Commons talk:Freedom of panorama

Shortcut: CT:FOP

Overzealous people pre-emptively deleting photographs of South African buildings

Hello, there seems to be overzealous people pre-emptively deleting photographs of South African buildings. South African law doesn't explicitly forbid photographs of buildings, and doesn't pursue any person that has taken such photographs. These people are going beyond what the is necessary and are interpreting the law how they see fit.

To me, Wikimedia has crippled itself when deleting wholesale photographs in countries that doesn't explicitly have freedom of panorama laws; especially when anyone on any other site can attribute to even an "All rights reserved" and use that image. Thanks, Maqdisi (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Please provide examples of deleted files. --Túrelio (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Maqdisi images marked with "all rights reserved" are non-free: see Commons:Licensing. Wikimedia Commons does not accept licenses that do not meet with the Definition of Free Cultural Works. Same analogy applies to images that may show unfree objects, and among those objects are works of architecture and sculptures in public spaces. Look again at the law of South Africa: their freedom of panorama exception is too restricted only to free use of public art and architecture in audio-visual media (movies, TV broadcasts), not photos. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Belarus

Missing from the table. Altenmann (talk) Altenmann (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello? Altenmann (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Altenmann not so significant country. Only selected no-FOP countries are included in the main table. But you can see the list of all countries with no FOP at the bottom part. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

You did not address my concern. Antigua and Barbuda and Macau and Zimbabwe and Curaçao more significant than Belarus? If you dont care that maybe someone else will take pain. Altenmann (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Altenmann because they do have FOP. Belarus has no FOP. It is not worth to include all 200+ jurisdictions in a single table. Your concern is already addressed: just go to the list at the bottom. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

No, my concern is not addressed. I didnt find Belarus at the top of the list. How the hell a person can know to look for the second table? This is a "user-unfriendly" design, colleague. Altenmann (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

About Commons:Freedom of panorama

Hello Wikipedians,

How does Freedom of panorama work in practice?

Why is this image nominated for deletion because of "Freedom of panorama" but images that follow the same logic are actively used everywhere on Wikipedia, e.g. – here, here, here and here? And many other examples.

Why do some images "violate" FoP, while others images of the same type do not?
The force of ikigai (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @The force of ikigai: the BITE building is obviously a fairly recent creation, so its design is presumably the intellectual property of a living architect (or perhaps the heirs of one recently deceased). OTOH the design of the Gediminas Tower was created centuries before copyright law even existed. I don’t know about the other buildings, but offhand they look old enough for their copyrights to have expired, if they had any to start with. Since the purpose of FoP is to exempt certain publicly visible works from some of their usual copyright protections, it’s quite irrelevant to works that are already in the public domain.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I had a look at the laws quoted by Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Lithuania.

You are free to take pictures of buildings and statues (that are in public view). You can also spread those images.

The force of ikigai (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@The force of ikigai: I think you’re neglecting ¶2, which says ¶1.1 (in bold below) does not apply to commercial use of images with the work in question as their principal subject. We require the media we host to be free for all purposes, including commercial uses.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479 one of the images cited by The force of Ikigai is of Lithuanian Drama Theater. The case of the theater is complicated, as its component buildings are a mixture of old (early 20th century) and new buildings (from 1981 and from 2010s). See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Lithuanian National Drama Theatre JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, @JWilz12345, from the enWP article I gather that even the mediaeval tower underwent restoration about a century ago. But I assume the supervising architect’s contributions in that case were not of a creative nature, rather adhering as much as possible to the original builders’ concept. No matter how straight-forward a copyright law may seem, its application to specific cases is very often a different story.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

So I had a look at the laws and WP Commons:

1. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Lithuania

2. The law mentioned in the Commons article, i.e. Law No. VIII-1185 of 1999, as amended up to Law No. XII-1183 of 2014, Article 28

– see VIII-1185 of 1999 at https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.81676/oNckmeLCYP

– The law mentions an amendment XI-1833 which can be found at: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.415881

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

The amendment (XI-1833) says:

• Pakeisti 28 straipsnio 1 dalį ir ją išdėstyti taip:
• „1. Be kūrinio autoriaus ar kito šio kūrinio autorių teisių subjekto leidimo ir be autorinio atlyginimo, tačiau nurodžius, jei tai įmanoma, naudojamą šaltinį ir autoriaus vardą, leidžiama:
• 1) atgaminti ir viešai paskelbti architektūros kūrinius ir skulptūras, sukurtus nuolat stovėti viešosiose vietose, išskyrus atvejus, kai jie eksponuojami parodose ir muziejuose;
• 2) pastato ar kito statinio projektą, brėžinį, eskizą ar modelį panaudoti to pastato ar statinio rekonstrukcijai.“

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

The bold part clearly says that buildings that are in public can be publicised.

So where and how did Commons came up with the idea that buildings are not allowed to be reproduced in public?

The force of ikigai (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@The force of ikigai you missed an important part of the Lithuanian FoP that clearly makes images of copyrighted works of architecture and monuments of that country not suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Based on the copyright law (in Lithuanian text):

28 straipsnis. Architektūros ir skulptūros kūrinių autorių teisių apribojimas
1. Be kūrinio autoriaus ar kito šio kūrinio autorių teisių subjekto leidimo ir be autorinio atlyginimo, tačiau nurodžius, jei tai įmanoma, naudojamą šaltinį ir autoriaus vardą, leidžiama:
1) atgaminti ir viešai paskelbti architektūros kūrinius ir skulptūras, sukurtus nuolat stovėti viešosiose vietose, išskyrus atvejus, kai jie eksponuojami parodose ir muziejuose;
2) pastato ar kito statinio projektą, brėžinį, eskizą ar modelį panaudoti to pastato ar statinio rekonstrukcijai.
2. Šio straipsnio 1 dalies 1 punkto nuostatos netaikomos, kai architektūros kūrinys ar skulptūra yra pagrindinis vaizdavimo objektas reprodukcijoje ir kai tai daroma siekiant tiesioginės ar netiesioginės komercinės naudos.
3. Šio straipsnio 1 dalies 1 punkto nuostatos nesuteikia teisės atgaminti architektūros kūrinius pastatų ar kitų statinių pavidalu ir daryti skulptūrų kopijas.

An image of a Lithuanian building or public monument whose architects, sculptors, or muralists are either still alive or have died for less than 70 years ago cannot be freely reproduced by the general public, if the intent of the image or video is to be sold or used in commercial items or media (postcards, travel websites and others). This makes Lithuanian law not suited for Wikimedia Commons in the context of the free use and exploitations of copyrighted Lithuanian works in public spaces without the artists' permissions. So deletions of Lithuanian monuments are valid and reasonable, unless that country removes the "2." provision that is not suited to Internet age, where any commercial distributions are unavoidable. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

–––––––––––––––

Thank you for you reply @JWilz12345. Indeed, the point you highlighted, point "2" states that point "1" does not apply if the images are used for commercial purposes. While upload to WP:Commons would not constitute commercial use, WP:Commons allows download and commercial usage. So indeed, point "2" is probably a dealbreaker. My bad. I'll try to get the point "2" changed. Thank you for your patience with me and an amazingly clear response. The force of ikigai (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@The force of ikigai you're welcome. In fact, I was also in disbelief (during my first times here in Commons, from 2016 up to 2020) that our country also does not provide FoP. Unlike Lithuania which has explicit FoP (though non-commercial), the Philippines law (Republic Act 8293) lacks any provision resembling FoP. It is normal that either first time users or non-regular users may not fully understand the legal issues concerning distributions of images that may show recent public monuments or architecture.

A few countries successfully implemented FoP though, notably Belgium for both buildings and monuments in July 2016 and Russia for buildings and land arts (landscaping; but not sculptural monuments) in October 2014. Not sure if Lithuania would follow the progressive path Belgium took 7 years ago, or would chose to stay the non-commercial restriction even if it means lesser exposure of Lithuanian culture in arts and architecture over the Internet. And just a trivia, according to my compilation at meta:User:JWilz12345/FOP/Global statuses, much of our world is a no-FoP world. Including seven countries with partial de jure FoP for architecture only and not sculptural monuments, only 86 have full FoP (about 44% of all countries. This means the matter is very complex as majority of countries do not provide FoP/commercial FoP, not just limited to Lithuania or the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Marshall Islands

At the moment COM:FOP Marshall Islands is quite confusing: it says probably not OK if reproducted as audiovisual works, but then cites the only IP law in the country and concludes that FOP is not prohibited, so {{PD-Marshall Islands}} should be used. The presence of a citation needed tag makes me assume the first part was from Wikipedia, but I can't find the source, and the entire section was added at the same time. Should this be changed to simply say probably OK, as the only IP law doesn't mention any FOP restrictions, and only audio and audio-visual works are protected by their IP law (so architecture, statues, etc. do not seem to be)? ‑‑Yodin^T 10:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Unarchiving, as it still seems to be a problem. ‑‑Yodin^T 12:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Yodin ping @Liuxinyu970226: over Marshall Islands concern (they created that section). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)