File talk:Freedom of Panorama world map.png

Canada

Is there some reason Canada is not dark green like Australia, allowing public interiors? It seems to me their FoP laws are similar. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Netherlands laws on Freedom of Panorama

In the Netherlands the Copyright Act of 1912 (Article 18) allows all self made photography in the public space (streets, parks, etc), including of buildings and art works. Also, photography is unrestricted inside fully public government buildings, like a town hall, including the art works therein. The photo should show the art work in it's original setting. And when used in a compilation work, it should show no more than several works from the same author. Photo's of art works that are in the Public Domain are also free, although this is not specifically mentioned in the Netherlands copyright law, which after all dates from the year 1912. At that time the phrase of 'public domain artwork' was not yet in vogue in the Netherlands. Not allowed are photo's made inside semi-public buildings like museums and theaters, again unless the art work is in the Public Domain, or the artist has otherwise explicitly allowed photography under a free license. Or when photography is prohibited for obvious reasons like vulnerability of the art work for exposure to light, by using a flash light. --OSeveno (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Belgium

Belgium are having a change of law today. It means the colour should change to the one used for Germany. It has already been changed here. Allt the best.--Paracel63 (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Sweden?

In the case of Sweden the FoP has been removed when talking of digital publication, in a database format (which is a wide term). The FoP concerning print media has not been touched by the decision. Maybe there ought to be a specific colour for that one?--Paracel63 (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Red is ok, because since 2017, the scope has now been limited to outside the Internet only. For all intents and purposes, FOP in Sweden is no longer in effect.

• Relevant talk: Template talk:FoP-Sweden#Rename_to_Template:NoFoP-Sweden_or_not?. -Mardus /talk 12:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Relevant FoP information about Sweden: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom_of_panorama. -Mardus /talk 12:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes = Internet? Using the images in print is still uncontroversial, which means a great deal. And red means that FoP does not exist for buildings either, which is untrue. Nothing has changed for them either, they are as free as ever. The supreme court based its reasoning on economic aspects, which are totally different for buildings. --LPfi (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mardus: ^^ as this can't be answered by me. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Since the Swedish courts decided, that one is not allowed to publish on the Internet, then that's that. — For all intents and purposes on Commons and elsewhere on the Internet, Sweden shall remain red on the map until after Swedish law is clarified^* and made more permissive, or the Swedish Supreme Court overrules its 2016 decision, which is still in effect.

^* to allow photos of copyrighted architecture to be published on the Internet without the permission of the author, if the artwork is not yet in Public Domain. If the author is dead, but the copyright of his or her work has not yet expired, then within 70+1 years after the author's death, permission must be asked from his or her legal descendants, his or her estate, or the entity that is in possession of the author's copyright. Photos of buildings, the architect of which has died 70+1 years ago, are ok. As of 2020, the architect must have died in 1949 or earlier.

-Mardus /talk 00:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

As "Photos of buildings, the architect of which has died 70+1 years ago, are ok. As of 2020, the architect must have died in 1949 or earlier.", I modified {{FoP-Sweden/en}} to let users consider if {{PD-Sweden-photo}} or {{PD-old-70}} are applied if so. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding buildings, to my understanding nothing has happened, except that the supreme court has showed it can come to odd conclusions. See File talk:Freedom of Panorama world map.svg#Sweden. --LPfi (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Esquilo: I don't know why you did such edit, the above consensus(?) seems to be the architect of which has died 70+1 years ago, are ok, not only the artist, which means, of course, buildings are **also been affected as cases of sanctions**. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Buildings are absolutely not affected by any sanctions. The Swedish copyright law makes a very clear exception for buildings (without the reservations for artworks which have caused such debate). /ℇsquilo 06:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, the verdict from the Stockholm District Court (the case was never tried in the Swedish Supreme Court, they were only consulted on the matter) does not disallow photos of art to be publish on the Internet as Mardus erroneously claims. The verdict only says it is not allowed to publish a systematic cataloge of photos of artwork. /ℇsquilo 06:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Esquilo: So you think that COM:FOP Sweden should be re-written as like e.g. COM:FOP Japan? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess that would be the closest match. /ℇsquilo 17:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons matches the definition of systematic catalogues of photos of artwork, and artwork matches works of architecture:

• On 4 April 2016, the Supreme Court of Sweden ruled, that Article 24 does not extend to publication in an online repository, regardless of commercial intent
• The 6 July 2017 decision by the Patent and Market Court at Stockholm District Court ruled, that Article 24 does not give anyone the right to publish photographs of copyrighted public art on the Internet without the consent of the depicted work's author.

Both of these rulings meant not to publish photos of buildings online. -Mardus /talk 01:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

—Unless the architect(s) of these buildings has/have been dead for 70 years (70+1 years, to err on the side of caution). -Mardus /talk 01:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The supreme court statement limited itself to the first paragraph of the article. The second paragraph is the one about buildings. I do not remember the wordings in the district court ruling, but I doubt they would have made any decision on buildings in this context. --LPfi (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

As there are separate paragraphs for the two cases, I cannot see how the first paragraph could be seen to cover works handled in the second, even if they could be seen as "works of art". The second paragraph is clearly lex specialis, which would take precedence. --LPfi (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Comment@LPfi: I'm trying to know that why you believe that the buildings are not affected by the supreme court's decision, and can still be freely use, at /sweden page of COM:CRT, I found the 8th ref, the Rättsutredning Daniel Westman.pdf, and by opening it, I found that (sorry for using Google MT, please feel free to correct me here)

1. Den anger även att det är tillåtet att fritt avbilda byggnader. (It also states that it is permissible to depict buildings freely.)
2. Frågan som ska undersökas i denna promemoria är om den aktuella bestämmelsen ger rätt att via internet överföra bilder av konstverk och byggnader till allmänheten eller om bestämmelsen endast ger rätt att framställa exemplar (och sprida exemplar i fysisk form). (The question to be examined in this memorandum is whether the relevant provision gives the right to transmit images of works of art and buildings to the public via the Internet or whether the provision only gives the right to make copies (and distribute copies in physical form).)
3. Direktivet (artikel 5.3.m) tillåter att medlemsstaterna beträffande konstverk på allmän plats och byggnader gör undantag från såväl exemplarframställningsrätten som ensamrätten att överföra verket till allmänheten. (The directive permits Member States to exclude both the right of reproduction and the exclusive right to transmit the work to the public as regards works of art in public places and buildings.)
4. När det gäller den del av bestämmelsen som rör avbildning av konstverk på eller vid allmän plats respektive av byggnad ger förarbetena emellertid ingen närmare vägledning i den här diskuterade frågan (NJA II 1961 s. 201 ff.). (However, with regard to the part of the provision relating to the depiction of works of art in or at a public place or of buildings, however, the preparatory works do not provide any further guidance on the issue discussed here.)
5. I propositionen till genomförandet av Infosoc-direktivet konstateras på motsvarande sätt – men mer i förbigående – att den svenska bestämmelsen om fri avbildning av byggnader inte går så långt som direktivet ”som ju tillåter att inskränkning görs även i rätten till överföring till allmänheten” (prop. 2004/05:110 s. 230). (The bill for the implementation of the Infosoc directive similarly states - but more in passing - that the Swedish provision on free depiction of buildings does not go as far as the directive "which allows restrictions to be made even in the right of transfer to the public"
6. I propositionen till genomförandet av Infosoc-direktivet konstateras på motsvarande sätt – men mer i förbigående – att den svenska bestämmelsen om fri avbildning av byggnader inte går så långt som direktivet ”som ju tillåter att inskränkning görs även i rätten till överföring till allmänheten” (prop. 2004/05:110 s. 230). (The bill for the implementation of the Infosoc directive similarly states - but more in passing - that the Swedish provision on free depiction of buildings does not go as far as the directive "which allows restrictions to be made even in the right of transfer to the public"
7. Den som vill överföra avbildningar av konstverk på eller vid allmän plats eller byggnader bör emellertid vara medveten om de rättsliga risker som är förknippade med en sådan verksamhet. (However, those who wish to transfer depictions of works of art in or at a public place or buildings should be aware of the legal risks associated with such activities.)

Here's what I'm indeed wondering that:

1. Why citations are missed on the first two and last one points?
2. Where and how can I read the artikel 5.3.m, NJA II 1961 s. 201 ff. and prop. 2004/05:110 s. 230? No matter how such things are required in EU countries, but at least in any one ASEAN country, by writting such citation marks without mentioning where they are from (just like how COM:CRT subpages are) at the last section of a judicatory statement, a lawyer or a justice may therefore be fined, or even their license be revoked.

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

As the uploader of that pdf on WMSE wiki: @André Costa (WMSE): ^^ --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: NJA II 1961 s. 201 ff. and prop. 2004/05:110 s. 230 Are all the standard ways of referring to various types of legislation/court cases/legal propositions in Sweden and any Swedish legal scholar would know where to find such information. Unfortunately NJA (Supreme court decisions) only seem to be available digitally from 1981 onwards. artikel 5.3.m needs to be read in the context of which it is first defined (paragraph 3) which clarifies that it talks about the Info-soc directive. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 07:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

For why I believe the buildings are not affected by the supreme court statement: because the supreme court in the key parts of its statement only referenced paragraph 1 of Article 24. It clearly did not discuss the second paragraph, which is about buildings. The court case was about public artwork so it had no reason to, and neither had the district court, and thus the fact remains that we have no supreme court statement nor district court ruling on FoP of buildings. As economics played a major role in the reasoning and the economics of statues and buildings are very different, even the reasoning is not applicable.

It seems the two first and the last points are background (WMF-SE has asked me to ...) or free reasoning (the legal situation is thus not clear ... should be aware of the legal risks). No need for citations.

I pass about where to find the cited documents. NJA II from 1961 might be available only as dead tree. The proposition (is that also the English word?) from 2004 should be available at the websites of the government and parliament. I think I have read it, but don't remember where I found it.

--LPfi (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

From the ruling of the Swedish Supreme Court, translated rather well via Google Translate:

23. The provision in § 24, first paragraph, 1 of the Copyright Act, where the restriction on the author's exclusive right is limited to images, does not give Wikimedia the right to transmit the works via the Internet to the public from its database of photographs of works of art, permanently placed in or at a public place outdoors. Whether the disposal is for commercial purposes is irrelevant.

The court ruling is unambiguous, and suggests, that Paragraph 1 of Article 24 refers to images of works of art — including of buildings — permanently placed in or at a public place outdoors. -Mardus /talk 05:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The press release from EDRI reports as much. -Mardus /talk 05:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

How do you infer "including of buildings"? I found no hint on that in the statement. It seems EDRI draws the same conclusions, but I do not know the web site, and it might want to give a more drastic view than necessary, to achieve a wake-up effect. The statement was based on EU law and economic reasoning, not what de facto was written in the law or the "förarbete". This is very confusing, but I suppose it means that the EU law and economic analysis has to be done also for buildings for us to know whether it applies – and it is quite clear that the supreme court did not do that analysis.

Regarding your edits on the template: I am in the belief that the supreme court cannot change the law. Sweden is not a Common Law country. Thus the law should be exactly the same before and after the statement: works of art may be depicted under some circumstances, buildings may be freely depicted. We thought we knew what that means, but now we cannot be sure.

--LPfi (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Buildings are implied, because they belong under works of art, despite buildings being not mentioned directly in the decision. The Swedish Supreme Court did not mention sculptures, but 'works of art', which means everything, including works of architecture, which therefore means buildings.

In most jurisdictions, buildings are works of architecture, and works of architecture are works of art.

The Swedish Supreme Court cannot change the law in the books, but it has changed the interpretation of the law, and the EDRI press release unambiguously reflects that and the results of the decision. (The Wikimedia Sverige press release was a great deal more ambiguous in its wording, though it is the Wikimedia chapter that lost the court case.)

The Swedish Supreme Court decision is here: wikisource:sv:Index:2016-04-04_Ö_849-15_Beslut.pdf (includes page numbers), and the important part of the decision is here: wikisource:sv:Sida:2016-04-04 Ö 849-15 Beslut.pdf/10.

Furthermore, there is another, later, 6 July 2017 opinion from the Patent and Market Court at Stockholm District Court, which ruled, that Article 24 'does not give anyone the right to publish photographs of copyrighted public art on the Internet without the consent of the depicted work's author.'

So these are two unambiguous court decisions against uploading photos of buildings located in Sweden to Commons. Allowing uploads of copyrighted works of art located in Sweden — including buildings not yet in Public Domain — on Commons, would violate the two decisions of Swedish courts, and would put Wikimedia in legal peril for the third time.

Therefore, we must err on the side of caution until the Swedish courts reverse themselves on their decisions, and/or until the Swedish Parliament reaffirms freedom of panorama in its copyright law. -Mardus /talk 18:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Buildings may be works of art, but the fact that there is a separate paragraph ("stycke") about buildings means there is lex specialis about buildings, which overrides the legislations about art in general in the first paragraph. The supreme court chose to cite only the first paragraph, not all the article (consisting of these two paragraphs). The verb "avbilda" is the same, but the reasoning is complicated and does not rely on the choice of word or the "förarbete", but entirely different aspects, which are not the same for architecture as for other art.

It might be wise to err on the side of caution, and thus we should warn reusers that the legal situation is unclear, but we should not mislead them by saying that the supreme court decision included buildings. The district court was more ambiguous, but as it based its decision on the statement on the first paragraph we should not overinterpret it.

--LPfi (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The Swedish Supreme Court ruled on Point 1 of Article 24, which relates to 'works of art permanently located outdoors on, or at a public place'. This includes buildings, as the Swedish Supreme court did not exclude buildings in its decision.

The entire Article 24 must be taken as a whole, neither point/(literary) paragraph should be taken out of context.

While 'buildings may be reproduced in pictorial form', this does not extend to 'digital form' (point 3). This allows for postcards, but not as 'part of a collection, in catalogues, [...] in digital form'. The latter sentiment was confirmed as such in the later, 6 July 2017 case.

In Article 1 of the law, 'works of art' include works of architecture or applied art.

For reference, here's the English translation of the law (at WIPO, no less). -Mardus /talk 08:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

[outdent]
I was giving up, but I see some possible reasons for confusion, so one more try:

1. The supreme court ruled on paragraph 1 ("Point 1"?) of Article 24. There is lex specialis on buildings in paragraph 2, which should overrule paragraph 1 on public art in general. Do you think I am wrong? Why? Are you familiar with the concept of lex specialis?
2. Neither point should be taken out of context. No. So what is the context I ignore? But wait! Is there a confusion between points and paragraphs? The article contains two paragraphs ("stycke"), the first of which has three points ("punkt"). Are we talking apples and oranges?
3. What do you mean by "point 3"? Point 3 in paragraph 1 of article 24? That is relevant only for catalogues of collections (or something, the structure is odd); the three points constitute three independent exceptions. In the WIPO version of the law in Swedish a paragraph break was missing, giving the impression that buildings were handled in this point. They are not.

--LPfi (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Different cultures interpret the word paragraph differently: In many countries, paragraph = article, or point, especially when it relates to law, and is separate from a literary paragraph, which I think what you meant with a collection of points 1, 2, and 3 in Article 24. In the Swedish Supreme Court case, Article 24 is referred to with the paragraph sign §.

The Swedish Supreme Court ruled on the entirety of Article 24 and the entirety of the law. Article 24 must therefore be taken as a whole and in its entirety, and no part of it should be taken out of context:

From the law:

Article 24. Works of fine art may be reproduced in pictorial form

1. if they are permanently located outdoors on, or at, a public place and (emphasis mine)

2. if the purpose is to advertise an exhibition or a sale of the works of fine art but only to the extent necessary for the promotion of the exhibition or the sale or

3. if they form part of a collection, in catalogues, however not in digital form.

Buildings may be freely reproduced in pictorial form. (Act 2005:359). End of Article 24

The part about buildings has been reversed by the Swedish Supreme Court, because buildings are covered under works of art that are permanently located outdoors on, or at a public place, as respectively defined in Article 1 and Article 24.

This means, that only Points 1+2, or 1+3, or 1+2+3 in Article 24 apply. What the Swedish Supreme Court in its decision meant with första stycket, is Point 1 of Article 24, but they did not rule on that or other particular Point, but on the entirety of Article 24, and the entirety of the law.

'Taking it out of context' would mean, that you think the court "ruled only" on Point 1 inside Article 24, and/or that the court did not rule on the buildings line. These contentions are not accurate.

Point 3 in Article 24 is relevant to Wikimedia on two or more counts: Wikimedia Commons is both a catalogue and a collection, and it's in digital form.

Reproduction of works of art in pictorial form in these forms was prohibited by both the 2016 Supreme Court ruling, and was prohibited in the 2017 court case. Twice.

-Mardus /talk 15:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 Comment So far, what should I do for this list of files that uses {{FoP-Sweden}}? Still confused, but at least I would rather sure that artworks from them should be deleted, or at least re-licensed. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please generate a list of files that only used {{FoP-Sweden}}? Because for many files that are having other license templates, it looks like that removal should already be enough. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Artworks cannot be relicensed by anyone else but the author. Do you mean photos or license tags related to FoP?? The photos retain the license of the photographer, and that license should not be removed. Copyright remains with the author of the artwork (a sculpture, an installation, a building). If FoP is enabled again in Sweden, or if the depicted works become Public Domain, the license on the photo shall continue to govern, because it'st that of the photographer and not that of the artwork depicted. -Mardus /talk 15:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mardus: The terms differ. That is why I try to refer also to the Swedish terminology, which I know (the Finnish law is based on the Swedish, and the legal tradition has not deviated too much since 1809, I suppose). I think I have been consistent also in what English terms I use. In Article 24 (§24, "paragraf 24") there are two paragraphs ("stycke"), the first of which has three points ("punkt"). This seems to be the root of the confusion. (I know legal "stycke" is different from litterary "stycke", but here I use the word paragraph only in the former sense.)

You wrote: "What the Swedish Supreme Court in its decision meant with första stycket, is Point 1 of Article 24". No. This is indeed not so. They meant the first paragraph, otherwise they would have written "första punkten i första stycket av 24 §". With the bad formatting of the web page (the real paragraph has no title, what seems like a title is the first part of the first paragraph of the article) and foreign terms and conventions it is easy to do such mistakes. It follows that the rest of the reasoning is moot.

I do not know the legal meaning of "ruled on" (English is not my native language and I have read very little legalese in English). But they say that paragraph 1 of the article does not give the rights in question, and say nothing about paragraph 2.

The points are different exceptions (note the "or" at the end of the second point), and as the third point does not allow digital form it is more or less irrelevant for Commons. We have to find another point or paragraph that gives us the right to distribute the images, either point 1 or paragraph 2. The supreme court said that point 1 does not allow WMSE to link to images uploaded without the right owners consent in their public database. This is what we know. It makes the legal situation shaky (to say the least) for distributing those images directly, but there is no direct ruling on that.

For paragraph 2 we have even less of a ruling, especially as the supreme court based their statement on a convoluted reasoning involving economic aspects, which are different for buildings, not on what was meant by the word "avbilda".

--LPfi (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The Swedish Supreme Court did not rule only on Point 1, but on the entire Article 24, and the entire law. It no longer matters what the line about buildings says, if two courts in their decisions made it irrelevant.

re "on": It's similar to about. For example, if a court rules on a particular clause, then the ruling covers how only that particular clause is applied. You appear to have suggested way upthread, that the Swedish Supreme Court covered only Point 1 in a list in Article 24, which suggestion I find not correct.

In this case, the Swedish Supreme Court ruled not only on Point 1, but on the entirety of Article 24, especially points 1, 2, and 3, and then the entirety of the law.

Thus, their decision rendered the line about buildings inoperable, in that, photos of copyrighted works of architecture (that is, buildings) can no longer be uploaded and kept accessible. I'm afraid it applies retroactively. Some images may have to be deleted until the copyright on the buildings and other works of art runs out.

The courts took the law into consideration as a whole, in its entirety, and so should we. In the shadow of the two courts' rulings, there is no specific clause that would give an out on buildings.

Point 3 in Article 24 is very much relevant, as it directly applies to Wikmedia Commons, which is a collection, a catalogue, and in digital form — with the latter condition precluding photos of copyrighted buildings (works of art) and other copyrighted works located in, or at a public place from being published on Commons. -Mardus /talk 10:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I give up. Way upthread and all along I have talked about paragraph 1, and I thought I now clearly explained the relation between article ("paragraf", "§"), paragraph ("stycke") and point ("punkt"), but you still ignore the concept of "stycke", at least in relation to what I try to say. And you ignore the concept of lex specialis. No use repeating myself, but this last time to make my argument clear.

You present your interpretation on what the court decided on as the truth, with little backing in citations or discussion. Of course the court takes all law into account, but they ruled on paragraph 1 (which contains the three points, the first of which was relevant) of the article. Why did they otherwise cite it and nothing else (in the "beslut" and relevant parts of the discussion)?

Point three is irrelevant for Commons as it does not apply to digital form (it might still be relevant for reusers, though). As all the paragraph is about exceptions, one exception not applying does not invalidate the other exceptions (note the "or"). I would read it as that the other exceptions do apply to digital form, but the supreme court seemingly ignored that implication.

--LPfi (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Albania

Albania has Freedom of Panorama since some years. --Albinfo (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Macau

Note that Macau should be OK now, not sure if it's for buildings only, or also for sculptures. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Honduras

Honduras should be "Not OK". Though it has FOP exception, it is limited to personal use only. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Kuwait

Kuwait should be "Not OK" as the 2019 version doesn't state any FOP exception within the country. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe should be "OK" -- COM:FOP Zimbabwe. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)