Open main menu

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated list Western Europe


Other languages:
English • ‎español • ‎français
VTE Copyright rules by territory
UN geographical subregions
UN geographical subregions
Africa
Americas
Asia
Europe
Oceania
Others

This page gives overviews of copyright rules in different countries of Western Europe, as defined in the United Nations geoscheme for Europe. It is "transcluded" from individual pages giving the rules for each country. The list may be used for comparison or maintenance.

Contents

Text transcluded from
COM:Austria

Austria

This page provides an overview of copyright rules of Austria relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. Note that any work originating in Austria must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both Austria and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from Austria, refer to the relevant laws for clarification.

Governing lawsEdit

Austria has been a member of the Berne Convention since 1 October 1920, the WIPO treaty since 14 March 2010 and the World Trade Organization since 1 January 1995.[1]

As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed the Federal Law on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works and Related Rights (Copyright Law 1936, as amended up to Federal Law published in the Federal Law Gazette I No. 63/2018 (BGBI.I No. 63/2018)) as the main IP law enacted by the legislature of Austria.[1] WIPO holds the text of this law in their WIPO Lex database.[2]

DurationsEdit

Under the 'Federal Law on Copyright 1936 as amended up to 2018,

  • Copyright in individual work of literature, music and the visual arts ends 70 years after the author's death.[1936-2018 Art.60]
  • If the work is jointly created, copyright ends 70 years after the death of the last surviving author.[1936-2018 Art.60]
  • Copyright in anonymous or pseudonymous works end 70 years after creation or publication if published within 70 years.[1936-2018 Art 61]
  • Copyright in cinematographic works lasts 70 years after death of the last survivor of the principal director, the scriptwriter and the composer of music especially for the work.[1936-2018 Art.62]

Calculation of durations does not count the calendar year of the event used to calculate the duration.[1936-2018 Art.64]

PhotographsEdit

In Austria pursuant to the provisions of Article 74(6) of Federal Law BGBI No. 111 of 1936 in the Version of 2003-07-01:

  • A simple photograph ("Lichtbild"), such as simple passport photos from Photo booths, photos from satellites, pictures from radiography, is no longer protected if it was either published more than 50 years ago or it was taken more than 50 years ago and never published within 50 years of its creation.
  • Photographs that involve artistic interpretations, such as studio shots and those that involve lighting and poses, qualify as photographic works ("Lichtbildwerke") or "works of literature, music and art".[1936-2018 Art.60][3] With these, protection lasts for 70 years after the author's death. (see this discussion).

In order to be acceptable on Commons, works must be in the public domain in the United States as well as in their source country. Austrian works are currently in the public domain in the United States if their copyright had expired in Austria on the U.S. date of restoration (January 1, 1996). However, some works might have a subsisting U.S. copyright resulting from the long-standing copyright relations between Austria and the United States.

  • For unpublished simple photographs, copyright has expired in Austria if it was created more than 50 years ago and was never published within 50 years of creation. Copyright has expired in the United States if created prior to 1946 and never published within 50 years of creation.
  • For published simple photographs, copyright has expired in Austria if published more than 50 years ago. Copyright has expired in the United States if published prior to 1946.
  • For all other photographs and artworks, copyright has expired in Austria if the author died more than 70 years ago and it was published. Copyright has expired in the United States if it was published prior to 1926.

Official worksEdit

Under the 'Federal Law on Copyright 1936 as amended up to 2018,

  • Laws, regulations, official decrees, official notices and decisions and official works as defined in §2Z itesm 1 or 3, solely or mainly produced for official use. shall not enjoy copyright protection.[1936-2018 Art.7(1)]

Copyright tagsEdit

  • {{PD-AustrianGov}} – for parts of laws, ordinances or official decrees issued by an Austrian federal or state authority and for works of those authorities intended predominantly for official use.
  • {{PD-Austria-1932}} – for photographic works published before 1932, or created before 1932 and not published for 20 years thereafter.
  • {{PD-StVZVO}} – for road signs published in ordinances or other regulations.

CurrencyEdit

X mark.svg Not OK

  • It is the (apparently unanimous) view in treatises and law review articles on Austrian copyright law that bank notes and coins do not constitute official works under s 7 of the Austrian Copyright Act and are therefore not freely usable.[4]

Freedom of panoramaEdit

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

Article 54 of Austrian copyright law says it is allowed 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.[1936-2018 Art.54(5)]

Architectural works may generally be reproduced, including all permanent buildings and other structures as a whole, building parts such as walls, pillars, windows (including church windows), doors, and stairs, a complete view of the interior design. This includes photographs taken in streets and public places, private grounds and the interior of buildings. However, single pieces of furniture or artworks may not be freely reproduced.

For other types of work, 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. The rules are:

Type of work
  • ✓ two-dimensional works of visual arts (paintings, frescos, sgraffiti…)
  • ✓ three-dimensional works of visual arts (sculptures)
  • ✘ works of literature (texts)
  • ✘ acoustic works (music, speech, bells, signal sounds…)
Place of photograph
  • ✓ streets and public places
  • ✘ private ground
  • ✘ interiors of buildings, including churches, museums, and theatres
permanence
  • ✓ 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}}.

StampsEdit

Red copyright.svg The Austrian postal service (Österreichische Post) has limited copyright for all stamps and the displayed images. The stamps can be used for sale, manufacture and advertising. For all other imaging requests (such as printing works, books or encyclopedias) the respective postage stamp designer needs to be contacted, since it is not advertising. This eliminates a general license as template for the German stamps. For each stamp a release must be obtained individually. The contact addresses of the designers are subject to data privacy. See de:Wikipedia:Briefmarken#.C3.96sterreichische_Post.

Threshold of originalityEdit

These logos are X mark.svg Not OK:

See alsoEdit

CitationsEdit

  1. a b Austria Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights). WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization (2018). Retrieved on 2018-11-11.
  2. Federal Law on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works and Related Rights (Copyright Law 1936, as amended up to Federal Law published in the Federal Law Gazette I No. 63/2018 (BGBI.I No. 63/2018)). Austria (2018). Retrieved on 2018-11-11.
  3. Eurobike: OGH, Beschluss vom 12.9.2001, 4 Ob 179/01d.
  4. See MM Walter, "Anmerkung zu OGH 22.11.1994, 4 Ob 1105/94 – 'Bundeshymne'" (1995) 13 Medien und Recht international 186 ("Es kann mE aber nicht fraglich sein, daß ein Werk durch eine solche Veröffentlichung oder Aufnahme in ein amtliches Werk nicht seinen urheberrechtlichen Schutz verliert […] Dies gilt insbesondere für Briefmarken, Münzen oder Banknoten; sie werden durch die Veröffentlichung in Amtsblättern (Bundesgesetzblatt, Verordnungsblatt etc), in denen ihre Herausgabe (mit Verordnung) angeordnet wird, nicht zu amtlichen Werken."); MM Walter, Österreichisches Urheberrecht (Medien und Recht 2008) 311 ("Was schließlich die (grafische) Gestaltung von Münzen und Banknoten anlangt, können diese urheberrechtlich geschützt sein. Auch sie sind schon deshalb keine amtlichen Werke, weil sie nicht ausschließlich oder vorwiegend zum amtlichen Gebrauch bestimmt sind. Davon abgesehen handelt es sich auch nicht um Sprachwerke und in der Regel auch nicht um Werke wissenschaftlicher oder belehrender Art im Sinn des § 2 Z 3 UrhG."); M Ciresa, "§ 7" in M Ciresa (ed), Österreichisches Urheberrecht (Orac R 19 2017) para 8 ("Lehr- und Prüfungsmaterialien von Universitäten und Hochschulen sind ebenfalls keine amtlichen Werke […] Dies gilt auch für die grafische Gestaltung von Münzen und Banknoten"); M Röttinger, "Das Urheberrecht an den Euro-Münzen und Euro-Banknoten" (2000) 11 ecolex 654, 655 ("Aufgrund der klaren und engen Formulierung von § 7 öUrhG stellt sich gar nicht ernsthaft die Frage, ob es sich bei Münzen bzw Münzbildern um freie Werke ('amtliche Werke') handelt.").
  5. Bauer logo.
  6. Oberster Gerichtshof statement.
  7. Zimmermann Fitness logo.
  8. Oberster Gerichtshof statement.
Caution: The above description may be inaccurate, incomplete and/or out of date, so must be treated with caution. Before you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons you should ensure it may be used freely. See also: Commons:General disclaimer
Text transcluded from
COM:Belgium

Belgium

This page provides an overview of copyright rules of Belgium relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. Note that any work originating in Belgium must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both Belgium and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from Belgium, refer to the relevant laws for clarification.

Governing lawsEdit

Belgium has been a member of the Berne Convention since 5 December 1887, the WIPO treaty since 30 August 2006 and the World Trade Organization since 1 January 1995.[1]

As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed the Code de droit économique (Code of Economic Law) (updated on September 10, 2018) as the main IP law enacted by the legislature of Belgium.[1] WIPO holds the text of this law in their WIPO Lex database. Book XI. of this law covers intellectual property and business secrets.[2] The website www.ejustice.just.fgov.be holds the Dutch and French text of this law.[3][4]

General rulesEdit

According to the law as of 2018 (Art. XI.166.):

  • Copyright protection lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. Rights to works created by employees or under contract may be transferred to the employer or contractee.
  • With collaborative works, copyright protection lasts for 70 years after death of the last surviving author. For audiovisual works, this includes various people with defined roles in production of the work, including the director, scenarist and authors of text and music.
  • For anonymous or pseudonymous works, copyright protection lasts for 70 years after publication unless there is no doubt about the author's identity or they reveal their identity, in which case copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author.
  • The above durations all end on 1 January of the year following the last year of protection.
  • A portrait may not be reproduced without the permission of the person represented or their heirs for 20 years after their death.

Copyright tagsEdit

CurrencyEdit

Banknotes

X mark.svg Not OK Banknotes denominated in Belgian francs issued by the National Bank of Belgium can still be exchanged for an undetermined period of time. The Bank still owns copyrights with regard to the design of the banknotes it has issued, in accordance with the legislation on intellectual property rights. Therefore, these banknotes may not be reproduced without the Bank's permission, subject to the observance of the conditions the Bank has laid down. The same kind of restrictions apply to reproductions of Belgium banknotes as to Euro banknotes.[5]

Coins

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Unknown

De minimisEdit

Art. XI.190 of the Code on Economic Law states:

  • 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 [...].

Freedom of panoramaEdit

Symbol OK.svgOK: {{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. 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."[2018 Art.XI.190]

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.[6]

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, 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.

StampsEdit

Red copyright.svg In Belgium an image of a stamp is copyright free when the following conditions are fulfilled: 70 years after La Poste / De Post have issued the stamp AND 70 years after the designer of the image on the stamp has died.

The works of the following artists are in public domain because the artist died before 31 December 1945.

The work of the following artists will be in public domain on 1 January following 70 years after their death

See alsoEdit

CitationsEdit

  1. a b Belgium Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights). WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization (2018). Retrieved on 2018-11-11.
  2. Code of Economic Law (updated on September 10, 2018). Belgium (2018). Retrieved on 2018-11-11.
  3. Wetboek van economisch recht (in Dutch). Retrieved on 2019-3-24.
  4. Code de droit économique (in French). Retrieved on 2019-03-24.
  5. Reproduction of Belgian franc banknotes. National Bank of Belgium. Retrieved on 2019-03-24..
  6. Belgium to adopt bill on the freedom of panorama. News Media Coalition (2016-05-12). Retrieved on 2016-07-17.
Caution: The above description may be inaccurate, incomplete and/or out of date, so must be treated with caution. Before you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons you should ensure it may be used freely. See also: Commons:General disclaimer
Text transcluded from
COM:France

France

This page provides an overview of copyright rules of France relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. Note that any work originating in France must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both France and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from France, refer to the relevant laws for clarification.

Governing lawsEdit

France has been a member of the Berne Convention since 5 December 1887, the World Trade Organization since 1 January 1995 and the WIPO Copyright Treaty since 14 March 2010.[1]

The relevant laws are in the first book of the Code of Intellectual Property.[2][3] The code includes dispositions transposed from the 1993 European directive on Copyright].[4]

As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed the Intellectual Property Code (consolidated version as of September 7, 2018) as the main IP law enacted by the legislature of France.[1]WIPO Lex database.[5]

GeneralEdit

  • Standard copyright term: Life + 70 years, (except posthumous works, musical works, and works whose author "died for France", which are protected for an additional 30 years)
  • Wartime copyright extensions may apply to musical works: + 6 years 152 days for musical work published through 1920 (Art. L123-8); + 8 years and 120 days for musical work published through 1947 (Art. L123-9); these extensions are cumulative with each other and with the "died for France" extension:
  • Anonymous works: 70 years after publication (if author never disclosed)
  • Posthumous works: 25 years from publication
  • Government works: not free except for video, text and graphics published on the gouvernement.fr site (Please use{{Gouvernement.fr}})

The normal duration of copyright is 70 years following the end of the year of death of the author (or the death of the last author for multiple authors); if the work is anonymous, pseudonymous or collective, it is 70 years following the end of the year of publication of the work (unless the authors named themselves). This applies only if publication occurs within 70 years of creation (see Article L132-3).

Images from public web sitesEdit

Note that French government services often use professional photographers who are not government employees to make official photographs. These photographers then typically sell usage rights of the photograph to the government. In such circumstances, the government does not own the copyright to the photograph, and thus could not give us a license to use it even if it wanted to.

The rules for protection of works by the government are somewhat fuzzy, and one should assume by default that anything from a government entity is copyrighted. One should refer to the Law of 17 July 1978 and Decree of 30 December 2005.[6][7]

Laws, decrees, court decisions and other similar government texts (but not the translations or commentaries thereof), possibly found on the Légifrance, website are in the public domain. This seems acknowledged by Légifrance's copyright terms.

Video, text and graphics published on the gouvernement.fr website are licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY 3.0 FR). Be careful, since this does not apply to photographs. However, it is possible to import images taken from videos. Please use {{Gouvernement.fr}} Unless you really know what you're doing, please abstain from copying photos from French government web sites to Commons. Thanks.

Wartime copyright extensionsEdit

On February 27, 2007, the Court of Cassation, supreme jurisdiction, first civil chamber, ruled in the Hazan case (arrêt n° 280 du 27 février 2007) that articles L123-8 and L123-9, extending the duration of protection to compensate for wartimes, were not applicable to works for which an extended protection period (beyond 70 years) had not started to elapse on July 1, 1995.[8][9] The judgment regarding Giovanni Boldini's work was broke too, by the same court.[10]

In practice, only subsist extensions for authors "Mort pour la France", but even this is subject to debate.

Previously, French law granted extensions to copyright because of the World Wars.[5] The extensions were:

  • 6 years and 152 days for World War I
  • 8 years and 120 days for World War II
  • 30 years for people who died for France ; this includes, for instance, Alain-Fournier (1 January 1915 +50+30+6+8 years +152+120 days = 30 September 2009), Antoine de Saint-Exupéry and Jehan Alain.

Several extensions were added together.

It was previously assumed that the European directive on copyright did not necessarily suppress these extensions:

  • Article 10 - Where a term of protection, which is longer than the corresponding term provided for by this Directive, is already running in a Member State on the date referred to in Article 13 (1), this Directive shall not have the effect of shortening that term of protection in that Member State.

According to the French Ministry of Culture, the legal status of these extensions, adopted when copyright was 50 years after death, was unclear in the context of the new 70-year law; the Ministry called for erring on the side of caution and assuming they are valid.[11]

It was also assumed that copyright holders do try to enforce these extensions. In 2005, right holders demanded payment for a movie where a character whistled The Internationale, whose author died in 1932. (See also Template:PD-Internationale for further information.) On the other hand, the Paris Appeal Court ruled against applying the extensions in 2004. However, on 12 October 2005, another section of the same court applied the extension so that the works of the painter Giovanni Boldini who died in 1931 will not enter the public domain before late 2016.

Works of arts, including architecture, exhibited in public spacesEdit

The architect of a notable building owns copyright over the representations of that building, including postcards and photographs. For instance, the architect of the pyramid in the courtyard of the Louvre Museum may claim copyright over images of the pyramid. This, for instance, extends to the designer of lighting systems; for instance, the company operating the Eiffel Tower claims copyright of images of the tower when lighted at night.

However, ruling #567 of March 15, 2005 of the Court of Cassation denied the right of producers of works of arts 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 Terreaŭx 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

The court draws a distinction between depictions of a work of art, and depictions of whole settings of which the work of art is a mere part, and denies the right of the artist over such images.

While architects may have rights to works derived from their work of art, this is not the case of the owners of works of art or buildings, in general. The summary of the conclusions of a May 7, 2004 ruling by the Court of Cassation was:[12]

The owner of a thing does not have an exclusive right over the image of this thing; he or she can however oppose the usage of this image by a third party if this usage results in an abnormal disturbance to him or her."

In this decision, the court excluded that the owner of a hotel, who had made extensive repairs and enhancements to the buildings at high costs, could claim exclusive rights to the image of that hotel: merely demonstrating that the costs supported did not demonstrate that the publishing of images was an abnormal disturbance.

The Court already ruled on [ June 5, 2003], that the right of property comprised absolutely no right to the image of this property.[13] However, they also upheld the right to privacy of the homeowners: in this case, not only a photograph of a house was published, but also its exact location and the name of the owners. Earlier rulings similarly rejected requests based on ownership without a justification of an abnormal disturbance.[14]

Copyright tagsEdit

  • {{PD-France}} – Public domain because the author(s) died more than 70 years ago and did not benefit from any copyright extension, or it is an anonymous, pseudonymous or collective work and more than 70 years have passed since its publication, or it is the recording of an audiovisual or musical work already in the public domain, and more than 50 years have passed since the performance or the recording.
  • {{PD-Archivesnormandie}} – for pictures from the site Archives Normandie 1939-45. Pictures credited to the National Archives USA or the National Archives Canada and tagged "libres de droits" are in the public domain.
  • {{PD-BnFMandragorePic}} – for digitized version of old images from the Mandragore database at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France.[15]
  • {{PD-GallicaScan}} – for digitized version of old books from the gallica.bnf.fr library at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France
  • {{PD-JORF}} – for French official legal texts as published in the Journal officiel de la République Française or reprinted on Légifrance; note: not all texts on Légifrance are out-of-copyright, many others are copyrighted under free licenses, and sometimes under unfree licenses).
  • {{PD-JORF-nor-conso}} – with NOR (identification number) and index of the updated text.
  • {{PD-ID-France}} – Ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain because it is a legally valid French identity photograph.
  • {{Licence Ouverte}} — For documents issued under the Licence Ouverte (for example from http://data.gouv.fr).
  • {{Gouvernement.fr}} — For extracts from a video, text or infographic issued on the French government's site internet.

CurrencyEdit

Symbol OK.svgOK Regarding former French currency (francs), case law states that copyright exists, but is paralysed by the ‘allocation to the general interest and character of public service’ of currency. See, for instance, Cour de Cassation 5 February 2002.[16]

Please use {{Money-FR}}.

De minimisEdit

This photograph is not a copyright violation since it is of the entire plaza, and not just the Louvre Pyramid.
The white triangle in this derivative work covers the copyright protected region of the top image.

French case law 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 arts installed in a public plaza over photographs of the whole plaza:[17]

  • 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.[18]


French 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.):

  • It 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.

Freedom of panoramaEdit

X mark.svg Not OK {{NoFoP-France}}

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

On 7 October 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.[19][20]

  • Reproductions and representations of architectural works and sculptures, permanently placed on public roads, carried out by natural persons, to the exclusion of any commercial use.[L.122 5]}}

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" («  »). Concerning buildings, case law defines several criteria for originality:[21]

  • "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.[22]
  • 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.[23]
  • Works without a particular or original character, which are a trivial reproduction of building types largely found across the country, are not protected. (#13).[24]
  • 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.[22]

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.):

Courts are traditionally lenient with pictures showing urban landscapes, cf. Tour Montparnasse, C.A. Paris - 7 novembre 1980.[25]

  • 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 derived works (for example, sales of these pictures is not authorized, as well as offline republication or online republication via external proxies and aggregators)
  • 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 galleries 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 transferred 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.

StampsEdit

Red copyright.svg According to La Poste, French stamps have the same legal status as any other work of art. Stamps by designers deceased more than 70 years ago (plus years of war) are public domain.[26] The names of the artists are generally printed at the bottom of the stamps or its main picture. Check the individual artists death dates in the frwiki category: Dessinateur de timbres/Stamp designers and also the French Phil-ouest website that lists many more than have wiki articles.[27]

On 1st January 2015, it appears that all postage stamps of France issued until 1922 are in the public domain (doubts about the 1919 stamp known as "The Two Orphans" - cause: no information found on the date of death of Surand and Jarraud).

The following list of artists whose works are in public domain because they died before 31 December 1948 is non-exhaustive:

Works by the following artists will be in public domain on 1 January following 70 years after their death:

  • Cortot, Henri (1892-1950)[28] @2022
  • Ouvré, Achille (1872-1951) @2022
  • Hourriez, Georges (1878-c1952)[29] @c2023
  • Dulac, Edmond (1882-1953) @2024
  • Nézière, Raymond de la (1865-1953) @2024
  • Feltesse, Émile Henri (1881-1955) @2026
  • Barlangue, Gabriel Antoine (1874-1956) @2027
  • Dufresne, Charles Paul (1885-1956) @2027
  • Lemasson, Henri (1870-1956) @2027
  • Cheffer, Henry (1880-1957) @2028
  • Munier, Pierre (1889-1962) @2033
  • Cocteau, Jean (1889-1963) @2034
  • Mazelin, Charles (1882-1964) @2035
  • Louis, Robert (1902-1965) @2036
  • Serres, Raoul (1881-1971) @2042
  • Cami, Robert (1900-1973) @2044
  • Lemagny, Paul Pierre (1905-1977) @2048
  • Spitz, André (1883-1977) @2048
  • Piel, Jules (1882-1978) @2049
  • Picart Le Doux, Jean (1902-1982) @2053
  • Monvoisin, Michel (1932-1982) @2053
  • Miró, Joan (1893-1983) @2054
  • Fernez Louis (1900-1984) @2055
  • Decaris, Albert (1901-1988) @2059
  • Delpech, Jean (1916-1988) @2059
  • Haley, Claude (1923-1988) @2059
  • Gandon, Pierre (1899-1990) @2061
  • Pheulpin, Jean (1907-1991) @2062
  • Cottet, René (1902-1992) @2063
  • Combet, Jacque (1920-1993) @2064
  • Peynet, Raymond (1908-1999) @2070
  • Hundertwasser, Friedensreich (1928-2000) @2071
  • Leguay, Marc (1910-2001) @2072
  • Durrens, Claude (1921-2002) @2073
  • Hertenberger, Claude (1912-2002) @2073
  • Bridoux, Charles (1942-2003) @2074
  • Dessirier, René (1919-2003@2074
  • Guillame, Cécile (1933-2004) @2075
  • Folon, Jean-Michel (1934-2005) @2076
  • Forget, Pierre (1923-2005) @2076
  • Lacaque, Eugène (1914-2005) @2076
  • Slania, Czeslaw (1921-2005) @2076
  • Schach-Duc, Yvonne (1933-2009) @2080
  • Saison, Huguette (1929-2011) @2082
  • Mathieu, Georges (1921-2012) @2083
  • Béquet, Pierre (1932-2012) @2083
  • Leliepvre, Eugène (190-2013) @2084
  • Wou-Ki, Zao (1920-2013) @2084
  • Markó, Serge (1926-2014) @2085
  • Taraskoff, Mark (1955-2015) @2086
  • Quillivic, René (1925-2016) @2087
  • Andréotto, Claude (1949-2017) @2088

Threshold of originalityEdit

Unlike the "creativity" doctrine in the US and Germany, or the "sweat of the brow" doctrine in the UK, French law asserts that a work is copyrightable when it bears the "imprint of the personality of the author. In practice, it depends on the work in question, but this has left the bar quite low for many works where an artistic intent can be shown. For an art exhibition, a man placed the word paradis with gold lettering above the bathroom door of the old dormitory of alcoholics at a psychiatric facility, and termed it artwork; the French courts agreed with him that it was copyrightable based on the aesthetic choices made ("affixing the word 'paradise' in gold with patina effect and a special graphics on dilapidated door, the lock-shaped cross, encased in a crumbling wall with peeling paint").[30]

France has "a slightly higher threshold of originality in general, and particularly so in the context of photographic works".[31]

A decision from Supreme court on October 2011 agreed with appeal court decision saying that a quite artistic picture of two fish on a yellow plate about a traditional Marseille meal could not be protected by French law because of lack of originality.[22] According to this decision, level of originality required by this appeal court is very high. This decision was criticized but French supreme court does not control facts but only controls interpretation of the law.

See alsoEdit

CitationsEdit

  1. a b France Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights)[1], WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization, 2018
  2. Code de la propriété intellectuelle (in French). Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  3. Code of Intellectual Property.
  4. Council Directive No. 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights. WIPO. Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  5. a b Intellectual Property Code (consolidated version as of September 7, 2018)[2], France, 2018
  6. Loi n° 78-753 du 17 juillet 1978 portant diverses mesures d'amélioration des relations entre l'administration et le public et diverses dispositions d'ordre administratif, social et fiscal Version consolidée au 25 mars 2019 (in French). Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  7. Décret n°2005-1755 du 30 décembre 2005 relatif à la liberté d'accès aux documents administratifs et à la réutilisation des informations publiques, pris pour l'application de la loi n° 78-753 du 17 juillet 1978. Version consolidée au 25 mars 2019 (in French). Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  8. 04-12.138 Arrêt n° 280 du 27 février 2007 (in French). Cour de cassation - Première chambre civile. Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  9. Communiqué relatif aux arrêts n°280 et n°281 rendus le 27 février 2007 (in French). Cour de cassation. Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  10. Arrêt n° 281 du 27 février 2007 (in French). Cour de cassation. Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  11. Numérisation (in French). Ministère de la Culture. Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  12. N° de pourvoi: 02-10450 (in French). Cour de cassation (7 May 2004). Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  13. N° de pourvoi: 02-12853 (in French). Cour de cassation (5 June 2003). Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  14. N° de pourvoi: 99-10709 (in French). Cour de cassation chambre civile 1 (May 2, 2001). Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  15. Mandragore, base des manuscrits enluminés de la BnF (in French). Bibliothèque Nationale de France. Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  16. Clotilde Alric. La Cour de cassation confirme que les billets de banque ne sont pas protégés par le code de la propriété intellectuelle (in French). LegalNews. Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  17. 03-14.820 Arrêt n° 567 du 15 mars 2005 (in French). Cour de cassation. Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  18. ... Attendu qu’ayant relevé que, telle que figurant dans les vues en cause, l’oeuvre de MM. X... et Z... se fondait dans l’ensemble architectural de la place des Terreaux dont elle constituait un simple élément, la cour d’appel en a exactement déduit qu’une telle présentation de l’oeuvre litigieuse était accessoire au sujet traité, résidant dans la représentation de la place, de sorte qu’elle ne réalisait pas la communication de cette oeuvre au public ...
  19. Manara, Cedric, La Nouvelle « Exception De Panorama ». Gros Plan Sur L’Article L. 122-5 10° Du Code Français De La Propriété Intellectuelle (The New 'Panorama Exception' in French Copyright Law) (August 20, 2016). Forthcoming, Revue Lamy Droit de l'Immatériel, 2016. Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2828355
  20. Marc Rees (30 June 2016). Loi Numérique : la liberté de panorama limitée, mais consacrée (in French). NextImpact.
  21. Résumé de la décision : TGI Lyon, 4 avril 2001, Buren et a. c/ Tassin et a. (in French). Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  22. a b c Joëlle Verbrugge (28 October 2011). Originalité, bouillabaisse et contrefaçon. "l’originalité s’entend du reflet de la personnalité de l’auteur ou de la révélation d’un talent créateur ... l’originalité ne se confond pas avec la compétence professionnelle . En d’autres termes, la simple notoriété et compétence d’un photographe ne fait pas de chacune de ses créations une œuvre originale susceptible de protection. le photographe ne rapportait pas à suffisance la preuve d’une « activité créatrice révélant sa personnalité, nonobstant la position en arc de cercle des poissons et l’angle de prise de vue utilisé« , avant de considérer, sur le plan technique que « ce cliché n’est révélateur d’aucune recherche dans les éclairages adéquats, la tonalité des fonds, l’environnement mobilier et les angles de prise de vue. Il ne constitue ainsi qu’une prestation de services techniques ne traduisant qu’un savoir faire."
  23. Jacques-Franck (21 July 2008). "Les architectes face au droit d'auteur", par Agnès Tricoire, avocat. (in French). Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  24. archive copy at the Wayback Machine (archived on 11 January 2014) Etendue et limites du droit d’auteur de l’architecte sur l’œuvre architecturale
  25. « s’agissant d’un élément d’un ensemble architectural qui constitue le cadre de vie de nombreux habitants d’un quartier de Paris (…), le droit à protection cesse lorsque l’œuvre en question est reproduite non pas en tant qu’œuvre d’art, mais par nécessité, au cours d’une prise de vue dans un lieu public ; sur la carte postale litigieuse, la Tour Montparnasse n’a pas été photographiée isolément mais dans son cadre naturel qui ne fait l’objet d’aucune protection. » Source: [3].
  26. REPRODUCTION DES TIMBRES-POSTE. La Poste. Retrieved on 2019-01-29.
  27. Les artistes graveurs ou dessinateurs et leurs timbres (in French). Phil-Ouest. Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  28. Cortot, Henri (1892-1950) (in French). catawiki.fr.
  29. User talk:Stan Shebs#French stamps / Les 72 timbres, blocs-feuillets, carnets français ou timbres à date de Georges Hourriez - Page 2 (in French). Phil Ouest. Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  30. Paradis. Photobucket. Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  31. Mathilde Pavis (University of Exeter) (15 July 2015). Forgive my French: copyright ‘a la carte’ for photographic works. Retrieved on 2019-01-29.
Caution: The above description may be inaccurate, incomplete and/or out of date, so must be treated with caution. Before you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons you should ensure it may be used freely. See also: Commons:General disclaimer
Text transcluded from
COM:Germany

Germany

This page provides an overview of copyright rules of Germany relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. Note that any work originating in Germany must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both Germany and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from Germany, refer to the relevant laws for clarification.

Governing lawsEdit

Germany has been a member of the Berne Convention since 5 December 1887, the World Trade Organization since 1 January 1995 and the WIPO Copyright Treaty since 14 March 2010.[2]

As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed the 9 September 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Copyright Act, as amended up to Act of September 1, 2017) as the main copyright law enacted by the legislature of Germany.[2] WIPO holds the text of this law in English and German in their WIPO Lex database.[3][4]

SummaryEdit

According to the Act on Copyright and Related Rights as amended up to Act of September 1, 2017,

  • Standard copyright term: Life + 70 years.[UrhG/2017 § 64]
  • Anonymous works: 70 years after publication (if author never disclosed his/her authorship – for works created prior to July 1, 1995: if the author never became known anywhere). Not applicable to some non-photographic works of art.[5]
  • Publication right: 25 years from first publication or first public performance if copyright has expired before such publication or performance, or if the work has never been protected in Germany and the author died more than 70 years before the first publication.[UrhG/2017 § 71]

Official worksEdit

By German law, documents are in the public domain (Public domain) if they have been published as part of a law or official decree or edict, or if they have been released as an official announcement or for public information. The relevant law is section 5 of the UrhG. The first sentence states:

  • Laws, ordinances, official decrees and notices as well as decisions and official guidelines on decisions are not protected by copyright.[6]

Copyright tagsEdit

  • {{PD-GermanGov}} – for public domain images from German statutes or other regulations.
  • {{PD-BW}} – for publicly available service regulations ("Zentrale Dienstvorschrift") of the German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr).
  • {{PD-Coa-Germany}} – for German coats of arms of corporations governed by public law that are in the public domain according to German law because they are official works (§&5 Abs.1 UrhG).
  • {{PD-Flag-Germany}} – for German flags of corporations governed by public law that are in the public domain according to German law because they are official works (§5 Abs.1 UrhG).
  • {{PD-Seal-Germany}} – for German seals of corporations governed by public law that are in the public domain according to German law because they are official works (§5 Abs.1 UrhG).
  • {{PD-VzKat}} – for road signs published as statutes or other regulations.
  • {{PD-German stamps}} – for current German stamps.
  • {{PD-Deutsche Bundespost stamps}} – for German stamps released as Deutsche Bundespost.
  • {{PD-GDR stamps}} – for German stamps released as Deutsche Post der DDR.
  • {{PD-Meyers}} – for images from the 4th edition of Meyers Konversationslexikon (1885–90).
  • {{PD-Germany-§134}} – for literary works, works of music and scientific or technical images published by a legal entity under public law more than 70 years ago that do not mention the author.
  • {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} – for photographs and works of art published by a legal entity under public law more than 70 years ago that do not mention the author.

CurrencyEdit

X mark.svg Not OK except for Deutsche Mark bank notes.

  • At present many Commons images of German coins and banknotes use {{PD-GermanGov}}, but this template relies on § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG, which has recently been declared by a low German court (Landgericht) to apply only to text, not images. See discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/07#German_currency.
  • Deutsche Bundesbank has confirmed public domain for German DM-banknotes 1949-2001, which is, however, a permission for simple usage only and not solely sufficient) towards Wikipedia.[7]
  • According to the coinciding German copyright literature, works like bank notes, coins and stamps are not to be considered works by the government and are not free.[8] This, however, does not influence above-mentioned permission by Deutsche Bundesbank affecting Deutsche Mark bills (not coins!).

De minimisEdit

The Act on Copyright and Neighboring Rights as of 2017 says,

  • Marginal accessories: Copying, propagation, and public rendition of works is permitted if they are to be considered insignificant to the actual object of copying, propagation, or public rendition.[UrhG/2017 §57]

The central requirement for the application of §57 UrhG follows directly from the text of the provision: the presence of an “actual object” which neither has to be protected by way of copyright (Urheberrecht) nor ancillary copyright laws (Leistungsschutzrechte). For the second part see Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), §57 (6); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 3rd ed. (2008), §57 (1). Compared to this primary object, the element in question—according to the predominant opinion among courts and legal scholars alike—“(1) may not even have the slightest contextual relationship and (2) has to be without any importance for it due to its randomness and arbitrariness” (emphasis and numbering ours).[9] This wording is directly adopted by OLG München, 29 U 5826/07, decided on March 13, 2008.[10] Almost identical wording appears in several other cases.[11]

A more restrictive minority view notably employed by Wilhelm Nordemann helds that the presence of the work in question has to be entirely inevitable and, also, negligible to such a degree that it could easily be removed without even the slightest impact on the appearance of the actual object to the average viewer.[12] This implies that the actual subject needs to be so dominant in comparison that the work in question can be replaced without altering its overall impression.[13] As soon as the work is integrated into a scene or a picture—irrespective of whether its appearance was accidental in first place or not—, § 57 UrhG can no longer apply.[14]

Whether a work constitutes a marginal accessory in this sense is determined from the perspective of an “objective observer”; it is hence irrelevant what e.g. a photographer or film maker intended to show; what matters is only the result as perceived from an objective stance.[15]

Examples
  • A popular example in the literature is the appearance of a painting during a movie. The example is taken from the official reasoning for § 57 UrhG where it is stated that as long as the protected painting is not the main subject of the scene, this constitutes an example of a marginal accessory. However, this notion is rejected by both case law[16] and the literature; it is held instead that oftentimes, such paintings will have an influence on the atmosphere and can thus be characteristic for the scene. In that spirit, the Munich High Court decided that the publisher of a furniture catalogue cannot invoke § 57 UrhG in order to justify that protected artwork was visible in the background to some of his pictures of interior landscapes.[16]
  • On the other hand, it was also held by the same court that a T-shirt designer could not take steps against the publication of a magazine cover photo the subject of which was wearing a T-shirt created by the designer because it was argued that the motive on the T-shirt had no relation to the person and the topic he was supposed to illustrate.[17] (A copy of the cover can be found in the decision by the previous court, see for instance, LG München I 21 O 4956/07.[18]
  • Another common example from the literature is the television coverage of a speech of an MP whose copyright-protected jewelry is visible; this is considered a classical case of a marginal accessory.[19]
  • Gunda Dreyer points out that a photographer may not invoke to § 57 UrhG with respect to copyright-protected exhibits that appear in the background of a museum director who speaks on the inauguration festivities of his museum, while arguing that the appearance of a painting in the background of a politician speaking in the parliament is regularly covered by the exception clause due to its lacking relation to the main object.[20]
  • A musical work can be unwesentliches Beiwerk in a documentary if it just accidentally can be heard through an open window; however, as soon as it is technically edited afterwards and thereby made part of the documentary, §57 UrhG cannot apply anymore.[21]

Freedom of panoramaEdit

Symbol OK.svgOK {{FoP-Germany}}

See also: de:Panoramafreiheit#Deutschland

It is possible by §59 UrhG of 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.[22]

PublicEdit

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 work shown 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.[23]

"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.[24] There is consensus among legal commentators that the use of accessories, such as ladders or helicopters, disqualifies from the application of § 59 UrhG.[25] Whether telephoto lenses constitute “accessories” in this sense is controversial.[26]

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.[27] Private ways fulfill the criterion if they are open to the public; the status of atria and passages is controversial.[28]

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.[29] 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.[30]

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.[31] 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.[32]

PermanentEdit

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.[33] 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.[34]

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.[35] Advertisements on advertising columns are not considered permanent by most of the literature.[36]

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.[32]

Prohibition of alterationEdit

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.[37]

Note that pursuant to § 63 UrhG, it is also necessary to properly attribute the author.

Application to all protected worksEdit

§ 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).[38] 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.[39] 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 rulingsEdit

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.

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.”[40]

Liebe deine Stadt-Köln-3839.jpg

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.”[41]

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.[42]

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.[32]

StampsEdit

Red copyright.svg

According to a decision by a German regional court (Landgericht Berlin) in a case of the heirs of German artist Loriot against the Wikimedia Foundation, announced 27 March 2012, German postage stamps are not "official works" according to § 5 I or II UrhG and are therefore not in the public domain, as previously assumed on Commons.

Stamps of other private entities are copyrighted as well. However, the usual German copyright expiration term applies - copyright expires 70 years after 1 January after death of the creator. Some individual stamps may be copyright-free for other reasons (e.g. simple graphic design). For a further discussion, see Wikilegal/Copyright of Images in German Postage Stamps

Outdated license templates, to be deleted or changedEdit

See Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review.

Threshold of originalityEdit

Note: Some of the information in this section may be outdated due to a 2013 German Federal Supreme court ruling on the threshold of orginality for applied art; see this English summary for details. German copyright law: see also Schack, 2007.[43]

Examples of unprotected works:

See alsoEdit

CitationsEdit

  1. § 69 Urheberrechtsgesetz (in German). Retrieved on 2019-03-25.
  2. a b Germany Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights). WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization (2018). Retrieved on 2018-11-11.
  3. Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Urheberrechtsgesetz, UrhG) Copyright Act of 9 September 1965 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 1273), as last amended by Article 1 of the Act of 1 September 2017 (2017). Retrieved on 2018-11-17.
  4. Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz) Urheberrechtsgesetz vom 9. September 1965 (BGBl. I S. 1273), das zuletzt durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 1. September 2017 (BGBl. I S. 3346) geändert worden ist (in German) (2017). Retrieved on 2018-11-17.
  5. de:Anonymes_Werk_(Urheberrecht)#Frühere_Rechtslage_in_Deutschland_/_Übergangsrecht Frühere Rechtslage in Deutschland
  6. Gesetze, Verordnungen, amtliche Erlasse und Bekanntmachungen sowie Entscheidungen und amtlich verfaßte Leitsätze zu Entscheidungen genießen keinen urheberrechtlichen Schutz.
  7. Geldscheinsammlung (in German). Deutsche Bundesbank. Retrieved on 2019-03-26.
  8. Dreier/Schulze (2004) § 5 Rn. 11: „Nicht § 5 II UrhG unterfallen nach Ansicht zumindest des überwiegenden Teils der Literatur […] Banknoten, Münzen und Briefmarken (Wandtke/Bullinger/Marquardt § 5 Rn. 19; Häde ZUM 1991, 356; Schricker GRUR 1991, 645, 657ff.; vgl. jedoch die insoweit abweichende Entscheidung des LG München I GRUR 1987, 436 – Briefmarke)“. Die letztgenannte Entscheidung des LG München ist mittlerweile hinfällig. (in German)
  9. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 57 (6) (original in German: „Zu diesem Hauptgegenstand darf unwesentliches Beiwerk […] keine noch so unbedeutende inhaltliche Beziehung aufweisen und hat durch seine Zufälligkeit und Beliebigkeit für ihn ohne jede Bedeutung zu sein.“).
  10. 29 U 5826/07 (= ZUM-RD 2008, 554 – T-Shirt als unwesentliches Beiwerk gemäß § 57 UrhG), in German
  11. Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 57 (2); similar Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 3rd ed. (2008), § 57 (2).
  12. Wilhelm Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 57 (2); similar Götting in Loewenheim, Handbuch des Urheberrechts, 2nd ed. (2010), § 31 (229).
  13. OLG München, 29 U 5826/07 (= ZUM-RD 2008, 554 – T-Shirt als unwesentliches Beiwerk gemäß § 57 UrhG), decided on March 13, 2008 (full text, in German); Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 57 (6); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 57 (3); Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar Urheberrecht, 2nd ed. (2009), § 57 (2); Gass in Möhring/Nicolini, UrhG, 2nd ed. (2000), § 57 (8); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 3rd ed. (2008), § 57 (2); Wolfgang Maaßen, Bildzitate in Gerichtsentscheidungen und juristischen Publikationen. ZUM 2003, 830, 837.
  14. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 57 (10).
  15. OLG München, 29 U 5826/07 (= ZUM-RD 2008, 554 – T-Shirt als unwesentliches Beiwerk gemäß § 57 UrhG), decided on March 13, 2008 (full text, in German); OLG München, 6 U 4132/87 (= NJW 1989, 404 – Abdruck von Kunstwerken in Werbeprospekten), decided on June 9, 1988; Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 57 (10); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 57 (2); Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar Urheberrecht, 2nd ed. (2009), § 57 (4); Gass in Möhring/Nicolini, UrhG, 2nd ed. (2000), § 57 (6); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 3rd ed. (2008), § 57 (3); Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 57 (2); Götting in Loewenheim, Handbuch des Urheberrechts, 2nd ed. (2010), § 31 (230).
  16. a b OLG München, 6 U 4132/87 (= NJW 1989, 404 – Abdruck von Kunstwerken in Werbeprospekten), decided on June 9, 1988.
  17. OLG München, 29 U 5826/07 (= ZUM-RD 2008, 554 – T-Shirt als unwesentliches Beiwerk gemäß § 57 UrhG), decided on March 13, 2008 (full text, in German).
  18. LG München I 21 O 4956/07 (in German). Kanzlei Prof. Schweizer (24 October 2007). Retrieved on 2019-03-26.
  19. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 57 (9); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 57 (2); Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar Urheberrecht, 2nd ed. (2009), § 57 (7).
  20. Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar Urheberrecht, 2nd ed. (2009), § 57 (5, 8).
  21. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 57 (8); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 57 (2); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 3rd ed. (2008), § 57 (2); Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar Urheberrecht, 2nd ed. (2009), § 57 (8).
  22. Jan Fritz Geiger, Maximilian Herberger. Die Panoramafreiheit aus methodischer Sicht - eine Anmerkung zu BGH, Urteil vom 05.06.2003, Az. I ZR 192/00 "Hundertwasser-Haus"(1) (in German). Retrieved on 2019-03-26.
  23. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (10); Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (2); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (3); Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar UrhR, 3rd ed. (2013), § 59 (4, 5); Götting in Loewenheim, Handbuch des Urheberrechts, 2nd ed. (2010), § 31 (238); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (4); Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 59 (3); Grübler in Ahlberg/Götting, BeckOK, 2nd ed. (2013), § 59 (6).
  24. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (9); Wilhelm and Axel Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (1); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (3); Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar UrhR, 3rd ed. (2013), § 59 (4); Grübler in Ahlberg/Götting, BeckOK, 2nd ed. (2013), § 59 (6).
  25. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (7, 10); Wilhelm and Axel Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (2); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (4); Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 59 (3); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (3); Götting in Loewenheim, Handbuch des Urheberrechts, 2nd ed. (2010), § 31 (241); Cornelie von Gierke, (2002): Die Freiheit des Straßenbildes (§ 59 UrhG). Op. cit., p. 110.
  26. Supportive: Wilhelm and Axel Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (2); Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar UrhR, 3rd ed. (2013), § 59 (5); Gass in Möhring/Nicolini, UrhG, 2nd ed. (2002), § 59 (15); undecided: Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (10); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (3); dissenting: Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (4)
  27. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (9); Wilhelm and Axel Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (2); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (3); dissenting: Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 59 (3); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (3).
  28. Supportive: Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (3); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (3); apparently dissenting: Wilhelm and Axel Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (2)
  29. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (9); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (3); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (3).
  30. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (9) for admission control; Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (3); Axel Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (1); Gass in Möhring/Nicolini, UrhG, 2nd ed. (2002), § 59 (15); Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 59 (3).
  31. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (10); Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar UrhR, 3rd ed. (2013), § 59 (5) („sichtbar ist und sein soll”); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (8); Cornelie von Gierke, (2002): Die Freiheit des Straßenbildes (§ 59 UrhG). Op. cit., p. 110.
  32. a b c Bundesgerichtshof zur Panoramafreiheit. Der Bundesgerichtshof (2017-04-27). Retrieved on 2017-05-21.
  33. BGH, I ZR 102/99 (KG) – Verhüllter Reichstag, decided on January 24, 2002.
  34. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (15); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (5); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (4); Götting in Loewenheim, Handbuch des Urheberrechts, 2nd ed. (2010), § 31 (244); Grübler in Ahlberg/Götting, BeckOK, 2nd ed. (2013), § 59 (5); regarding graffiti: Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 59 (5); Wilhelm and Axel Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (2); regarding graffiti and chalk paintings: Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, Handkommentar UrhR, 3rd ed. (2013), § 59 (8).
  35. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (16); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (5); Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 59 (5); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (4); Wilhelm and Axel Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 10th ed. (2010), § 59 (3); Grübler in Ahlberg/Götting, BeckOK, 2nd ed. (2013), § 59 (5).
  36. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (16); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (4); dissenting: Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (5) for “advertisements on billboards or advertising columns” because they are “pasted over or destroyed on removal”.
  37. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (19); Cornelie von Gierke, (2002): Die Freiheit des Straßenbildes (§ 59 UrhG). Op. cit., p. 109.
  38. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (6–8); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (7); Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 59 (3); Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011), UrhG § 59 (2).
  39. Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (8); Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, UrhG, 4th ed. (2013), § 59 (2); Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 3rd ed. (2009), § 59 (3).
  40. 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.
  41. OLG Köln, 6 U 193/11 – Liebe deine Stadt, decided on March 12, 2012.
  42. LG Mannheim, 7 S 4/96 – Freiburger Holbein-Pferd, February 14, 1997
  43. Schack, Haimo (in german) Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht, pp. 118
  44. BVerfG, decision of 26 January 2005, Az. 1 BvR 1571/02
Caution: The above description may be inaccurate, incomplete and/or out of date, so must be treated with caution. Before you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons you should ensure it may be used freely. See also: Commons:General disclaimer
Text transcluded from
COM:Liechtenstein

Liechtenstein

This page provides an overview of copyright rules of Liechtenstein relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. Note that any work originating in Liechtenstein must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both Liechtenstein and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from Liechtenstein, refer to the relevant laws for clarification.

Governing lawsEdit

Liechtenstein has been a member of the Berne Convention since 30 July 1931, the World Trade Organization since 1 September 1995 and the WIPO Copyright Treaty since 30 April 2007.[1]

As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed the Law of May 19, 1999, on Copyright and Neighboring Rights (consolidated version of December 19, 2006) as the main IP law enacted by the legislature of Liechtenstein.[1] WIPO holds the machine-translatable German text of this law in their WIPO Lex database.[2] The Liechtenstein Law Gazette holds the text in German.[3]

General rulesEdit

Under the 1999 Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, amended 2006,

  • A work is protected by copyright from the time it is created. The protection expires 70 years after the death of the author.[1999-2006 Art.32]
  • If several people have participated in the creation of a work, protection expires 70 years after the death of the last surviving co-author.[1999-2006 Art.33.1]
  • Where the individual contributions can be separated, each is protected for 70 years after the death of the author.[1999-2006 Art.33.2]
  • The term of protection of cinematographic or other audiovisual works expires 70 years after the death of the last survivor of the main director, author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of the music made specifically for the film or audiovisual work in question.[1999-2006 Art.33.3]
  • If the author of a work is unknown, protection expires 70 years after publication. If the author becomes known during this period, protection expires 70 years after her death.[1999-2006 Art.34]
  • The term of protection lasts to 31 December of the year which it expires.[1999-2006 Art.35]

Not protectedEdit

Under the 1999 Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, amended 2006, the following are not protected: a) laws, regulations, international treaties and other official instruments; b) means of payment; c) decisions, records and reports of authorities and public administrations; d) patents, and published patent applications. Also not protected are official or legally required collections and translations of the above works.[1999-2006 Art.5]

CurrencyEdit

Symbol OK.svgOK According to the Law of May 19, 1999, on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, "Copyright protection shall not subsist in .. means of payment".[1999-2006 Art.5]

Please use {{PD-Liechtenstein-official}} for the corresponding currency images.

Freedom of panoramaEdit

Symbol OK.svgOK {{FoP-Liechtenstein}}

The 1999 Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, amended 2006, 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.[1999-2006 Art.29]

StampsEdit

Public domain? According to the Law of May 19, 1999, on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, "Copyright protection shall not subsist in ... means of payment".[1999-2006 Art.5] However, Liechtenstein generally emulates Swiss law, and Liechtenstein's Copyright Act is based on the Swiss text. The majority of Swiss copyright law commentaries does not consider stamps "means of payment".[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]It is therefore likely that Liechtenstein stamps are protected by copyright as well.

In the past, {{PD-Liechtenstein}} was used for uploads of stamps from Liechtenstein, but this should not be done in the future, unless it's possible to produce evidence for the public domain claim.

See alsoEdit

CitationsEdit

  1. a b Liechtenstein Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights). WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization (2018). Retrieved on 2018-11-04.
  2. Law of May 19, 1999, on Copyright and Neighboring Rights (consolidated version of December 19, 2006). Liechtenstein (2006). Retrieved on 2018-11-04.
  3. Gesetz über das Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz, URG), LGBl. 1999 Nr. 160 (The Liechtenstein copyright act) (in German). Liechtenstein Law Gazette. Retrieved on 2019-01-29.
  4. Cherpillod in Müller/Oertli, Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. 2012, Art. 5 para. 3
  5. Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. 2008, Art. 5 para. 5
  6. von Büren/Meer in von Büren/David, SIWR II/1, 3rd ed. 2014, para. 379
  7. Hilty, Urheberrecht, 2011, para. 130
  8. Dessemontet, Le droit d'auteur, 1999, para. 413
  9. Gilliéron in Werra/Gilliéron, Propriété intellectuelle, 2013, Art. 5 LDA para. 9
  10. von Büren, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, ZSR 1993, 193-222, 200
  11. disagreeing: Rehbinder/Viganò, URG, 3rd ed. 2008, Art. 5 para. 3 [included by analogy]
Caution: The above description may be inaccurate, incomplete and/or out of date, so must be treated with caution. Before you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons you should ensure it may be used freely. See also: Commons:General disclaimer
Text transcluded from
COM:Luxembourg

Luxembourg

This page provides an overview of copyright rules of Luxembourg relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. Note that any work originating in Luxembourg must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both Luxembourg and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from Luxembourg, refer to the relevant laws for clarification.

Governing lawsEdit

Luxembourg has been a member of the Berne Convention since 20 June 1888, the World Trade Organization since 1 January 1995 and the WIPO Copyright Treaty since 14 March 2010.[1] As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed Law of April 18, 2001, on Copyright and Related Rights and Databases as the main IP law enacted by the legislature of Luxembourg.[1]

WIPO holds the text of this law in their WIPO Lex database.[2] The 2001 Law was amended by the Law of April 18, 2004 (LU043), Law of May 22, 2009 (LU055) and Law of April 25, 2018 (LU053).[3][4] It was also amended by Law of February 10, 2015, transposing Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament ...[5]

General rulesEdit

Under the Law of April 18, 2001 as modified in 2015,

  • Copyright extend for 70 years after the death of the author in favor of his heirs and assigns.[4-18-2001 Art.9(1)]
  • When the work is the product of collaboration and the contributions are inseparable, copyright exists for the benefit of all interested parties until 70 years after the death of the last surviving author.[4-18-2001 Art.9(2)]
  • Protection of audiovisual works expires 70 years after the death of the last survivor of the following persons: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, dialogues and musical compositions, with or without words, specially created for use in the work, whether or not sponsors.[4-18-2001 Art.9(2)]
  • Copyright in anonymous and pseudonymous works lasts 70 years from the day when the work was lawfully made available to the public.[4-18-2001 Art.9(3)] If the identity of the author of an anonymous or pseudonymous work is established, the author or his heirs may claim protection for the duration specified in paragraph 1.[4-18-2001 Art.9(3)]
  • Directed works are created by several authors at the initiative and under the direction of a natural or legal person who publishes it under their name, and in which the contributions of the authors are designed to be integrated into the collection. In the absence of of any contractual provision to the contrary, the publisher has the original economic and moral rights in the work.[4-18-2001 Art.6] Copyright in directed works lasts 70 year from the year of publication.[4-18-2001 Art.9(3)]
  • Any person who, after the expiration of protection by copyright, publishes or lawfully communicates to the public for the first time a work not previously published, is vested with property rights equivalent to those enjoyed by the author for a period of 25 years from the time when the work was first published or communicated to the public.[4-18-2001 Art.9(4)]
  • All dates in this article are calculated from 1 January following the relevant event.[4-18-2001 Art.9(5)]

Freedom of panoramaEdit

X mark.svg Not OK {{NoFoP-Luxembourg}} Only incidental inclusion allowed. Under the Law of April 18, 2001 as modified in 2015,

Threshold of originalityEdit

According to Jean-Luc Putz, the threshold of originality in Luxembourg is not as strict as in UK but not as liberal as in Germany. During the legislation the intent was to orientate with other Benelux states or France.[6]

See alsoEdit

CitationsEdit

Caution: The above description may be inaccurate, incomplete and/or out of date, so must be treated with caution. Before you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons you should ensure it may be used freely. See also: Commons:General disclaimer
Text transcluded from
COM:Monaco

Monaco

This page provides an overview of copyright rules of Monaco that are relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. Note that any work originating in Monaco must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both Monaco and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from Monaco, refer to Law 491 for clarification.

Governing lawsEdit

Monaco has been a member of the Berne Convention since 30 May 1889.[1]

As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed Loi n. 491 du 24/11/1948 sur la protection des œuvres littéraires et artistiques as the main copyright law enacted by the legislature of the Monaco.[1]

The law came into effect on 1 January 1949.[491/1948 Art.35] It applies to all literary or artistic works that were not in the public domain when it came into force.[491/1948 Art.36] WIPO holds Law No. 491 as amended up to Law No. 1.313 of June 29, 2006 in their WIPO Lex database.[2]

ApplicabilityEdit

The law applies to works authored or co-authored by a citizen of Monaco, and to all works first published in Monaco.[491/1948 Art.34] Other works are protected as defined by international conventions. Applied art works are protected in Monaco to the same extent that they are protected in their country of origin.[491/1948 Art.34] Authors have rights in all literary and artistic works that they create with no requirement for any formality.[491/1948 Art.1] The rights of the author may be transferred in whole or part by gift, sale or inheritance, with some limitations on inheritance.[491/1948 Art.14]

Works protected by copyright include all literary, scientific and artistic productions, whatever their mode or form of expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and similar works; dramatic or dramatico-musical works; choreographic works and pantomimes whose staging is fixed in writing or otherwise; musical compositions with or without words; cinematographic works and those obtained by a process analogous to cinematography; works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithography; photographic works and those obtained by a process analogous to photography; works of applied arts; illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and plastic works relating to geography, topography, architecture or science.[491/1948 Art.2]

DurationsEdit

Under Loi n. 491 du 24/11/1948,

  • The author has the sole right to publish, reproduce or otherwise disclose their work, and has the exclusive right to authorise any translation, arrangement or adaptation of their work.[491/1948 Art.3-4]
  • The author of a translation, arrangement or adaptation has rights to their work without prejudice to the rights of the author of the original work.[491/1948 Art.5]
  • For individual works, copyright lasts 50 years after the author's death.[491/1948 Art.12]
  • For posthumous works, copyright lasts 50 years after publication.[491/1948 Art.12]
  • A collaborative work is the common property of the authors, but when it is not an indivisible whole each of the co-authors has the right to exploit their personal contribution separately.[491/1948 Art.7] For collaborative works, copyright lasts 50 years after the death of the last surviving author.[491/1948 Art.12]
  • The publisher of an anonymous or pseudonymous work is treated as the author. However, if the identity of the author is established, the author or their successors obtain the copyright.[491/1948 Art.13]

In the above definitions, "50 years after [event]" means "up to the end of the 50th year after the year in which [event] happened."

Government worksEdit

Laws, ordinances, orders, decisions and administrative, judicial or official publications do not benefit from copyright protection.[491/1948 Art.38]

CitationsEdit

  1. a b Monaco : Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights). WIPO Lex (2018). Retrieved on 2018-10-28.
  2. Loi n. 491 du 24/11/1948 sur la protection des œuvres littéraires et artistiques (in French). Monaco (2006). Retrieved on 2018-10-28.
Caution: The above description may be inaccurate, incomplete and/or out of date, so must be treated with caution. Before you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons you should ensure it may be used freely. See also: Commons:General disclaimer
Text transcluded from
COM:Netherlands

Netherlands

This page provides an overview of copyright rules of the Netherlands relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. Note that any work originating in the Netherlands must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both the Netherlands and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from the Netherlands, refer to the relevant laws for clarification.

Governing lawsEdit

The Netherlands has been a member of the Berne Convention since 1 November 1912, the World Trade Organization since 1 January 1995 and the WIPO Copyright Treaty since 14 March 2010.[1]

As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed Act of September 23, 1912, containing New Regulation for Copyright (Copyright Act 1912, as amended up to September 1, 2017) as the main copyright law enacted by the legislature of the Netherlands.[1] WIPO holds the text of this law in their WIPO Lex database.[2] Wikisource holds a version of the 1912 law as valid on 1 January 2005.

Official Dutch sources also provide the text pf the Copyright Act and Related Rights Act in Dutch and English.[3][4][5]

Standard termsEdit

Under the Act of September 23, 1912 as amended up to September 1, 2017),

  • Works of individual authors enjoy copyright protection until 70 years after the 1st January following the author's death.[1912-2017 Art. 37(1)]
  • Posthumously published works before 1995 have a copyright until 50 years after publication (pre-1995 law's term), or 70 years after the death of the author (post-1995 law's term), whatever duration is the longest.[1912-2017 Art. 37, 51] This clause was used to restore the copyright on until 1984 unpublished portions of Anne Frank's diary.[6]
  • The duration of the copyright belonging jointly to two or more persons in their capacity as co-authors of a work shall be calculated from 1 January of the year following the year of the death of the last surviving co-author.[1912-2017 Art. 37(2)]
  • The copyright in a work of which the author has not been indicated or has not been indicated in such a way that his identity is beyond doubt expires 70 years after 1 January of the year following that in which the work was first lawfully communicated to the public.[1912-2017 Art. 38(1)]
  • This also applies to the works of a public institution, association, foundation or corporation that is regarded as the creator, unless the natural person who created the work is indicated as such on or in copies of the work which are made public.[1912-2017 Art. 38(2)]
  • For works whose term of copyright is not calculated according to the provisions of Article 37, copyright expires within 70 years after creation if not lawfully disclosed in this period.[1912-2017 Art. 39]
  • Copyright in a cinematographic work expires 70 years from 1 January of the year following the year of death of the last of the following persons: the principal director, the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the author of music made for the film.[1912-2017 Art. 40]
  • If in a musical composition with words the copyrights on the music and on the words are held by different individuals, copyright expires 70 years from 1 January of the year of death of the last survivor.[1912-2017 Art. 40a]

Outside EuropeEdit

Before World War II the Netherlands colonies in the Caribbean were administered as the Netherlands Antilles, which included Aruba, Curaçao, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, Sint Maarten and Saba. Copyright laws were defined by the auteursverordening 1913. In 1948 the Netherlands Antilles was given considerable autonomy, and on 15 December 1954 it became an equal partner to the Netherlands in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. On 1 January 1986 Aruba seceded from the Netherlands Antilles and became a country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

In 2010 the Netherlands Antilles was dissolved. Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba became special municipalities of the Netherlands, while Curaçao and Sint Maarten became countries in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. According to Article 39 of the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands, "civil and commercial law, the law of civil procedure, criminal law, the law of criminal procedure, copyright, industrial property, the office of notary, and provisions concerning weights and measures shall be regulated as far as possible in a similar manner in the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten".

  • The relevant law in Aruba is the 2003 Auteursverordening (Aruba).
  • For Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba, the operative law is the Auteurswet BES, with a copyright duration of 50 years after the death of the author.[7] This law is based on the corresponding law of the Netherlands Antilles.
  • In Curaçao the law is similar.
  • The law in Sint Maarten is Auteursverordening.[8]

Government worksEdit

Dutch laws and legal judgments are completely free of copyright (Article 11 of Dutch copyright law of 1912).

In principle all works communicated to the public by or on behalf of the public authorities (government) may be freely distributed (this includes modifications and derivatives) in the Netherlands unless the copyright has been reserved explicitly, either in a general manner by law, decree or ordinance, or in a specific case by a notice on the work itself or at the communication to the public. This is regulated in (Article 15b of Dutch copyright law of 1912). Entities like the Silicose Oud-mijnwerkers foundation can also be regarded as public authorities (AbRS 30 November 1995, JB 1995/337) and are not automatically copyright protected.

Copyright tagsEdit

  • {{PD-NL-gemeentewapen}} – for coats of arms of (no longer existing) municipalities, provinces and the country itself
  • {{PD-NL-gemeentevlag}} – for flags of (no longer existing) municipalities, provinces and the country itself
  • {{PD-NL-Gov}} (deprecated) – for all works communicated to the public by or on behalf of the public authorities (government), unless the copyright has been reserved explicitly, either in a general manner by law, decree or ordinance, or in a specific case by a notice on the work itself or at the communication to the public

CurrencyEdit

X mark.svg Not OK: Guilder banknotes are subject to copyright 70 years after the first publication. De Nederlandsche Bank has been contacted and they state that the introduction of the Euro does not change this.

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Guilder coins may be OK to reproduce, since they are subject to Article 15b of the Auteurswet. Works published by or on behalf of the government can be reproduced, unless copyright has been reserved explicitly by the government at the time of publication. However, even if no reservation was made, only the author has the right to have those works published in a collection.[9]

X mark.svg Not OK National sides of the Euro coins are subject to copyright as well. Although they are subject to Article 15b, an express reservation of rights has been made by the Dutch government.

Freedom of panoramaEdit

Symbol OK.svgOK for buildings and most 2D and 3D artwork {{FoP-Nederland}}
X mark.svg Not OK for photographs, maps, applied art, industrial design, and models

Article 18 of the Dutch copyright act states that:[10]

  • 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.

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

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.)[11]

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.[12][13] Case law in the Netherlands on "freedom of panorama" issues is scarce. In one case, the interior of the Johan Cruijff ArenA was deemed to not be a public place.[14] 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.[15]

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 are outside.[16][17] It also includes 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.[18] It probably does not apply 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.[13]

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.[13] 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.[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.[12]

Threshold of originalityEdit

Simple logos are okay in the Netherlands but not all logos are. Whether something is above the threshold of originality in the Netherlands is defined in the Supreme Court judgment "'Van Dale/Romme'". In this judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that:[19]

  • In assessing the ground of cassation it should be noted that, for a product to be considered a work of literature, science or art as meant in article 1 in conjunction with article 10 of the Copyright law (Auteurswet), it is required that it has an own, original character and bears the personal mark of the maker.

This was further specified in the Supreme Court judgment ''Endstra-tapes':[20]

  • The product has to bear an own, original character. In short, this means the shape may not be based on that of another work. (cf. article 13 Aw.) The demand that the product has to bear the personal mark of the maker means that there has to be a shape that is the result of creative human labor and thus creative choices, which therefore is a product of the human mind. In any case, excluded from this is everything that has a shape that is so trivial or banal, that one cannot show any creative labor behind it of any kind whatsoever.

Later the Supreme Court determined in judgment on Stokke v. Fikszo that:[21]

  • For a work to be eligible for copyright, it is necessary that the work has an own original character and bears the personal mark of the maker ... The Court of Justice of the European Union has has formulated the benchmark in such a way that it must concern "an intellectual creation of the author of the work".

StampsEdit

Red copyright.svg See nl:Wikipedia:Beleid voor gebruik van media/Postzegels (In Dutch).

Prior to 1 January 1989, the government-owned corporation PTT considered Dutch stamps as being created by the PTT company and as such was considered their author. In The Netherlands copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author. With stamps issued prior to 1989, copyright expires 70 years after publication.

From 1 January 1989 onwards, the PTT became the private company TNT Post. The rules are sometimes different compared to the period before 01-01-1989; for example, when there is more than one author of a stamp.

Public domain As of 2019 Dutch stamps created in the period 1852-1948 are considered to be Public Domain.

See alsoEdit

CitationsEdit

  1. a b Netherlands Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights). WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization (2018). Retrieved on 2018-11-13.
  2. Act of September 23, 1912, containing New Regulation for Copyright (Copyright Act 1912, as amended up to September 1, 2017). Netherlands (2017). Retrieved on 2018-11-13.
  3. Nederlands The Dutch copyright act
  4. English Official English version of the copyright act from rijksoverheid.nl.
  5. English Official English version of the related rights act from rijksoverheid.nl
  6. Marco Caspers (Institute for Information Law) (20 January 2016). The role of Anne Frank’s diary and academic freedom for text & data mining. Retrieved on 2019-03-28.
  7. Auteurswet BES (in Dutch). Overheid.nl. Ministry of Home Affairs and Kingdom Relations. Retrieved on 2019-03-28.
  8. Auteursverordening (in Dutch). overheid.nl. Retrieved on 201903-28.
  9. Jacob Hendrik Spoor, D. W. F. Verkade, D. J. G. Visser (2005). Auteursrecht: auteursrecht, naburige rechten en databankenrecht (in Dutch) 146. Kluwer. Retrieved on 2019-03-28. "Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een door of vanwege de openbare macht openbaar gemaakt werk van letterkunde, wetenschap of kunst, waarvan de openbare macht de maker of rechtverkrijgende is, wordt niet beschouwd verdere openbaarmaking of verveelvoudiging daarvan, tenzij het auteursrecht, hetzij in het algemeen bij wet, besluit of verordening, hetzij in een bepaald geval blijkens mededeling op het werk zelf of bij de openbaarmaking daarvan uitdrukkelijk is voorbehouden. Ook als een zodanig voorbehoud niet is gemaakt, behoudt de maker echter het uitsluitend recht, zijn werken, die door of vanwege de openbare macht zijn openbaar gemaakt, in een bundel verenigd te doen verschijnen"
  10. 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;
  11. Dutch parliament: Kamerstukken II 2002/03 28.482-8, Nota n.a.v. het nadere verslag, p. 15.
  12. a b Dutch parliament: Kamerstukken II 2002/03 28.482-5, Nota n.a.v. het verslag, pp.36-37.
  13. a b c Spoor, J.H; Verkade, D.W.F.; Visser, D.J.G.: Auteursrecht: auteursrecht, naburige rechten en databankenrecht, 3. Ed., Kluwer 2004, ISBN 90-268-3637-4 Invalid ISBN; in particular p. 290.
  14. Wonende te Amsterdam v. CODEMASTERS B.V. publisher=Rechtenmedia (in Dutch). Retrieved on 2019-03-28.
  15. DE GROENE LEGUAAN v. FRIESLAND BANK N.V. (in Dutch). Retrieved on 2019-03-28.
  16. Dutch parliament: Kamerstukken II 2002/03 28.482-3, Memorie van Toelichting, p. 52
  17. De Zwaan, M.: Geen beelden geen nieuws, Cramwinkel 2003, ISBN 90-75727-844; pp. 185-188.
  18. a b Engelfriet, A.: Fotograferen van kunst op openbare plaatsen: Openbare plaatsen zijn bijvoorbeeld plaatsen langs de openbare weg, maar ook stationshallen of winkelcentra.
  19. (HR 04-01-1991, NJ 1991, 608) "Bij de beoordeling van het middel moet worden vooropgesteld dat, wil een voortbrengsel kunnen worden beschouwd als een werk van letterkunde, wetenschap of kunst als bedoeld in art. 1 in verbinding met art. 10 Aw, vereist is dat het een eigen, oorspronkelijk karakter heeft en het persoonlijk stempel van de maker draagt.
  20. (NJ 2008, 556): [D]at het voortbrengsel een eigen, oorspronkelijk karakter moet bezitten, houdt, kort gezegd, in datde vorm niet ontleend mag zijn aan die van een ander werk (vgl. art. 13 Aw). De eis dat het voortbrengsel het persoonlijk stempel van de maker moet dragen betekent dat sprake moet zijn van een vorm die het resultaat is van scheppende menselijke arbeid en dus van creatieve keuzes, en die aldus voortbrengsel is van de menselijke geest. Daarbuiten valt in elk geval al hetgeen een vorm heeft die zo banaal of triviaal is, dat daarachter geen creatieve arbeid van welke aard ook valt te aan te wijzen.
  21. Stokke/Fikszo (in Dutch). de Rechtspraak. Retrieved on 2019-03-28. "Om voor auteursrechtelijke bescherming in aanmerking te komen, is vereist dat het desbetreffende werk een eigen, oorspronkelijk karakter heeft en het persoonlijk stempel van de maker draagt (vgl. HR 30 mei 2008, LJN BC2153, NJ 2008/556 (E)). Het HvJEU heeft de maatstaf aldus geformuleerd dat het moet gaan om "een eigen intellectuele schepping van de auteur van het werk" (HvJEU 16 juli 2009, nr. C-5/08, LJN BJ3749, NJ 2011/288 (Infopaq I))"
Caution: The above description may be inaccurate, incomplete and/or out of date, so must be treated with caution. Before you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons you should ensure it may be used freely. See also: Commons:General disclaimer
Text transcluded from
COM:Switzerland

Switzerland

This page provides an overview of copyright rules of Switzerland relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. Note that any work originating in Switzerland must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both Switzerland and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from Switzerland, refer to the relevant laws for clarification.

Governing lawsEdit

Switzerland has been a member of the Berne Convention since 5 December 1887, the World Trade Organization since 1 July 1995 and the WIPO Copyright Treaty since 1 July 2008.[1]

As of 2018 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the United Nations, listed Federal Act of October 9, 1992, on Copyright and Related Rights (status as of January 1, 2017) as the main copyright law enacted by the legislature of Switzerland.[1] WIPO holds an unofficial English translation of the text of this law in their WIPO Lex database.[2] The Bundesrat (Federal Council) holds official German, French and Italian versions.[3][4][5]

General rulesEdit

Under the Act of October 9, 1992, on Copyright and Related Rights (as of January 1, 2017),

  • In general a work is protected by copyright as soon as it is created, irrespective of whether it has been fixed on a physical medium.[1992-2017 Art.29(1)]
  • Protection expires a. in the case of computer programs, 50 years after the death of the author; b. in the case of all other works, 70 years after the death of the author.[1992-2017 Art.29(2)]
  • Where it is has to be assumed that the author has been dead for more than 50 or 70 years respectively, protection no longer applies.[1992-2017 Art.29(3)]
  • Where two or more persons have participated in the creation of a work, protection expires a. in the case of computer programs, 50 years after the death of the last surviving joint author; b. in the case of all other works, 70 years after the death of the last surviving joint author.[1992-2017 Art.30(1)]
  • Where the individual contributions may be separated, protection for each contribution expires 50 or 70 years respectively after the death of the respective author.[1992-2017 Art.30(2)]
  • In the case of films and other audio-visual works, the calculation of the term of protection is based solely on the date of the death of the director.[1992-2017 Art.30(3)]
  • Where the author of a work is unknown, protection for that work expires 70 years after it has been published or, if it has been published in instalments, 70 years after the final instalment, unless the identity of the author becomes known during this period.[1992-2017 Art.31]
  • The term of protection is calculated from 31 December of the year in which the event determining the calculation occurred.[1992-2017 Art.32]

The increase of the protection term from 50 to 70 years occurred in 1993 and was not retroactive, but since the change was more than 20 years ago, no works are in the public domain under the life+50 term that would not also be in the public domain under the current life+70 rule. However, this can be relevant with regard to URAA-restored copyrights in the US, as the protection of many works was already expired applying the 50 years term and protection was not restored for these works in 1993, as confirmed by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in its "Sternheim" decision in 1998.[6] For example, Swiss aviation pioneer and photographer Walter Mittelholzer died in 1937. His works went into the public domain in Switzerland 50 years after his death on January 1, 1988. As the 1993 extension to 70 years did not restore already expired copyrights, Mittelholzer's photographs were still in the public domain in Switzerland on the URAA date of 1 January 1996, and therefore outside the scope of URAA copyright restorations.

Not protectedEdit

Copyright does not protect acts, ordinances, international treaties and other official enactments; means of payment; decisions, minutes and reports issued by authorities and public administrations; patent specifications and published patent applications. Copyright also does not protect official or legally required collections and translations of the works referred to in paragraph 1.[1992-2017 Art.5]

To be eligible for copyright in the first place, works must be literary or artistic intellectual creations with an individual character, irrespective of their value or purpose.[1992-2017 Art.2] Many photographs may therefore not be protected (see {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} for details).

Copyright tagsEdit

  • {{PD-Switzerland-official}} – for Swiss official documents, currency or patents. See template for details.
    • {{PD-Coa-Switzerland}} – for coat of arms of a Swiss Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (corporation governed by public law).
  • {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} – for photographs first published in Switzerland that do not have the individual character that is required by law for copyright protection. See template for details, but use this only in obvious cases, as reasonable people can disagree about the individuality of a picture.

In Switzerland copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the author with the exception of computer programs, the protection of which ends 50 years after the death of the author.

CurrencyEdit

Symbol OK.svgOK: Currency is not covered by copyright in Switzerland. Article 5(1)(b) of the Swiss copyright law from 1993 on works not subject to copyright explicitly excludes monetary items from copyright.

Reproduction of banknotes that may be confused with genuine bills is prohibited by article 243 of the Swiss Penal Code.[7] The Swiss National Bank has issued guidelines on how to reproduce banknotes in a way they believe are permissible.[8] Printing "Specimen" across the image and not reproducing the bills at their true size or in their true colors are recommendations.

{{PD-Switzerland-official}} can be used to tag images of Swiss currency.

Freedom of panoramaEdit

Symbol OK.svgOK {{FoP-Switzerland}}

Under Article 27 of the Copyright Act, 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 publicEdit

  • 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.[9]
  • 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) grounds provided it can be seen with the naked eye from a place accessible to the public.[10]
  • 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 Article 27 provided the other criteria are met.[11]
  • 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, it is no longer “accessible to the public”.[12] Commentators do not agree whether charging entrance fees also makes the place "not public" and therefore not subject to Article 27.[13]
  • Following the majority view in the legal literature, freedom of panorama does not apply to interior spaces.[14] Hence Article 27 cannot be invoked for depictions produced in the staircase or the rooms of a building.[15] It is recognized in the literature that in some cases it can be difficult to determine what constitutes an “interior space”. Part of the literature suggests a differentiation of interior spaces from interior courtyards, with only the latter fulfilling the requirements of Article 27.[16] However, definition problems remain, for instance, in the case of station halls or shopping arcades which, consequently, are assessed differently by commentators.[17] It is generally held that the interior of a church cannot be depicted under Article 27.[18]

Permanently situatedEdit

  • A work is not “permanently situated” within the meaning of the law if it is only visible by accident (e.g. whilst being transported).[19]
  • It is controversial what is required to fulfill the feature “permanently situated”. According to one widespread view, this requires that the (objective) intent of the copyright holder is to indefinitely present the work in/at a publicly-accessible place.[20] 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.[21] Whether Christo’s “wrapped works” can be depicted under Art. 27 is controversial.[22] Posters in public are not considered “permanently situated” by the literature.[23]
  • Works whose lifetime is restricted by natural conditions, such as ice sculptures or chalk paintings on streets, are nevertheless considered permanent.[24]

GeneralEdit

  • Applicability to all works: Article 27 applies to all categories of protected works.[25]
  • Modifications: Modifications of the work are not allowed (Art. 10 URG). Article 11 prohibits the distortion of the work. However, modifications required due to the reproduction method used are generally considered permitted.[26]

StampsEdit

Red copyright.svg According to Article 5 of the Federal Act on Copyright and Related Rights, Copyright does not protect .. means of payment. However, stamps are not considered means of payment and do not fall under any other exemption clause. They therefore enjoy copyright protection.[27]

Threshold of originalityEdit

See alsoEdit

CitationsEdit

  1. a b Switzerland Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights). WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization (2018). Retrieved on 2018-11-13.
  2. Federal Act of October 9, 1992, on Copyright and Related Rights (status as of January 1, 2017). Switzerland (2017). Retrieved on 2018-11-13.
  3. Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz, URG) vom 9. Oktober 1992 (Stand am 1. Januar 2017) (in German). Retrieved on 2019-01-30.
  4. Loi fédérale sur le droit d'auteur et les droits voisins (Loi sur le droit d'auteur, LDA)*12 du 9 octobre 1992 (Etat le 1er janvier 2017) (in French). Retrieved on 2019-01-30.
  5. Legge federale sul diritto d'autore e sui diritti di protezione affini (Legge sul diritto d'autore, LDA) del 9 ottobre 1992 (Stato 1° gennaio 2017) (in Italian). Retrieved on 2019-01-30.
  6. BGE 124 III 266
  7. Reproduction of banknotes. Swiss National Bank. Retrieved on 2019-03-29.
  8. Instruction sheet on the reproduction of banknotes. Swiss National Bank (30 August 2017). Retrieved on 2019-03-29.
  9. Rehbinder/Viganó, URG, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (2); Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (4); Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300; Dessemonet, La propriété intellectuelle et les contrats de licence, 2nd ed. (2011), marginal no. 153; Hilty: Urheberrecht, 2011, p. 209.
  10. Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (4); Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300; Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (5); Sandro Macciacchini: Die unautorisierte Wiedergabe von urheberrechtlich geschützten Werken in Massenmedien. In: sic! 1997, pp. 361–371, p. 369; Renold/Contel in Werra, Gilliéron, Propriété intellectuelle, 2013, LDA Art. 27 (11).
  11. Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (4); Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (4); Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300; Hilty: Urheberrecht, 2011, p. 210.
  12. Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300; Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (4); Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 17; Rolf H. Weber, Roland Unternährer and Rena Zulauf: Schweizerisches Filmrecht. Schulthess, Zürich 2003, p. 147.
  13. In favor: Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300. No limitation to a particular category of persons but merely a general restriction that applies to anyone: Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (4); Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 17.
  14. Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (2, 4); Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300; Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 17; Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (6); Daniel Csoport: Rechtsschutz für Kunstschaffende im schweizerischen und internationalen Urheberrecht. Dissertation, University of St. Gallen, 2008, Internet http://www1.unisg.ch/www/edis.nsf/wwwDisplayIdentifier/3498, accessed on 1 February 2014, p. 25. Dissenting: Wittweiler: Zu den Schrankenbestimmungen im neuen Urheberrechtsgesetz. In: AJP. Nr. 5, 1993, pp. 588 et seq., p. 591; Auf der Maur: Multimedia: Neue Herausforderungen für das Urheberrecht. In: AJP. Nr. 4, 1995, pp. 435 et seq., p. 439.
  15. Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (4).
  16. Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 18; Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (6); Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (4).
  17. Against applicability to station halls: Rehbinder/Viganó, URG, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (2). In favor: Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (6) (also to “park pavilions, shopping arcades and malls”); Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 18 (also to shopping arcades for both “do not constitute an interior space in the current language”).
  18. Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300; Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (6); Sandro Macciacchini: Die unautorisierte Wiedergabe von urheberrechtlich geschützten Werken in Massenmedien. In: sic! 1997, pp. 361–371, p. 369; Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 18; Rehbinder/Viganó, URG, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (2); Hilty: Urheberrecht, 2011, p. 210.
  19. Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (5); Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (9); Renold/Contel in Werra, Gilliéron, Propriété intellectuelle, 2013, LDA Art. 27 (6); Rehbinder/Viganó, URG, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (3) («erkennbar absichtlich dauerhaft an oder auf öffentlich zugänglichem Grund»).
  20. Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (9) («Werke, die sich für unbestimmte Zeit an dem für sie bestimmten Ort befinden [...] Massgeblich ist die zeitliche und örtliche Bestimmung [...] aufgrund der objektiv erkennbaren Widmung durch den Rechtsinhaber»); Rehbinder/Viganó, URG, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (3) («[...] erkennbar absichtlich dauerhaft an oder auf öffentlich zugänglichem Grund befindet»); similar though apparently based on subjective intent: Dessemonet, La propriété intellectuelle et les contrats de licence, 2nd ed. (2011), marginal no. 153 («A notre sens, le critère décisif est l’intention de laisser l’oeuvre en question durablement sur la voie publique»); Hilty: Urheberrecht, 2011, p. 210 («unbestimmte Dauer»).
  21. Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (5); possibly Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 18.
  22. In favor: Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (5); Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (9) (because they are temporary in nature as the creators intentionally limited the duration of their public presentation to a level below their ordinary life expectancy); Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 18. Ineligible: Rehbinder/Viganó, URG, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (4); Hilty: Urheberrecht, 2011, p. 210 (because the artist’s intent is the temporary display); Mosimann in Mosimann/Renold/Raschér, Kultur. Kunst. Recht, 2009, p. 596.
  23. Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (9) (because it is well-known that they are replaced/removed on a regular basis); Dessemonet, La propriété intellectuelle et les contrats de licence, 2nd ed. (2011), marginal no. 153 (posters presented for one or two weeks); Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 299.
  24. Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (5) (snow and ice sculptures); Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (9) (chalk paintings on streets or the sculpture ‚A WAY‘ by Simone Zaugg that was made of sugar); Hilty: Urheberrecht, 2011, p. 209 (chalk paintings).
  25. Uncontested, see e.g. Rehbinder/Viganó, URG, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (2).
  26. Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (13a); Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue permissible, 3rd ed. (2008), Art. 27 (6); more restrictive: Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300 (depiction must not modify the original work).
  27. Denis Barrelet; Willi Egloff () (in German) Das neue Urheberrecht (3rd ed.), Bern: Stämpfli, p. 33 ISBN: 978-3-7272-9563-8. "Hingegen geniessen Briefmarken Urheberrechtsschutz, da sie keine Zahlungsmittel sind und auch sonst unter keine Ausnahmebestimmung fallen"
Caution: The above description may be inaccurate, incomplete and/or out of date, so must be treated with caution. Before you upload a file to Wikimedia Commons you should ensure it may be used freely. See also: Commons:General disclaimer