Commons talk:Freedom of panorama

Shortcut: CT:FOP

When pictures of protected works are allowed if they are not the main subject

In countries such as Cambodia reproduction of a protected work that is in a public place is allowed if the protected work is not the main object of reproduction. This seems to allow more than De minimis, including pictures that could easily be cropped to make the protected work the main subject. Should the section "Nuances in the panorama freedom" give guidance on these situations? I see two possibilities, and am not sure which is correct:

1. For Wikimedia purposes, reproduction of protected works in public places is only allowed if the law explicitly allows such reproduction. An exception allowing reproduction when the protected work is not the main subject is not sufficient unless De minimis applies
2. If the law allows reproduction of a protected work in a public place when it is not the main subject of the picture, the file may be uploaded but should be tagged with a warning such as {{Deminimis}}.

Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It's mentioned on the Commons:De minimis page, but yes that is not strictly speaking de minimis. One of the examples there is photos of the entire Louvre square not being derivative of the pyramid, even though centered and prominent. The United States section mentions the Ets-Hokins decision, where a photograph of a bottle is not a derivative work of the label, even if the label is prominent -- it is "incidental", i.e. inherently there when photographing the larger subject. Only photos focusing on the label itself would be derivative. The U.S. had a similar case (Latimer v. Roaring Toyz) of photos of a motorcycle not being derivative of the artwork on the motorcycle -- while the case was decided on contractual grounds, there was a pretty clear indication that otherwise the result was going be similar to Ets-Hokins. There are French cases mentioned in COM:DM France which say when something is an "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject". The COM:FOP France page mentions a case about the Tour Montparnasse which I think used that concept, for a photo which was of a wider city street and the building visible at the end of it, which has been reinforced since. There is a further qualification in France that the work must not be intentionally included, i.e. it had to unavoidably be there -- same as the U.S. incidental. There was similarly a U.S. case where a fashion photographer had the model wear a pair of fancy, copyrighted glasses -- this was ruled infringement, since (although not the main subject) the glasses were not inherently there, and were included intentionally.

Strictly speaking, this is a different theory than de minimis, though analogous enough to be mentioned on those pages. Somewhere, there is a dividing line between what rights sculptors/architects have, before it starts unfairly impeding the rights of photographers. That, it seems to me, is a reasonable dividing line -- I'm not aware of any case, from any country, which has largely deviated from that approach (except with explicit freedom of panorama clauses going further than that line). For example I can't imagine a tattoo artist gets rights over any photograph taken of Mike Tyson (although, its use in the Hangover II movie and publicity materials was stated to not be a parody, thus not fair use, and therefore pretty obvious infringement; the parties later settled out of court and there were no further binding decisions). It would seem that the copyrighted object must be the main subject of a photo (or intentionally included to trade off of it) for there to be infringement. So, I would go with the second interpretation, as there is some legal backing for it, and I'm not aware of any counterexamples. Some laws, like Cambodia, do mention it specifically but I can't think of any which declare that type of photo is a problem -- so I'm not sure I would disallow that from any country, frankly. The wording in the {{De minimis}} tag applies to that situation too, so it's an appropriate tag to add -- once you start focusing on the copyrighted element, a crop could be a problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I think related contents should be added at {{NoFoP-Cambodia}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

New regulations in Vietnam

I'm not sure we understand the new Vietnamese regulations correctly. According to Point h, Clause 1, Article 25 of the Amendment Law 2023, when we take pictures of works of fine art, architecture and applied art displayed in public places in order to introduce the image of that work, not to commercial use is allowed (as an exception not to infringe copyright). This is reasonable because we do not make money, do business from this so do not have to ask for permission. Looking forward to your discussion and guidance for correct understanding. Best regards--Phương Huy (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Phương Huy non-commercial licenses are forbidden on Commons. It is one of the forbidden licenses listed at COM:Licensing#Forbidden licenses. Basically, Vietnamese FOP disallows the use of commercial Creative Commons licensing in photos of recent architecture, applied art, and sculptures from Vietnam made by artists or architects who are not yet dead for more than 50 years, hence copyrighted public art and architecture. Commons, however, cannot accept Vietnamese FOP as it disallows end-users to freely use those photos, like uses in post cards, commercial vlogs, souvenir items, and many more for-profit media without the burden to ask for permits from artists ot architects. Therefore, Commons' perspective on Vietnam as a no-FOP country is correct.

The question now is: will Vietnam revert that non-commercial restriction? Or, is that a clarificatory addition meant to state that Vietnam has been a no-FOP country since the beginning (making sense of "for presentation of those images" that is meant to be non-commercial)? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. In general, Vietnamese law is quite complicated. Article 25 of Law 2023 provides for exceptions that do not infringe on copyright, specifically: Uses of published works that do not require permission, do not have to pay royalties (but name information is required author and origin and origin of the work) including "Photography, broadcasting of works of fine art, architecture, photography, applied art displayed in public places to introduce the image of the work. and not for commercial purposes" (Point h, Clause 1, Article 25). In Vietnam, this will be a regulation that creates freedom for these works without fear of copyright infringement, without having to ask for permission. However, at Commons, the use of works has different rules and interpretations (regarding licenses). I will continue to research to make it right. Looking forward to receiving your guidance attention (if you don't mind).--Phương Huy (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Phương Huy take note that Commons strictly adheres to the Definition of Free Cultural Works, and I do not know if the legislators and artists' groups of Vietnam did not sit well with the free culture movement as being encouraged by Wikimedia and also Creative Commons organizations. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. According to the documents you guide me, there is an inconsistency in the understanding of the freedom to use works of art.

• [1]: "To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be free, and by freedom we mean: the freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it." I understand that "freedom" means use including both profitable and non-profit purposes. Thus, Article 25 of Law 2023 only allows the use of works without permission (freedom) in the case of non-commercial purposes, I consider this to be a restriction on the freedom of approach of the the Definition of Free Cultural Works.
• In enwiki Freedom of panorama: "Freedom of panorama in Vietnam is restricted to non-commercial photography and television broadcasting of public art and architecture. Article 25(h) of the newly-amended Vietnamese copyright law (2022) states it is permitted to photograph and broadcast publicly-displayed works of plastic art, architecture, and applied art "for the purpose of presenting images of these works," but not for commercial purposes". sentence "Freedom of panorama in Vietnam is restricted to non-commercial photography and television broadcasting of public art and architecture" is not correct. if according to Article 25 the correct interpretation should be Freedom of panorama in Vietnam is restricted to commercial photography and television broadcasting of public art and architecture (commercial, not non-commercial) because when we take pictures for non-commercial purposes, we do not have to ask for permission, do not infringe copyright (this is an exception of copyright). It mean will not be restricted for non-commercial use. In case we use the work for profit, we must ask the author's permission (That means it will be limited, and not free). Thus, Vietnamese law has increased freedom, of course not exactly the same [2]--Phương Huy (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Marshall Islands

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

Internal contradictions for Sweden

The first image, a map of Europe, shows Sweden in red indicating "Not OK" (while Norway and Finland are yellow for "OK for buildings only"). Halfway down the page, a map of the world, shows Sweden in green for "Maybe OK, unclear."). The table below lists Sweden with green a checkmark under "Buildings", question marks for 2D/3D/Public interiors, and an X for text.

As well as figuring out how to colour Sweden on these maps, it would be nice if both maps used the same colour scheme. - 129.242.129.238 12:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

In Sweden we have a lot of confusion due to the decision Sverige v. Wikipedia Sverige from 2016, see COM:FOP Sweden and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FoP-Sweden. Current position is that the current state of freedom of panorama in Sweden in regard to publications on the Internet is unknown but we will not delete anything from Sweden on the assumption that we do not have FOP in Sweden. This might explain why the map does not match the corresponding guideline. Sweden should probably be marked in grey. This has been discussed at File talk:Freedom of Panorama in Europe.svg#Sweden and Sweden was greyed afterwards. However, this was afterwards turned back into red by Chubit, then to green by Chubit, and finally turned back to red by Brateevsky. This should be best discussed at File talk:Freedom of Panorama in Europe.svg. But please keep in mind that the map just serves to provide an overview, you should always read the corresponding section. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)