Commons:Freedom of panorama

Freedom of panorama in European countries

OK, including public interiors

OK

OK for buildings only

Not OK

Public interiors are OK, but schools, opera buildings, entrance halls of businesses, and museums are not public places for the purpose of Dutch law, while railway stations are.

Inconclusive or unknown

In almost all countries, art, architecture, and other works are protected by copyright for a specified period. That means any photograph taken of such a work during the copyright period is a derivative work, provided (under US law) that the photograph displays the quantum of originality required for copyright protection of a derivative work.

A derivative work usually requires a license from the creator of the work. However, in many (but not all) countries there is an exception in copyright law which eliminates the need for a license. We call this exception freedom of panorama (FOP), a phrase derived from the German term Panoramafreiheit.

The works to which the FOP exception applies vary widely from country to country. The exception generally applies only to works on permanent public display. In some countries, this is only in outdoor public places; in others it extends to indoor places where admission is charged. It may cover only architecture, only architecture and sculpture, or all copyrightable works including literary works.

Note that in every country, even one without an FOP exception, once a work goes out of copyright it may be freely photographed. Also, the exception does not eliminate the need for a license from the photographer.

Legal status

Buildings and sculptures as works of art

[pl], the author of the work depicted in the photograph is Grzegorz Sadowski.

Every building and sculpture we can see in our neighbourhood is subject to the copyright law, as far as it incorporates artistic creativity. The Berne convention, art.2-1 explicitly states so: "The expression "literary and artistic works" shall include [...] works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography".

Usually, the copyright law acts mention such an object explicitly as their subject matter. This is reproduced in national laws (for instance the US Copyright Law in §102-8).

The owners of buildings should not be assumed to hold the copyright of their buildings. For this reason, in countries without freedom of panorama, Wikimedia Commons requires proof of copyright release from the copyright holder when hosting any images of those buildings. If the owner of a building uploads an image to Commons, presume that they do not own the copyright. Ask them to provide either proof of copyright transfer from the architect to them, or otherwise, ask them to direct the architect to apply a Commons-compatible license to the image.

Legal status of pictures

The Berne convention Article 9 explicitly states that:

1. Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form.
2. It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.
3. Any sound or visual recording shall be considered as a reproduction for the purposes of this Convention.

This has been reproduced for instance in § 106 of the US Copyright Law, and corresponding national laws.

According to copyright laws, then:

Taking pictures of buildings is a reproduction, which must theoretically be authorized by the architect if the right to reproduction is not in the national copyright law.

This is the situation for any derivative work based on any artistic creation.

Photographs of buildings

A photograph of a building or even any scene in a city or a village inevitably depicts some pieces of architecture or even sculptures. The photograph may or may not have its own creative element, making it a work of its own, but the value of this work clearly depends on the value in the works that are depicted on it. In case of such a dependency the photograph is deemed to be a derivative work.

This restriction on building photographs is often weakened by a separate clause for photographs or pictures of buildings in public places. However, this clause is not always made explicit in national laws.

Choice of law

The question of what country's law applies in a freedom of panorama case is an unsettled issue. There are several potentially conflicting legal principles, any of which might be used to determine the applicable law (see en:Choice of law). The law used is likely to be one of the following: the country in which the object depicted is situated, the country from which the photograph was taken, or the country in which the photo is used (viewed/sold). Because of the international reach of Commons, ensuring compliance with the laws of all countries in which files are or might be reused is not realistic. Since the question of choice of law with regard to freedom of panorama cases is unsettled, current practice on Commons is to retain photos based on the more lenient of the country in which the object is situated and the country in which the photo is taken. For example, North Korea has a suitable freedom of panorama law, while South Korea's law, limited to non-commercial uses, is not sufficient for Commons. As a result of the practice of applying the more lenient law, we would generally retain photos taken from North Korea of buildings in South Korea (e.g., File:Joint Security Area from North Korea.jpg) as well as photos taken from South Korea of buildings in North Korea (e.g., File:070401 Panmunjeom3.jpg).

• Related reading: Infringement in the Internet Age - Primetime for Harmonized Conflict-of-Laws Rules? by Anita B. Frohlich, 2008.
• Note wmf:DMCA Oldenburg (November 2012) and WMF response to it on the application of US freedom of panorama, not source country freedom of panorama, essentially endorsing lex loci protectionis for FOP.

Uploading images covered under Freedom of Panorama to the Commons

When uploading images subject to Freedom of Panorama provisions to the Commons, please tag them with an FoP template, which contains a legal explanation on the copyright status of the work, and sorts the image into a category of images subject to these provisions. If the country the image is taken in does not have these provisions, or only allows them for non-commercial purposes, they cannot be licensed under a license compatible with our Licensing policy and must be deleted. Please file requests for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests.

For images of artwork that are covered by Freedom of Panorama in the country where the photo was taken, the {{Not-free-US-FOP}} template can be included to advise reusers that the US (where Commons is hosted) has no Freedom of Panorama provisions for artwork and that the image might not be freely reusable in the US. This template should not be used for images that only show architectural works, which are covered by US Freedom of Panorama provisions.

Nuances in the panorama freedom

We will discuss here the case of the German legislation. Here is the content of §59 of the German Copyright Law (Urheberrechtsgesetz, UrhG):

1. It shall be permissible to reproduce, by painting, drawing, photography or cinematography, works which are permanently located on public ways, streets or places and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies. For works of architecture, this provision shall be applicable only to the external appearance.
2. Reproductions may not be carried out on a work of architecture.

Quoted from an English translation.

Publishing of reproductions

The article above allows one to reproduce and publish photographs taken in public places. It is understood that this includes publishing the pictures in a commercial way.

Public places

German law allows photographers to take pictures that are visible from publicly accessible places. This includes private ways and parks with common access. However, it does not include railway station buildings or platforms. The picture must be taken from a publicly accessible point. It is not permitted to take a picture of such a building from a private house or from a helicopter.

In other countries, these restrictions are sometimes less stringent. For instance, the Australian, Austrian, British, Mexican, Indian, and United States laws allow taking pictures of publicly accessible interiors.

Permanent vs temporary

The exhibited objects must be exhibited in a permanent way. If a work is presented on a public place temporarily, one may be obliged to get the explicit permission to take its picture.

Whether a work is installed at a public place permanently or not is not a question of absolute time, but a question of what the intention was when the work was placed there. If it was put there with the intention of leaving it in the public place indefinitely or at least for the whole natural lifetime of the work, then it is "permanent".

A sculpture is typically placed with the intent of leaving it for an indefinite time. But if it was clear from the beginning that it would be left there only, say, for three years and then be moved to a museum, then the placement was not "permanent". On the other hand, if a sculpture was placed with the intent of leaving it "open end", but is then removed due to new construction plans some time later, its placement remains "permanent" even if the sculpture is eventually removed.

Even quickly decaying works can thus be "permanent" and therefore be subject to freedom of panorama. Street paintings, ice, sand, or snow sculptures rarely last more than a few days or weeks. If they're left in public space for their natural lifetime, they are considered "permanent" all the same. But if, for instance, an ice sculpture is exhibited only for a few hours and then moved to cold storage, it may not be permanently placed. (See also archived discussion of 09/2013).

Architecture vs sculptures

The German law allows photography of both buildings and sculptures. The situation in the United States is different. See below.

Music, literature etc.

Sometimes, a literary work is a part of a building or sculpture or is presented on a publicly accessible plaque. In most jurisdictions, the literary work has a separate copyright which must be considered separately unless it is an integral part of the building or sculpture. A plaque describing the building or sculpture will not qualify unless the work is in one of the eleven jurisdictions which include an exception for literary works.

Acknowledgment of source

The copyright law usually obliges the photographer to credit the authors of works depicted in his photograph. That usually means that the photographer must provide a description of the depicted objects and the authors thereof. However, the photographer can be exempted from the obligation when the authorship is difficult to deduce. For instance, German copyright law says in §62 that the photographer does not need to credit the author if authorship is not clearly present on the object that is depicted.

The right to modify

The panorama freedom is restricted to taking pictures of the actual objects. Generally, the freedom to modify such pictures is restricted. For example, the German law in §62 forbids any modifications except those technically required by the method of replication.

Further derivative works

A derivative work based on a photograph is most often also a derivative work based on the depicted object. The panorama freedom usually does not include the delegation of the right to authorize the derivative works. The author of a photograph has the right to authorize the derivative work based on the photograph only to the extent that results from the creative element of his work. However, he does not have the right to authorize the derivative work in the extent associated with the original object.

Pictures of public domain objects

Public domain objects are not protected by copyright, so objects of this kind can be freely photographed and the pictures can be published both royalty free and commercially, at least so far as copyright law is concerned (there may be contractual or other restrictions on picture-taking, though, especially on private property). Moreover, pictures of public domain objects can be freely modified and derivative works can be freely developed. For example, old buildings and statues where the architect or artist died more than a certain number of years ago (depending on the country), are in the public domain.

Situation in different countries

This section presents more detailed accounts of the legal status of freedom of panorama in different countries and regions. This is not legal advice, but just for educational purposes.

Map

Summary table

Freedom of panorama laws (by country)

Country	Commercial use	Buildings	3D artwork	2D artwork	Text	Public interiors
Albania	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	?	No
Algeria	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Angola	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Argentina	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	?
Armenia	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	?
Australia	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes
Austria	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Belgium	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	?
Brazil	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	?
Bulgaria	No	No	No	No	No	No
Canada	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes
China	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
Czech Republic	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	?
Denmark	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes
Finland	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes
France	No	No	No	No	No	No
Georgia	No	No	No	No	No	No
Germany	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Hungary	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
India	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes
Israel	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	?
Italy	No	No	No	No	No	No
Japan	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	?
Mexico	?	Yes	Yes	Yes	?	Yes
New Zealand	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes
Norway	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes
Poland	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	?
Portugal	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Spain	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	?
Sweden	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Switzerland	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	?
Russia	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	?
United Kingdom	Yes	Yes	Yes	Some	No	Yes
United States	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes
Notes	The following countries have no freedom of panorama (or freedom of panorama limited to non-commercial uses only): Afghanistan, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, DR Congo, Costa Rica, Estonia, Ethiopia, France, Gambia, Georgia, Greece, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mali, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Oman, Philippines, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vatican City, Zambia

Afghanistan

 Not OK, for personal uses only

According to Article 39 of "The law of support the right of Authors, Composers, Artists and Researchers (Copy Right Law)" of Afghanistan (signed 21 July 2008),

"Article 39:

(1) Reproduce of published Work is permitted by a natural person without the Author’s authorization provided that it is exclusively for the personal use, the followings are exceptions:

1- Reproduction of architecture Work in the form of a building or construction."

See also category: Afghan FOP cases.

Albania

OK See {{FoP-Albania}}

According to Article 82 of the Albanian Copyright and Other Rights Related Law (No.35/2016 §), it is stated that:

1. Reproduction of works permanently found in public spaces: streets, squares, parks, rest areas and other open areas that are accessible to the public is allowed without the authorization and compensation from and towards the author or copyright holder.
2. The works referred to in paragraph 1 of this article cannot be reproduced in three-dimensional form.
3. With regard to the reproduction of architectural structures, paragraph 1 of this article applies only to the external appearance of the architectural structure.
4. In the cases provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article, the source and authorship of such copies shall be indicated, where applicable.

See also category: Albanian FOP cases.

Algeria

OK {{FoP-Algeria}}

According to article 50 of the Algerian copyright law, it shall be lawful to reproduce or to communicate to the public, without authorization of the author and without remuneration, a work of architecture or the fine arts, a work of applied arts or a photographic work that is permanently situated in a public place, with the exception of art galleries, museums and classified cultural or natural sites.

Article 51: "Est considérée licite sans autorisation de l'auteur ni rémunération, la reproduction ou la communication au public d'une oeuvre d'architecture ou des beaux arts, d'une oeuvre des arts appliqués ou d'une oeuvre photographique lorsqu'elle est située en permanence dans un lieu public, à l'exception des galeries d'art, musées et sites culturels et naturels classés."

• [2]

See also category: Algerian FOP cases.

Andean Community of Nations (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru)

OK Decision 351 of the Andean Community of Nations provides for FOP as follows:

• "Artículo 22.- Sin perjuicio de lo dispuesto en el Capítulo V y en el artículo anterior, será lícito realizar, sin autorización del autor y sin el pago de remuneración alguna, los siguientes actos:...h) Realizar la reproducción, emisión por radiodifusión o transmisión pública por cable, de la imagen de una obra arquitectónica, de una obra de bellas artes, de una obra fotográfica o de una obra de artes aplicadas, que se encuentre situada en forma permanente en un lugar abierto al público" (translation):

• "Article 22.- Without prejudice to that put forth in the Chapter 5 and in the previous article, it will be legal to realize, without authorization from the author and without the payment of any remuneration, the following acts:...h) Realizing the reproduction, emitting by radio diffusion or public transmission by cable, of the image of an architectural work, of a work of fine arts, of a photographic work or of a work of applied art, that is found situated in permanent form in a place open to the public".

• [3]

See also categories: Ecuadorian FOP cases, Colombian FOP cases and Peruvian FOP cases.

Andorra

 Not OK Andorran law includes buildings and sculptures and fine arts works among the works subject to rights of copyright (article 2) and there is no "freedom of panorama" exception.

• Copyright law of Andorra (in Catalan)

Note: "Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free."

Angola

OK

Article 51.º 1.c) of Lei n.º 15/14 de 31 de Julho (Angola Copyright Law) states: "1. São permitidas, independentemente de autorização do autor e sem que haja lugar a qualquer remuneração, as seguintes utilizações de obras já licitamente divulgadas, desde que o seu título e o nome do autor sejam mencionados e respeitada a sua genuinidade e integridade: c) A reprodução (...) de obras expostas permanentemente em lugar público;" - Free translation: Reproduction of works permanently on display at public locations is allowed without the author's authorization, given that the title and name of the author of the work are stated, and that their genuinity and integrity is respected.

See also category: Angolan FOP cases.

Argentina

• OK for buildings {{FoP-Argentina}}
•  Not OK for sculpture and other works

Argentina has no "freedom of panorama" provision in its copyright law, neither are buildings mentioned among works to which copyright apply. At least some think there is de facto freedom of panorama in Argentina regarding buildings:

It is uncontroversially accepted that buildings can be reproduced by paintings or photographs, without this reproduction infringing copyright.

“Se ha admitido pacificamente que los edificios puedan ser reproducidos mediante pinturas o fotografías, sin estimarse que esta reproducción lesione los derechos de autor.”

—Dr. Emery, Miguel Angel (profesor of Intellectual property law in Argentina), Propiedad Intelectual, Astrea Editors 4th. edition ISBN 9789505085231. p.40 op cit

• Copyright law of Argentina (in Spanish)

See also category: Argentine FOP cases.

Armenia

Freedom of Panorama applies to works "which are located on streets, parks, squares and other places open for attendance" (Article 25 of Law on Copyright and Related Rights). Prior to late April 2013, there were commercial restrictions on such works similar to other former Soviet states, but an amendment removed that restriction.[4]

• OK for sculptures: {{FoP-Armenia}}
• OK for buildings and models of buildings: {{FoP-Armenia}}
• OK for other art works (paintings, graphics, design and other works of fine arts, works of applied decorative art and stage graphics. maps, plans, sketches and plastic works related to geography, topography, geology, urban planning, architecture and other sciences (as defined in Article 3)): {{FoP-Armenia}}

See also category: Armenian FOP cases.

See also: #Nagorno-Karabakh

Australia

• OK for sculpture "that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public": {{FoP-Australia}}
• OK for buildings and models of buildings: {{FoP-Australia}}
• OK for "works of artistic craftsmanship" such as ceramics, embroidery, metal smithing, woodworking, crafted glass, and jewellery: {{FoP-Australia}}
•  Not OK for: paintings, drawings, engravings or photographs.

Freedom of Panorama applies to eligible works "situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public".

Freedom of Panorama is dealt with in the Australian Copyright Act, sections 65–68, and is based on the laws of the United Kingdom. See the United Kingdom section for more details. For “Work of artistic craftsmanship” under Australian law, see this article.

• Australian Copyright Act
• A note on the copyright law in Australia that concerns photographers

See also category: Australian FOP cases.

Austria

Generally OK, use tag {{FoP-Austria}}

§ 54 (1) Z. 5 of Austrian copyright law allows to reproduce, distribute, and publish architectural works of an actual building or other works of visual arts which were created to permanently remain at a public place.

Uploading a photograph to Wikimedia Commons is only covered by Austrian Freedom of Panorama if the picture meets the law's criteria regarding type of depicted work, place of photograph and permanence:

	architectural works	other works
type of work	buildings and nonbuilding structures as a whole	two-dimensional works of visual arts (paintings, frescos, sgraffiti…)
	building parts like walls, pillars, windows (including church windows), doors, and stairs	three-dimensional works of visual arts (sculptures)
	interior design in a complete view	works of literature (texts)
	single pieces of furniture or artworks	acoustic works (music, speech, bells, signal sounds…)
place of photograph	streets and public places	streets and public places
	private ground	private ground
	interiors of buildings	interiors of buildings, including churches, museums, and theatres
permanence	all buildings and non-building structures	works created to remain permanently at a public place, for example memorials
		works placed at a public place only temporarily
		stage designs of open air theaters
		advertisements including election posters

Even if criteria for Freedom of Panorama are not met, it might be possible to upload a picture of the work to Commons, for example if the work does not meet threshold of originality, or if the copyright has expired. In such a case, the matching public domain tag is used instead of {{FoP-Austria}}.

See also category: Austrian FOP cases.

Azerbaijan

 Not OK see Former Soviet Union

See also category: Azerbaijani FOP cases.

Nagorno-Karabakh

 Not OK Although the laws of the unrecognized state of Nagorno-Karabakh are modelled upon those of Armenia, including its copyright law, it is unknown whether the country did implement the same amendments Armenia implemented to allow free photography of artistic works located in places open for attendance. Thus, it is assumed that Armenia's previous non-commercial restrictions are still in place. Please note that Nagorno-Karabakh is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, which also has invalid FOP. Due to its unrecognized status, it is not likely that any countries have copyright relations with Nagorno-Karabakh at all. See also Former Soviet Union

Bahamas

OK

The Bahamas has freedom of panorama for architecture, and 2D and 3D artistic works on display in places or premises open to the public.

"78 (1)The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing or public display of pictures,

paintings, photographs or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or is ordinarily visible from a public place."

"79. (1) The copyright in an artistic work does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs or other pictorial representations of the work if the work is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

(2) This section applies to —

(a) buildings;

(b) sculptures, models of buildings and artistic works, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public."

"2 (1) In this Act... “artistic works” include two-dimensional and three dimensional work of fine, graphic and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models,architectural plans and technical drawings;"

Bahrain

 Not OK, Non-Commercial Only

According to Article 25 of Act No. 22 of the Year 2006 relating to the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, there is FOP for artwork permanently located in a public place, but only for non-commercial uses:

It is lawful, without the consent of the author and without paying compensation, to broadcast to the public for non­commercial purposes, works of the fine, applied, visual or architectural arts, if those works are permanently located in a public place.

Copyright copyright expires after 50 calendar years from the death of author or last surviving author (Joint work).

Source : English & Arabic

Bangladesh

OK: {{FoP-Bangladesh}}

According to the "2000 Copyright Act of Bangladesh", artistic recreations of public architecture and art work are exceptions to the rights of authors.

Exceptions to infringement states:

Article 72. Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright. -(1) The following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright, namely:—

[...]

(19) the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of architecture or the display of a work of architecture;

(20) the making or published (sic) of painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of a sculpture or other artistic work falling under section 36(c), if such work is permanently situated in public place or any premises to which the public has access;

(21) the inclusion in a cinematograph film of—

(i) any artistic work permanently situated in a public place or any premises to which the public has access; or

(ii) any other artistic work, if such inclusion is only by way of background or is otherwise incidental to the principal matters represented in the film;

• Copyright law in Bangladesh
• Copyright law in Bangladesh

Barbados

OK for 3D works,  Not OK for 2D artwork

NATIONAL LEGISLATION - BARBADOS, Copyright and Related Rights Laws and Treaties, Copyright Act, 1998 [5]

1. This section applies to

• buildings;
• sculptures, models of buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or on premises open to the public.

The copyright in a work referred to in subsection (1) is not infringed by

• making a graphic work representing it;
• making a photograph or film of it;
• broadcasting or including in a cable programme service a visual image of it; or
• issuing to the public copies, or the broadcasting or including in a cable programme service anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of copyright.”

Belarus

 Not OK see Former Soviet Union

Article 32: "Works of photography, architecture, fine arts can be visualized, broadcasted or cablecasted, and publicly transmitted in any other way if such works continuously remain at the place with free admission. Representation of such works shall not be the main object of visualization, broadcasting or by cablecasting or other public transmission and shall not be used for commercial purposes."

• Law of the Republic of Belarus No. 262-Z of May 17, 2011, on Copyright and Related Rights

See also category: Belarusian FOP cases.

Belgium

OK: {{FoP-Belgium}}

Since 1 January 2015, Belgian copyright law is defined by Title 5 of Book XI (intellectual property) of the Code on Economic Law (Wetboek van economisch recht/Code de droit économique). It replaced the Copyright Act of 30 June 1994. On 16 June 2016 the Belgian Parliament introduced freedom of panorama by adding the following to article XI.190 of the Code on Economic Law (translated here to English):

"Once a work has been lawfully published, its author may not prohibit: [...] 2/1°. reproduction and communication to the public of works of plastic, graphic or architectural art designed to be placed on a permanent basis in public places, provided that the reproduction or the communication of the work is as it is found there and that this reproduction or communication does not infringe upon the normal exploitation of the work and does not cause unreasonable harm to the legitimate interests of the author."

The Act was signed into law on 27 June, published on 5 July, and took effect on 15 July 2016.

Notes:

• An explanation that was attached to a draft version of the freedom of panorama provision stated that the provision was intended to apply to locations that are permanently accessible to the public, such as public streets and squares, and that the provision was not intended to apply inside of public museums or other buildings that are not permanently open to the public. (According to the explanation, if a work of art is situated inside a building that is not permanently open to the public, then the artist may not have expected public exhibition of the work.)
• Before 15 July 2016, there was no panorama freedom in Belgium. Modern pieces of art could not be the central motive of a commercially available photograph without permission of the artwork copyright holder. See also this discussion from 2009.
• Another exception to copyright, the de minimis, is stated in article XI.190 (previously article 22 in the 1994 act) of the law: "Once a work has been lawfully published, its author may not prohibit: [...] 2°. reproduction and communication to the public of a work shown in a place accessible to the public where the aim of reproduction or communication to the public is not the work itself [...]". These conditions need not be met any more if the conditions of freedom of panorama as stated above are met.

See also category: Belgian FOP cases.

Belize

OK {{FoP-Belize}}

Article 78 of the Belize Copyright Act of 2000 states that photographs, films, or graphic works depicting a building, sculpture, or work of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public, do not infringe the copyright of the original work.

Bolivia

OK {{FoP-Bolivia}}

see Andean Community of Nations

See also category: Bolivian FOP cases.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

 Not OK
Article 52 of the 2010 law on copyright and related rights states that reproductions of copyrighted works (including buildings) "permanently located in squares, parks, streets or other places accessible by the public" are only allowed "provided they are not used for gaining economic profit".

In the original language: "Djela iz stava (1) ovog člana ne smiju se reproducirati u trodimenzionalnom obliku, upotrijebiti za istu namjeru kao izvorno djelo ili upotrijebiti za ostvarivanje imovinske koristi."

The Bosnia and Herzegovina copyright law is based on the copyright law from Croatia but this article subtly differs from it, adding restrictions for commercial use.

See also category: Bosnia and Herzegovina FOP cases.

Brazil

OK, with caveats. FoP is allowed in Brazil, including commercial use, to some extent. Artworks placed in locations with access to the public can be freely represented by photography, painting, drawing and audiovisual means. Commercial use is allowed, as long as the artist's work is properly attributed, the representation does not consist in a reproduction. The existing jurisprudence consistently allows commercial use of artworks under FoP, as long as the artwork is accessory, and not detached from its surrounding elements, and therefore not unfairly used to produce revenue that by law belongs to the artist. Violation of those rights is frequently punished by Brazilian courts with pecuniary indemnisations to the offended party. {{FoP-Brazil}}

Article 48 of Law № 9.610 of February 19, 1998 states:

Works permanently located in public places may be freely represented by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes.

The original Portuguese text:

As obras situadas permanentemente em logradouros públicos podem ser representadas livremente, por meio de pinturas, desenhos, fotografias e procedimentos audiovisuais.

• Articles 46–48 (Limitations on Copyright) of Law № 9.610
• Law № 9610 of February 19, 1998, on Copyright and Neighboring Rights

According to the available jurisprudence, and the ongoing debate about Article 48 in Brazil:

• "Public places" mean "places available to the public", including private property and building interiors;

• Representation is allowed, reproduction is forbidden: The artwork may be freely represented, by painting, drawing, photograph and audiovisual devices, to the extent that it does not reproduce the artwork;

• When using the reproductions commercially, attribution is absolutely mandatory under the Brazilian copyright law; lack of attribution in reproductions of artworks under FoP used commercially is generally punished by the courts, as a moral rights violation; pecuniary indemnisations are often granted to the offended party;

• The existing jurisprudence consistently allows commercial use of artworks under FoP, as long as the artwork is accessory, and not unfairly used to produce revenue that by law belongs to the artist. In a much quoted 2011 court case, Sival Floriano Veloso (sculptor) vs. Telemar Norte Leste SA commercial use of representations of sculptures in a public place was deemed to be unlawful in court. On the phone cards being sold, the sculptures had been detached from their surrounding elements, which was considered to be in breach of Art. 48. The situation was repeated in 2016, when a representation of an house was [Also, on this situation, the image of the house on the commercialized product was also detached from its surrounding elements and used commercially by a paint manufacturer, without consent by the architect, nor even proper attribution. Other evidence, in particular the way the case of Rio de Janeiro's iconic Christ the Redeemer has been consistently dealt with, with widespread and notorious commercial use of the artwork, has been quoted on court, and the subject of technical opinions, to support the notion that Art. 48 do indeed allow for free and unrestricted representation of artworks in public places. In a 2017 juridical technical opinion, statues in squares featured in outdoors selling products were persented as an example of what is covered by Art. 48. [Recent jurisprudence related to Article 48 reinforced the notion that FoP in Brazil can't be used in any way that provenly takes revenue away from / diverges revenue that by right would belong to the artist. In any case, the ongoing debate on Brazilian jurisprudence over Art. 48 is limited to the eventual patrimonial damage caused to the artist — which has to be consistently demonstrated by palpable proof — and not to the usage of artwork representations.

It happens so because Article 48 of Law nº 9.610 of February 19, 1998 must be interpreted with other Articles of law, as stablished on case law REsp № 951.521–MA (2007/0103380–7) (PDF in Portuguese) and others:

Article 5^th, Clause XXVII of Federal Constitution of Brazil states:

the exclusive right of use, publication or reproduction of works rests upon their authors and is transmissible to their heirs for the time the law shall establish;

The original Portuguese text:

aos autores pertence o direito exclusivo de utilização, publicação ou reprodução de suas obras, transmissível aos herdeiros pelo tempo que a lei fixar;

• Article 5^th, Clause XXVII, of Constitution of Brazil
• Constitution of Brazil

Article 77

The author of the work of plastic art, by alienating the object in which it materializes, transmits the right to expose it, but does not transmit to the acquirer the right to reproduce it, unless otherwise agreed.

The original Portuguese text:

Salvo convenção em contrário, o autor de obra de arte plástica, ao alienar o objeto em que ela se materializa, transmite o direito de expô-la, mas não transmite ao adquirente o direito de reproduzi-la.

Article 78

The authorisation to reproduce work of plastic art, by any process, must be done in writing and presumed costly.

The original Portuguese text:

A autorização para reproduzir obra de arte plástica, por qualquer processo, deve se fazer por escrito e se presume onerosa.

• Articles 46–48 (Of the use of the plastic artwork) of Law № 9.610
• Law № 9610 of February 19, 1998, on Copyright and Neighboring Rights

See also category: Brazilian FOP cases.

Brunei

OK for 3D works,  Not OK for 2D

According to Section 66 of the Emergency (Copyright) Order, 1999 of Brunei Darussalam, it is not a copyright infringement to make graphic representations, take photographs, broadcast the images of buildings, sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship given that the object is permanently situated in a public place, nor to reproduce aforementioned works to the public. According to Section 6 of the same Order, 'works of artistic craftsmanship' is defined separately from 'graphic work', which is similar to the UK law. The latter includes any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, and any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work, and Section 66 is not applicable to posters or maps in public places. Section 19 of the Order prohibited copying of such works. Brunei was a protectorate of the UK before it gained independence in 1984.

• Constitution of Brunei Darussalam (Order under section 83(3)): Emergency (Copyright) Order, 1999

Bulgaria

 Not OK Freedom of panorama is limited in Bulgaria to informational "or other non-commercial purposes". (Article 23(5) of the Bulgarian copyright law of 1993, with amendments up to 2000.

• Note: "Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free." {{FoP-Bulgaria}}

See also category: Bulgarian FOP cases.

Burkina Faso

 Not OK

Freedom of panorama in Burkina Faso forbids reproduction of "a work of architecture, a work of fine art, a photographic work or a work of applied art ... where it is used for commercial purposes". However, since this only applies "where the image of the work is the main subject of such reproduction", a photo that only incidentally includes architecture or sculpture should be fine. (Article 25 of Law No. 032-99/AN of December 22, 1999 on the Protection of Literary and Artistic Property.)

Burma

OK for 3D works, buildings and models of buildings;  Not OK for most 2D works.

According to section 2(1)(iii) of the First Schedule to the Burma Copyright Act 1914, which is based on the UK Copyright Act 1911, it is not an infringement of copyright to make or publish paintings, drawings, engravings or photographs of (1) a work of sculpture or artistic craftsmanship permanently situated in a public place, or (2) an architectural work of art (except that architectural drawings or plans may not be produced).

Artistic work is defined as including "works of painting, drawing, sculpture and artistic craftsmanship, and architectural works of art and engravings and photographs", which suggests that works of artistic craftsmanship do not include paintings, drawings, sculptures, engravings, photographs and architectural works of art. An "architectural work of art" is any building or structure having an artistic character or design or any model for such building or structure, but does not include processes or methods of construction: First Schedule, section 35(1).

Burundi

OK for buildings only

Under Title III, Chapter I, Section I, Article 26 (c)4 Law No. 1/021 of December 30, 2005 on the protection of copyright and related rights in Burundi.

"Similarly, the reproduction of works of architecture through photography, cinematography, television or any other similar process, in addition to the publication of corresponding photographs in the press, periodicals and textbooks, shall be free and may not give rise to copyright payment. "

Cambodia

 Not OK - Copyright protection will be from the Creation of work + life of the author + 50 years after his/her death. As per Article 30 of Cambodian copyright law

Unfortunately, it seems like FOP is only allowed for incidental inclusion (Art. 25):

"If there is a clear indication of the author's name and the source of work, the following acts are not subjected to any prohibitions by the author: ... The reproduction of graphic or plastic work which is situated in the public place, when this reproduction doesn't constitute the principle subject for subsequent reproduction."

See also category: Cambodian FOP cases.

Cameroon

 Not OK, only non-commercial use is allowed.

According to §32 of Cameroon's Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, enacted in 2000, there is freedom of panorama for artwork and architecture permanently located in a public place, but only for non-commercial uses:

(1) Works of art, including works of architecture, permanently kept in a public place, may be reproduced and made available to the public through photographic and audiovisual means. (2) Any exploitation for profit of these reproductions without the prior authorization of the author of the works referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be unlawful.

• Law No. 2000/011 of December 19, 2000 on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights

See also category: Cameroonian FOP cases.

Canada

OK for 3D works, not usually for 2D: {{FoP-Canada}}

Under Section 32.2 (1)(b) of the Canadian Copyright Act 1985, it is not an infringement of copyright for any person to reproduce, in a painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or cinematographic work … (i) an architectural work (defined as any building or structure or any model of a building or structure"); or

• (ii) "a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship, that is permanently situated in a public place or building".

Canadian law was originally derived from UK concepts and some of the United Kingdom section may therefore be of relevance, in particular the restricted legal meaning of "work of artistic craftsmanship". Some non-sculptural works can qualify for Canadian FOP under this clause, such as Body Shop Yonge.jpg for example. The freedom provided by the quoted section does not apply to typical two-dimensional works such as paintings, murals, advertising hoardings, maps, posters or signs. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder even if they are permanently located in a public place, unless they are in the public domain.

See also category: Canadian FOP cases.

Chile

OK {{FoP-Chile}}

Article 71F of the Chilean copyright law 17336 provides freedom of panorama:

“	The reproduction of architectural works through photography, cinema, television or any other similar process, as well as the publication of the corresponding photographs in newspapers, reviews, books and texts intended for educational purposes, shall be free and not subject to payment, provided that this is not in a complete or partial separate collection, without the author's consent. Similarly, the reproduction through photography, drawing or any other process, of monuments, statues and, in general, those artistic works that adorn squares, avenues and public places on a permanent basis, shall be free and not subject to payment, provided that the publication and sale of the reproductions is lawful.	”

See also category: Chilean FOP cases.

China, People's Republic of

OK {{FoP-China}} The reproduction of artistic, architectural, or applied artwork, is covered under the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, which allows reproduction of works in a public place if the author and the name of the original work is attributed.

The "Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China" (2001) Article 22, clause 10 states that:

[A] work may be exploited without the permission from, and without payment of remuneration to, the copyright owner, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned and the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law are not infringed upon...

in the case of:

copying, drawing, photographing, or video recording of an artistic work located or on display in an outdoor public place

The following examples are OK:

• Photos of the Tian Tan Buddha sculpture. See the court ruling of a civil law case, in which the court ruled that commercial use of a photo of the Tian Tan Buddha by a telecommunications operator on their IP phone cards is permissible.
• Photos of the May Wind sculpture. Shandong Province Higher People's Court ruled in a civil case that the usage of an image of this sculpture as a wallpaper in cellphones by a cellphone manufacturer is permissible. China's Supreme Court later on endorsed this ruling.

• 中华人民共和国著作权法（2010修正）
• Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China

See also category: Chinese FOP cases.

Colombia

OK {{FoP-Colombia}}

• see Andean Community of Nations

See also category: Colombian FOP cases.

Congo (Democratic Republic of the)

 Not OK

"The reproduction of an architectural work by means of photography, cinematography, television or any other similar procedure, as well as the publication of the corresponding photographs in newspapers, journals and school textbooks, shall be lawful and may not give rise to payment of copyright."

Article 28 of the 1986 copyright law allows reproduction of architectural works in newspapers, magazines and school textbooks. Article 29 allows incidental inclusion of artworks into films or television. Neither is free enough for Wikimedia Commons.

Costa Rica

 Not OK:

Copyright law allows photographs and pictures made from statues, monuments and other works acquired by the authorities, but it doesn't allow commercial use.

Spanish (original): Es lícita la reproducción fotográfica o por otros procesos pictóricos, cuando esta reproducción sea sin fines comerciales, de las estatuas, monumentos y otras obras de arte protegidas por derechos de autor, adquiridos por el poder público, expuestos en las calles, los jardines y los museos.

English: It is lawful to reproduce photographic or other pictorial processes, when this reproduction is noncommercial, of statues, monuments and other works of art protected by copyright, acquired by the government, exposed in the streets, gardens and museums.

See also category: Costa Rican FOP cases.

Côte d'Ivoire

 Not OK Law No. 96—564 of July 25, 1996 on the Protection of Intellectual Works and the Rights of Authors, Performers and Phonogram and Videogram Producers, article 34:

"Works of art, including works of architecture, permanently located in a public place may be reproduced and made available to the public by means of cinematography or television."

• English and French versions of statute

Croatia

OK {{FoP-Croatia}}; in regard to architecture, for the outer appearance only.

Croatian law from 2003 allows 2D reproductions of permanently publicly displayed works, i. e. the full Freedom of Panorama (translation of relevant Article 91):

Article 91.

(1) It is permitted to reproduce copyrighted works permanently located on streets, squares, parks or other places accessible to public, and to distribute and publish such reproductions.

(2) Works from chapter 1 of this article cannot be reproduced in a three-dimensional form.

(3) On the instances of work from chapter 1 of this article, source and authorship must be stated, except when not possible.

Article 92.

In the case of architectural works, the first sentence of Article 91 applies only to their outer appearance.

• Copyright Law from 2003
• Copyright and Related Rights Act (OG Nos. 167/2003, 79/2007, 80/2011, 141/2013 and 127/2014)

See also category: Croatian FOP cases.

Cuba

OK {{FoP-Cuba}}

Cuban law from 1997 allows 2D reproductions of works of art permanently installed in publicly accessible places, except museums and exhibition venues under Article 38 (c) (translation as follows):

Article 38 — It is permissible, without the author's consent and without remuneration, but with obligatory reference to his name and provided the work is public knowledge and respectful of the artist's specific values:

c) to reproduce by any means, except those involving direct contact with its surface, a work of art of any type on permanent display in a public place, except those in exhibitions and museums;

• Copyright law from 1997

Cyprus

OK {{FoP-Cyprus}}

"Copyright Laws 1976 to 1993", page 7 has section 7 (1) which includes exception (c): "the reproduction and distribution of copies of any artistic work permanently situated in a place where it may be viewed by the public;"

Czech Republic

OK {{FoP-Czech Republic}}

An analogy of Freedom of panorama in the Czech Republic is defined by § 33 of the law No. 121/2000 Coll., Copyright Act (as amended).

The law allows anyone to create and further use (e.g. distribute) drawings, paintings, graphics, photographs, movies or other works recording or expressing a work permanently located in any public space (e. g. streets, squares, parks and public ways), without the original work’s author’s consent. The name of the author and the title of the work should be indicated if possible. However, it is not allowed to make a three-dimensional reproduction of the work.

The act itself does not explicitly define the meaning of the phrases “public space” (veřejné prostranství) and “permanently located” (trvale umístěno). (As with all copyright exceptions, the use must fulfill the Berne three-step test, i.e. this is a special-case exception, not a normal case, the uses allowed by this exception do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder.)

Works located on streets, squares, in public parks etc. (a common interpretation includes also works which are visible from such places, although they aren't mentioned in the act) can be pictured freely. According to Telec's interpretation, the exception cannot be applied to e. g. parts of a building not visible from a public place, even if the building is generally visible.

With regard to the used term veřejné prostranství (public space) instead of veřejně přístupné místo (publicly accessible place) and the fact that the act use exterior examples only, some interprets mean that copyright exception does not apply to some (or all) types of interiors, as shopping center interiors, waiting rooms, museums, galleries, concert halls etc., even if they are accessible to general public. Other authors perceive such places as private. However, the act itself doesn´t distinguish nor mention exteriors or interiors explicitly. Veřejné prostranství are more precisely defined in the Municipal Act (§ 34, 128/2000 Sb.) as "all squares, streets, markets, walkways, public vegetation, parks and other areas (prostory) accessible for everybody without restriction, thus serving to public use, disregarding ownership of this area.". The Constitutional Court in their decision No. Pl. ÚS 50/03 presumed that areas which are made accessible only from the voluntariness of the owner or operator need not to fall under the term veřejné prostranství.

The spaciousness of the interior, a type of regulation of the public access (entrance fee zone, night closure, obligatory passability of the place etc.) and a purpose of the place can be relevant for the interpretation and application. There is lack of judicial precedents for more accurate distinction.

Enclosed parks which are publicly accessible in limited time (night closure) or conditioned by entrance fee can be disputable. However, as an example, the Prague Zoo declared repeatedly its exteriors explicitly as veřejné prostranství (when they argued that are not eligible to prohibit smoking there).

The exception is limited only to works permanently located in a public space. This restriction (added during the transposition of the European Parliament copyright directive, which contains a similar restriction) means, according the explanation report, the socalled freedom of panorama is usually applied to three-dimensional artistic and architectonic works (sculptures, memorials, buildings, etc.) which are in the European Directive named as examples; however, the law text does neither preclude nor exclude (de lege lata) an application of the exception to two-dimensional works, if all conditions are met (e. g. paintings permanently incorporated into a building facade, street art, permanent informational boards etc.). Temporary exhibitions etc. are not covered by this exception. The word permanently is generally understood as for indefinite period and is not presumed that the work is really eternal and unremovable.

References:

• Consolidated Version of Act No. 121/2000 Coll., on Copyright and Rights Related to Copyright and on Amendment to Certain Acts (the Copyright Act), as amended by Act No. 81/2005 Coll., Act No. 61/2006 Coll. and Act No. 216/2006 Coll.
• Czech Copyright Act (on the Czech Wikisource)
• Telec, Ivo; Tůma, Pavel (2007). "§ 33 Užití díla umístěného na veřejném prostranství [Article 33: Use of a Work Located in Public Place]" (in Czech). Autorský zákon: Komentář [Copyright Act. Commentary]. Velké komentáře (1st ed.). Praha: C. H. Beck. pp. 366–368. ISBN 978-80-7179-608-4.

See also category: Czech FOP cases.

Denmark

OK for buildings only {{FoP-Denmark}}

Article 24(3) of the Danish copyright law permits photographs of buildings, without any restriction on where they are located.

"(3) Buildings may be freely reproduced in pictorial form and then made available to the public."

Other types of copyrighted works are not subject to the same full exception. However, works of art are subject to the limited exception of section 24(2), which allows commercial publication when they are permanently situated in a public place or road and when they do not constitute the central element of the picture.

"(2) Works of art may be reproduced in pictorial form and then made available to the public if they are permanently situated in a public place or road. The provision of the first sentence shall not apply if the work of art is the chief motif and its reproduction is used for commercial purposes."

• Consolodated Act on Copyright 2010, WIPO text in English (pdf)
• Commentary
• Heirs of the mermaid earn lots on copyright (in Danish)
• For matters other than FoP, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Denmark.

See also category: Danish FOP cases.

Djibouti

OK According to "Law No. 154/AN/06 of 23 July 2006 on the Protection of Copyright and Neighboring Rights (2006)" (as presented by WIPO), Art. 54 allows "(h) The reproduction of works of art or of architecture through cinematography or television and the communication of such works to the public if such works are permanently located in a place where they can be viewed by the public or are included in the film or program by way of background or as incidental to the essential matters represented".

Dominican Republic

OK {{FoP-Dominican Republic}}

Dominican law allows reproduction of works by painting, drawing, photograph or audiovisual fixations those works that are permanently located in public ways, street or places and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies. For works of architecture, this provision is applicable only to the external appearance. Note that in the law, "works" is not modified, so this covers everything copyrightable, including text.

“Se podrá reproducir por medio de pinturas, dibujos, fotografías o fijaciones audiovisuales, las obras que estén colocadas de modo permanente en vías públicas, calles o plazas y distribuir y comunicar públicamente dichas reproducciones. En lo que se refiere a las obras de arquitectura, esta disposición es sólo aplicable a su aspecto exterior.”

Copyright Law from 2000. Title IV, chapter I, article 39
WIPO translation

Ecuador

OK see Andean Community of Nations {{FoP-Ecuador}}

See also category: Ecuadorian FOP cases.

Egypt

OK even for 2-D artworks. {{FoP-Egypt}}

Article 171 of Law No. 82 of 2002:

Without prejudice to the moral rights of the author, pursuant to the provisions of the law herein, the author may not prevent third parties, after the publication of his work, from undertaking any of the following acts:

[Section 2]

...Nevertheless, the author or his successors may prevent third parties, after the publication of his work, from undertaking any of the following acts, without permission therefrom:

- Reproducing, photographing or copying fine, applied or plastic arts, unless existing in public, or is an architectural work;...

By expressly denying the copyright holder the ability to enforce his copyright on fine, applied or plastic arts "existing in public...or architectural work" freedom of panorama for these items is implied. "Applied art" means art incorporated into useful articles. Plastic arts are three dimensional artworks. Fine arts are painting, photography, and sculpture, so Egypt's FOP is relatively broad, covering everything except text.

• Law No. 82 of 2002 Pertaining to the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights

El Salvador

OK, more or less

Article 45: "the following shall be allowed without the consent of the author or remuneration: . . . the reproduction of a work of art on permanent display in a street, square or other public place in an artistic medium different from that used for the making of the original; with regard to buildings, this right shall be limited to the outer walls" [6]

Original Spanish: "es permitida sin autorización del autor ni remuneración: . . . f) La reproducción de una obra de arte expuesta permanentemente en las calles, plazas u otros lugares públicos, por medio de un arte diverso al empleado para la elaboración del original. Respecto de los edificios, dicha facultad se limita a la fachada exterior"

See also category: Salvadoran FOP cases.

Estonia

 Not OK, only non-commercial use allowed regarding the main subject {{FoP-Estonia}}

According to §20¹ of Estonian copyright law, "It is permitted to reproduce works of architecture, works of visual art, works of applied art or photographic works which are permanently located in places open to the public, without the authorisation of the author and without payment of remuneration, by any means except for mechanical contact copying, and to communicate such reproductions of works to the public except if the work is the main subject of the reproduction and it is intended to be used for direct commercial purposes."

This essentially means that the freedom of panorama in Estonia can be exploited non-commercially only.

• Copyright Act (consolidated text 25 November 2013)
• AutÕS § 20¹

See also category: Estonian FOP cases.

Ethiopia

 Not OK

• Ethiopian law includes buildings and sculptures and fine arts works among the works subject to rights of copyright (Part 1 - article 3 : Scope of application ) and there is no "freedom of panorama" exception.
• The duration of copyright in Ethiopia is 50 years and 25 years for a photographic work (Part 2 - article 20 : Duration of economic rights) :

l/ Economic rights shall belong to the author during his lifetime and to the heirs or legatees for fifty years from the date of death of the author.

2/ Incase of a work of joint authorship, the term of fifty years shall commence to run from the death of the last surviving author.

3/ The term of 50 years of a posthumous work shall commence to run from the date of publication of the work.

7/ The economic rights relating to a photographic work shall be protected for twenty-five years from the making ofthe work.

8/ The economic rights relating to an audiovisual work shall be protected for fifty years beginning from the date of making of the work or communication of the work to the public, which ever date is the latest.

• Ethiopian Copyright and Neighboring Rights Protection Proclamation No. 410/2004 : Copyright and Neighboring Rights Protection Proclamation No. 410/2004 (in English)

European Union

There is a European Parliament directive on the harmonisation of the copyright law 2001/29/EC which asserts in article 5 section 3 letter h that the copyright law of the member states may restrict the copyright rights for sculptures and buildings exposed in public places:

Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 in the following cases: (...) (h) use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places;

• w:Copyright Directive
• The text of the Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament (as corrected)
• 2016 analysis by the European Parliamentary Research Service

Finland

OK for buildings only {{FoP-Finland}}

Section 25a(4) of the Finnish copyright act permits panorama freedom for buildings, both exteriors and interiors, regardless of whether the place is public (laws of privacy do apply).

Freedom of panorama (section 25a(3)) does cover taking photos (or otherwise reproduce in pictorial form) of art in or in the immediate vicinity of a public place, but the reproductions may not be used commercially (and thus not uploaded to Commons), when the work of art is the central element of the picture. Pictures of works of art permanently located in public places can be used non-commercially or as illustrations to texts in newspapers and periodicals. Published works of art may according to section 25 also be used e.g. as illustrations to scientific texts or criticism.

• Finnish law of copyright (8.7.1961/404) in Finnish (as amended; maintained by the Ministry of Justice)
• Finnish law of copyright (8.7.1961/404) in Swedish (as amended; maintained by the Ministry of Justice)
• Unofficial English translation of the law (PDF, maintained by the Ministry of Justice; amendments at least up to 01.06.2015/608 included; see list of changes)

See also category: Finnish FOP cases.

Former Soviet Union

Most of the successor nations of the Soviet Union have identical provisions on freedom of panorama and restrict it to non-commercial uses only. The legal information for the member state is available at the web page of the Coalition for Intellectual Property Rights.

Note: The three Baltic states Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (that have never been member of CIS but only of the former USSR before their independence) also have similar provisions in their copyright laws.

Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia (Abkhazia), Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan:  Not OK Non-commercial

All these countries' laws only allow this limited form of freedom of panorama: images of copyrighted architectural works, photographic works, or works of fine art (which includes sculptures and statues) that are permanently located in publicly accessible places may be published only if the depicted copyrighted base work is not the main subject of the image and the image is for non-commercial purposes.

• Copyright law of Azerbaijan, §20
• Copyright law of Belarus, §19. Archived from the original on 22 June 2004. Retrieved on 8 April 2014.
• Copyright law of Georgia, §24

• Copyright law of Abkhazia, §21

• Copyright law of Kazakhstan (1996), §21
• Copyright law of Kyrgyzstan, §21
• Copyright law of Tajikistan, §21.1 (Russian translation)
• Civil Code of Turkmenistan, §1088 (Russian translation)
• Ukrainian copyright law of August 2001
• Copyright law of Uzbekistan, §30 [7]

Moldova and Armenia

OK - Moldova and Armenia are the only former Soviet-countries which have full Freedom of Panorama both for architecture and for artwork as of July 2010 and March 2013, respectively.

• Law on Copyright and Related Rights of Armenia, §25
• Law on Copyright and Related Rights of Moldova, §28(k) (Russian translation)

Russia

OK for buildings only: in Russia, commercial FoP exception for buildings has come into force on October 1, 2014.

• Amendments of Part 4 of the Russian Civil Code

France

 Not OK {{NoFoP-France}}

Please tag France no-FoP deletion requests: <noinclude>[[Category:French FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude>

On October 7 2016, the French parliament approved a law recognizing a limited version of the freedom of panorama that authorizes the reproduction by individuals (not organizations) of buildings and sculptures permanently located in public space, but only for non-commercial utilizations.

« les reproductions et représentations d’œuvres architecturales et de sculptures, placées en permanence sur la voie publique, réalisées par des personnes physiques, à l’exclusion de tout usage à caractère commercial. »

Part of the text added in June 2016 to article L. 122 5 of the Intellectual Property Code

A court recently (TGI Lyon, 4 avril 2001, Buren & a. c/ Tassin & a.) emphasized that "droit d'auteur unquestionably applies to the reproduction of artworks placed in public space" (« le droit d'auteur s'étend incontestablement à la reproduction de l'œuvre installée dans un espace public »). Concerning buildings, case law defines several criteria for originality:

• "a definite artistic character" (« un caractère artistique certain »), as opposed to the building being purely functional, and not being part of a series (as is the case in housing development) (CA Riom, 26 May 1966) [ this decision has been criticised as the law explicitly states copyright protection is granted regardless of merit, art.L.112-1 of the French copyright act but another decision of French supreme court concludes on 20 october 2011 that creation must be original as required by art 111-1 of French copyright act and that it is up to appeal court to decide if it is original work or not ]
• a harmonious combination of its composing elements, like volumes and colours (TGI Paris, 19 June 1979)
• an “esthetic preoccupation ”, here the choice of a sphere and of a mirror surface (CA Paris, 23 October 1990, about en:La Géode)
• a choice which cannot be ascribed to purely technical reasons (CA Paris 20 November 1996, about stairs and a glass roof)

• Works are protected if the creation is original, but not if the realization is purely technical [8].
• Works without a particular or original character, which are a trivial reproduction of building types largely found across the country, are not protected. (#13) [9] at the Wayback Machine (archived on 11 January 2014)

• It is up to the author or an architectural, art or picture work to prove that it is original and not just application of a technical knowledge

Case law traditionally admits an exception if the copyrighted artwork is "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" (CA Paris, 27 octobre 1992, Antenne 2 c/ société Spadem, « la représentation d'une œuvre située dans un lieu public n'est licite que lorsqu'elle est accessoire par rapport au sujet principal représenté ou traité »). Thus, ruling #567 of March 15, 2005 of the Court of Cassation denied the right of producers of works of art installed in a public plaza over photographs of the whole plaza:

Because the Court has noticed that, as it was shown in the incriminated images, the works of Mr X... and Z... blended into the architectural ensemble of the Terreaux plaza, of which it was a mere element, the appeals court correctly deduced that this presentation of the litigious work was accessory to the topic depicted, which was the representation of the plaza, so that the image did not constitute a communication of the litigious work to the public

Case law states that the said artwork must not be intentionally included as an element of the setting: its presence in the picture must be unavoidable (CA Versailles, 26 janvier 1998, Sté Movie box c/ Spadem et a.):

Can be considered as an illicit representation of a statue by Maillol, the broadcasting of a commercial in which it appears, as it was not included in a film sequence shot in a natural setting—which would explain the brief, and non-essential to the main subject, appearance of the sculpture, which is set in the Tuileries gardens—but used as an element of the setting (« Constitue une représentation illicite d'une statue de Maillol la diffusion d'un film publicitaire dans laquelle elle figure, alors qu'elle a été utilisée, non pas dans une séquence tournée en décor naturel, ce qui justifierait une apparition fugace de la sculpture, placée dans le jardin des Tuileries, totalement accessoire au sujet traité, mais comme un élément du décor. »).

Courts are traditionally lenient with pictures showing urban landscapes, cf. Tour Montparnasse, C.A. Paris - 7 novembre 1980.

• French copyright act, covered in Book I
• Unofficial English translation (in Internet Archive)

• Note: "Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free."

If the subject of the picture is either a building or an architectural artwork, and if the picture is already used on the French-speaking Wikipedia, w:fr:Utilisateur:Le plus bot can transfer the picture from Commons to this local Wikipedia under a local exception, as voted by the community in 2006 and 2011 (see w:fr:Wikipédia:Exceptions au droit d'auteur#Exceptions).

• This minimal exception is only for the illustration of the most directly related article in French Wikipedia (this illustration is not usable elsewhere), or outside French Wikipedia.
• Their licencing terms must not permit their extension to derivated works (for example, sales of these pictures is not authorized, as well as offline republication or online republication via external proxies and agregators)
• The copyrighted protection must be stated explicitly in their description page, with relevant licencing templates tracking usage of these images in French Wikipedia.
• The image description page will also display the full list of local pages (most often only one) embedding for their illustration a very limited number of such medias (images in galeries showing all artistic and creative aspect of the same copyrighted subject should not be integrated in these French Wikipedia articles: generally a single illustration is enough). These images should not be integrated in templates reusable in an unbound number of pages.
• Most free images currently hosted on French Wikipedia should be transfered to Commons, so that French Wikipedia will only host non-free copyrighted materials subject to these restrictions: this will allow remote proxies or Wikipedia contents aggregators, or other linguistic editions of Wikipedia to block these images, even if they display the rest of articles embedding these non-free illustration images, only by looking at the prefix of their URL on the image servers (instead of displaying these images, they can display only their textual description with a direct link to the French Wikipedia article showing these images covered by this exception).
• Do not transfer these non-free images currently hosted by French Wikipedia (including corporate logos unless they are accessory to the rest of the image and unavoidable) to any other editions of Wikipedia or to other Wikimedia sites (including Commons, as stated by licencing templates shown in their description pages in French Wikipedia).
• Even if these non-free images are now tolerated in French Wikipedia articles, the legitimate copyright holders can send their veto so that these images will be deleted on French Wikipedia too. The same deletion will occur when receiving a French court order: their long-term presence is not warranted as long as the copyright protection persists.

See also category: French FOP cases.

Gambia

 Not OK The 2004 copyright act Gambia does not contain any special provision in regard to the works displayed in public premises.

Georgia

 Not OK see Former Soviet Union

• "It shall be permitted to reproduce or communicate to the public without the consent of the author or other copyright holder and without remuneration thereof images of works of architecture, photography, and fine arts permanently displaced in public places, except for the cases when the image of a work is the main object for such reproduction or communication to the public, or is used for commercial purposes."(from Copyright law of Georgia, §24)

Since Commons requires that images be free for commercial use, this is not OK.

See also category: Georgian FOP cases.

Abkhazia

Abkhazia is a disputed autonomous territory, considered part of Georgia by all but four UN states.

 Not OK

Since June 1, 2006: and according to Article 21 of the Abkhazian copyright law of 2006 images of copyrighted architectural works, photographic works, or works of fine art (which includes sculptures and statues) that are permanently located in publicly accessible places may be published only if the depicted copyrighted base work is not the main subject of the image and the image is for non-commercial purposes.

See also category: Abkhazian FOP cases.

Germany

OK {{FoP-Germany}}

See also: de:Panoramafreiheit#Deutschland

It is possible by § 59 (English translation) of the Urheberrechtsgesetz, the Act on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, to take pictures or otherwise reproduce works that are permanently found outside on public ways, streets or places (e.g. squares, plazas) and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies. This suggests two major properties (permanence and public display) which will be outlined below.

“Public”: The criterion “public” requires the way/street/place to be both dedicated to the public and publicly-accessible. Note that despite the ambiguous wording, this restriction refers to the place from which the picture is taken; the shown work itself does not need to be publicly-accessible (although, depending on the object shown, there may of course be restrictions based on privacy or personality rights). “Public,” here, is not to be understood in a public-law sense; it bears no importance who owns the way/street/place as long as the aforementioned criteria are fulfilled. It is consensus among legal commentators that the use of accessories, such as ladders or helicopters, disqualifies from the application of § 59 UrhG; whether telephoto lenses constitute “accessories” in this sense is controversial. In this spirit, the Federal Court of Justice found that a photograph taken from a balcony of a privately-owned flat in a neighboring house the key to which was handed out freely to everyone who asked for it, does not comply with the restrictions imposed by § 59 UrhG because it was not taken from a public way, street or place (BGH, I ZR 192/00 = GRUR 2003, 1035 – Hundertwasserhaus) In the literature, station halls, subway stations or departure halls at airports that are publicly-accessible are nevertheless mostly not assumed to satisfy the “public” criterion due to their lack of dedication to the public. Private ways fulfill the criterion if they are open to the public; the status of atria and passages is controversial. Graveyards, in turn, are often used as an example for a place which is public despite the fact that it might not be accessible all day. Private property that cannot be freely accessed, e.g. because it is enclosed by a fence or there is some form of admission control, does not qualify for § 59 UrhG.

For works of architecture, the provision is applicable only to the external appearance, barring, for instance, the application to pictures of interior staircases, interior courtyards or sculptures exhibited in a museum. (The reproduction of a work that otherwise would not be covered by § 59 UrhG is also not allowed if that work is visible only by accident, e.g. through an open door or window.) As is the case more generally with § 59 UrhG, this applies irrespective of whether or not permission was given to take photographs there.

In a 2017 verdict, the Federal Court of Justice found that freedom of panorama extends also to artwork that is displayed on the hulls of ships.

“Permanent”: The second important criterion for the application of § 59 UrhG is the permanent display of the work. The Federal Court of Justice held in 2002 that neither does this require the work to remain at its place for the entire duration of its existence, nor is it purely a question of the author’s dedication. The relevant criterion, then, is the original intention of the work display as perceived by an “objective observer.” Based on this, the Court ruled that the photographic reproduction of a work photographed in the context of a two-week long exposition cannot be subsumed under § 59 UrhG because the temporary character of the exposition clearly showed that no permanent presentation was intended, noting that it also did not matter that the work—the Wrapped Reichstag—had only been created for the purpose of the exposition and was destroyed afterwards. On the other hand, ephemeral works whose lifetime is restricted by natural conditions, such as ice or sand sculptures, chalk paintings on streets but also graffiti on exterior walls (which are likely to be painted over at some point) are typically considered permanent. It should be emphasized again that, in all these considerations, what matters is the intended, not the actual duration of the presentation: If, say, a building is accidentally destroyed two days after its construction, this does not affect the applicability of § 59 UrhG. Further examples: Works displayed in shop windows do not fall under § 59 UrhG due to a lack of permanent display; advertisements on advertising columns are not considered permanent by most of the literature; however, advertisements and applied art displayed on vehicles such as buses and tramways were found to have a permanent nature by the Federal Court of Justice.

Prohibition of alteration: German copyright law does not allow the publication or public display of modifications or derivative works of works created under the provision of § 59 UrhG. However, it is generally common sense in the literature that modifications inevitable due to the reproduction method used do not already constitute a violation of § 62 (1) UrhG (c.f. § 62 (3) UrhG); the partial reproduction of works is also generally considered to be in accordance with the law. Note that pursuant to § 63 UrhG, it is also necessary to properly attribute the author.

Application to all protected works: § 59 UrhG applies to all copyrighted works, regardless of their category, as long as they are reproduced “by painting, drawing, photography or cinematography” (§ 59 (1) UrhG). Most importantly, this includes works of artistic art, such as paintings, fountains or sculptures, but, for instance, also poems or songs displayed on a commemorative plaque. It does, however, not apply to, e.g., the recording of a musical performance in the public.

Germany’s implementation is one of the best-known, known locally as Panoramafreiheit (which roughly translates to “panorama freedom,” hence our usage of the term “freedom of panorama”).

Examples from court rulings:

• Brandenburg Higher Regional Court (OLG Brandenburg), 2010 / Federal Court of Justice (BGH), 2010: No applicability of FOP with respect to images taken inside of several parks (most importantly, Sanssouci Park) owned by a foundation under public law. The objects shown on the photographs could mostly be seen only from the inside. The BGH in this respect upheld the decision under appeal (without elaborating on the specific question of “FOP”). OLG Brandenburg outlined that the “parks and the ways therein [i.e. in the park] from which the photographs were taken do not qualify as public. That would require them to be dedicated to public use, though not necessarily in a public-law sense, and the provision of free entrance [references omitted]. Based on that, it is not sufficient that the parks, surrounded by fences, are intentionally accessible through gates that stand open throughout the day.” The OLG notes that the fact that gates are closed over night does not necessarily mean that the park cannot be considered “public,” but holds that based on the treaty governing the purpose of the foundation and its statutes based on this treaty suggest otherwise. The use by the public is marked by “recreational, educational and cultural purposes. The ways inside the parks also are not for general traffic, but serve the purpose of leading visitors to the individual formative elements.” Furthermore, the OLG holds that at the time of their erection, the buildings within the parks “served the purpose of use by the royal/imperial family and were not supposed to be accessible by the public.” (BGH, V ZR 45/10 = GRUR 2011, 323 – Preußische Gärten und Parkanlagen, decided on December 17, 2010; OLG Brandenburg, 5 U 13/09 = GRUR 2010, 927 – Verwertung von Fotografien von öffentlich zugänglichen Gärten, decided on February 18, 2002)

• Higher Regional Court of Cologne (OLG Köln), 2012: A famous five year old installation of the words “Liebe deine Stadt” (considered a work of fine art) on the roof of a building qualifies for FOP. The court makes lengthy reference to the 2002 Wrapped Reichstag decision by the BGH (see above) and concludes that “under these standards, it cannot be denied that the work is ‘permanently’ located in the public space—regardless of the plaintiff's intentions, the fact that the property owner only gives permission for one year or a few consecutive years at a time, and the particular characteristics of the installation. By now, the installation has been at the same place for five years, which is significantly longer than the typical duration of a temporary exhibition. Its removal would be tantamount to the destruction of the art piece, even if the sign were to be used elsewhere.” (OLG Köln, 6 U 193/11 – Liebe deine Stadt, decided on March 12, 2012)

• Mannheim Regional Court (LG Mannheim), 1997: The sculpture—the so-called Holbeinpferd—was created in 1936 and originally unicolored; however, it has repeatedly been painted over and otherwise modified (without the owner's permission) in recent years. The defendant published a photograph of such a modified version and digitally manipulated it, adding a Santa Claus costume to the horse. LG Mannheim found that FOP would have applied to an ordinary photograph of the sculpture even in its modified form, but that the digital manipulations by the defendant violate § 62 (1) UrhG. (LG Mannheim, 7 S 4/96 – Freiburger Holbein-Pferd, decided on February 14, 1997)

• Federal Court of Justice (BGH), 2017: The distinctive logo of AIDA cruises on the bows of their ships had been subject to a lawsuit regarding freedom of panorama. The court ruled that is was legal to take photos of this decoration on AIDA ships and post them online without consent from the shipping company. A work was deemed to be permanently displayed in public places if "from a common point of view it was determined to be so." Freedom of panorama would therefore also include vehicles participating in public traffic. Applied art in advertisements on buses and tramways was cited as an example.

Links:

• Text of the Copyright Act:

• German original (always up-to-date)
• Unofficial translation to English (including amendment(s) of Dec 17, 2008)

• Article in www.fotorecht.de on photography of buildings (German)
• Article in JurPC on the history of the panorama freedom legislation

See also category: German FOP cases.

Ghana

Probably  Not OK

Article 19(1)(f) of this online version of Copyrights Act, 2005 restricted panorama freedom to cinema or television or in a broadcast by television.

Greece

 Not OK {{NoFoP-Greece}}

According to §26 of the Greek Copyright Law as last amended in 2003, "occasional/casual reproduction and communication by the mass media of images of architectural works, fine art works, photographs or works of applied art, which are sited permanently in a public place, shall be permissible, without the consent of the author and without payment."

It remains unclear what exactly "occasional/casual reproduction and communication by the mass media" (

η περιστασιακή αναπαραγωγή και διάδοση με μέσα μαζικής επικοινωνίας

) encompasses. Even if "communication by the mass media" is seen as an extension of mere "reproduction", the interpretation of "occasional/casual" reproduction remain to be clarified by jurisdiction or an scholarly interpretation.

The copyright ends 70 years after the author's death. After that, the government might claim some rights under certain conditions (see § 29).

• Consolidated Law No. 2121/1993 on Copyright, Related Rights and Cultural Matters, as last amended in 2010
• Consolidated Law No. 2121/1993 on Copyright, Related Rights and Cultural Matters, as last amended in 2007
• Consolidated Law No. 2121/1993 on Copyright, Related Rights and Cultural Matters, as last amended in 1996

See also category: Greek FOP cases.

Guatemala

OK {{FoP-Guatemala}}

Article 64 of Guatemala's copyright law says "ARTÍCULO 64. Respecto de las obras ya divulgadas también es permitida, sin autorización del autor, además de lo dispuesto en el artículo 32:

d) La reproducción de una obra de arte expuesta permanentemente en lugares públicos, o de la fachada exterior de los edificios, realizada por medio de un arte distinto al empleado para la elaboración del original, siempre que se indique el nombre del autor, si se conociere, el título de la obra, si lo tuviere, y el lugar donde se encuentra."

"Article 64. With respect to already published works it is permitted, without the author's consent, besides what is set forth in article 32:

d) The reproduction of a work of art exposed permanently in public places, or of the outer surface of buildings, realized by means of an art distinct from that used in making the original, provided that the name of the author, if known, the title of the work, if it has one, and the place it is located are indicated."

• Guatemala Law 33–98

See also category: Guatemalan FOP cases.

Guernsey

OK According to the Copyright (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Ordinance 2005 [10]:

Representation of certain artistic works on public display.

82. (l) This section applies to -

(a) buildings, and

(b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.

(2) The copyright in any of those works is not infringed by -

(a) making a graphic work representing it

(b) making a photograph or film of it, or

(c) making a broadcast of a visual image of it.

(3) Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the communication to the public, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.

The extent of law covers the whole Bailiwick, and therefore covers Guernsey, Sark, and Alderney (and for the avoidance of doubt, Herm, Jethou, Brecqhou, Burhou and any other territories of the Bailiwick).

Guinea-Bissau

OK The applicable law still is the colonial copyright law, Decreto-Lei n.º 46980, de 27 de Abril de 1966, which allows FOP:

Art. 152.º The reproduction and publication by the press, cinema, television or any other mean, of the image of works of architecture or any other kind of plastic arts already divulged by the author is free.

Haiti

OK According to Article 15 on page 9 the Décret du 12 Octobre 2005 sur les Droits d'Auteur (12 October 2005 Decree on copyright) of Haiti, a reproduction of an architectural work of art, a fine arts work, a photographic work of art or an applied arts work that is situated in permanence in a location open to the public, except if the work of art is the primary subject of said reproduction and said reproduction is used for commercial purposes.

Article 15.- Nonobstant les dispositions de l'article 7, il est permis, sans l'autorisation de l'auteur et sans paiement d'une rémunération, de reproduire, de radiodiffuser ou de communiquer par câble au public une image d'une oeuvre d'architecture, d'une oeuvre des beaux-arts, d'une oeuvre photographique et d'une oeuvre des arts appliqués qui est située en permanence dans un endroit ouvert au public, sauf si l'image de l'oeuvre est le sujet principal d'une teIle reproduction, radiodiffusion ou communication si elle est utilisée à des fins commerciales.

Article 15.- Notwithstanding the dispositions of article 7, it is permitted, without the autorisation of the author and without payment of a remuneration, to reproduce, broadcast over radio or communicate via cable to the public an image of an work of architectural art, a work of fine arts, a work of photographic art or a work of applied arts if it is situated in permanence in a location open to the public, except if the work of art is the primary subject of said image, radiodiffusion or communication if it is used for commercial purposes.

Article 15 of the Décret du 12 Octobre 2005 sur les Droits d'Auteur and translation by User:Salvidrim!

The "Article 7" being referenced is simply a list of a copyright holder's exclusive rights. It says that "With the exception of the dispositions of articles 8 to 19, the author of a work of art has the exclusive right to perform or authorize the folllowing acts (...)"

Honduras

OK {{FoP-Honduras}}

The Law on Copyright and Related Rights, Decree No. 4-99-E, published in the official journal "La Gaceta" No. 29,072 of January 15, 2000, states:

Title IV

"Limitations and Exceptions to the Copyright Law"

Chapter II "Limitations to the Protection"

Article 52.- It is lawful to reproduce a work of art on permanent display in the streets, plazas or any other public place by means of an art different from that used for the making of the original. With respect to buildings, this right is limited to the exterior facade.

The original Spanish text:

"TÍTULO IV

LIMITACIONES Y EXCEPCIONES AL DERECHO DE AUTOR

CAPÍTULO II LIMITACIONES A LA PROTECCIÓN

ARTÍCULO 52.- Es lícita la reproducción de una obra de arte expuesta permanentemente en las calles, plazas u otros lugares públicos, por medio de un arte diverso al empleado para la elaboración del original. Respecto de los edificios, dicha facultad se limita a la fachada exterior."

• Legislative Decree No. 4-99-E, Title IV, Chapter II, Article 52

Hong Kong

OK for 3D works, not always for 2D {{FoP-Hong Kong}}

According to Sect 71 of the Copyright Ordinance of Hong Kong, it is not a copyright infringement to make graphic representations, take photographs, or broadcast the images of buildings, sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if the object is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public. Because Hong Kong was a territory of the United Kingdom until 1997, Hong Kong law is modeled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be similar. See the United Kingdom section for more details.

Similar to the UK law, 'works of artistic craftsmanship' is defined separately from 'graphic work'. The latter includes any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, and any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work. Therefore freedom given in Sect 71 does not apply to posters or maps in public places.

• Cap 528 Sect 71, Copyright Ordinance (in traditional Chinese)
• Definition of 'graphic work' (in traditional Chinese)

See also category: Hong Kong FOP cases.

Hungary

OK {{FoP-Hungary}}

According to article 68 of the Hungarian copyright law (1999/LXXVI), if a fine art, architectural or applied art creation is erected with a permanent character outdoors in a public place, a view of it may be made and used without the authorization of the author and paying remuneration to him.

• Unofficial translation to English of the Hungarian copyright law
• Original Hungarian text of the copyright law

Iceland

 Not OK {{NoFoP-Iceland}}

The copyright law of Iceland basically allows freedom of panorama for both buildings and works of the arts in general that have been permanently placed outdoors. If the work is the main subject of the photo and the photo is used commercially, the author of the work (this applies to both buildings and other works!) is entitled to remuneration, unless the publication of the image is in a newspaper or a TV broadcast.

In essence, Icelandic "freedom of panorama" images are free only for non-commercial uses. Overview photos in which no single copyrighted work is the main subject of the image should be fine.

• Article 16 of the copyright law of Iceland (English translation)

See also category: Icelandic FOP cases.

India

• OK for 3D (architecture and sculptures) {{FoP-India}},
•  Not OK for copyrighted 2D (paintings, drawings, maps, pictures, engravings, etc.)

According to the Indian Copyright Act of 1957, Section 52, as currently revised:

52. Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright—(1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely:

...

(s) the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a work of architecture or the display of a work of architecture;

(t) the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture, or other artistic work falling under sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of section 2 ["any other work of artistic craftsmanship"], if such work is permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access;

Note that this does not include copies of paintings, drawings, or photographs, as they do not fall under the referenced sub-clause (iii). They fall under sub-clause (i).

(u) the inclusion in a cinematograph film of-

(i) any artistic work permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access;

Indian law is modelled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be similar. See the United Kingdom section for more details.

• [11]
• s:en:Indian Copyright Law (Wikisource)

See also category: Indian FOP cases.

Indonesia

 Not OK, with exception on educational purpose and non-commercial use.

Excerpted from Indonesian copyright law:
Part Four
Works Protected under Copyright

Article 12

(1) In this Law, a work that is protected shall be the work in the field of science, arts and literature which includes:

[...]

f. all forms of art, such as paintings, drawings, engravings, calligraphy, carvings, sculptures, collage, and applied arts;

g. architecture;

[...]

(2) Works as referred to in item l are protected as a work of its own without prejudice to the Copyright over the original work.

(3) The protection as referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) includes all works that are not or have not yet been published but have already been in an obvious form, which would enable its reproduction.

However, in most of the cases copyright is restricted, and in some publications of works there shall be no infringement of Copyright:

In Indonesia, monuments and landmarks in public spaces are owned by the government. The state shall hold the copyright for works of popular culture that are commonly owned.
Article 10, Copyright to Works of Unknown Authors
(2) The State shall hold the Copyright for folklores and works of popular culture that are commonly owned, such as stories, legends, folk tales, epics, songs, handicrafts, choreography, dances, calligraphies and other artistic works.

Part Five
Copyright Restrictions

Article 14

There shall be no infringement of Copyright for:

a. [...]

b. publication and/or reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government, except if the Copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by a statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published; or

c. [...]

Article 15

Provided that the sources are fully cited, the following shall not be deemed as Copyright infringement:

a. the use of a work of another party for the purpose of education, research, scientific thesis, report writing, criticising or reviewing an issue, provided that it does not prejudice the normal interest of the Author;

[...]

c. the excerpt of a work of another party, in whole or in part, for the purposes of:

(i) lecturers of which the purpose is solely for education and science; or

(ii) free-of-charge exhibitions or performances, provided that they do not prejudice the normal interests of the Author.

[...]

Article 29 of Indonesian copyright law states that the term of protection for the author’s work is protected for a period of fifty years after the author's death. Thereafter, the work will become public domain. In the case of joint authorship, the 50 year time period will be calculated after the death of the last author.

• LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA NUMBER 19 YEAR 2002 REGARDING COPYRIGHT

See also category: Indonesian FOP cases.

Iran

 Not OK

Reason: There is no usable FoP provision in the copyright law of the Iran.

According to article 2 of copyright law of Iran (passed on January 1, 1970) architectural works, designs, sketches and buildings and sculptures of all types are protected by copyright law.

According to article 12 of copyright law of Iran, such works remains on protection for a period of 50 years (Reformation of article 12 - 22 August 2010) after the death of its author(s). Also according to article 13, copyright of the works which produced on order by an employer belongs to the employer for a period of thirty years from the date of production. In cases where the work belongs to a legal personality or rights are transferred to a legal personality, it will go into the public domain after 30 years from the date of publication or public presentation (Article 16).

• Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Iran
• Copyright Law of Iran (English)
• قانون حمايت حقوق مؤلفان و مصنفان و هنرمندان

See also category: Iranian FOP cases.

Iraq

 Not OK Excerpted from most recent amendment to Iraq's Copyright Law No. 3 of 1971 passed by Coalition Provisional Authority in 2004.

Article 2 amendment includes the following provisions relevant to FoP:
The protection shall include the works whose method of expression is in writing, sound, drawing, painting or movement, and in particular the following:

[...]

4. Works entered under the arts of drawing and painting with lines and colors, engraving, sculpture and architecture.

Article 8 amendment includes the following provisions:

The author holds the exclusive right to exercise the rights in his/her works. Without the written permission of the author or his/her successors, no person shall do any of the following acts:

Reproduce a work in any manner or form, whether transitory or permanent, including onto photographic (including cinematographic) film or onto a digital or electronic storage medium.

Article 20 amendment includes following provisions relevant to FoP:

1. The author’s economic rights provided for in this Law shall be protected throughout the lifetime of the author and for 50 years from the date of his death.

2. The economic rights relating to works of joint authorship shall be protected throughout the lives of all co-authors and for 50 years from the death of the last survivor.

• Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 83 Amendment to the Copyright Law

See also category: Iraqi FOP cases.

Ireland

OK {{FoP-Ireland}}

§93 of the Irish copyright law permits photographers to take pictures of sculptures, buildings, and works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently located in a public place or premises open to the public, and to publish such pictures in any way. Irish law is in this respect modeled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be identical. See the United Kingdom section for more details.

• Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000, Chapter 6, §93
• Irish copyright law

See also category: Irish FOP cases.

Israel

OK {{FoP-Israel}}

Section 23 of the 2007 Copyright Act states that "Broadcasting, or copying by way of photography, drawing, sketch or similar visual description, of an architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of applied art, are permitted where the aforesaid work is permanently situated in a public place."

• Israeli Copyright Act of 2007 in Hebrew
• English translation of the Israeli Copyright Act of 2007

According to Dr Sarah Presenti, an Israeli copyright lawyer, the scope of the term "work of applied art" in Israel is broader than the equivalent term in Commonwealth jurisdictions (see the United Kingdom). Presenti suggests that "it includes art work (like adverts, advertising, maps etc.) which transfers useful information" and that "it does not matter if it is 2D or 3D as long as it is a work of art that is meant to deliver useful information. Therefore, an artistic work created for artistic purpose is by no means applied art (e.g. painting)."

See also category: Israeli FOP cases.

Italy

 Not OK {{NoFoP-Italy}}

Please tag Italy no-FoP deletion requests: <noinclude>[[Category:Italian FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude>

Pictures from public places don't enjoy any exception in Italian copyright law; rather, they are subject to additional law restrictions, a sort of reverse FOP.

•  Not OK Object still under copyright (as recent buildings, subjects to architect's copyright) only allow "quotation right" minimal "fair use" (according to general copyright act, §70 and §70 1-bis).
•  Not OK Additionally, photos of any cultural heritage asset are subject to pre-emptive authorisation, a fee and other restriction due to the cultural heritage and landscape law.

The following are considered cultural heritage assets: state owned things with some artistic, historic, archeologic or ethnoantropologic interest; libraries, galleries, museums and archives collections; other items declared cultural heritage by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities unless explicitly removed on a case by case basis. The national catalog of cultural heritage assets is not publicly accessible or doesn't exist yet; any art work, or building older than 20 years, should be assumed actively forbidden.

• Italian copyright act
• Italian copyright act
• Italian copyright act
• Decreto Legislativo 22 gennaio 2004, n. 42 "Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio" (cultural heritage and landscape law)

• Note: Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free.
  • For works published by the Italian state (i.e. under the name of the state, and on their account), and by non-profit or educational institutions (and similar), copyright generally expires after 20 years (+ the period to the next first January); there's an exception for academic writings (and similar): 2 years of institution-owned copyright, after which the full copyright returns to the original author (apart from particular contracts between author and institution). These particular rules and exceptions are covered by articles 11 and 29 of the general copyright law.
• Note: Italian law permits to publish for free pictures of panorama on websites for "teaching or scientific purpose", but only "no profit". (art. 70, c.1-bis: "È consentita la libera pubblicazione attraverso la rete internet, a titolo gratuito, di immagini e musiche a bassa risoluzione o degradate, per uso didattico o scientifico e solo nel caso in cui tale utilizzo non sia a scopo di lucro.")

See also category: Italian FOP cases.

Exceptions:

See also: Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in Italy/MiBAC.

See also: it:Progetto:Wiki Loves Monuments 2016.

Jamaica

OK {{FoP-Jamaica}}

Copyright legislation in Jamaica follows closely that of the United Kingdom, in particular §74, dealing with freedom of panorama, is identical to section 62 of the relevant British law.

• Jamaican copyright act

Japan

• for artistic works:  Not OK {{NoFoP-Japan}} except in cases governed by article 46.
• for buildings only: OK {{FoP-Japan}}

Japanese copyright law allows the reproduction of artistic works located permanently in open places accessible to the public, such as streets and parks, or at places easily seen by the public, such as the outer walls of buildings, only for non-commercial purposes; therefore, such photographs are not free enough for Commons.

Architectural works (i.e., buildings) located in such places may be photographed and the photos may be reproduced for any purposes; §46(iv), which contains the "non-commercial" restriction, applies only to "artistic works". Some buildings like the Tower of the Sun can be regarded as artistic works (discussion).

• Japanese copyright law, §46

Note: According to Article 51 of Japanese copyright law, Japan has a copyright lifetime of 50 years after the death of the author (ie. creator/designer) or following "the death of the last surviving co-author in the case of a joint work." Henceforth, the author's works shall become copyright free and enter the public domain.

See also category: Japanese FOP cases.

Jersey

OK {{FoP-Jersey}}

According to the Intellectual Property (Unregistered Rights) (Jersey) Law 2011:

Representation of certain artistic works on public display

(1) This Article applies to –

(a) buildings; and

(b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.

(2) The copyright in such a work is not infringed by –

(a) making a graphic work representing it;

(b) making a photograph or film of it; or

(c) making a broadcast of a visual image of it.

(3) Nor is the copyright infringed by anything done in relation to copies of, or the communication to the public of, anything whose making was, by virtue of this Article, not an infringement of the copyright.

Jordan

 Not OK, for private personal, and educational use,

According to Articles "(17): Use of Published Works" and "(20): Copy of Work without Author’s Consent" of The Copyright Law, No. (22) of 1992 of Jordan. Works of architecture are not mentioned there explicitly, but are defined in Article (3) as "Works Enjoying Copyright Protection." Protection also includes the title of the work, unless it's generic and is used to describe the subject of the work.

See also category: Jordan FOP cases.

Kazakhstan

 Not OK see Former Soviet Union

See also category: Kazakhstani FOP cases.

Kenya

OK {{FoP-Kenya}}

Kenyan copyright law (Copyright Act 2001), states that copyright on artistic works "does not include the right to control reproduction and distribution of copies, or the inclusion in a film or broadcast, of an artistic work situated in a place where it can be viewed by the public." Note that the definition of artistic works under Kenyan law includes paintings, drawings, sculptures, photographs, and architecture. Furthermore, unlike freedom of panorama exemptions in some other countries, in Kenya it is not restricted to only works permanently located in a public place, and can include works in private places if viewable by the public.

Korea (North)

OK: {{FoP-North Korea}}

Copyright Law (Translated English version) of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Article 32 (Original version in Korean 조선민주주의인민공화국 저작권법) states that "A copyrighted work may be used without the permission of the copyright owner [...] When a copyrighted work in public places is copied."

See also category: North Korean FOP cases.

Korea (South)

 Not OK, non-commercial only for artistic works

Although Article 35.(2) of the Republic of Korea: Copyright, Act of 2014 (Law No. 432, as last amended by Law No. 12137 of 30. Dec, 2013)

Article 2 (Definitions)

The terms used in this Act shall be defined as follows:

1. The term “work” means a creative work that expresses human thoughts and emotions

Article 35 (Exhibition or Reproduction of Works of Art, etc.)

(1) The holder of the original of a work of art, etc., or a person who has obtained the holder’s consent, may exhibit the work in its original form: Provided, That where the work of art is to be permanently exhibited on the street, in the park, on the outside of the wall of a building, or other place open to the public, the same shall not apply.

(2) Works of art, etc. exhibited at all times at an open place as referred to in the proviso to paragraph (1) may be reproduced by any means: Provided, That in any of the following cases, the same shall not apply:

1. Where a building is reproduced into another building;

2. Where a sculpture or painting is reproduced into another sculpture or painting;

3. Where the reproduction is made in order to exhibit permanently at an open place under the proviso to paragraph (1);

4. Where the reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies.

(3) A person who exhibits works of art, etc. pursuant to paragraph (1), or who intends to sell originals of works of art, etc., may reproduce and distribute them in a pamphlet for the purpose of explaining or introducing them.

(4) No portrait nor a similar photographic work produced by commission shall be used without the consent of the commissioner.

permits any reproduction of works permanently installed in "open places", 35.(2).4 specifically states that the rule does not apply "where reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies." Reproduction is defined in Section 2.(22) as "...the fixation or the reproduction in a tangible medium by means of printing, photographing, copying, sound or visual recording, or other means." Selling reproduction of artistic works in public place is not allowed, for examples, selling postcard, calendar, collection of photos in which the artistic works have major part is not allowed.

See also category: South Korean FOP cases.

Kosovo

 Not OK, non-commercial only

Only a limited form of freedom of panorama exists in Kosovo. Works permanently placed in public streets, squares, parks or other generally accessible public places may be used freely. However, they may not be reproduced in a three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work, or used for direct or indirect economic gain: Republic of Kosovo Law No. 04/L-065 on Copyright and Related Rights, Article 53.

Kyrgyzstan

 Not OK see Former Soviet Union

Latvia

 Not OK: {{NoFoP-Latvia}}

The Latvian copyright law permits taking pictures of architectural works, photographs, visual arts, design works and the works of applied arts when displayed permanently in public places. The pictures can be used for non-commercial purpose. Such permission is not valid on Commons.

• UNESCO translation

Article 25 states (original):

25.pants. Publiski izstādīta darba izmantošana

(1) Publiskās vietās pastāvīgi izstādīta arhitektūras, fotogrāfijas, vizuālās mākslas, dizaina, kā arī lietišķās mākslas darba attēlojumu drīkst izmantot personiskai lietošanai, informācijā ziņu raidījumos vai aktuālo notikumu apskatos vai ietvert darbos nekomerciālā nolūkā.

(2) Šajā pantā minētais neattiecas uz gadījumiem, kad darba attēlojums ir objekts tālākai darba atkārtošanai, raidorganizācijām raidīšanai vai darba attēlu izmantošanai komerciālos nolūkos.

See also category: Latvian FOP cases.

Laos

 Not OK According to the Lao People's Democratic Republic's Intellectual Property Laws No. 08/NA of December 24, 2007, in force on April 14, 2008, there is a limited form of freedom of panorama in Laos which does not appear to be sufficiently free for purposes of the Wikimedia Commons. On the one hand, works of fine art, photographs, reports and adapted arts for presentation to the public may be photographed or video-recorded without authorization from copyright owners and without the payment of remuneration: sections 96(1) and 96(1.8). On the other hand, the reuse of the photographs and video-recordings is restricted in the following ways: (1) the reuse must not prejudice the rights or normal benefits of the owner of the works; and (2) the derivative works cannot be used in architectural works, works of fine art or computer programs: sections 96(2) and (3).

Lebanon

 Not OK Lebanese copyright law provides for FOP only for the media as follows : Law on the Protection of Literary and Artistic Property * (No. 75 of April 3, 1999) : "31. The media shall be permitted, without the authorization of the author and without obligation to pay him compensation, to publish pictures of architectural works, visual artistic works, photographic works or works of applied art, provided that such works are available in places open to the public."

• law in english see art 31 :http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/lb/lb001en.pdf
• law in arabic see art 31 :http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/ar/lb/lb001ar.pdf

See also category: Lebanese FOP cases.

Libya

This image requires updating because: This section is based on law No. (9) for 1968. According to this page, the current law is No. 7 of 1984. In doing so, you could add a timestamp to the image. Please notify the uploader with {{subst:update-note|1=Commons:Freedom of panorama|2=This section is based on law No. (9) for 1968. According to this page, the current law is No. 7 of 1984.}} ~~~~

 Not OK The Copyright Protection Law of Libya (Libyan Law No. (9) for 1968) does not have any provisions dealing with freedom of panorama.

Liechtenstein

OK {{FoP-Liechtenstein}}

The Liechtenstein Copyright Act, in article 29, says that works may be depicted when they are permanently located at or on public ground. The depiction may be offered, sold, sent or otherwise distributed. The depiction must not be three-dimensional and not be usable for the same purpose as the original.

• Gesetz über das Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz, URG), LGBl. 1999 Nr. 160 (The Liechtenstein copyright act; in German)

Lithuania

 Not OK Limited freedom of panorama in Lithuania is granted by article 28 ("Limitations to Copyright in Works of Architecture and Sculptures") of the Law Amending the Law on Copyright and Related Rights. This allows a photographer to make and publish pictures of sculptures and works of architecture that are permanently located in public places (excluding works presented in museums and exhibitions), but they cannot be used commercially in any form.

• Official English translation

See also category: Lithuanian FOP cases.

Luxembourg

 Not OK {{NoFoP-Luxembourg}}

The regulation is presented in the article 10 point 7. A copyright holder may not prevent "the reproduction and communication of [his or her] works located in a publicly accessible place, when such works do not constitute the primary subject of the reproduction or communication."

• Unofficial French coordinated text
• Official French text of the law as it was in 2001
• Official French text of the modification of the law in 2004

See also category: Luxembourgish FOP cases.

Macedonia, Republic of

OK for 3D works {{FoP-Macedonia}}

Republic of Macedonia have Law on copyright and related rights from 2010 which can be found here. According to Article 52 paragraph 11:

(1) The use of a copyright work without remuneration shall apply to the following cases:

11. Use of architectural or sculptural works permanently located in public places (streets, squares, parks, etc.);

Madagascar

 Not OK There is no Commons-usable freedom of panorama in Madagascar, as per article 48 of the current "Law No. 94-036 of 18 September 1995 on Literary and Artistic Property":

... it shall be permitted, without authorization from the author and without payment of remuneration, to reproduce, ... or to communicate by cable to the public an image of a work of architecture, a work of fine art, a photographic work and a work of applied art that is permanently located in a place open to the public, save where the image of the work is the main subject of this reproduction, broadcast or communication and where it is not used for commercial purposes.

Malaysia

OK {{FoP-Malaysia}}

According to Malaysian Copyright Act 1987 Section 13(2)(d), the right of control is excluded from "the reproduction and distribution of copies of any artistic work permanently situated in a place where it can be viewed by the public". Section 3 defines "artistic work" as any graphic work, photograph, sculpture, collage, and work of architecture or artistic craftsmanship. Layout-designs of integrated circuits are not artistic works.

For the meaning of the term works of artistic craftsmanship, see the commentary under "United Kingdom" below.

Mali

 Not OK Article 36 ii) of the Malian Ordinance of 12 July 1977 allows reproduction for cinematographic or broadcasting purposes and communication to the public of works of figurative art and of architecture permanently located in a place where they can be viewed by the public and included in the film or broadcast only by way of background or as incidental to the essential matters represented. This is not enough for Commons because it deals only with films and broadcasts, allowing nothing for photographs, and allows only "incidental or background" inclusions.

Confirmed by Article 27 b) of the more recent Loi n° 08 - 024 / du 23 juillet 2008 fixant le régime de la propriété littéraire et artistique en République du Mali which allows only incidental use of the artistic material (La reproduction en vue de la cinématographie ou de la radiodiffusion et la communication publique des œuvres d'art figuratif et d'architecture placées de façon permanente dans un lieu public et dont l'inclusion dans le film ou dans l'émission n'a qu’un caractère accessoire ou incident par rapport au sujet principal).

Malta

OK for buildings and sculptures. {{FoP-Malta}}

Article 9 (1) (p) of Malta's Copyright Act states that copyright "shall not include the right to authorise or prohibit (…) the inclusion in a communication to the public, the making of a graphic representation and the making of a photograph or film, of a work of architecture or sculpture or similar works made to be located permanently in public places."

Mauritius

 Not OK There is no exception for freedom of panorama for commercial purposes.

Mexico

OK {{FoP-Mexico}}

Mexico's federal copyright law, in Article 148, allows reproduction without compensation in certain circumstances:

"Literary and artistic works that have already been disclosed may only be used in the following cases without the consent of the owner of the economic rights and without remuneration, provided that the normal exploitation of the work is not adversely affected thereby and provided also that the source is invariably mentioned and that no alteration is made to the work:"

The Section VII of Article 148 covers freedom of panorama:

"Reproduction, communication, and distribution in drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual processes of works that are visible from public places."

Section VII uses the term "lugares publicos" (public places), which has been interpreted to include both interior and exterior public places. The public places that applies a fee for admission are public places, and this freedom is allowable, as long as:

1. The place allows or doesn’t disposes troubles to execute the Freedom of Panorama in the site; and
2. The place might be accessible and truly open to all the public.

Due to the ambiguity of the article, several public establishments (such as Metro de la Ciudad de México) have been denied authorization to execute, in either case, the execution of this exception; perhaps, the permission varies depending of the site owner public. However, the government state places (read libraries, markets, parks and gardens) have no restrictions against Freedom of Panorama.

The Federal Law of Telecomm and Broadcasting also use the “public places”; however, the list define to the public sites:

" ...that are in the charge of dependencies of the federal, state or municipal entities or under public programs of any one of the three orders of government..."

Considering the public places are defined by similar method; the places refere this Law are:

1. Schools, Universities, and every kind of building used for education;
2. Clinics, Hospitals, and every kind of building used for health care;
3. Gubernment offices of each type;
4. Community Centers;
5. Free-Payment and Open places such as parks, green areas and sports centers.
6. The government places which collaborates on public federal programs.

See also category: Mexican FOP cases.

See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FoP-Mexico.

Moldova

According to article 28 of the Moldovan Law on Copyright and Related Rights (see Russian translation) it shall be permitted without the consent of the author or other holder of copyright and without payment of remuneration use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places.

Prior to July 2010, there were commercial restrictions on such works similar to other former Soviet states, but an amendment removed that restriction. Article 26 of the cited law defines exceptions of the commercial restrictions, and reproduction of a work of architecture in the form of a building or similar construction is such an exception.

Free reproduction of artistic works (including commercial purposes) is:

• OK for buildings or similar constructions; per article 26(2)(a)
• OK for sculptures made to be located permanently in public places; per article 28(k)
•  Not OK for sculptures not made to be located permanently in public places
•  Not OK for paintings, drawings, engravings or photographs.

Please use {{FoP-Moldova}} to tag images from Moldova which meet Freedom of Panorama conditions.

See also category: Moldovan FOP cases.

Mongolia

 Not OK see Mongolian law on Copyright. Although there is a limited FOP (see Articles 14 and 16), it is for non-commercial use only.

See also category: Mongolian FOP cases.

Montenegro

 Not OK
Montenegro law on copyright and related rights published in Official Gazette of Montenegro No 37/11, article 55 says:

Article 55 (Works in public places):

Without acquirement of the corresponding economic right and without payment of a remuneration, it is permitted to use of works permanently exhibited in parks, streets, squares or other public places.

The works referred to in Par. (1) of this Article may not be reproduced in a three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work, or used for direct or indirect economic advantage.

See also category: Montenegro FOP cases.

Morocco

OK for a work permanently located in a public place if it is not the main subject of the image: {{FoP-Morocco}}.

 Not OK if work is the main subject of the image: {{NoFoP-Morocco}}

"Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 10 above, it shall be permitted, without the author’s authorization or payment of a fee, to republish, broadcast or communicate to the public by cable an image of a work of architecture, a work of fine art, a photographic work, or a work of applied art which is permanently located in a place open to the public, unless the image of the work is the main subject of such a reproduction, broadcast or communication and if it is used for commercial purposes."

Note: all works on Commons must be commercially usable; the Moroccan FOP only permits commercial use if the copyrighted work is not the main subject of the reproduction.

See also category: Moroccan FOP cases.

Mozambique

 Not OK for reproductions, broadcasts and cable communications to the public executed in the Republic of Mozambique (since 25 June 1975) There is only non-commercial freedom of panorama in Mozambique, as per chapter III, sec 15:

15. It is permitted, without authorization by the author or payment of any remuneration, to reproduce, broadcast or communicate by cable to the public the image of a work of architecture, three-dimensional art, photography or applied art that is permanently located in a place open to the public, except where the image of the work is the principal subject of such reproduction or broadcast or communication and is used for commercial purposes.

Source : Law No. 4/2001 of 27 February (Copyright Law)- Mozambique

It is not clear if the 2001 copyright law of Mozambique is retroactive. In case it isn't, the applicable law would be the previous 1966 copyright law, which allows FOP (see below). Therefore, the status of reproductions, broadcasts and cable communications to the public executed before 28 May 2001 is undetermined.

The copyright law in Mozambique is currently under revision, and significant changes have been proposed in order to make it less restrictive, including a reduction of protection from 70 to 50 years. FOP cases in Mozambique should be treated with increased care.

OK for works executed in the Portuguese territory of Mozambique (before 25 June 1975)

Mozambique was considered Portuguese territory before its independence in 25 June 1975, and current jurisprudence generally use Portuguese law to deal with actions executed in former Portuguese overseas territories before that date. Examples: 02S3074,JTRL00024225, JTRL00024030, 7189/2003-4, 0451/05 (Supreme Court, 2005). Related discussion here.

The applicable law is Decreto-Lei n.º 46980, de 27 de Abril de 1966 which allows FOP:

Art. 152.º The reproduction and publication by the press, cinema, television or any other mean, of the image of works of architecture or any other kind of plastic arts already divulged by the author is free.

See also category: Mozambican FOP cases.

Myanmar

See Burma.

Namibia

 Not OK Unauthorized inclusion of works permanently situated in a street, square or a similar public place is restricted to films, television, and transmission in a diffusion service, and the inclusion must be merely by way of background or incidental. copyrights act 1994 §18.

See also category: Namibian FOP cases.

Nepal

 Not OK No freedom of panorama in Nepal. Link

Netherlands

OK for buildings and most 2D and 3D artwork {{FoP-Nederland}}
 Not OK for photographs, maps, applied art, industrial design, and models

The article 18 of the Dutch copyright act states that: "it is not an infringement of copyright to reproduce and publish pictures of a work, as meant in article 10, first paragraph, under 6°[1] or of an architectural work as meant in article 10, first paragraph, under 8°[2], which are made to be permanently located in public places, as long as the work is depicted as it is located in the public space. Where incorporation of a work in a compilation is concerned, not more than a few of the works of the same author may be included."

• [1] drawings, paintings, works of architecture and sculpture, lithographs, engravings and the like
• [2] drafts, sketches and three-dimensional works relating to architecture, geography, topography or other sciences

  Note that article 18 limits this explicitly to "works relating to architecture", i.e., geography, topography, and other sciences are not included in article 18.

Note that photographs are not included in Item 6. They are separately listed in Item 9 and therefore are not included in FOP. Also separately listed and therefore not included are maps, applied art and industrial design, and models.

Original (Dutch) text:
Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 6°[1], of op een werk, betrekkelijk tot de bouwkunde als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 8°, dat is gemaakt om permanent in openbare plaatsen te worden geplaatst, wordt niet beschouwd de verveelvoudiging of openbaarmaking van afbeeldingen van het werk zoals het zich aldaar bevindt. Waar het betreft het overnemen in een compilatiewerk, mag van dezelfde maker niet meer worden overgenomen dan enkele van zijn werken.

• [1] teeken-, schilder-, bouw- en beeldhouwwerken, lithografieën, graveer- en andere plaatwerken;
• [2] ontwerpen, schetsen en plastische werken, betrekkelijk tot de bouwkunde, de aardrijkskunde, de plaatsbeschrijving of andere wetenschappen;

• The Dutch copyright act
• Official English version of the copyright act from rijksoverheid.nl.
• Official English version of the related rights act from rijksoverheid.nl.

Public place in article 18 of the Dutch copyright law not only includes open-air spaces such as public roads and squares, but also the interior of public buildings. What exactly is a public building is not defined in the Dutch law, but there are some guidelines that can be taken from the published literature and from the parliamentary debates about this article when it was introduced in this version in 2004. Among the criteria to decide whether the interior of a building is a "public place" in the sense of article 18, parliament said that the building must be freely accessible by the general public and then mentioned two negative criteria: whether an entrance fee was charged, and whether access may be denied on private law grounds. (Other criteria may exist; these two were just mentioned as examples.) The parliament and the literature explicitly mention that schools, opera buildings, entrance halls of businesses, and museums are not public places for the purpose of article 18, but that railway stations are. Case law in the Netherlands on "freedom of panorama" issues is scarce. In one case, the interior of the Amsterdam ArenA was deemed not a public place; in a second case, a photo of a building in a private holiday resort was considered covered by article 18 because the building was visible from public ground.

Taking these guidelines and the few court cases into consideration, we interpret "public place" (openbare plaats) in article 18 to cover works on open-air roads and squares as well as works visible from there (as long as they're outside), and works in the interiors of only those buildings that primarily serve a transit purpose for the general public: railway stations are explicitly mentioned by the lawmakers, but arguably this would also apply to airports, underpasses, (covered) parking lots. Article 18 also seems to apply in shopping malls (but probably not within the shops in such a mall). In all likelihood it does not apply to other indoors non-private places, such as hotels, cafés, or shops. It certainly does not apply in the locations specifically excluded by the lawmakers: schools, operas, entrance halls of businesses, and museums.

Article 18 is limited to works that were originally made for being placed permanently in public places. The literature mentions that this would also apply to graffiti, even if these normally are removed rather quickly. This is consistent with the interpretation of "permanent" e.g. in Germany as explained above; the "natural lifetime" of a graffito is considered to end with its removal. Furthermore, the picture must show the work as it appears in the public place. (A photograph showing a sculpture in its surroundings is OK. Cutting out the sculpture and using only the image of the sculpture is not covered by article 18.) Dutch legislature seems to favor a strict interpretation of the Berne three-step test; parliament mentioned that creating and selling a postcard from a close-up photo of a copyrighted sculpture (i.e., without the surroundings, not showing the sculpture in context) was not allowed.

See also category: Dutch FOP cases.

See also: Archived discussion from August 2014.

New Zealand

OK for 3D works {{FoP-New Zealand}}

OK for 2D "works of artistic craftsmanship" {{FoP-New Zealand}}

 Not OK for 2D "graphic works"

Copyright legislation in New Zealand also follows that of the United Kingdom. In the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be identical. See the United Kingdom section for more details.

• §73 of the Copyright Act of 1994 of New Zealand

Nicaragua

OK As per the article 43 of Nicaragua Law No. 577 on Amendments and Additions to Law No. 312 on Copyright and Related Rights Works located permanently in parks, streets, squares or other thoroughfares may be reproduced, without the author’s authorization, by means of painting, sketching, photographs and audiovisual recordings for personal use. In respect of works of architecture, the previous article shall only apply to their external aspect.

Sources

English

Spanish

Nigeria

OK {{FoP-Nigeria}}

"The right conferred in respect of a work by section 5 of this Act does not include the right to control-

(d) the reproduction and distribution of copies of any artistic work permanently situated in a place where it can be viewed by the public;"

see http://www.nigeria-law.org/CopyrightAct.htm

Norway

OK for buildings only {{FoP-Norway}}

The Norwegian Copyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works Act, in section § 24 says that

>>Kunstverk og fotografisk verk kan også avbildes når det varig er satt opp på eller ved offentlig plass eller ferdselsvei. Dette gjelder likevel ikke når verket klart er hovedmotivet og gjengivelsen utnyttes ervervsmessig. Byggverk kan fritt avbildes.<<

>>Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. Buildings may be freely depicted.<<

“Byggverk” means “Bauwerk” (German) and “structure” or “edifice” (English).

Since Commons requires that all images be free for commercial use, buildings are the only copyrighted works in Norway for which the FOP exception applies for Commons.

• The Norwegian copyright act Copyright Act (Act No. 2 of May 12, 1961 relating to Copyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works, as last amended by Act No. 103 of June 19, 2009, Norwegian)

• Copyright Act (Act No. 2 of 12 May, 1961 relating to Copyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works, as last amended on 22 December, 2006, English) [12]

• English translation version 2006 and exceptions

• French translation, old version

See also category: Norwegian FOP cases.

Oman

 Not OK, personal/educational use only in face-to-face situations, according to Chapter V, Article (20) paragraph 1. in the Law of Copyrights and Neighboring Right by Royal Decree 65/2008 of the Sultanate of Oman. Works of architecture are covered in Chapter II, Article (2), section g and elsewhere.

Pakistan

OK {{FoP-Pakistan}}

Pakistani copyright law, Art. 57, r,s states that the following shall not be an infringement of copyright: "making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of an architectural work of art" and "making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture or other artistic work if such work is permanently situated in a public place or any premises to which the public has access".

Panama

OK; in regard to buildings, for the outer façade only. {{FoP-Panama}}

According to WIPO translation of Panama copyright law title VI chapter II article 48 says that: "With regard to works that have already been lawfully disclosed, the following shall be allowed without authorization from the author or remuneration: ..... 6. the reproduction of a work of art on permanent display in a street, square or other public place by means of an artistic technique different from that used for the making of the original; with regard to buildings, this exception shall be confined to the outer façade;".

Papua New Guinea

 Not OK; only covers uses for personal, educational (teaching), archival, and newsmaking purposes. Any allowed forms where remuneration is not required must be non-commercial. —

• As enforced by the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2000 of Papua New Guinea, certified on "08.11.00".

Paraguay

OK Article 39 of Paraguay's copyright law provides for FOP for works permanently present in public places, and for the exterior of buildings, however the work must be attributed. Article 39 also provides that the insignia of political parties, other associations, and non-profit organizations may be freely copied by others.

• "Article 39 - Respecting already published works, it is permitted without either authorization from the author or payment of remuneration:

4. Reproduction of a work of art exposed permanently in the streets, plazas, or other public places, or of the exterior surface of buildings, realized by a means of art distinct from that employed in making the original, always indicating the name of the author if known, the title of the work if it has one, and where it is found;

[...]

7. When the work constitutes the sign, emblem, or distinctive mark of political parties, associations, or non-profit civil entities.

Reproductions admitted in this article will be permitted only if they do not cross the normal exploitation of the work or cause an unjustifiable damage to the legitimate interests of the author."

• "Artículo 39 - Respecto de las obras ya divulgadas, es permitida sin autorización del autor ni pago de remuneración:

4. la reproducción de una obra de arte expuesta permanentemente en las calles, plazas u otros lugares públicos, o de la fachada exterior de los edificios, realizada por medio de un arte diverso al empleado para la elaboración del original, siempre que se indique el nombre del autor si se conociere, el título de la obra si lo tuviere y el lugar donde se encuentra;

[...]

7. cuando la obra constituya un signo, emblema, o distintivo de partidos políticos, asociaciones y/o entidades civiles sin fines de lucro.

Las reproducciones admitidas en este artículo serán permitidas en tanto no atenten contra la explotación normal de la obra ni causen un perjuicio injustificado a los intereses legítimos del autor."

• Organization of American States - OAS
• Copyright law of Paraguay of 1998

Peru

OK {{FoP-Peru}}

Peru has full "freedom of panorama", allowing reproducing artworks on streets, squares, or other public places or on the outside façades of buildings by means different from the original technique. The reproduction must not interfere with the author's exclusive rights to exploitation. This is protected both by national law and the Andean Community treaty.

• Peruvian copyright law of April 23, 1996, article 43(e)

also see Andean Community of Nations

See also category: Peruvian FOP cases.

Philippines

 Not OK Chapter VIII ("Limitations on copyright) of part IV ("The law on copyright") of AN ACT PRESCRIBING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE AND ESTABLISHING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE, PROVIDING FOR ITS POWERS AND FUNCTIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (chapter found on pp. 84-90) does not appear to make any exception for photographs of copyrighted works. Bizarrely, the law itself is entirely based on the law of the United States and contains identical fair use provisions, which however are not acceptable.

Ijon met with the Director of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines in November 2011, and asked about FoP. The Director said "The law is silent on the matter", and said they are waiting for case law to settle the question one way or another. The matter has not reached the supreme court yet.

See also category: Philippine FOP cases.

Poland

OK {{FoP-Poland}} (exterior only)

The copyright act from July 4, 1994 in article 33 point 1 allows one to propagate works that are permanently exhibited on the publicly accessible roads, streets, squares or gardens provided that the propagation is not for the same use. The name of the creator and source should be provided if it is possible by article 34. This use is royalty free, provided that it does not harm the legitimate interests of the creator by article 34.

• An English translation of the copyright act at Wikisource
• The original text of the copyright act at Wikisource

See also category: Polish FOP cases.

Portugal

OK {{FoP-Portugal}}

Portuguese copyright law allows the use of works permanently installed at public locations. The law explicitly mentions buildings and sculptures as examples of such works (§75(2)q). "Use" includes taking a photograph of such a work and publishing it (§68). However, according to the Berne three-step test, the allowed uses must not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, nor unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder (§75(4): "...não devem atingir a exploração normal da obra, nem causar prejuízo injustificado dos interesses legítimos do autor"). Also, "The free uses mentioned in the preceding article [§75] shall be accompanied by a) the indication, wherever possible, of the name of the author and of the editor, the title of the work and other circumstances that identify them...."

According to at least one legal scholar, "public location" ("locais públicos") includes public interiors within the context of Portuguese law.

• Portuguese Copyright law, version of August 24, 2004.

See also category: Portuguese FOP cases.

Qatar

 Not OK No provision for freedom of panorama of any sort under Qatari law.

• Copyright Law of Qatar, 2002, No. 7

Romania

•  Not OK for commercial: Per the Romanian copyright law of 1996, images of architectural works, of three-dimensional works of art, of photographic works or of works of applied art permanently located in public places may be published only for non-commercial uses or if the work is not the main subject of the image.
• OK - for architectural work (buildings), or work of applied art in public places - if the work is not the main subject of the image (for instance, a panorama showing the neighborhood, not just the work of applied art, or, if there is another subject in the image)
• Romanian copyright law, §33(1)(h).

The following uses of a work already disclosed to the public shall be permitted without the author’s consent and without payment of remuneration[...]: "(f) the reproduction, to the exclusion of any means involving direct contact with the work, circulation or communication to the public of the image of an architectural work, work of three-dimensional art, photographic work or work of applied art permanently located in a public place, except where the image of the work is the principal subject of such reproduction, circulation or communication, and if it is used for commercial purposes;"

• Note: "Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free."

See also category: Romanian FOP cases.

Russia

• OK for buildings: {{FoP-Russia}}

• OK for works of garden design: {{FoP-Russia}}

•  Not OK for artwork, including sculptures: {{NoFoP-Russia}}

See also Former Soviet Union

Article 1276 of Part IV of Civil Code of the Russian Federation states:

“Free Use of Work Permanently Situated in Places Open for Free Attendance

1. Reproduction, broadcasting to the air or via cable shall be allowed, without the author's or other copyrightholder's consent or payment of royalties, of visual art, or photographic work, that permanently stand in places open for free attendance, except where portrayal of the work by such method is the basic object of that reproduction, or where portrayal of the work is used in commercial purposes.
2. It shall be allowed to freely use, to reproduce, or to broadcast to the air or via cable works of architecture, of urban development, and works of garden and landscape design, which are situated in places open for free attendance or visible from that places.”

The FoP exceptions for works of architecture, urban development, and garden and landscape design, which were added under consultation with Wikimedia Russia, have taken effect with the Civil Code amendments as of October 1, 2014.

Concerning non-architectural artwork, there is still a copyright exception for non-commercial use, but non-commercial use only is not allowed on Commons and unfortunately, we don't have sufficient number of court decisions for clarifying situation. An important court decision (discussion) states that the copying of a showcase photo is not a creation of a 3D-object in 2 dimensions.

Before January 1 2008, freedom of panorama was regulated by the similar (but not the same) article 21 of Copyright Law of Russia (in Russian).

• Note: "Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free."

It is currently not clear yet if copyrighted buildings in Crimea are subject to the Russian or the more restrictive Ukrainian law. So long, as per precautionary principle, images of knowingly unfree Crimean buildings should not be uploaded to Commons.

See also category: Russian FOP cases.

Saudi Arabia

 Not OK

• The Copyright Law detailed in the Royal Decree No. M/41, 2 Rajab, 1424 (30.08.2003) (Archive) and the Implementing Regulations of Copyright Law ((Archive) contain no mention of freedom of panorama.
• Even taking pictures of sites not covered by copyrights can be problematic (why?) and photographers operating in Saudi Arabia found it useful to carry a copy of a decree allowing taking pictures from public places. The text of the decree can be found at:

• KSA_photography_decree.pdf in Arabic (Archive) and
• Photography_System_Brochure_40888.pdf translated to English (Archive).

See also category: Saudi Arabian FOP cases.

Senegal

 Not OK {{NoFoP-Senegal}}

There is no freedom of panorama in Senegal. In fact Senegalese law is very similar to French law. The Loi 2008-09 du 25 janvier 2008 sur le droit d’auteur et les droits voisins au Senegal, (article 46) (Archive) says that it is not possible to reproduce an artwork if it's the main subject of the photo or it is for commercial purposes (source: Bureau Sénégalais du Droit d'Auteur).

« L’auteur ne peut interdire la reproduction ou la communication d'une oeuvre graphique ou plastique située en permanence dans un endroit ouvert au public, sauf si l'image de l’oeuvre est le sujet principal d'une telle reproduction, radiodiffusion ou communication et si elle est utilisée à des fins commerciales. » (Official link) (Archive)

One question remains: does it apply to things before 2008?

See also category: Senegalese FOP cases.

Serbia

OK {{FoP-Serbia}}, if the work is displayed in an open public space.

Serbian law from 2009 allows 2D reproductions of permanently publicly displayed works, i. e. the full Freedom of Panorama (translation of relevant Article 51):

Article 51:

It is permitted to make two-dimensional reproductions of works permanently located on streets, squares or other open places accessible to public, and to distribute such reproductions, without author's permission or paying author's fee.

• Copyright Law from 2009 (Archive)
• Copyright Law from 2009 (Archive)

Seychelles

OK {{FoP-Seychelles}}

The Seychelles Copyright Act sets forth that "4. The reproduction, distribution of copies or inclusion in a film or broadcast of an artistic work permanently on view to the public" are "acts not controlled by copyright." (Schedule 1; Sections 10, 11 12 (sic) and 13)

• Laws of Seychelles, Copyright Act, Chapter 51, Revised Edition 1991

Singapore

OK for 3D objects and some 2D objects;  Not OK for paintings, drawings, engravings, and photographs {{FoP-Singapore}}

Section 63 provides that sculpture and works of artistic craftsmanship other than paintings, drawing, engravings, and photographs "situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast".

Section 64 allows for reproducing a building or model of a building by "painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the building or model or by the inclusion of the building or model in a cinematograph film", with no restriction on location or permanency.

This means that freedom of panorama does not apply to two-dimensional works such as billboards, posters and paintings in a gallery, even if these are permanently displayed in a public place. It does include some 2D works that are works of artistic craftsmanship, such as textiles.

• Singapore's Copyright Act

Slovakia

OK {{FoP-Slovakia}}

According to sections 37 and 41 of the Slovak copyright law, Slovakia has freedom of panorama. Works permanently located at public places may be freely reproduced and such reproductions may be freely published and sold without the consent of the original author, except that an architectural work may not be reproduced by building.

• Slovak copyright law as of 2016

• English translation of the Slovak copyright law as of 2004. (suspended by the law 185/2015)

Slovenia

The following applies:

• OK for all works whose creators died or published them anonymously or pseudonymously (and have remained anonymous or pseudonymous) in 1947 or earlier
  • an exception are the photographs of the photographic and similarly-made works in a public space, and the photographs of the works of applied art, which are acceptable for Commons if the original work was published in 1969 or earlier.
•  Not OK for all other cases Use: {{NoFoP-Slovenia}}

According to Section IV, Article 55 of the Slovenian copyright law, works permanently placed in parks, streets, squares, or other generally accessible premises may be used freely, except that they may not be reproduced in a three-dimensional form or used for the same purpose as the original work or used for economic gain (original Slovene text: "Dela, ki so trajno v parkih, na ulicah, na trgih ali na drugih splošno dostopnih krajih, so v prosti uporabi. Uporaba iz prejšnjega odstavka se ne sme izvršiti v tridimenzionalni obliki ali za isti namen kot prvotno delo ali vršiti za doseganje gospodarske koristi.").

If the name of the creator (author, artist, designer, etc.) of a work belonging to one of the categories mentioned above is given on the work, he or she must be cited (Article 55: "V primerih iz prvega odstavka tega člena je treba navesti vir in avtorstvo dela, če je navedeno na uporabljenem delu.")

In some cases, the creator of a work is not known or the work was produced by a group of people. For these and a thorough discussion of copyright terms in Slovenia, please refer to Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Slovenia.

• The English translation of the Slovene copyright and related rights act as of 2007.
• The original text of the act in Slovene

Note: In addition to copyright, the usage of the reproductions of "cultural monuments" for commercial purposes is restricted by the Slovenian Cultural Heritage Protection Act, which requires consensus of the owner of the monument for any use of the image and name of the monument (Article 44). The definition of a cultural monument is the following (Article 3): heritage that has been statutorily protected as a monument or entered in the inventory of an authorised museum. For immovable cultural heritage, the national catalog is publicly accessible at rkd.situla.org. Wikimedia Commons is not required to comply with the Slovenian Cultural Heritage Protection Act because it is hosted in the United States of America. Users who are citizens of Slovenia are warned that they are solely responsible for any possible violation of local laws.

See also category: Slovenian FOP cases.

South Africa

 Not OK 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."

A diffusion service is defined in section 1(1) as "a telecommunication service of transmissions consisting of sounds, images, signs or signals, which takes place over wires or other paths provided by material substance and intended for reception by specific members of the public; and diffusion shall not be deemed to constitute a performance or a broadcast or as causing sounds, images, signs or signals to be seen or heard; and where sounds, images, signs or signals are displayed or emitted by any receiving apparatus to which they are conveyed by diffusion in such manner as to constitute a performance or a causing of sounds, images, signs or signals to be seen or heard in public, this shall be deemed to be effected by the operation of the receiving apparatus."

Since section 15(3) does not mention photographs, there is no freedom of panorama exemption in South Africa that would permit photographs of artistic works to be taken without infringing the copyright in the works.

See also category: South African FOP cases.

Spain

OK {{FoP-Spain}}

Article 35 of the Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996 of April 12, 1996, and amended by Law 5/1998 of March 6, 1998, states: 2. Works permanently located in parks, streets, squares or other public places may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by means of paintings, drawings, photographs and audiovisual processes.

Article 40bis further states the above law "may not be so interpreted that they could be applied in a manner capable of unreasonably prejudicing the legitimate interests of the author or adversely affecting the normal exploitation of the works to which they refer."

The original Spanish text:
El artículo 35 del Real Decreto Legislativo 1/1996 de 12 de abril de 1996, modificado por la ley 5/1998 del 6 de marzo de 1998, establece: 2. Las obras situadas permanentemente en parques, calles, plazas u otras vías públicas pueden ser reproducidas, distribuidas y comunicadas libremente por medio de pinturas, dibujos, fotografías y procedimientos audiovisuales.

Artículo 40 bis. "Los artículos del presente capítulo no podrán interpretarse de manera tal que permitan su aplicación de forma que causen un perjuicio injustificado a los intereses legítimos del autor o que vayan en detrimento de la explotación normal de las obras a que se refieran".

• Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996, amended 1998, WIPO translation (PDF)
• Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996, last update 2014

See also category: Spanish FOP cases.

Sri Lanka

 Not OK Sri Lankan copyright law limits reproducing copyrighted artworks and buildings placed permanently at public places or visible from there without the rights holder's consent to film and TV broadcasts only.

• Sri Lanka: Intellectual Property Act with amendments up to 2000, Article 13(d).
• Sri Lankan copyright law was revised 2001-2003. The current law is the Code of Intellectual Property Act 36 of 2003, which in "Chapter I: Copyright" introduced U.S.-style "fair use" and dropped any direct reference to anything resembling "freedom of panorama" at all.

See also category: Sri Lankan FOP cases.

Sudan

 Not OK

• Sudan's Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Protection Act 1996, 12/12/1996 article 6-7, 32-33.

Sweden

Inconclusive {{FoP-Sweden}}

Under Article 24 of Swedish copyright law (1960:729), it is not an infringement of copyright to depict, in photographs, works of art (konstverk) that are situated permanently (stadigvarande) in a public place outdoors (på eller vid allmän plats utomhus).

Works of architecture are also covered under Article 24. Information boards and maps are considered works of literature (litterära verk) and are not covered by article 24. Swedish security law (2010:305) (Skyddslagen) dictates that it is illegal to depict certain sensitive locations (skyddsobjekt) in any form. However, this is a non-copyright restriction, and has not been upheld by the community as a limitation of copyrights as discussed on this page.

Some, such as Bildkonst Upphovsrätt i Sverige (BUS, a collection society for visual arts), hold the position that Article 24 does not apply to publication online. Others, such as the Swedish Wikimedia chapter, reject this position. The Swedish Wikimedia chapter was sued in 2014 by BUS for alleged copyright violations of outdoor sculptures by providing a website that allows users to view locations of artwork on a map with links to photographs hosted on Wikimedia Commons. 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 implications of that ruling were discussed.

On 6 July 2017, 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 and ordered the Swedish Wikimedia chapter to cease from further distribution and to pay damages and court costs. The ruling may be appealed no later than 27 July 2017.

• Article 24 of the Swedish copyright act
• English translation of the law
• Investigation into FoP in Sweden by a Swedish scholar
• Ruling by the Patent and Market Court at Stockholm District Court

See also category: Swedish FOP cases.

Switzerland

OK {{FoP-Switzerland}}

Pursuant to Article 27 of the Copyright Act (German version; French version; Italian version) (English translation), a work permanently situated in a place accessible to the public may be depicted and the depiction offered, transferred, broadcast or otherwise distributed. The depiction must not be three-dimensional and it must not serve the same purpose as the original.

"Accessible to the public":

• The place must be accessible to the public on a de facto basis. The legal ownership status of the place is irrelevant to the applicability of the provision.
• The depicted work itself does not have to be accessible to the public. Freedom of panorama also applies to a work on private (not publicly accessible) ground provided it can be seen with the naked eye from a place accessible to the public.
• The place does not need to be accessible to the public all the time. If a park is closed during night hours, it may still be “accessible to the public” within the meaning of Art. 27 (provided the other criteria are met).
• Following the majority view in the legal literature, if the place is only accessible to certain categories of persons (such as pupils and high school staff/faculty), it is no longer “accessible to the public”. It is controversial among commentators if the charging of entrance fees also gives rise to such a constellation and henceforth bars from invoking Art. 27.
• Following the majority view in the legal literature, freedom of panorama does not apply to interior spaces. Hence Art. 27 cannot be invoked for depictions produced in the staircase or the rooms of a building. It is recognized in the literature that in some cases it can be difficult to determine what constitutes an “interior space”. A part of the literature suggests a differentiation of interior spaces (Innenräume) from interior courtyards (Innenhöfe), with only the latter fulfilling the requirements of Art. 27. However, definitorial difficulties remain, for instance, in the case of station halls or shopping arcades which, consequently, are assessed differently by commentators. It is generally held that the interior of a church cannot be depicted under Art. 27.

"Permanently situated":

• A work is not “permanently situated” within the meaning of the law if it is only visible by accident (e.g. whilst being transported).
• It is controversial what is required to fulfill the feature “permanently situated”. According to one wide-spread view, this requires that the (objective) intent of the copyright holder is to infinitely present the work in/at a publicly-accessible place. A minority view holds that freedom of panorama can also apply to a work (such as a sculpture otherwise located inside a museum) that is accessible to the public as part of a temporary exhibition.
  Whether Christo’s “wrapped works” can be depicted under Art. 27 is controversial. Posters in public are not considered “permanently situated” by the literature.
• Works whose lifetime is restricted by natural conditions, such as ice sculptures or chalk paintings on streets, are nevertheless considered permanent.

"General":

• Applicability to all works: Art. 27 applies to all categories of protected works.
• Modifications: Modifications of the work are not allowed (Art. 10 URG); however, modifications required due to the reproduction method used are generally considered permitted. Art. 11 prohibits the distortion of the work.

See also category: Swiss FOP cases.

Syria

 Not OK for artistic works OK for buildings

The Freedom of Panorama in Syria is too limited for our needs, see Article 37 of the Copyright Law. However, while architectural drawings are copyrighted, architecture is not (see Article 3(d) ). Therefore images of buildings appear to be OK.

Taiwan (Republic of China)

•  Not OK for indoor works and outdoor 2D artistic works
• OK for buildings, sculptures, and by extension other outdoor 3D works {{FoP-Taiwan}}

• The "Copyright Act" (1992-2016-present) Article 58 states that:

Artistic works or architectural works displayed on a long-term basis on streets, in parks, on outside walls of buildings, or other outdoor locales open to the public, may be exploited by any means except under the following circumstances:

1. Reproduction of a building by construction of another building.
2. Reproduction of a work of sculpture by production of another sculpture.
3. Reproduction for the purpose of long-term public display in locales specified in this article.
4. Reproduction of artistic works solely for the purpose of selling copies.

Reproductions of artistic works are thus only for non-commercial purposes. Note that "reproduction" in this context means reproducing the work in its original form, thus photographs of buildings and outdoor sculptures are OK.

• 著作權法
• Copyright Act
• s:Copyright Act (Republic of China)

See also category: Taiwanese FOP cases.

Tajikistan

 Not OK see Former Soviet Union

See also category: Tajikistani FOP cases.

Tanzania

• Outside of Zanzibar: OK moving images/video only {{FoP-Tanzania}}
• In Zanzibar:  Not OK except for photographs of public "folklore"

According to article 12 (6) of the "Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act" (1999), reproduction of works of art and works of literature is permitted in audio-visual and video recordings, if the work is permanently located in a place where it can be viewed by the public.

Per Part I, Preliminary provisions, ""audiovisual work" means a work that consists of a series of related images which impart the impression of motion, with or without accompanying sounds, susceptible of beIng made visible, and where accompanied by sounds, susceptible of being made audible."

Zanzibar, which is part of Tanzania, appears to have a separate copyright law. It does not allow for a free reproduction of works in the public premises, except for the works of folklore that are permanently located in a place visible by the public (Article 29-II). In this case, it may be reproduced in the form of a photograph, a film or a television broadcasting.[13]

See also category: Tanzanian FOP cases.

Thailand

OK {{FoP-Thailand}}

Sections 37 to 39 of the Thai Copyright Act of B.E. 2537 (A.D. 1994) state that:

Section 37. A drawing, painting, construction, engraving, moulding, carving, lithographing, photographing, cinematographing, video broadcasting or any similar act of an artistic work, except an architectural work, which is openly located in a public place shall not be deemed an infringement of copyright in the artistic work.

Section 38. A drawing, painting, engraving, moulding, carving, lithographing, photographing, cinematographing or video broadcasting of an architectural work shall not be deemed an infringement of copyright in the architectural work.

Section 39. A photographing or cinematographing or video broadcasting of a work of which an artistic work is a component shall not be deemed an infringement of copyright in the artistic work.

• Note that artistic work as defined by Section 4 of the law does not include works of literature.
• Copyright Act of B.E. 2537 (A.D. 1994)
• English translation

See also category: Thai FOP cases.

Trinidad & Tobago

OK {{FoP-Trinidad and Tobago}}

Section 17 of the Copyright Act, Cap. 82:80 states:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 8(1) and 16, the inclusion of an artistic work in a work, broadcast or communication to the public shall not be considered an infringement if the artistic work—

(a) is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public; or

(b) is included in the work, broadcast or communication to the public by way only of background or as incidental to the essential matters represented.

Tunisia

OK {{FoP-Tunisia}}

for works permanently situated in public places, with the exception of art galleries and museums^[art.10(g)]. Note, though, that Tunisian copyright law also claims to restrict the commercial use of "artistic heritage bequeathed by preceding generations"^[art.7], even if situated in public and even if not protected by normal copyright.

• Loi n° 94-36 / n° 2009-33, Chapitre II, Article 10(g)
• Loi n° 94-36 / n° 2009-33, Chapitre I, Article 7

See also category: Tunisian FOP cases.

Turkey

• OK {{FoP-Turkey}}

• for the exterior surfaces of buildings and all works of fine art permanently displayed on public streets, avenues or squares. Article 4, which defines the term "works of fine art", shows it is ok for all 2D and 3D works permanently displayed on public streets, avenues or squares.
  • Art. 40. Works of fine arts permanently placed on public streets, avenues or squares may be reproduced by drawings, graphics, photographs and the like, distributed, shown by projection in public premises or broadcast by radio or similar means. For architectural works, this freedom is only valid for the exterior form.
  • Madde 40 - Umumi yollar, caddeler ve meydanlara, temelli kalmak üzere konulan güzel sanat eserlerini; resim, grafik, fotoğraf ve saire ile çoğaltma, yayma, umumi mahallerde projeksiyonla gösterme, radyo ve benzeri vasıtalarla yayımlama caizdir. Bu salahiyet mimarlık eserlerinde yalnız dış şekle munhasırdır.

• Turkish copyright law of 1951 with amendments up to 2006
• Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Kanunu

See also category: Turkish FOP cases.

Turkmenistan

 Not OK see Former Soviet Union

See also category: Turkmenian FOP cases.

Uganda

OK {{FoP-Uganda}}

According to section 15(1)(g) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006 (Act 19 of 2006) of Uganda, a work of art or architecture may be used in a photograph, an audiovisual work or a television broadcast without infringing the author's copyright and without the author's consent where the work:

• is permanently located in a public place; or
• is included in the background or is otherwise incidental to the main object in the photograph, audiovisual work or television broadcast.

Ukraine

 Not OK: {{NoFoP-Ukraine}}

Ukrainian copyright law does not contain a general exception for reproductions of works in public places. Architectural works (plans, models, and actual buildings, §8(1)(9) and §8(1)(12)) as well as a statues and sculptures (§8(1)(8); definition of "work of fine art" in §1) are objects of copyright. The author holds—amongst other rights—the exclusive rights to reproduction, public display, and communication to the public (§15). Architectural and sculptural works are in no way treated differently than other kinds of works in Ukrainian law.

It is claimed [14], though, that article 21(4) of the Ukrainian law on copyright and related rights implied some kind of "freedom of panorama": ...it shall be permitted without the consent of the author (or other copyright holder) and with mandatory indication of the author's name and of the source of borrowing: ... to reproduce, in order to highlight current events by means of photography or cinematography, to carry out public notification or other public communication of the works seen or heard in the course of such events to the extent justified by the informational purpose. This, however, is limited to "informational purposes" and to "current events". It is not general freedom of panorama but a "fair use"-like provision for news reporting.

• The Law of Ukraine on Copyright and Related Rights
• Ukrainian copyright law of August 2001

Note: "Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here in Ukraine--a state with no formal FOP--since the author's works are now in the public domain."

See also category: Ukrainian FOP cases.

United Arab Emirates

 Not OK {{NoFoP-UAE}}

There is no usable FoP provision in the copyright law of the UAE (Federal Law #1 of 1972, Federal Law #15 of 1980, Federal Law #40 of 1992, and Federal Law (7) 2002) Arabic, English. UAE copyright law discusses an FoP like provision in article 22 (7), but it is restricted to "broadcasts". Please see Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 6#Update: UAE FoP situation under dispute for the most recent discussion on FoP in the UAE.

See also category: United Arab Emirates FOP cases.

United Kingdom

OK for 3D works

OK for 2D "works of artistic craftsmanship"

 Not OK for 2D "graphic works" {{FoP-UK}}

Section 62 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is broader than the corresponding provisions in many other countries, and allows photographers to take pictures of

• buildings, and
• sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship (if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public).

without breaching copyright. Such photographs may be published in any way.

Note that under UK law, works of artistic craftsmanship are defined separately from graphic works. Graphic works are defined in Section 4 as any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work. The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works - such as a mural or poster - even if they are permanently located in a public place. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder.

The courts have not established a consistent test for what is meant by a "work of artistic craftsmanship", but one of the standard reference works on copyright, Copinger and Skoane James (15th edn, 2005), suggests that for a work to be considered as such the creator must be both a craftsman and an artist. Evidence of the intentions of the maker are relevant, and according to the House of Lords case of Hensher -v- Restawile [1976] AC 64, it is "relevant and important, although not a paramount or leading consideration" if the creator had the conscious purpose of creating a work of art. It is not necessary for the work to be describable as 'fine art'.

In Hensher -v- Restawile, some examples were given of typical articles that might be considered works of artistic craftsmanship, including hand-painted tiles, stained glass, wrought iron gates, and the products of high-class printing, bookbinding, cutlery, needlework and cabinet-making. Copinger and Skoane James suggests that original jewellery is another candidate.

Other works that have been held to fall under this definition include hand-knitted woollen sweaters, fabric with a highly textured surface including 3D elements, a range of pottery, and items of dinnerware. The cases are, respectively, Bonz -v- Cooke [1994] 3 NZLR 216 (New Zealand), Coogi Australia -v- Hyrdrosport (1988) 157 ALR 247 (Australia), Walter Enterprises -v- Kearns (Zimbabwe) noted at [1990] 4 EntLR E-61, and Commissioner of Taxation -v- Murray (1990) 92 ALR 671 (Australia).

The practical effect of the broad Freedom of Panorama provisions in the UK and in other countries with similar laws is that it is acceptable to upload to Commons not only photographs of public buildings and sculptures but also works of artistic craftsmanship which are on permanent public display in museums, galleries and exhibitions which are open to the public. According to Copinger and Skoane James, The expression "open to the public" presumably extends the section to premises to which the public are admitted only on licence or on payment. Again, this is broader than 'public place' which is the wording in many countries.

• Section 4 of the Copyright, Designs and patents Act 1988 including amendments
• Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and patents Act 1988, including amendments
• Sculpture and Works of Artistic Craftmanship on Public Display, Design and Artists Copyright Society factsheet
• http://www.artquest.org.uk/artlaw/copyright/confusion.htm An article on copyright law in the UK from artquest.org.uk (April 27, 2006 copy from archive.org)

See also category: United Kingdom FOP cases.

United States

OK for buildings only {{FoP-US}}

Buildings are works subject to copyright in the U.S. according to 17 USC 102(a)(8) since the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act was passed in 1990. It applies to all buildings that were completed after December 1, 1990, even if begun before, or where the plans were published after that date.

However, the U.S. federal copyright law explicitly exempts "pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations" of copyrighted buildings from the copyright of the building in 17 USC 120(a). Anyone may paint, draw, or photograph buildings from public places. This includes such interior public spaces as lobbies, auditoriums, etc. The creator holds the exclusive copyright to such an image (the architect or owner of the building has no say whatsoever), and may publish the image in any way. 17 USC 120 applies only to architectural works, not to other works of visual art, such as statues or sculptures.

This means that for buildings completed before December 1, 1990, there is complete FoP, without regard to whether the building is visible from a public place, because the building is public domain, except for the plans. For photos of such buildings, the license tag {{PD-US-architecture}} can be used (along with a license tag for the photo.) For buildings completed after December 1, 1990, freedom is given only to photograph such a building. This includes style elements such as gargoyles and pillars, which are protected only from three dimensional reproduction (Leicester v Warner Bros.)

Note that copyright applies only to "buildings".

"The term building means structures that are habitable by humans and intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and office buildings, and other permanent and stationary structures designed for human occupancy, including but not limited to churches, museums, gazebos, and garden pavilions."

All such works are copyrighted and, therefore, covered by the FOP exemption only if they are visible from a public place.

"Bridges, cloverleafs, dams, highways or walkways are not ‘buildings’ under the definition of architectural works."

In the U.S., such works do not have a copyright and therefore may be photographed freely, whether or not from a public place. They do have copyrights in many other countries.

Originality requirement

This discussion must be considered qualified by the requirement under US law that a work, including a derivative work, must display originality to be protectable under copyright law. See Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. in the English Wikipedia. More specifically, in the case of derivative works, it has been held, in Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp. and earlier in L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Snyder. that a derivative work must be original relative to the underlying work on which it is based. Otherwise, it cannot enjoy copyright protection and copying it will not infringe any copyright of the derivative work itself (although copying it may infringe the copyright, if any, of the underlying work on which the derivative work was based). For further discussion of this issue, see the Wikipedia article Derivative work.

For a legal discussion, see Wikilegal/Pictorial Representations Architectural Works

Artworks and sculptures  Not OK.

For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, the U.S. copyright law has no similar exception, and any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork. However, public artwork installed before 1923 is considered to be public domain, and can be photographed freely. In addition, any public artwork installed before 1978 without a copyright notice is also in the public domain (unless the copyright owner actively prevented anyone from copying or photographing the work until 1978). In these situations, document the date of installation and the creator (sculptor) of the pictured work as much as possible. (A good resource for finding information about U.S. sculptures is the Smithsonian Art Inventories Catalog.)

Applicable templates:

• For public artwork installed before 1923, use {{PD-US}} or {{PD-1923}}.
• For public artwork installed between 1923 and 1977 inclusive, use {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}.

The line of argument that a large sculpture or memorial is a building and therefore covered by the FOP exemption was specifically rejected in Federal claims court (Gaylord v. The United States, 2008), which noted that the building exemption to the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (AWCPA) does not extend to "The Column" sculpture in the Korean War Veterans Memorial because "[t]he structures used in the definition of 'building' by the Copyright Office are intended to house individuals; either for the sake of providing shelter or for another purpose such as religious services."[15] While the court ruled in favor of the defendant under a fair use rationale it was later overturned in favor of the plaintiff; the photograph was deemed a derivative work. The court also contended that had Congress intended to extend the AWCPA to monuments and memorials, the law would have been drafted to reflect that in the first place.

For further legal discussion, see Wikilegal/Copyright of Images of Memorials in the US.

For further information, refer to Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US and the following resources:

• 17 USC 120(a)
• Towards a Functional Definition of Publication in Copyright Law
• Travel Photography and the Law
• Information from photostop.istep.com
• American Society of Media Photography on panorama freedom (archive)
• Article in www.sculpture.org on photos of sculptures

For foreign works considered under US law: use {{Not-free-US-FOP}}

Foreign works from countries that have a relevant freedom of panorama may fall under US law for copyright issues within the US. Under the choice-of-law principle lex loci protectionis U.S. courts might apply U.S. freedom-of-panorama standards in such cases, rather than the standards of the source country. However, in practice it is unsettled whether and how this approach would be applied in real world U.S. legal cases involving freedom-of-panorama elements.

See {{Not-free-US-FOP}} and Commons:Requests for comment/Non-US Freedom of Panorama under US copyright law.

See also category: United States FOP cases.

Uruguay

OK {{FoP-Uruguay}}

Article 45.8 No es reproducción ilícita: [...] La reproducción fotográfica de cuadros, monumentos, o figuras alegóricas expuestas en los museos, parques o paseos públicos, siempre que las obras de que se trata se consideren sólidas de dominio privado;Ley N° 9.739 de 17 de diciembre de 1937 sobre Derechos de Autor (modificada por última vez por la Ley N° 18.046 de 24 de octubre de 2006)

Uzbekistan

 Not OK see Former Soviet Union

See also category: Uzbek FOP cases.

Vatican City (Holy See)

 Not OK Under Law N. XII on Copyright of January 12, 1960 [16], the Vatican decreed that unless church law says otherwise, the precepts of Italian copyright law apply in Vatican City. As noted above, Italy does not allow for freedom of panorama. Thus, sculptures and other works, including buildings, are not ok until 70 years after the death of the architect or designer. The Vatican's publishing house, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, also claims perpetual copyright on the writings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI [17], [18].

Venezuela

OK {{FoP-Venezuela}}

The following shall be considered lawful reproductions: (...) (9) the reproduction of a work of art permanently displayed in a street, square or other public place by means of a technique different from that used for the making of the original; with respect to buildings, the said right shall be limited to the external elevations: Law on Copyright, §44 (9).

See also category: Venezuelan FOP cases.

Vietnam

OK {{FoP-Vietnam}}

According to article 25.1(h) of the Vietnamese copyright law, it is allowed to use (i.e. take and publish pictures, or televise) published works of the fine or applied arts or photographs, if the works have already been publicly displayed for "introduction purposes", without obtaining permission from and without paying royalties or other remuneration to the copyright owner.

• Intellectual Property Law of Vietnam of November 2005; entry in force July 1, 2006.
• Civil Code of Vietnam of September 2005; contains in part 6 (articles 736 to 757) some additional copyright provisions (not relevant for freedom of panorama). In case of discrepancies between the Civil Code and the IP law, the IP law prevails (article 5 of the IP law).

Zambia

 Not OK

According to Copyright and Performance Rights Act, 1994 sections 2, 8 and 17, "works of architecture" may be objects of copyright. Section 21 of the law provides an exception for "incidental inclusion" but no freedom of panorama.

See also

• {{Licensed-FOP}} template for formatting and internationalization licenses of FOP images
• Commons:Derivative works
• Commons:De minimis
• Category:FOP-related deletion requests

Bibliography

• Vogel. In: Gerhard Schricker (Hrsg.): Urheberrecht. Kommentar. 2. Auflage. Beck, München 1999, ISBN 3-406-37004-7
• Dreier. In: Thomas Dreier/Gernot Schulze: Urheberrechtsgesetz. 2. Auflage. München: Beck 2006 ISBN 340654195X
• Cornelie von Gierke: Die Freiheit des Straßenbildes (§59 UrhG). In: Hans-Jürgen Ahrens (Hrsg.): Festschrift für Willi Erdmann. Zum 65. Geburtstag. Heymann, Köln u.a. 2002, S. 103-115, ISBN 3-452-25191-8

External links

• American Intellectual Law Association
• Franklin Pierce Law Center on the intellectual law
• Freedom of Panorama: A Comparative Look at International Restrictions on Public Photography

---

This page is based on the German Wikipedia article Panoramafreiheit

---