Template talk:FoP

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon. I think we can close this request, since its enforcement would lead to the deletion of a massive amount of architecture photos her on commons. // Martin K. (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Speedy deletion

I have added the speedy delete category because I feel images tagged with this template are not free enough to be on commons. -- Cat ^chi? 21:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Applicability

Which countries does this apply to? Most freedom of panorama clauses (that do not have a non-commercial restriction) I've seen do not restrict modified or derivative works of the photo; the full copyright is owned by the photographer with no restrictions (other than moral rights, but that is different than copyright). The clause in this template seems particular to the German FOP law but I don't remember similar restrictions elsewhere. Carl Lindberg 15:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"can be used legally only in countries with a respective legal exception"

...can be used legally only in countries with a respective legal exception (see COM:FOP), independent from where the photo was taken originally

What is the basis of this strange theory? Surely countries only regulate the right to take photographs of public works on their own soil.--Pharos 03:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- start copy from VP.

What is THIS?!

I like to think I'm reasonably up on the current copyright thought around here but {{FOP}} completely blew my mind for several reasons, the first being its strange sentence structure and hard to decipher meaning, the second being its questionable formatting. Could someone check the meaning and correctness of this template and maybe clarify it (Once that's done the formatting will deal with itself)? 68.39.174.238 04:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This work contains material which is copyrighted, but which fall under freedom of panorama. The copyrighted object and its context may not be modified or used for derivative works, the work shown may not be reproduced, independent in which legal system the photo was taken originally. This work can be used legally only in countries with a respective legal exception (see COM:FOP). Some countries permit only the noncommercial use. Before using this content, please ensure that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's copyrights. See our general disclaimer.

I have no idea what it is trying to say. The first and the last bit seem OK, but we should clarify the bit in the. Maybe:

This work contains material which is copyrighted, but which we believe falls under freedom of panorama. The allowed usage of this picture, if any, depends upon the laws of the country in which the image was created. Before reusing this content, please ensure that you have the right to do so. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's copyrights. See COM:FOP and our general disclaimer for more information.

Regards, Ben Aveling 23:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right - the existing wording makes very little sense. I suggest that we continue this discussion at Template talk:FOP. I've copied the thread across; please make further postings there. --MichaelMaggs 17:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

<-- end copy from VP.

I suggest the following, which may help users who don't know what the term Freedom of Panorama means (although the concepts of course are well known to copyright specialists, the actual term Freedom of Panorama appears to have been invented for Commons; it's not generally used elsewhere, although it has now migrated to Wikipedia). Also, we can restrict the text to photographs.

This photograph depicts a subject such as a work of architecture which may still be protected by copyright. However, the copyright law of the country in which the photograph was created allows such photographs to be taken and re-used, possibly with conditions, where the subject is permanently located in a public place. In Germany, this exception is known as Panoramafreiheit; many other countries have similar exceptions which are referred to on the Commons by the generic term Freedom of panorama.

Freedom of panorama does not apply in all countries, and where it does it often applies only to photographs of buildings that are permanently located in a public place. In some countries the freedom may apply more broadly, and for example may extend to sculptures and/or to subjects that are not in a 'public place' but are in a 'place to which the public has access': see Freedom of panorama for a country by country list.

It is believed that the taking and uploading of this image falls under Freedom of panorama in the country in which it was created. The allowed usage of this picture, if any, depends upon the law of the country of creation, and some countries impose limitations on how such images may be re-used. Before reusing this content, please ensure that you have the right to do so. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's copyrights.' See our general disclaimer for more information.

--MichaelMaggs 18:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have put a version of it in place. Cheers, Ben Aveling 19:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine. --MichaelMaggs 20:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The degree of limitation is depending on where the image is published, NOT where it is taken. To explain the situation germany, FOP allows you to publish the image "as is", but you must not derivate the work, but you may use it commercially. Probably the same image must not be reused commercially in the USA. For example, this image Image:Bochum jobsiade.jpg {{non-derivative}} in Germany, but {{fair-use}} in USA. To make it worse, eg Image:Bochum Im Winkel.jpg is straight copyrighted in france, believe it or not. I'm shure someone will overcome this little but fundamental licensing problem soon. -- Stahlkocher 18:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We are concerned with the freedom to take the picture and to upload it here. Of course, re-use may depend on the laws of the country of use, but we cannot advise on that except to provide a suitable warning. Please don't make fundamental changes to such an important template without discussing on this page first. I am reverting, but will tweak the text slightly to incorporate your point. --MichaelMaggs 07:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

To be on the secure side you should mark the images as "non-derivates" and "fair-use"! Furthermore it should be taken into account that most goods which where somehow "designed" are also copyrighted, starting with waffle irons [1] and ending up with cars [2]. How do you thing commons should deal with it. Fair use templates for everything? -- Stahlkocher 19:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No and no. Freedom of panorama images are derivative and are not fair use. And images of "Products of daily use" are generally not problematic from a copyright point of view. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

autocat fix

{{Editprotected}} After this edit] the autocat should be fixed. Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Country-specific templates

{{Editprotected}} Please include something like:

• If possible, use appropriate country-specific FoP template – see FoP templates.

--ŠJů (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Added to Template:FoP/doc already by ŠJů. I see no need to put it in the template itself. --whym (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)