercial only, not allowed". In addition, you'd think those red X's would be a blatant indication that it's not allowed? Also I do not see what this has to do with rollback rights. ViperSnake151 (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the red X's is that they can't be used as easily as a quote with words, when I want to bring attention about this page during a Deletion Request (and their meaning cannot be ascertained as easily as a word, because while you can check the meaning of a word in a dictionary, there is no dictionary for icons. For that reason, in my view, icons have less authority than words). If I make a Deletion Request quoting "press only, not allowed", I am pretty sure some uploaders will answer "I intend this picture for the press, so please keep it, don't delete it" and they will question whether such files should be deleted from Commons. The problem if I try to improve the language of "OK" or "not OK", which are so short, is that all the improvements that come to my mind, like "Such pictures are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons" or "The laws of that country are not free enough for Wikimedia Commons" make much longer sentences, and It will take more time typing when using as a quote. As something both authoritative (something I can quote with an unambiguous meaning, telling what the Commons policy is in that matter) and short, the "OK/not OK" wording seems to be hard to surpass. Teofilo (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What about Senegal?

Example: File:DakarMonumentRenassance100109.jpg. --GaAs11671 09:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I found that: http://www.bsda.sn/legislations.html I didn't read it at the moment. --GaAs11671 09:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
« 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. » LOI 2008-09 DU 25 JANVIER 2008 SUR LE DROITD’AUTEUR ET LES DROITS VOISINS AU SENEGAL, art. 46
Very similar to french law in fact. So no FOP? --GaAs11671 09:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's a "no-FOP" clause allowing only incidental depiction. If the picture has the copyrighted work as the main subject, only non-commercial uses are allowed beyond "fair use" and similar uses (news reporting) without the consent of the copyright owner of the work. Lupo 10:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll add a Senegal section to the page. After rereading that, I think {{NoFoP-France}} is also applicable to Senegal (after changing the country name ;-) --GaAs11671 12:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Tunisia revisited

This thread made me curious about Tunisian FoP, so I took a look at the cited law, which permits (emphasis and translation mine):

“the reproduction or communication of a work of architecture or of the fine arts, or of a work of the applied arts or a photographic work, if it is permanently situated in a public place, with the exception of art galleries, museums or any artistic heritage bequeathed by preceding generations.”
Tunisian copyright law, Chapter II, Article 10(g)la reproduction ou la communication d’une œuvre d’architecture ou des beaux arts, ou d’une œuvre des arts appliqués ou d’une œuvre photographique, lorsqu’elle est située en permanence dans un lieu public, à l’exception des galeries d’art, musées ou tout patrimoine artistique légué par les générations antérieures.

As you can see, with the exception of the weird "artistic heritage" exception, it reads like a perfectly ordinary permissing FoP clause. The phrase sounded peculiar to me, so I went and Googled for it, which turned up the same phrase earlier in the same law:

“Folklore forms part of the national heritage, and every transcription of folklore with view to exploitation for profit requires permission from the ministry of culture and payment of a fee to the social fund of the agency responsible for collecting copyright and related rights created under this law.

Permission from the ministry of culture is also required for the production of works inspired by folklore and in the case of total or partial assignment of copyright in a work inspired by folklore or an exclusive license on such work.

Folklore within the meaning of this law shall be any artistic heritage bequeathed by preceding generations and bound up with customs and traditions and any aspect of folk creation such as folk stories, writings, music and dance.”
Tunisian copyright law, Chapter I, Article 7Le folklore fait partie du patrimoine national, et chaque transcription du folklore en vue de son exploitation lucrative nécessite une autorisation du ministère chargé de la culture moyennant le paiement d'une redevance au profit de la caisse sociale de l’organisme chargé de la gestion collective des droits d’auteur et des droits voisins créé en vertu de cette loi.

Une autorisation du ministère chargé de la culture est également exigée pour la production d'oeuvres inspirées du folklore ainsi que dans le cas d'une cession totale ou partielle du droit d'auteur sur une oeuvre inspirée du folklore ou d'une licence exclusive portant sur une telle oeuvre.

Est considéré folklore au sens de cette loi tout patrimoine artistique légué par les générations antérieures et qui est lié aux coutumes et aux traditions et à tout aspect de création populaire tel que les histoires populaires, les lettres, la musique et la danse.

(BTW, the search also turned up the French translation of this WIPO paper, which quotes the law and from which I took part of the translations.)

So what we have here seems to be a straightforward case of an "antiquities copyright" law, Greek style, with the funny language in Article 10(g) merely making sure that it can't be interpreted to override the earlier Article 7. In particular, if we adopt the position (as Commons seems to have done before in some cases) that laws such as Article 7 above amount to "copyfraud" and should not influence Commons policy, then the Tunisian entry could be reduced to a simple ✓OK, with a warning to Tunisian users about this particular law. In any case, this restriction doesn't really seem to be about FoP per se — the works to which it would normally apply would generally be out of copyright, and thus not subject to FoP, otherwise.

So, I'd suggest rewriting the Tunisian section to something like this:

✓OK 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. This is considered a non-copyright restriction on Commons.

BTW, do we have a template to warn reusers about such "artistic heritage" restrictions? If so, we should probably link to it. If not, shouldn't we make one? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a good update; there was a previous discussion at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 2#Tunisia but I'm not sure it really got finished. There is an English translation at http://www.iort.gov.tn ; click the English link, then "Searching in the Official Gazette", then search for year 2009 and Number 052 (of June 30, 2009); the 2009-33 law is the first one in that volume. I think all the links are temporary unfortunately. I'm not aware of any "antiquities" templates. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. Seeing no other replies, I've gone ahead and changed COM:FOP#Tunisia as I suggested above. I anyone else thinks the new version is wrong or confusing, feel free to improve, revert or discuss it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think I can agree with the idea that any matter written in the copyright law of any country is a "non copyright" restriction. In my view any restriction of any kind written in the copyright law of any country is a copyright restriction. For example, when I created {{Australian Commonwealth reserve}}, I mentioned it in Commons:Non-copyright restrictions because it is not part of the Australian copyright law. I don't think I can agree with the removal of the "Not Ok" and the red cross icon (File:Nuvola apps error.png). Tunisian users might have troubles if they take pictures of "heritage" and Wikimedia Commons should not mislead them by removing warnings such as "not OK" and the red cross icon. Teofilo (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Even if we consider Article 7 to be a valid copyright claim by the state that we should honor on Commons, it still has little if anything to do with FoP. I'd be fine with replacing the "This is considered a non-copyright restriction on Commons" part with, say, "Freedom of panorama does not override these restrictions", or just simply removing it entirely. Still, I'd like to try to make it clear that, as far as I can tell from the law as quoted above, Tunisia has full and perfectly normal FoP for works under normal copyright. It's just this funny pseudo-copyright for "artistic heritage" in Article 7 that doesn't respect FoP. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
In fact, I just went and removed that sentence for now. We can discuss here whether it, or something like it, should be added back or not. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
"Artistic heritage" stuff is sometimes part of copyright laws, as it is somewhat similar, but is really unrelated (i.e. there is no identifiable copyright owner, etc.). There is no international agreement on them though, so such restrictions are mainly enforceable only inside Tunisia itself. We generally don't consider them part of "copyright" for purposes of deletion on Commons, so they are analagous to a non-copyright restriction. WIPO has tried to come up with some agreement, but I don't think they have come close. Several countries (including Mexico) have similar laws. It's something to be noted for uses inside Tunisia, but not a valid deletion reason. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Story telling, music and dance are not permanent. There is no need for a lawmaker who wants to restrict the reproduction of old songs, folk tales or dances to add anything further than "permanently located". So I remain at loss concerning the meaning of the last words of Article 10 (g) of the Tunisian authorship rights law. I don't want to consider that there is a restriction "beyond normal copyright law" in that country for architecture and sculpture whose author died more than 50 years ago until I can read such a restriction somewhere. Italy has a law on cultural goods which contains such a restriction and it is easy to provide an internet link with the contents of that Italian law. But until now, nobody has shown the existence of this kind of law for Tunisia. Paragraph 10(g) applies only to the items mentioned at the beginning or Article 10 which are "protected works" (oeuvres protégées), and the protection stops 50 years after the author's death under the terms of Article 18. One of the possibilities I was thinking about, concerning that Tunisian law, was whether the intention of the Tunisian lawmaker was to copy the neighbouring country's law. COM:FOP#Algeria contains some troubling similarities, although its meaning could be more clear (implying that there is no FOP for a modern statue located inside an old classified building, a classified building deserving to have the same regulations as a museum). Teofilo (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Could be a copy of the Algerian one, now that you point it out. Egypt, Greece, and Mexico also have some sort of artistic heritage laws or edicts, I think, or at least have talked about it (Starbucks had some issues in Mexico just a few months ago because of it). I think it is pretty clear though that in Tunisia, permanently displaying a (copyrighted) work of art in a museum in Tunisia does not allow unencumbered photographs; it would have to be outdoors or in some other indoors place which doesn't have a primary purpose of displaying art. It does read to me that it is trying to also protect ancient works displayed similarly no matter their age, but maybe you are right, and it is just an ambiguous translation which didn't mean that, and there is no antiquities issue at all -- just that a place which displays that type of thing would not allow photographs of (modern, copyrighted) versions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Tricky case for Taiwan

File:Yu-shen bulding.JPG: despite the title, description, and categories, the main subject of the photo seems to be a memorial stone, not the building. On the other hand, it's not clear that the text inscription on the stone is elaborate enough to qualify for copyright. Could someone who knows something about ROC copyright law have a look (and maybe do a better job of categorizing as well)? - Jmabel ! talk 02:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Syria

Does anyone have info about FOP in Syria? --Eusebius (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Russia

What's going on here? Where does this 50% figure come from? Where is the reference to the mentioned legal case? To me, the statue is clearly the main subject in the second image from Flickr mentioned. Whether an image is used in an article is irrelevant to us. Unless the claims made can be sourced, they should be removed. Lupo 11:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the law reads you can take a picture of something if it's not the main object of the picture. This would be incidental inclusion similar to what France allows. Whoever made this change is over-exaggerating what Russian law actually allows. -Nard the Bard 15:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
50% is for better understanding. I'm delete it and add new better text. -- TarzanASG +1  18:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
According to Russian courts main object is not thing, that pictured in the center of photo. -- TarzanASG +1  18:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I note some disputed text regarding FOP (or not) in Russia has been reinstated. I don't know Russian at all so can only work from the translation provided but my interpretation is that the section of law quoted does not permit what is being suggested in the added text. The translation says reproduction without permission is allowed of works which are "permanently standed in places of public resort" except where the work "is the basic object of that reproduction" or "or where portrayal of the work is used in commercial purposes". Since we are looking for permission for commercial reuse I don't see that this section is permissive enough. It's saying reproduction isn't allowed where the copyrighted work is the main subject *or* where the derivative work is to be used commercially. I would suggest this section is removed pending further discussion to clarify the situation. Adambro (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't delete. Section content is correct information. -- TarzanASG +1  18:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Please discuss first here. Several editors quite clearly have pointed out that the Russian law says reproduction isn't allowed where the copyrighted work is the main subject *or* where the derivative work is to be used commercially. In other words:
  • Copyrighted object is main subject of photo: not OK by Russian law
  • Copyrighted object is not main object, and photo used for non-commercial purposes: OK by Russian law, but not good enough for our purposes
  • Copyrighted object is not main object, and photo is used for commercial purposes: not OK by Russian law.
As a result, we cannot host Russian FOP-images. I've removed your section again, before re-instantiating, discuss here first. Lupo 19:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
3rd is OK by law. "or where portrayal of the work is used in commercial purposes". If not main object, it's not portrayal of the work, it's portrayal of different work. -- TarzanASG +1  04:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Lupo is right. NOT main object AND NOT commercial is OK, everything else is not. It's possible to develop an additional fair use policy (w:ru:Википедия:Свобода панорамы), but this is the best we can do, and this is irrelevant to Commons. And it's true that Russian courts interprets "main object" clause very narrowly, but again it's irrelevant to Commons. Trycatch (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Неправильно, я считаю. Надо говорить не о том, что разрешено, а о том что запрещено. Запрещено 1) использование изображение произведения там, где оно - основной объект этого воспроизведения, 2) использование изображение произведения (того самого произведения, о котором идёт речь в статье) в коммерческих целях. Мы можем по смыслу объединить терминологию. Когда изображено не то произведение о котором идёт речь, а что-то другое (даже улица или небо), то эта статья ГК не применяется. Кажется, моя точка зрения совпадает с решениями судов, но надо почитать, я уже всё забыл. А на w:ru:Википедия:Свобода панорамы я вроде находил какие-то ошибки, на неё не надо смотреть. -- TarzanASG +1  05:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Т.е. вы полагаете, что в случаях, когда произведение не является центральным объектом фотографии, то статья 1276 вообще нерелевантна (или там исключения из нее нерелевантны), т.к. такая фотография даже не является _изображением произведения_? Из текста закона такая интерпретация никоим образом не следует. Да и из тех судебных решений, которые я читал ([1], [2], [3]), она тоже не следует. Например, здесь суд применяет статью 1276 к фотографии некоего кандидата в депутаты с гражданами _на фоне_ памятника Сталина (наверняка в фокусе был депутат, а не памятник), рассуждая по поводу того, являлся ли памятник основным объектом _воспроизведения_ или нет (а не поводу того, является ли изображение произведения изображением произведения). См. также [4], где есть несколько интересных ссылок по теме. И, вообще, наверное, имеет смысл обсуждать это на w:ru:ВП:Ф-АП или w:ru:Обсуждение Википедии:Свобода панорамы -- там все-таки больше участников, которые во всем этом разбираются. Trycatch (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Хорошо, значит, применяет. Но раздел Russia всё равно надо оставить, потому что надо описать вот эти решения судов отдельно от бСССР. Вы не сможете это сделать? -- TarzanASG +1  10:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The USSR provisions are of no importance today. The Russian copyright law restored in 1993 copyrights even on works that were uncopyrighted in the USSR or that had already gone out of copyright under the old USSR laws. Acts done today (in fact, since 1993) are subject to the Russian law, not to older laws. USSR law might apply today, if at all, only to acts done before the 1993 Russian copyright law became effective. Any publication/uploading done today (or in fact, since Wikipedia exists) clearly falls under the current Russian law. Lupo 11:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, of course! I said about former USSR section on Commons page, but not about USSR laws. -- TarzanASG +1  14:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Кстати, "там, где есть интересные ссылки" как раз говорится о разных толкованиях статьи ГК. Именно это я и хотел сделать в разделе Russia. Но суды на данный момент, кажется, рассматиривали только некоммерческие дела, поэтому есть неопределённость со вторым исключением из статьи. -- TarzanASG +1  15:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Estonia

"... work is the main subject of the reproduction and it is intended to be used for direct commercial purposes." Does this mean that if the work of architecture isn't main subject of the reproduction then the picture can be used for direct commercial purposes and therefore also in Commons? And if so, what does constitute as main or not? Hluup (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I would assume so, but in Commons terms that's more of a case of de minimis than of FoP. As for what counts as the "main subject", that can be a tricky line to draw, and the precise answer could conceivably vary between jurisdictions. It's probably safe to say that unintentional inclusion of small copyrighted background details should be OK, while a photo clearly intended to depict a copyrighted work is not. One possible approach would be to ask yourself whether, if the included work could be cropped or edited out, this would substantially diminish the image's usefulness or artistic qualities. Another could be to ask whether the image could be used as an illustration of the included work in a Wikipedia article about the subject. If the answer to either question is yes, the work might count as the/a main subject. But don't take these rules as definitive — they're just my arbitrary personal rules of thumb. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
For another example though, I think French courts basically said that if a copyrightable object was unavoidable, that was OK too -- the example they gave was that photographs of the entire plaza of the Louvre were OK, even if it contained the Pyramid (which in most cases is unavoidably in the middle), because it was not possible to take a picture of the entire plaza while avoiding the Pyramid (and such a picture could definitely be used to illustrate an article about the Pyramid). A photo primarily of the Pyramid though -- maybe even a crop of the "OK" photo -- would not be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
In fact, all buildings which were built 1944-1991 are not copyrighted, cause all architecture/art works in USSR were automatically realised into public domain due to employees request to USSR government. Copyrighted buildings could be only buildings built after 1991's summer. But after USSR fail all native architects gone to west Europe for better living conditions, architecture faculty of TUT started to prepare McDonalds servants instead of qualified specialists and all buildings from 1991's autumn till nowadays were built by Finnish or Swedish architects (who have real skills in designing and building instead of paper). That is why it is quite hard to name 99% of buildings in Estonia as copyrighted objects.
If there are copirighted buildings, only built during 1940-1944, but absolutely nobody will build during bombs are falling from the sky and shells are flying from the tanks.
Let's do conclusion:
  • 1940-1944 - people were hiding from exposions
  • 1944-1991 - copyrighting was serious crime in all USSR and all works were automatically realised into public domain.
  • 1991-nowadays - all buildings are designed and built by foreign architects.
Maybe, there are law about buildings, but it can't be applied to buildings cause of missing conformity. Dmitry G (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't think the above is correct in the least. First... the Soviet Union joined the Universal Copyright Convention in 1973, so copyright was most definitely honored. Most of the successor countries are still considered as having joined in 1973, and following its obligations. Estonia however is not one of them; I think they take the position that the USSR laws never applied to them. At any rate, Estonia joined the Berne Convention in 1992. Their copyright law specifically says works of architecture are copyrightable, and moreover says that the new law applies to works created before the 1992 copyright law went into effect. So, even if buildings were not copyrightable before, protection was retroactively given to them. Estonia also joined the EU in 2004, and the EU mandates this type of retroactive copyright. However if any photographs were taken before December 1992, that is very different actually -- those photos should be allowed (provided the photograph itself is licensed OK). Photos taken since may still be an issue. Their "FoP" clause says[5]: It is permitted, without the authorisation of the author and without payment of remuneration, 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 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. That would appear to be non-commercial style FoP, much like the laws of former Soviet states, but... it does seem a bit different, as it says intended for direct commercial purposes. You could make the argument that since there is no intent to use it for commercial purposes, but rather educational, that our use is OK (even for later, indirect commercial use). I can only go by the translation though; it's possible that the original is trying to convey something else. The question is if someone takes an image mainly of the building from here, and uses it for commercial purposes -- is that OK? It could be argued that such is a separate use, and is at that point intended to be used for direct commercial purposes, and would be a copyright violation. Not completely sure how to interpret it, although it does seem a little less stringent than some of the other ex-Soviet copyright laws. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I lived during USSR times and I know better, that any copyrighting, any licensing and any commerce actions were serious law enforcement in USSR.
Other side of that question - commons have no licenses "no commercial" or "only education", it's licensing lack comes from commons foundators and administrators. Why do they canceled non-commercial licenses? It could solve our problems with copyrigted buildings.Dmitry G (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that non-commercial licenses have ever been allowed in Commons. It's one of the principles, everything in Commons has to be licensed freely, so that it could also be used commercially. Hluup (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
There were non-commercial license in the begining of 2008, but then it was exludud from list of licenses.
As we can see, it became serious lack to upload some modern buildings here. Dmitry G (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
No, Commons has never allowed non-commercial licenses. Availability for commercial use has always been a fundamental principle of the "free" movement, even before Wikipedia or Commons, and such licenses have never been allowed here. You may be surprised about what uses are considered "commercial" under copyright law... fundraising for non-profit organizations is one of them. There are many further reasons; Commons:Licensing/Justifications has a few. But yes, that part is incredibly frustrating in situations like this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Americanism... What for put other licenses, if commons aspires to keep only free images? There is logic missing.Dmitry G (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Not just Commons, but all projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, and many other projects worldwide. It is a philosophical position (and really, probably a reaction to the strengthening of copyright laws everywhere). See www.freedomdefined.org. Nothing to do with America really. The very particular definition of "free" is based around copyright though, meaning we have to pay attention to the particulars, even when they are very very inconvenient. That said, if you know of any legal decisions which clarify this area of the law in Estonia, please post the info. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I've found answer to our question in Russian wikipedia in the same article:

Хрущёвки, проектирование которых велось с конца 1940-х, пошли в серию после исторического постановления 1955 года «Об устранении излишеств в проектировании и строительстве» («внешне-показная сторона архитектуры, изобилующая большими излишествами», характерная для сталинской эпохи, теперь «не соответствует линии Партии и Правительства в архитектурно-строительном деле. … Советской архитектуре должна быть свойственна простота, строгость форм и экономичность решений»).;

translation to English here
So, we can remove that template courageousely, cause apartment buildings built from 1955 till 1991 have no copyright at all and they were designed to be cheap and simple without any art or engineering solutions. Dmitry G (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Russian Wikipedia doesn't affect (today's) Estonian copyright law in any way. Please, try keeping facts and speculations separate. I don't think you can come up with "clarifications" on basis of speculations. Therefore, please, revert you edits here, here and here. Pikne 05:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Your roughness can't help us to find the answer to our question in the future.
Estonian law says word "Teos" clearly but russian wikipedia says that apartment buildings designed from 1955 till 1991 were designed without any "Teos". As they were deprived any "Teos" (Cause Nikita Khrushchev proclaimed the decree about elimination of excesses in designing and building), they are not copyrighted.
The decree about elimination of excesses in designing and building is quite strong fact to say about their copyright status.
Also, they were designed in country which is not existing nowadays, due to your logic Estonian copyright law can't affect to other countries existing in past. USSR were found in Russia, so we can't apply Estonian law to Russia, especially to nonexistent USSR or any other country. Dmitry G (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I seem rough, but you keep coming up with rough speculaions as they were facts. Coming back to word work (teos) – § 4 (2) from Estonian copyright act cited below most generally says that the work has to be by the author oneself. You can't judge suitability for copyright by subjective artistic value or by whether it seems "original" or "ordinary" to you.
No matter what acts were effective in USSR or what it was decide back then it has no affect on Estonian today's laws. Unless there is a law effective today in Estonia, that says so that something in it is passed in accordance with certain USSR law.
Estonia has existed for the past 92 years, but it's not the case as Estonian copyright law (§ 3) says that the act applies to works first published in the territory of the Republic of Estonia. Pikne 10:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm telling you facts:
  • 1) Word "Teos" translates as "work of art" or "art value" or "engineering solutions" or "intellectual work" ans so one, pending on context. But you're translating like "any work". Please, translate correct.
  • 2) Due to you logic, original work was published in Russia and copied (built) in Estonia. Those times it was one country USSR. In 1991 Estonia and Russia becames separated countries. But if original project was designed in Russia, how we can apply Estonian laws? Probably we should apply Russian law to ex-USSR apartment buildings if we talk so. Dmitry G (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The word teos (in both Finnish and Estonian), in the context of copyright law, is a term of art corresponding to the English word "work" (which is also used in copyright law in a specific sense distinct from its general meaning). The usual definition of a "work" is somewhat vague and circular: it simply denotes something to which copyright protection applies or may apply. Typically, copyrightable works are required to have been created by a human author, to embody some minimal level of originality and to have been fixed in a tangible form. They are not, however, generally required to possess any particular artistic value — if they were, few if any maps, computer programs or non-fiction books would qualify. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we have no users-lawyers here and we can't ask them about it. That is why we should rely to our logic only. But I suggested to translate the word "teos" correctly to understand, if concrete boxes can be that "teos".
Let examine 2 facts:
  • 1) Nikita Khrushchev proclaimed to refuse from elimination of excesses in designing and building (those buildings lost any "teos" due to Khrustchev's order)
  • 2) Originally they were designed in USSR, but nowadays USSR is not existing at all and we can't apply Estonian law to the country which failed 20 years ago. Russia and Estonia are 2 separeted and independed countries and both their law are valid only inside defined country.
I want to specify the template about "70 years", cause people think that all modern buildings in Estonia are protected by the law, but we need to explain meaning of the word "teos" in those template. Dmitry G (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, apartment buildings were built during USSR times are not copyrighted at all due to autor.ee answer. Thanks to all of you for taking part in conversation! So, it is need to rewrite text in the template. Dmitry G (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, hold it with "clarifications" on category pages. If you have autor.ee (intellectual property portal) answer mentioned on etwiki in mind, it does't tell anything apartment buildings nor them being built during USSR times. It tells standard design is without copyright, but doesn't clarify what is standard design (e.g. how many times can I realise a project for it to lose its copyright) nor doesn't clarify on basis of what law they claim so. Copyright act itself doesn't tell anything about standard design. Pikne 09:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
It is your own lack if you don't know some languages. There is clearly written about their standart design in Russian wikipedia. In Estonia 90% of them are based on 1-515/9 type design and some of them based on 119 type design. Both 1-515/9 and 119 were "standart apartment blocks design" in USSR. But due to your lack of Russian language knowing, you can't get this information about their "standart design" reading russian text in russian wikipedia and dispute with me. Knowing language better, you'll understand reading only name of the article.
But if autor.ee gave this answer about copyright missing and russian wikipedia says about 1-515/9 standart design, why we need to to mislead other commons users and administrators? Dmitry G (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Apartment buildins

Concrete panels have no art decorations at all, those concrete panels were manufactured to build lot of absolutely similiar apartment blocks. That is why we can't find apartment buildings as the work of art or any other art value.

As I see, lot of apartment buildings were deleted. But apartment buildings can't be art/other value at all, that is why apartment buildings can't be copyrighted at all. Apartment buildings are public municipal buildings, which are not works of art. Dmitry G (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It is possible those should be treated differently... I think France says that only buildings of a "definite artistic character" get protection. Not sure if Estonian law follows the same idea, but... perhaps we should follow the same logic when it comes to photos of run-of-the-mill apartment buildings. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
If apartment blocks are copyrigted, why do municipal government puts decoration panels to exterior walls? Logically, putting decorating panels to external walls, municipal government are demolishing work of art.
Apartment buildings have no any art decorations or any art details; they are no more, than square concrete panels put one above other. Also, all those square concrete panels were manufactured without any art decorations/other art purposes, they were designed and manufactured to follow minimal conditions for people living.
So, let's do some conclusions:
  • 1)as they were built for people living;
  • 2)as they are standartly-same buildings;
  • 3)as 100 or 200 or more buildings have the same design;
  • 4)as concrete panels for apartment blocks were manufactured without any art decorations;
  • 5)as municipal government are putting decorative panels to their exterior walls (as you can see on the picture →);
those buildings can't be any copyrigted art value at all and Estonian law excludes apartment buildings from it's validity. Dmitry G (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I do agree, there's hardly any artistic value in these concrete boxes. But I slightly do disagree with your argument #4. There are such appartment buildings with decorations on their sides that could be consider of artistic value.
Although we don't have a clause in the law that would directly say that "definite artistic character" is need, we do have a definition of "work". It's in the §4, (2), I'll quote a snippet of it in the English translation: A work is original if it's author's own intellectual creation. So one could argue that there's no own intellectual creation, but instead a common standard. Hluup (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Law says "only buildings which are copirighted are protected 70 years after architect death by the law", but apartment buildings (which are 300 or 500 copies all over the city with absolutely similiar design) can't be copyrighted by their nature.
Also, you can see inadmissible actions with works of art as decorating the walls. As municipal government decorating their walls, they can do this actions only with non-copyrighted buildings.
That is why only some of modern buildings are protected by the law, but not all of them. Dmitry G (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
You do realize that Estonian copyright law does not backup your statements? It doesn't tell anything like "Estonian law excludes apartment buildings from it's validity". As for copies, you may want to think of copies of computer programs – licence for each copy has to be purchased and there's tens of thousands of copies not differing by a single crack in the wall. Though, your will to find ways to save these pictures is appreciated. Pikne 20:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I realise, that all of you are reading text and can't understand it's meaning. It says understable, that Estonian law includes only copyrigted works of art. Like your computer programs - some of them are copyrigted (like microsoft office) and some of your software is free (like Opera browser). Example with software is no good, cause software is intellectual property.
Second reason, apartment buildings have no complex solutions (which software has); they are no more, than ordinary concrete boxes were built without any art details for city's population placing.
Third reason, why they can't be copyrigted - it is decorating external walls by putting decorative panels, which is extremely-inadmissible action for works of art. Dmitry G (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Citation from the law
Why do municipal government doing inadmissible action with copyrighted concrete walls, if they are protected by the law work of art :-)
Oh, God, what they have done with copyrighted walls. The walls were built from copyrighted concrete, but why do they destroyed inviolable author’ s own intellectual creation ;-)

Autori nõusolekuta ja autoritasu maksmiseta on lubatud üldsusele külastamiseks avatud kohtades alaliselt asuva arhitektuuriteose, kujutava kunsti teose, tarbekunstiteose ja fotograafiateose reprodutseerimine ükskõik millisel viisil peale mehaanilise kontaktkopeerimise ja selle teose kujutise üldsusele suunamine, välja arvatud juhul, kui selline teos moodustab kujutise põhimotiivi ja seda kavatsetakse kasutada otsesel ärilisel eesmärgil.

The word arhitektuuriteose consists of two words:

  • 1) Word arhitektuur - architecture
  • 2) Word teos - intellectual work

Due to translation of second word, we can say that this context is definitely includes only buildings which are works of art. That is why I ask you not to mix up works of art with hundreds of ordinary concrete boxes. Dmitry G (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to start defining words yourself if they are already defined in/by the law. Sorry about the wall of text.
§ 4.
(2) Teoseks käesoleva seaduse tähenduses loetakse mis tahes originaalset tulemust kirjanduse, kunsti või teaduse valdkonnas, mis on väljendatud mingisuguses objektiivses vormis ja on selle vormi kaudu tajutav ning reprodutseeritav kas vahetult või mingi tehnilise vahendi abil. Teos on originaalne, kui see on autori enda intellektuaalse loomingu tulemus.
§ 4.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, “works” means any original results in the literary, artistic or scientific domain which are expressed in an objective form and can be perceived and reproduced in this form either directly or by means of technical devices. A work is original if it is the author’ s own intellectual creation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hluup (talk • contribs) 10:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, read the
A work is original if it is the author’ s own intellectual creation
one more time.
Then, say me, please, how standart concrete apartment blocks could be the author’ s own intellectual creation, if they have no defined architect. If you read history of their creation in Russian wikipedia, they were designed by state architects and were modified by local engineers (some of local engeneers put elevators on right side, some of them put elevators on left side, some local engineers put wiring or piping their way and so one) all over the USSR.
After it, please give answer to my other question - why municipal government allows to destroy those author’ s own intellectual creation by putting decorating panels into copyrighted concrete walls? Dmitry G (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have an idea that I'm disagreeing with you on the copyright status of those buildings, I'm not. I even pointed out that, the author's own intellectual creation, myself, somewhere above. Hluup (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
But what the reason you are not agree with modern buildings? In Merivälja and Kose I really can't take more photos cause lot of buildings there are copyrighted. Some buildings in Viimsi are also copyrighted and even journalists can't take photos there. But as for municipal buildings, they were spread in all over the USSR and all design were developed from previous type of concrete box and modified by local engineers during building. As you can see in Lasnamäe, Estonian local engineers modified Moscow architect's design to build it convenient, during redesigning it lost any intellectual creation. Dmitry G (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)