Talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 1

Which jurisdiction?
We read that Panorama freedom allows for taking pictures in public places. Where? (Albania? Belize? Cuba? Dahomey? Eritrea? France? Guatemala? [etc]) Common sense tells me: "Any civilized nation", but I've learned that common sense is only peripherally related to the law. -- Hoary 00:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please follow the link to Wikimedia Commons and read the article there. Definitely not the USA though so not "any civilized nation". -N 00:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected this article to the essay Freedom of panorama. It's content was unreferenced WP:OR. Freedom of panorama is not a legal term of art, but was a principle made up in the Wikimedia Commons to describe a set of ideas about what people are free to photograph and either assert copyright or free-license as they choose. ... Kenosis 18:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, while the article was unsourced and failed to clarify in which jurisdictions it applies, the concept described exists in law. It was not made up on Commons. The name possibly was made up; it is a translation of the common German term Panoramafreiheit. Lupo 19:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Besides, no cross-namespace redirects from article space into "Wikipedia:" space, please. If you think this article should not be in the encyclopedia, AfD it. Lupo 19:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the reminder about cross-namespace redirects. I've nominated it for deletion. Possibly someone in the future will create an article on Panoramafreiheit and this name may perhaps be resurrected as a legitimate redirect to such an article. And thank you for calling "Panoramafreiheit" to my attention. ... Kenosis 20:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm
The discussions on this page appear to be getting very heated, with accusations of misconduct and dismissing of arguments as "Nonsense". Unfortunately, none of this appears to be moving towards a tenable solution. The AfD discussion, was, of course a sort of "request for comment", but perhaps we could get a few more comments from other venues? Like, perhaps, Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Or maybe at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability? Or both? I'll leave notes if that seems okay. --Iamunknown 16:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest reading the comments carefully before jumping to conclusions. Read the statements before and after the word "Nonsense". Nor do I see any accusations of misconduct. What exactly is the assertion here? ... Kenosis 18:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no assertion or, at least, any assertion is secondary and unintended. I posed a question, asking whether or not the involved editors (i.e. you and Lupo) would appreciate a request for comment regarding WP:VER and WP:RS from the two talk pages I mentioned.  --Iamunknown 22:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and btw, before you dismiss my comments as, "It is clear here that Iamunknown has not read the above discussion," as you have elsewhere, I have read the above discussion, realise that their are multiple alleged issues (regarding WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:V, etc.), and am merely trying to help out by asking if you and Lupo would like comments from uninvolved editors, even if for only a subset of those issues. --Iamunknown 22:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's see how it goes. I saw no problem with the discussion that seemed to indicate it couldn't be argued here, despite it getting a bit testy on several issues. If we're unable to get clear on whether this article's commentary on "freedom of panorama" in other nations such as the US amounts to WP:OR, we can consider the option later. The thought is appreciated nonetheless. ... Kenosis 23:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, asking at other places is fine with me. Hopefully someone can come up with a good name for this thing. Lupo 18:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the Australian Copyright Council pdf p. 6 refers to photographing buildings or artworks displayed in public places. And, by the way, makes no reference I could see to "freedom of panorama". Please take care to ensure that references are accurately cited. "Photographing in public places" might be the nearest English language equivalent to the German legal term, but a search of English language sources could prove fruitful:.. dave souza, talk 20:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, the extlink was correctly cited. "freedom of panorama" was just a moniker used to name the concept. The Australian extlink had the text see p. 6 for freedom of panorama, not see p. 6 for "freedom of panorama". It was not intended to be used as proof that the term exists, but to show that the concept exists in Australia. But your rewriting it is fine, too. Lupo 21:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If the article's about the concept, the title should be a common English phrase or term for the concept. If it's about a German legal concept referring to Panoramas that doesn't translate well into English, then it should be confined to that legal concept and a separate article should cover the broader context of similar concepts. ... dave souza, talk 22:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't translate at all, nor should we try to translate it. For decades, people have tried to translate Zeitgeist as "spirit of the times", but that "translation" misses the nuanced meaning of the word and is a very poor substitute, hence we use Zeitgeist.  Besides, "representating the trends of thought, belief and feeling of a specific period in a specific place (generally a nation)" is too long to be a useful translation (although it is accurate).  Same is true of Panoramafreiheit. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It does not sound to me that there legal rules for this sort of thing that exist in other countries and cultures that are identical to those in Germany. Therefore, maybe this article should be split into two; one on the German concept, under the German name. The other on the more general legal area, and its application in different countries noted, including the German application under Panoramafreiheit. Trying to shove all this under a bastardized botched translation of the German phrase is maybe not optimal. And I do not understand the resistance to using Panoramafreiheit; please peruse the dozens of examples in List of German expressions in English.--Filll 16:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The arguments are getting mixed up. Suggest keeping the renaming and OR/NPOV arguments within their respective sections above. --MichaelMaggs 19:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR and WP:VER concerns
Thank you for the references today (provided by Lupo I believe). Unfortunately, the references appear to be in German. and this is English Wikipedia. English references will be necessary so the content of this article can be collectively analyzed and discussed for its validitiy. Until English references are provided, the English reader needs to be informed that the referencing is under question. Therefore, I'm replacing the "unreferenced" tag until references are provided that can be properly scrutinized in English. I look forward to having those, because if the information in this article is accuratew.r.t. other nations, it's important information to the international creative community and to the international legal community and interested observers as well. ... Kenosis 14:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC) A further review of the references in this version of 20 September 2007 indicates that none of the English references provided use the word "panorama" or "freedom of panorama". Therefore this article appears to be an original synthesis or WP:OR. This will need to be fixed. I look forward to seeing this article, which presently is brought over from the WP Commons and from German Wikipedia, brought into reasonable respect for the two basic Wikipedia priniciples of WP:VER and WP:NOR. ... Kenosis 14:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're really hung up about the name. The article states it was a translation from German, so that's fine. Using foreign-language references is fine, too. We have millions of them. Other people who can read German can verify this. If you like, you could search for English-language references yourself. But your repeated tagging this as OR begins to look like a personal crusade against this article. Can you propose a better name? Lupo 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and BTW, there's now a number of English-language external links. So people who cannot read German can at least verify that indeed such a concept does exist in law. Lupo 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, here it is. See WP:RSUE, especially the italicized part. Find me English-language references that are as good as the German ones, and that also back the statements for which German-language references are used now, and I won't object to using such new English references instead of the currently used German ones. Lupo 14:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Lupo, you already know my position about this article. However, now that it's been decided to keep the article, it requires further editing and compliance with the basic principles at WP, principles that did not apply at the Commons where this article was originally formed. There's more work to do here. None of the English references appear to use the word "panorama". In other owrds, it's your interpretation (and maybe that of other users). And, we're going to need at least some English references that comply with WP:Reliable sources, otherwise the information is not in keeping with WP:VER. Let's get it done please, and I look forward to seeing a high quality presentation in keeping with WP:NOR, WP:VER. Believe it or not, there are WP:NPOV issues here too, but I haven't raised those, and hope the article will not encounter them from a "strong copyright" advocate. If we take care of the WP:VER and WP:OR concerns, the WP:NPOV issues should be reasily defensible. ... Kenosis 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Let's get it done..." (with respect to English references): well, then do it! Don't just keep tagging a well-referenced article as OR, but  . I'm not going to do all the work. Hell, this clumsy translation into English isn't even my creation! I don't know what to call it in English, but clearly the concept needs a name. Lupo 15:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't put the German references in. Rather, they were largely brought over from the Commons, where WP:VER and WP:OR do not apply. Who's going to pay for the professional translation? -- Are you asserting that I should? ... Kenosis 16:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm telling to start looking for English sources, and to stop claiming sources were not verifiable or reliable just because they're in a language you can't read. Others can. I have the same problem with, for instance, Icelandic references. But nevertheless, if I see that the user who put them in an article does speak Icelandic, I assume he knows what he's doing. Only if the claims made in the article are utterly unbelievable I would start looking for other Wikipedians who speak Icelandic to confirm that the given sources actually say what the original editor claimed they said. That might also be a route available to you... Lupo 16:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. If the English verifications, or reliable translations thereof, are not provided by the editor who asserts the material, they are subject to legitimate question. If they are not provided within 48 hours, I'm retagging the article accordingly. For now, have it your way. Good day. ... Kenosis 16:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. Question them. But don't claim they were not reliable if you don't understand them at all. Find someone who does understand them, and ask that person to check. Lupo 16:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The placement of the OR and VER tags were not "drive-by shootings" as is common on the wiki. I already have over three hours into this one article, reading it, tracing its origins, searching for alternative sources, etc. My research failed to turn up even one reliable English-language source that supports the claims in this article about "Freedom of panorama" applied to any nation other than Germany. Rather, my research indicates that the origin of this article is from a project piece entitled Freedom of panorama in Wikimedia Commons. I can't prove a negative, but rather, the onus is on the editor asserting the material in the article to provide the needed sources. Alternately, according to WP:VER it is subject to deletion of the unverified portions of the article unless verification is provided. The current sources do not support the claims made in the article.
 * The assertions in the article that "Freedom of panorama" applies in other countries are neither consistent with the German language sources nor consistent with the English language sources. That, unfortunately, is WP:Original research. ... Kenosis 16:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As to the insistence on, essentially "go translate the damn things yourself, Kenosis", I've begun the process of having someone do that. I'll get back to you after the translations come in. Right off the beginning, I see several that are not reasonably considered reliable sources. Talk later. ... Kenosis 16:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I do wonder about your alleged NPOV problems. Care to explain what you mean? Lupo 15:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There are two sides to this, of course. Advocates of strong copyright laws are the other side of the NPOV coin here, as distinguished from the free-content movement on the web. What I was asserting is that if the verification and original research concerns are properly attended to, the NPOV issues become very easy to deal with. I'd like to suggest that perhaps a timeline of, maybe a month or so?, would be adequate to bring this article into better alignment with WP principles. ... Kenosis 16:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And what exactly are your NPOV concerns here? Lupo 16:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I just gave the concern. This article is a direct descendant of the article from the Freedom of panorama article in Wikimedia Commons, which advocates free-license material worldwide. The copyright advocates are the other, unrepresented side of this coin. Like I said, though, if the WP:NOR, WP:VER and WP:RS concerns are properly addressed, the potential WP:NPOV issues become relatively very easy to handle. ... Kenosis 16:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well,  . I don't understand what you mean. The article is not advocacy, it states and explains a concept well-known in the laws of many countries. If you claim it advocated something, point out exactly where and what. Lupo 16:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Without reliable sources supporting the assertions that either "panoramafreiheit" or "freedom of panorama" applies to jurisdictions outside Germany, "sofixit" will unfortunately mean removal of all assertions in the article that constitute original research, or are unverifiable, or are not derived from a reliable source. As I said above, I already wasted too much time trying to find English-language sources applying either "panoramafreiheit" or "freedom of panorama" worldwide, or even beyond Germany, and they do not appear to exist. Rather, the evidence I found is that this article, as well as the phrase "freedom of panorama", both originated at Freedom of panorama in Wikimedia Commons. I am, however, open to evidence to the contrary, and indeed welcome such evidence to the contrary. ... Kenosis 17:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello... fact check... Without reliable sources supporting the assertions that either "panoramafreiheit" or "freedom of panorama" applies to jurisdictions outside Germany &mdash; why don't you just read those resources (references and extlinks) that you can read? Australia, UK are covered, as well as the U.S. (for buildings only, but not sculptures etc.) You could also get Elst's book from a library to check Russia. The concept exists there, too. You could ask other knowledgeable people instead of, in effect, just repeating "I don't believe it." Lupo 18:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's deal with it one step at a time. The primary resource for this article thus far is German attorney David Seiler's brief online summaries and comments at www.fotorecht.de here and here, accounting for six or seven of the current references. Seiler's brief pieces describe a divided European Union from the perspective of German copyright law, and he says at the end of the first piece, roughly translated: "It is thus shown that substantial differences in rights exist which can be settled only with great difficulty, and which indeed obstruct the domestic market." He also says the situation in the European Union "remains exciting". In other words, he is advocating a harmonization of European Union nations with this principle of German copyright law-- a harmonization that does not presently exist. ... Kenosis 19:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No-one ever said it applied everywhere. But it does apply in some countries other than Germany and Austria - even if the same term isn't used. Haukur 20:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood. I think we're making progress on the content and the sourcing. But Seiler's summary refers to the international situation as "splintered". He mentions differences, in his view, between Germany and several other nations, specifically Austria, France, and Cyprus. But beyond the brief analysis of Austria (he states that Austrian law is different from Germany's) and brief references to France and Cyprus, he neither specifies nor describes any specific equivalences in other nations. So, what are we to make of this? IMO, we need additional sources other than Seiler's brief commenraries to make the claims presently made in the article. Otherwise it's the WP editors who are doing the legal research and analysis, and that is what's known in WP as WP:Original research. ... Kenosis 21:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood. I think we're making progress on the content and the sourcing. But Seiler's summary refers to the international situation as "splintered". He mentions differences, in his view, between Germany and several other nations, specifically Austria, France, and Cyprus. But beyond the brief analysis of Austria (he states that Austrian law is different from Germany's) and brief references to France and Cyprus, he neither specifies nor describes any specific equivalences in other nations. So, what are we to make of this? IMO, we need additional sources other than Seiler's brief commenraries to make the claims presently made in the article. Otherwise it's the WP editors who are doing the legal research and analysis, and that is what's known in WP as WP:Original research. ... Kenosis 21:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis, I'm really struggling to understand your concerns here. Setting aside the issue of what the title should be, what we have is an article which explains the German legal concept of "panoramafreiheit", gives references, and then essentially says that very similar laws can be found in other countries, again with references. What on earth is OR or NPOV about that, particularly as the article also makes it clear that some countries such as the US do not have such laws? It may well be that the genesis of this article was the corresponding Commons page, but aside from referring to "the free-content movement" you aren't it seems to me making specific allegations which are capable of being fixed. Could you perhaps point out a particular phrase, context or reference that you believe is inappropriate? --MichaelMaggs 19:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of them have already been addressed in the past couple days. The brief notes from one German attorney, David Seiler, on a German photography website, written in German, are slim pickings in terms of WP:Reliable sources, but they will apparently need to suffice for the basic concept of panoramafreiheit as it is written into German law. My remaining concerns have to to with what is called WP:Original research. After a thorough search, I could not find any independent sources equating this concept with laws in other nations, other than Seiler's commentary about Austria, with only passinng reference to France and Cyprus without any substantive analysis by Seiler w.r.t. those nations. The only analysis put forward by Seiler regards the conflict of law between Germany and Austria in a legal case that hasn't been finished yet. It is not our function in WP articles to be doing independent legal comparisons of laws of nations on our own, unless they're drawn from the analyses already published. It may well be acceptable and adequate for the opinion essay on the Commons, but it isn't consistent with Wikipedia articles. Thus, the statements of equivalence or lack thereof that are presently made in this article are "original research" drawn from primary sources in other nations such as the U.S. Code and other such sources. So, there's more to do here. But for now, I'm gratified by the forward progress. Thanks for checking in. ... Kenosis 20:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Rename
A large segment of the editors who took part in the deletion discussion suggested renaming this article. I think the German name is appropriate, since we use lots of German words in English (angst, verbotten, gezundheit etc) What is being done about renaming it?--Filll 15:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing. For the time being, we don't have any suggestion for a better name for the concept. As I wrote above, the terms "panorama freedom" or "freedom of panorama" are not my creations. I don't know how to call this concept in law in English. Lupo 15:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Panoramafreiheit would be the obvious, since that's what it's called, and since all the sources that mention the German legal term appear to be in German. "Freedom of panorama" is not the only way of translating it to begin with. I could not find one reliable source which verifies even this translation, let along the original legal analysis that this article presently represents. Again, the references that appear to be possibly reliablle sources are all in German, and even some of those appear to have no clear attribution, they're just online writing in German with no visible indications of reliable origin (e.g. this site). And, none of the three or four English references even mention the word "panorama"... Kenosis 16:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The site you claim was not reliable is written by


 * David Seiler, Rechtsanwalt,
 * Mainz den 19.10.2005
 * betreut inhaltlich die Webseiten
 * http://www.fotorecht.de
 * und ist Mitautor des Beck-Rechtsberater im dtv „Internet-Recht im Unternehmen“


 * veröffentlicht in Photopresse 1/2, 2006, S. 16


 * All that is mentioned at the source link. He's an attorney specialized on IP issues concerning photography and it has been published. But if that's not reliable enough for you, I could also add the following hyper-reliable German off-line sources (it's the two leading commentaries on the Urheberrecht in Germany):
 * Vogel. In: Gerhard Schricker (Hrsg.): Urheberrecht. Kommentar. 2. Auflage. Beck, Munich 1999, ISBN 3-406-37004-7.
 * Dreier. In: Thomas Dreier/Gernot Schulze: Urheberrechtsgesetz. 2. Auflage. Beck, Munich 2006, ISBN 340654195X
 * The Rehbinder reference is one of the leading Swiss commentaries on the Swiss Urheberrechtsgesetz.


 * To repeat: just because you cannot read German, these sources are nonetheless reliable. There are enough other people here who can read German. Lupo 16:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But I agree that a better name would be needed. Using the German term is an option, but will make it look as if this concept of law applied only in Germany (or in German-speaking countries), which is clearly not true. Compare the external links given for the UK and Australia, for instance. Hence, moving it to the German term would be misleading. Lupo 16:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is, this is English Wikipedia. The sources in German do not help much, whether they are reliable or not. If you can find an equivalent name in English that is widely used and cited by WP:RS sources, then we can use it. Otherwise, I propose to use the German word for the title. In English, there is no shame in using the German or French or Italian or Japanese words if English is found lacking, as it often is.--Filll 16:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As a suggestion, "Photographing in public places" might be a simple way of conveying the scope of the article, which would then treat the position in various countries under the name used in that country. The Australian example uses the heading "Do I need permission to photograph artworks displayed in public places?", the UK article makes various reference to taking photographs from public places. .. dave souza, talk 20:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion... but note that this concept is not just about photography. It also applies to films and even covers painting. Under this permission, one may paint an image of a sculpture without having to worry about the copyright of the sculpture (if the sculpture is permanently installed at a public place). Lupo 21:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We could use a long-winded description like Copyright of artwork permanently installed in public places or something... Haukur 22:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Panoramafreiheit. See Zeitgeist, Schadenfreude, Kristallnacht, Kindergarten, Angst, Ansatz, Wanderlust, Autobahn, Realpolitik, etc.  Have I made my point?  Stop trying to translate the untranslatable: Freedom of Panorama has no more meaning than does isdkfikdsi. [[User:Jim62sch|&#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; ]] 22:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The renaming discussion seems to be more a Wikipolicy argument than a legal one. So far as I am aware, the English expression 'Freedom of Panorama' is not generally used in Common Law countries to describe the concepts which correspond to the German "Panoramafreiheit". The phrase does not appear in the index of any of the copyright textbooks I have access to, nor so far as I can see is it used within the text. I don't actually think there is any commonly-used English legal expression which covers the concept. "Freedom of panorama" works well, and most users on Commons seem to accept that term, but I've no opinion on whether that makes it appropriate to use as the title of this page. --MichaelMaggs 09:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Think about it, what does "Freedom of Panorama" mean? Let's say you ran across the term, knowing nothing of Panoramafreiheit, would you even have the remotest clue as to what it referred?  No, but neither would anyone else. It's a meaningless phrase that serves no purpose.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  13:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems so far as I can see to be a reasonable consensus to rename the article "Panoramafreiheit". What's stopping anyone doing it? (Note, though, that this is independent of the OR arguments. I will address those in the section above. --MichaelMaggs 19:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously, nothing. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 21:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an improvement?
''Typically, the copyright in a recently-constructed building will vest in the architect, while the copyright in a sculpture normally vests in the sculptor. Panoramafreiheit acts to limit the right of the copyright owner to take action for breach of copyright against the photographer or anyone distributing the resultant image. It is an exception to the normal rule that the copyright owner has the exclusive right to authorize the making and distribution of derivative works.'' This is far worse. What does "recently-constructed " mean, and even if it had meaning, where is the ref that it only applies to "recent" (a subjective word if I ever saw one) construction? Vests is simply the wrong word. Basically, this edit clarified nothing, and reads like a very bad attempt at legalese. Sorry, but that's how I see it. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 18:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Also, "normally" is just a bit waffly, and there's nothing indicating when such copyright is not granted to the sculptor.&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 18:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You may never have come across the verb 'to vest' as in 'copyrights vests in ..', but I can assure you it is an expression commonly used by copyright specialists. Try any standard work on copyright law in English. All of the terms to which you object can easily be made legally exact, but I'm not sure that's really needed or desirable here, as we're not writing a general legal text. To make things exact will mean adding a significant of background law which would put the whole article out of balance. Do we really, for example, need a full analysis of the copyright period for architectural works in Germany and elsewhere in order to explain what "Panoramafreiheit" means?  If you want exact clarity on what 'recently-built' means, that's what you'd have to do. Or, alternately, you could delete 'recently-built', in which case the article will incorrectly suggest that the described concept covers old buildings. Please feel free to improve if you can.  --MichaelMaggs 21:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm quite aware of the term "vest", thank you.  But as Iamunknown points out below, there are better ways to say the same thing.  As for recent or normally see WP:WEASEL <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  22:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a construction involving "held" would be better than one involving "vest"? I agree that vest is common, but to me, "the copyright in a recently-constructed work of architecture/scultpure is held by the architect/sculptor" sounds more natural.  --Iamunknown 21:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Well it gets rather complicated, and a full explication would bloat the first paragraph, but perhaps a detailed footnote can accompany the unclear phrases. I can't find an up-to-date translation of the German copyright law (Urheberrechtsgesetz, UrhG), which I think was amended in 2004. Section 2, however, does indicate that "Protected literary, scientific and artistic works shall include, in particular ... works of fine art, including works of architecture and of applied art and plans for such works" (UrhG §2), while section 64 indicates that "Copyright shall expire 70 years after the author's death" (UrhG §64).
 * So, at least in Germany, which the lead paragraph is dealing with (as the "Many countries have similar provisions..." is not introduced until the next paragraph), the copyright in a recently-constructed building is held by the architect and in a recently-constructed sculpture by the sculptor; "recently-constructed" means any work of architecture or sculpture for which the architect or sculptor has been dead for less than 70 years; and, as far as I know, Germany does not have the concept of "work for hire", so copyright is always held by the architect or sculptor, unless otherwise assigned or licensed to other parties (but I don't have any refs for that).
 * I should also point out that I agree with Michael above that a full analysis of the copyright period is a bit much for the paragraph. More clear language, with a footnote touching the details, might, however, be appropriate.  --Iamunknown 21:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A footnote would be fine, and Michael's edit is right on target. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  14:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Building copyright
Speaking of the US, the article says "This freedom of panorama for buildings does not apply to art,[16] however, which even restricts photography of the artistic components of a building design[17]." I don't contest that it does not apply to art incidentally placed on or in an building, but rather the "which even restricts photography of the artistic components of a building design" part. #17,, doesn't say that. It says "Publicly accessible architectural works, such as a uniquely designed office building, may also be copyrighted, prohibiting artists and photographers from making or taking pictures of them." which is false in the US; architectural works have freedom of panorama.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the writer's imperfect English was the problem, not the law. "Artistic elements of a building design" to me, means ornament: decorative friezes, entablatures, moldings, when photographed in closeup and where such would otherwise be eligible for copyright (as most simple geometric designs would not). Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Without Panoramafreiheit, copyright violations for photographing ruins, building exteriors, automobiles, clothing, statues, gardens, trees, fountains, light displays, billboards, signs, and murals visible to anyone would be so commonplace that courts could be flooded if owners of the original image had the right to sue people for photographing such objects in context. Copyright seems to exist only for an exclusive right, and public display seems to deny exclusivity of access to an image. Even in the interior something unfixed in form, like a zoo animal, a tree in an arboretum, or a moving configuration of aquatic creatures in an aquarium, might be open for photography with the consent of the owner. A leopard can't be copyrighted, but a photograph of a leopard can be.

A museum might rightly prohibit photography of artistic works as violations of copyright, but might permit photography of Old Master paintings or other elderly items as there would be no violation of copyright laws. Photographs of Edgar Degas' paintings are safe from copyright violation, but photographs of works by Andy Warhol that might still be under protection create problems even for an amateur photographer.

So General Motors might own the right to deny anyone the ability to make an automobile that looks excessively similar to a 1957 Corvette because the engineering and style designs remain under copyright, but anyone who sees such a vehicle can photograph it with no fear of consequences from General Motors. Of course, any motor vehicle is almost always seen in some context. Likewise, clothing designers might have copyright on clothing designs, but photography of someone wearing the clothing and the clothing would be a reasonable expectation because copyright is not so much a constraint on display as it is a prohibition of competitive publishing. Walt Disney Corporation might have copyright protection of an image of Mickey Mouse to the extent that someone cannot legally silkscreen an image of the rodent without paying a royalty, but once one buys an article of clothing with such an image and wears it, Disney can assume that it will be used in personal photographs.

One might not be able to extract plans from a building design from a photograph without impunity because such would be a violation of the architect's rights in a copyright - but such might be done to crate a copy which would violate copyright.Pbrower2a (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The "FOP" category
is up for discussion. Please look here. -- Hoary (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Original Research
I was at the Edmonton airport recently for a flight to the coast. An RCMP person pointed out that I should have my lens cap on while approaching the security section. I didn't have a lens cap at the time so I just removed the lens and he was fine with that. Should we add a note in the Anti-terrorism laws section with RS as to any rule changes before and after recent events such as 9/11 regarding camera protocol at airports and other facilities? That section is rather lame and could use some expansion anyway.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Europe map
I changed the Europe map back to the previous and more simpler one, because the new image added on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_of_panorama&oldid=620143123 6. august 2014] is far too confusing and does not properly separate which is for commercial uses and which is not.

If colours and legend in the new image are reworked, then it's ok to return it, as long as separation between commercial/non-commercial, as in the current image, is very closely followed. -Mardus (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The maps are wrong about Hellas, she has full freedom of panorama (at least since 1995), Hellas should be colored green as anything and anyone in public can be photographed and the photo be published or sold for non-commercial use, e.g. editorial/journalistic or artistic use. Joxi Szriasztista (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

About the Italian law stating "the publishing of photographic reproductions of public places is still prohibited"
Falls pictures like File:Obelisk_of_montecitorio_arp.jpg into this prohibition since the sentence states that "public places is still prohibited"? (I've also nominated it for deletion on Commons on this ground, see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Obelisk of montecitorio arp.jpg. Please add an interpretion there if you know more about it) Nsaa (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as the actual italian law prescribes (codice urbani) it makes obligatory the request of authorization (nulla osta) for the reproduction of cultural goods in case of the need of professional reproduction with the scope to earn money from it. This does not include the accidental inclusion of any cultural good in your panorama photo, the issue of a postcard or the result of any shooting. This is intended to the activity of a professional reproducer (a photographer or painter or anyone else) that wants to create a commercial reproduction, e.g. to make an illustration book about the statues of a certain monument, in this case the cultural heritage office requires authorization, verification of the professional capabilities of the reproducer and copies of the reproduced work. They, also, require a share in the profit of the sales of the reproduced good, e.g for the same old picture book about a monument, they want a share in the profit of the sales of the book itself. In any case I have included important monuments in my fashion photoshoots, I have asked the authorization, got it in few days and I only had to pay a very limited administrative fee (less that 10 euros). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.206.0.43 (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Freedom of panorama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20020722213717/http://www.rechtpraktisch.de:80/artikel.html?id=519 to http://www.rechtpraktisch.de/artikel.html?id=519

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 17:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Sweden
This recent case may be relevant. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's Wikimedia's take on this issue. AHeneen (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Freedom of panorama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheets/info-sheet/street-photographers-rights/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.copyright.org.au/admin/cms-acc1/_images/732757805533a4bbed9e2a.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 10:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Non-commercial FoP and PoV
Curretly, non-commercial FoP is basically omitted from the article while it is actually becoming all the more relevant, at least in Europe. At least it should be mentioned under "Former USSR" that all the Baltic states have NC FoP - altogether with a short explanation of its practical meaning (because its extent not obvious, concerning commercial platforms and commercial activities of non-commercial organizations). Furthermore, the article as a whole seems to present mostly the Wikipedin PoV presented in Commons which is actually not universal but sees FoP only from the point of view of a single application: is it okay to post certain pictures on Commons or not. E.g., France recently accepted a very, very thin version of FoP (not only is it non-commercial, but it is also limited to physical persons only). In practice, it is almost useless, but legally they do have FoP now. It is not useful for Commons but this is not Commons, this is an article for the general public and should talk about the issue in general, not only of its applicability for our own use - and that includes the map. --Oop (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Any relevant sources? I thinkl we should expand this, but would need serious sources, e.g., law review articles.  Sandstein   11:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Freedom of panorama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.photographie.de/magazin/fotorecht_10_2002.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070912005656/http://www.asmp.org:80/commerce/legal/copyright/publicbldg.php to http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/copyright/publicbldg.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama in France
i believe that the maps need to be updated; they show no freedom of panorama in France, whereas, as the text explains, the French was recently changed and now there is freedom of panorama, but with certain limits, as in other countries.

Also, one editor has questioned the relevance of the discussion about the impact of the limits on freedom of panorama in France. I think it's important to note that articles about French architecture in the English Wikipedia and other Wikipedias are seriously hindered because editors aren't aware that the French law has changed, and because of confusion about the consequences of the French law changes. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've not been aware of a change in the French legislation. Can you please point out specifically what has changed regarding the English and other Wikipedias? Is there any material that can now be freely uploaded? Thanks a lot. --Eleassar my talk 12:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * An excellent question.  According to the amended French law it should now be possible to upload images of buildings and permanent statues on French streets into Wikimedia Commons, as long as the images are not used for commercial purposes and are uploaded by individuals.  However, Wikicommons editors continue to take down pictures on the grounds that France does not have Freedom of Panorama.  It's possible that the Wikicommons has decided that the French law does not go far enough.   It would certainly help if Wikicommons could clarify or update its policy.   At the moment it's almost impossible to write an article about French architecture since 1945, unless the architects themselves put up pictures of their buildings.  The lack of images in Wikicommons affects all the Wikpedia language versions, since they all draw from the same pool of images. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I see. The Commons conditions for inclusion demand that any file included is available for any use, be it non-commerical or commercial. That means that the French FOP provisions are still too restrictive to allow for uploading photographs of modern French architectural or sculptural works to the Commons. Feel welcome to update the article accordingly, though, and thanks for the reply. --Eleassar my talk 17:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Freedom of panorama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930160856/http://www.fotorecht.de/publikationen/hundertwasserhaus3.html to http://www.fotorecht.de/publikationen/hundertwasserhaus3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930161320/http://www.fotorecht.de/publikationen/gebaeude.html to http://www.fotorecht.de/publikationen/gebaeude.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111027233307/http://www.artquest.org.uk/articles/view/advertising-and-marketing-art-copyright-confusion1 to http://www.artquest.org.uk/articles/view/advertising-and-marketing-art-copyright-confusion1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091130161651/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23776068-bbc-man-in-terror-quiz-for-photographing-st-pauls-sunset.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23776068-bbc-man-in-terror-quiz-for-photographing-st-pauls-sunset.do
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/copyright/publicbldg.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Corruption
Regarding the Italian law: "to publish pictures of "cultural goods" (meaning in theory every cultural and artistic object [ever created in the history of mankind]) for commercial purposes it is mandatory to obtain an authorization from the local branch of the Ministry of Arts and Cultural Heritage, the Soprintendenza [aka the mafia]." [Emphasis added.]

Are not such ridiculous restrictions, in use in Italy, Greece, Eastern Europe, and other "Not OK" countries (well known for their 'good governance'), created for the sole purpose of enriching bureaucrats with bribes for a "Please May I" authorization to use a photograph I took, of an object in public, with my camera, for entirely non-commercial purposes?!

Copyright law is out of control, entirely, and unjustifiably, taking control of public law, from the public, for entirely private, pecuniary interests.

I am sure this contribution (to this 'Talk' page) will be deleted seconds after I post it. I don't give a.

One, such a deletion, by the self-appointed Gods calling themselves "Wikipedia Editors," will just illustrate the hypocrisy of banning 'talk' on a page supposedly created to encourage 'Talk.'

Two, I will have had my say, forever entered into the public domain (somewhere in the bowels of 'edit history'). (No I have not, and will not copyright this contribution, yet that does not seems to prevent governments from banning reproduction of it. We wouldn't want to create a precedent here, would we? It might deprive someone else, who made the mistake of disclaiming a copyright, from later claiming that they really meant to claim that copyright, when it turns out that there might, might have been a financial reward to have been obtained from it. Of course he (must I really type "she" here as well?) didn't think of that pecuniary reward mechanism himself(herself/itself??) – someone else did. Yet, that will not stop him(/her/it) from now claiming he(/she/it) is "owed" that money! Oh, obvious hypocrisy and greed present here defies imagination!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3476:4D0:7928:C21B:737A:374F (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Freedom of panorama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013151300/http://chicagoist.com/2005/02/17/millennium_park_photography_the_official_scoop.php to http://chicagoist.com/2005/02/17/millennium_park_photography_the_official_scoop.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Video
I intend to remove the video from the article, but feel compelled to turn here first because, inexplicably, the removal of the video (by another user) was actually reverted some time ago. The argument in favour of removal is twofold: The video does not comply with WP:NPOV (a) and it is factually inaccurate (b).

(a) The video starts with the comment that "some of the statements made in this video may make you doubt my mental sanity", which already sets the tone for this piece of activism, obviously aimed at ridiculing commentators and copyright regimes that do not recognise the freedom of panorama. Later on, the video states, among other things, that not recognising freedom of panorama is "stupid". Eventually, they call on viewers to "seize the ... copyright review to end this misunderstanding". Since the video is not used to illustrate one particular viewpoint but to introduce the topic as a whole, it is subject to WP:NPOV, a test that it dramatically fails.

(b) The neutrality issues notwithstanding, the video is also factually incorrect in several respects, three of which I will address here. First, the statement "This freedom doesn't actually exist in certain countries, and in these countries, pieces of public space are sometimes copyrighted ... Could be a building, could be a sculpture, copyright could actually even cover an entire city" points to a basic misunderstanding of the freedom of panorama limitation as the video wrongly suggests that works in public places are somehow not protected by copyright in countries with an FOP-style provision. In reality, however, modern copyright laws, including all national copyright laws within the European Union, clearly distinguish between copyright protection and applicability of a limitation to copyright (arts 2, 5(2), recital 32 InfoSoc Directive; I Stamatoudi and P Torremans in I Stamatoudi and P Torremans (eds), EU Copyright Law: A Commentary (Elgar 2014) paras 11.64ff). In other words, at least within the EU (which this video is exclusively concerned with), countries that have an FOP-style limitation do recognise the copyright protection of works in public places; they simply permit, by law, their reproduction, distribution, and communication to the public under certain conditions. Second, aside from being entirely beside the point, the suggestion in the rhetorical question "But isn't the whole of the internet commercial?" (followed by a parade of horribles supposedly illustrating there is no way you can use your pictures without falling of short of some non-commercial prong) is absurd. The question that sometimes does come up in interpreting the InfoSoc directive is whether a given use is commercial or not, or whether someone's use serves commercial purposes or not. That issue is entirely distinct from the question of whether, say, some third party who hosts the website or has sold you the domain pursues commercial goals. Third, the video repeatedly misrepresents the implications of depicting a protected work. At one point, for instance, the narrator states that: "You know what's even more stupid than the fact that you may not own a photograph because there's a statue in the background ..." But that's just not the case. Neither property nor copyright ownership in the photograph rests with the creator of the statue. Under UK and Italian law, for instance, the photographer becomes the author of the new (derivative) work, with a license required from the owner of the copyright in the depicted work for purposes of exploting the photograph (Copinger and Skone James on Copyright (17th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2016) para 4-24; A Clemente, V Falce, and AM Gambino (eds), Proprietà intellettuale, mercato e concorrenza (Giuffrè 2017) s 29); in Germany, the result would, in essence, be the same (BGH GRUR 1983, 28, 29 – Kunstwerkwiedergabe I). At no point does the photographer lose "ownership" of their picture; they are simply limited in their ability to use their photographic work due to the inclusion of someone else's work.

— Pajz (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with removal. At the very least, it's not NPOV, and is overly promotional with regard the individual who made it, such as asking for subscribers. The other points above sound as though they have merit, without properly digging into them. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I also concur. I hadn't actually looked at the video before, but it is (a) strongly promoting a political viewpoint and (b) seeking subscribers to a personal channel. Although I happen to agree with the point of view being promoted, it really is not suitable for inclusion within a neutral Wikipedia article. I can also confirm that the statements Pajz makes above, setting out the European and UK legal position, are quite correct. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments, I have now removed the video. — Pajz (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

UK?
It would be good if somebody with an understanding of the details could add a UK section. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 13:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * See Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Freedom_of_panorama, which I believe to be correct, though it would be worth checking the latest edition of Copinger for any recent updates. I'm not going into the British Library at the moment but would be happy to do that if needed once things are back to normal. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * MichaelMaggs, fyi: . Best, — Pajz (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have now added a UK section. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 20:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

South Africa
It would seem that South Africa's position is green: http://digitalphotographycourses.co.za/the-law-as-it-pertains-to-photographers-in-south-africa/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leuce (talk • contribs) 16:10, 8 July 2015  (UTC)
 * the FOP status of South Africa on the map is correct. Using c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/South Africa as the basis, the Copyright Act 1978 of South Africa (as at 18 June 2002), section 15(3) states "The copyright in an artistic work shall not be infringed by its reproduction or inclusion in a cinematograph film or a television broadcast or transmission in a diffusion service, if such work is permanently situated in a street, square or a similar public place." It means depictions or representations of South African works are only permissible in movies, television programmes, and objects of transmission using radio technology (diffusion service). Nothing is allowed in photography, unless you would take photos for your personal use only (which is no longer FOP issue) and not for selling your photos to commercial postcard makers or using your image in commercial T-shirt prints. In a nutshell, there is no FOP there whatsoever. For this reason the Wikipedians there are active in campaigning for the passage of the amendments to their copyright law, now including their FOP provision (see meta:Wikimedia South Africa/Copyright Amendement Bill). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Move a section
Pinging users involved in some threads above for some insight or input I'm planning to move the section "2015 review on Copyright Directive" (which led to the FOP discourse during summer 2015 in Europe) to Information Society Directive (between sections "Implementation" and "2019 review"). I actually added the said section here, but now as I added more selected countries here, I see it as occupying a substantial portion of the article (at least the section about FOP statuses in select countries around the world). Perhaps moving it to Information Society Directive will be fine? I will add "see also" link just below "European Union" subheading, linking to this section once this is now at Information Society Directive. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thanks for the ping. I'm a bit skeptical. Looking at the issue through the lense of the InfoSoc directive, the debate surrounding this proposed amendment seems like a small storm in a teacup. There have been plenty of failed amendments in all sorts of areas, many of whom with huge potential implications on the European copyright framework. This particular proposal regarding a relatively minor exception/limitation that has not once been the subject of a CJEU decision appears to be of relatively little importance with respect to the directive as a whole. So if you're saying that the issue right now is that it's "occupying a substantial portion of the article", I believe that issue will be excarbarated by moving the section to the InfoSoc article. Not sure if that should be the standard but it just seems like a bigger deal, relatively speaking, for the fate of FOP than for the InfoSoc directive. Just my two pennies' worth. Best, — Pajz (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * in this case, is it best to remain it here as it is or remove the entire 2015 FOP narrative altogether? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be removed, though perhaps shortened a bit (maybe remove some of the views from individual stakeholders), while ideally the article should discuss the situation in Europe de lege lata in more detail, so that there's a better balance. You can see how I dealt with the issue in de:Panoramafreiheit (which only mentions the proposal in the last paragraph), but I think it's perfectly fine (perhaps desirable) to give more space to the reform discussion. — Pajz (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I can summarize this further, as I may become busy personally soon (due to erratic personal and educational schedules). Hope someone is willing to summarize it. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking of removing that part (on the 2015 discourse) as a whole. Besides I was the one who added it (page history verifies this). But two sentence parts are to be incorporated within France, in a new paragraph that I am proposing to add:

In the past, French lawmakers and politicians were hesitant to introduce freedom of panorama; former National Assembly member Patrick Bloche in 2011 called freedom of panorama an "amendement Wikipédia". During the 2015 debate at the European Parliament on the introduction of the exception to the whole European Union, then French MEP Jean-Marie Cavada claimed that commercial freedom of panorama victimizes the authors of architectural and artistic works by letting entities like Wikimedia and Facebook exploit the reproductions of the works commercially without compensation to the authors; his office added that noncommercial exception would not affect Internet freedom, but would guarantee that "platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Flickr provide fair compensation to artists."

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: I have already trimmed the section, and also added Reda's original proposal. Pajz, you are free to edit it to make it either shorter or morr grammatically accurate. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Lotte World Tower Blacked Out.jpg

Photographing a NZ Hamilton center
I will be photographing a city center in NZ Hamilton for Freedom of Panorama article. To make sure that the image properly illustrates a freedom of panorama rights stuff, how should I take a photo of it on my iPhone 7? Obviously landscape, but where in the city center should I photo? Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 23:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, there are misrights with copyrights regarding murals, to which Hamilton does have a number of. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 23:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * you may photograph Hamilton buildings and/or sculptures that are still in copyright (whichever you prefer), and publish them on WikiCommons. Take note that murals are not covered by the New Zealander freedom of panorama. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup, I acknowledge that buildings and/or sculptures still in copyright can be photographed in New Zealand, I was establishing the initial comment here so that I can remind myself to take a photo in the city later. If I got this right, murals cannot be shown in the photograph, and only "de minimus" or whatever it is called can be shown; if the mural can still be taken out without disturbing the purpose of the image, then that mural is "de minimus". Obviously, I cannot outright upload pictures of murals in Wikipedia or let them become easily visible, but I'll try my best to get a good cityscape view of that Hamilton without trying to get murals in the pictures I take for Wikipedia. Majority of New Zealand cities do not quite look like the busy-ness level of Auckland, hence why Hamilton would be the second-best city to photograph for this article, imo. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 08:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to move the U.S. section to the first part
The German edition of the article, de:Panoramafreiheit, lists Germany (Deutschland) as the first section in the part of the article that discusses FOP situation per country/territory, as I assume the article first serves the German readers. Applying this to this enwiki edition, I am proposing to move the section "United States" to the first part of the section "Freedom of panorama around the world", since this wiki first serves the readers from the United States. It is also fair to place United States as the first of the countries listed in the FOP situation by country as this Wikipedia mostly follows U.S. copyright laws (German Wikipedia mostly follows German copyright laws). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The premise "this wiki first serves the readers from the United States" is incorrect.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * though it is in reality, considering enwiki's adherence to the laws of the United States especially the copyright law (thus FoP-USonly came into existence, wherein enwiki only respects U.S. copyright law and accepts unfree buildings from no-FOP countries). Thus the section about the United States, IMO, is better moved to the top of the section "Freedom of panorama around the world". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I do not find this argument convincing. Indeed, we have to comply with the US copyright law, and the English Wikipedia, unlike, fro example, Commons, has decided to keep this as the only copyright restriction, but I do not see this in any way as indication that the US law is more important. I think it is obviously that alphabetical order in the article is more convenient for the readers.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)