Open main menu

Other languages:
Deutsch • ‎English • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎македонски

This page gives overviews of freedom of panorama rules in different countries or territories of Europe. It is "transcluded" from individual page sections giving the rules for each territory.

Countries of EuropeEdit

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Albania

Albania

 OK See {{FoP-Albania}}.

Under Law No. 35/2016 of March 31, 2016, on Copyright and Related Rights, Reproduction of works permanently found in public spaces: streets, squares, parks, rest areas and other open areas that are accessible to the public is allowed without the authorization and compensation from and towards the author or copyright holder. The works cannot be reproduced in three-dimensional form. With regard to reproduction of architectural structures, this applies only to the external appearance of the architectural structure. The source and authorship of such copies shall be indicated, when this is possible.[35/2016 Article 82]

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Andorra

Andorra

  Not OK Andorra's 1999 copyright law includes buildings and sculptures and fine arts works among the works subject to rights of copyright.[1999 Art. 2]

There is no "freedom of panorama" exception.[1999 Art. 11]

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

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Armenia

Armenia

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

The version of the copyright law provided by WIPO states, "It is allowed to reproduce, broadcast for non-commercial purposes an architectural, photographic or fine art work located in places open to the public without the consent of the author and the payment of author's remuneration".[2013 Article 25(d)] However, an amendment effective late April 2013 removed the restriction on commercial use, and says, "Works which are located on streets, parks, squares and other places open for attendance can be reproduced and broadcasted, and reproduced copies can be distributed, including through internet, without permission of the author and without payment to the author, in any tangible medium and by any means and in any form".[2013 Article 25(d) amended].

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Austria

Austria

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}}.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan

  Not OK: According to the Copyright law of 1996 as amended up to Law No. 636-IVQD of April 30, 2013,

  • The following shall be permitted without the consent of the author ... to reproduce, in order to present current events by means of photography or cinematography, broadcasting, cablecasting or other public communication of works seen or heard in the course of such events to the extent justified by the informational purpose.[636-IVQD/2013 Article 19.4]
  • The reproduction, or public communication of architectural works, photographic works and works of fine art permanently located in a public place shall be permissible without the author's or other copyright owner’s consent and without paying author’s remuneration, except where the presentation of the work constitutes the main feature of the said reproduction, or public communication, if it is used for commercial purposes.[636-IVQD/2013 Article 20]
Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Belarus

Belarus

  Not OK According to the Law of the Republic of Belarus No. 262-Z of May 17, 2011,

  • Works of photography, architecture, fine arts can be visualized, broadcasted or cablecasted, and publicly transmitted in any other way if such works continuously remain at the place with free admission. Representation of such works shall not be the main object of visualization, broadcasting or by cablecasting or other public transmission and shall not be used for commercial purposes.[262-Z/2011 Art.32(7)]
Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Belgium

Belgium

 OK: {{FoP-Belgium}}

Since 1 January 2015, Belgian copyright law is defined by Title 5 of Book XI (intellectual property) of the Code on Economic Law. 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.[1]

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.

  Not OK The 2010 law on copyright and related rights] allows only non-commercial reproduction of works in public places:

  • The free use of the works permanently located in squares, parks, streets or other places accessible by the public shall be permitted.[2010 Article 52(1)]
  • The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage.[2010 Article 52(2)]
  • In the case of the use referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article, the source and authorship must be indicated if they are indicated on the work used.[2010 Article 52(3)]

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

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Bulgaria

Bulgaria

  Not OK Freedom of panorama is limited in Bulgaria to informational "or other non-commercial purposes".[2011 Article 24(7)]

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

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Croatia

Croatia

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

The Copyright and Related Rights Act amended up to 127/2014 allows 2D reproductions of permanently publicly displayed works, i. e. the full Freedom of Panorama:

  • It is permitted to reproduce copyrighted works permanently located on streets, squares, parks or other places accessible to public, and to distribute and communicate to the public such reproductions.[127/2014 Article 91(1)]
  • Works from chapter 1 of this article cannot be reproduced in a three-dimensional form.[127/2014 Article 91(2)]
  • The source and authorship must be stated, except when not possible.[127/2014 Article 91(3)]
  • In the case of architectural works, the first sentence of Article 91 applies only to their outer appearance.[127/2014 Article 92]
Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Cyprus

Republic of Cyprus

 OK {{FoP-Cyprus}}

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

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Česko

Czech Republic

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Denmark

Denmark

 
The Little Mermaid

 OK for buildings only {{FoP-Denmark}}

Under the Consolidated Act No. 1144 of 23 October 2014,

  • Buildings may be freely reproduced in pictorial form and then made available to the public."[1144/2014 Art.24(3)]
  • Works of art may be reproduced in pictorial form and then made available to the public if they are permanently situated in a public place or road. The provision of the first sentence shall not apply if the work of art is the chief motif and its reproduction is used for commercial purposes."[1144/2014 Art.24(2)]

The famous statue of The Little Mermaid by sculptor Edvard Eriksen (1876–1959) is protected by copyright, and pictures where it is the main motif cannot be used for commercial purposes.[2]

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Estonia

Estonia

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

Under the Copyright Act of 11 November 1992 (consolidated text of February 1, 2017): It is permitted to reproduce works of architecture, works of visual art, works of applied art or photographic works which are permanently located in places open to the public, without the authorisation of the author and without payment of remuneration, by any means except for mechanical contact copying, and to communicate such reproductions of works to the public except if the work is the main subject of the reproduction and it is intended to be used for direct commercial purposes. If the work specified in this section carries the name of its author, it shall be indicated in communicating the reproduction to the public.[1992/2017 §20]

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Finland

Finland

 OK for buildings only {{FoP-Finland}}. Under the Copyright Act 404/1961, with amendments up to 608/2015,

  • A work of art may be reproduced in pictorial form ... if the work is permanently placed at, or in the immediate vicinity of, a public place. If the work of art is the leading motive of the picture, the picture may not be used for the purpose of gain. A picture having a material connection to the text may, however, be included in a newspaper or a periodical.[404/1961–2015 Sec.25a(3)][3]
  • A building may be freely reproduced in pictorial form.[404/1961–2015 Sec.25a(4)]
Text transcluded from
COM:FOP France

France

  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.[4][5]

  • 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:[6]

  • "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.[7]
  • a harmonious combination of its composing elements, like volumes and colours (TGI Paris, 19 June 1979)
  • an “esthetic preoccupation ”, here the choice of a sphere and of a mirror surface (CA Paris, 23 October 1990, about en:La Géode)
  • a choice which cannot be ascribed to purely technical reasons (CA Paris 20 November 1996, about stairs and a glass roof)
  • Works are protected if the creation is original, but not if the realization is purely technical.[8]
  • Works without a particular or original character, which are a trivial reproduction of building types largely found across the country, are not protected. (#13).[9]
  • 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.[7]

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.[10]

  • 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.

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Germany

Germany

 OK {{FoP-Germany}}

See also: de:Panoramafreiheit#Deutschland

GeneralEdit

Under section 59(1) of the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG), it is permitted to "reproduce, distribute and communicate to the public, by means of painting, drawing, photography, or cinematography, works located permanently in public streets, ways, or public open spaces".[11]

Section 59(1) applies to all types of works as long as they are reproduced by painting, drawing, photography, or cinematography.[12] The German freedom of panorama limitation is thus capable of applying to photographs of works of artistic art (such as paintings, fountains, sculptures, or photographic works) as well as to pictures of poems and song lyrics inscribed on commemorative plaques.[13]

For the exception to arise, two principal conditions must be met: The work must be located in a place that is "public" and the work needs to be located there "permanently". The two conditions are discussed in more detail below.

PublicEdit

Despite the somewhat ambiguous wording, a work is located "in" a public place if it can be observed from a public place.[14] In other words, what needs to be public is the place from where the photograph is taken; it does not matter if the work itself is accessible to the public.[15] It is important to note that only the view from the public place is privileged: If, for instance, a statue is located next to a public street, photographs of the statue taken from that street enjoy freedom of panorama, but photographs of the very same statue taken from a non-public spot do not.[16] Accordingly, the Federal Court of Justice held that a picture of a building taken from the balcony of a privately-owned flat across the street did not comply with the requirements of s 59(1) because the balcony is not a public place.[17] To simplify life for photographers and re-users of their pictures, there is a rebuttable presumption that if a given photograph of a work could have been made from a public place, it was in fact made from a public place.[18]

When a photographer has used special tools (such as a ladder) to create the picture or has taken the picture after removing objects that otherwise would have shielded the work from the public eye (think of a photographer brushing aside the branches of a hedge to get a better view of a sculpture), s 59(1) cannot be relied upon for the resulting view is no longer part of what the general public can visually perceive from the public place.[19] For the same reason, aerial photography does not meet the requirements of s 59(1).[20] There is some controversy in the legal literature as to whether telephoto lenses should also be treated as impermissible tools—the majority of commentators answers this in the affirmative.[21]

Whether a place is "public" for purposes of s 59(1) does not depend on whether it is public or private property.[22] Instead, the question turns on its actual accessibility, which, according to the prevailing view, needs to be such that one can infer a (sufficient) dedication to the public.[23] Against this backdrop, many academic and extra-judicial commentators argues that publicly-accessible station halls, subway stations, and departure halls fall short of the "public" requirement because they are not in the same way dedicated to the public as streets, ways, or public open spaces.[24] The status of atria and passages is controversial.[25] On the other hand, the place does not need to be accessible all the time. Graveyards are often cited as an example of a place that is public despite the fact that it is often closed during night hours.[26] Private property that cannot be freely accessed, for instance because there is some type of access control in place (or even an entrance fee is charged), does not fall under s 59(1).[27] Buildings such as museums, public collections, churches, or administrative buildings are not "public" within the meaning of the statute, and thus photographs of works exhibited in their interior do not qualify for s 59(1).[28]

The location alternatives listed in s 59(1) ("streets", "ways", and "open spaces") are merely illustrative; freedom of panorama also extends, inter alia, to what can be seen from international and coastal waters, waterways, and ocean harbours.[29]

PermanentEdit

 
Permanently located in a public place (see Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798): protected work of art ("Smiling Lips") on the bow and the hull of a cruise ship
(design by Feliks Büttner; pictured here near Funchal, Madeira)
 
Permanently located in a public place (see Bundesgerichtshof 19 January 2017, case I ZR 242/15 East Side Gallery, (2017) 119 GRUR 390): protected work of art on a remaining section of the Berlin Wall
("Hommage an die junge Generation" by Thierry Noir, East Side Gallery)
 
Permanently located in a public place (see Oberlandesgericht Köln 9 March 2012, case 6 U 193/11 Liebe deine Stadt, (2012) 16 ZUM-RD 593) based on having been in place for five years: installation by Merlin Bauer (protected as a work of art) on a rooftop in Cologne, Germany, Nord-Süd-Fahrt

To meet the condition as to permanence, a work does not need to remain at its location during its entire existence. According to the Federal Court of Justice, the proper test is whether the display or the erection of the work in a public place, as perceived by an objective observer, serves the purpose of a not-merely-temporary presentation.[30] In a more recent decision, the Court clarified that a work is permanently located in a public place if "from the point of view of the general public, [it is] intended to remain in the public place for a long, mostly indefinite, period of time".[31] On that basis, the Court determined that a work presented to the public for just two weeks—the so-called Wrapped Reichstag—cannot be reproduced under s 59(1). In the same vein, a regional court held that an artistic "grass sofa" installed in a freely-accessible garden for many years without any indication of an end date of the exhibition, is located there permanently.[32] These cases must be distinguished from the case of ephemeral works, such as ice or sand sculptures, or chalk paintings on streets, whose lifetime is limited by certain natural constraints; leading academic commentaries almost universally consider such works permanent even though they often exist only for a short period of time.[33] The same position is usually taken with respect to graffiti on exterior walls (which in all likelihood will be painted over sooner or later).[34]

Works displayed in shop windows do not fall under s 59(1) due to a lack of permanent display.[35] There is some controversy in the literature over the permanent nature of posters on advertising columns and similar structures.[36]

In order to be located "permanently" in a public place, a work does not to remain in one and the same place—its location may change.[37] Accordingly, the Federal Court of Justice held that a protected work of art on the bow of a cruise ship meets the "permanence" condition because the artwork and the cruise ship "are intended to be located for a long time in (different) public places".[38] In the view of the Court, this seems to apply more broadly to "street cars, omnibuses, or even freight vehicles", which are "increasingly being used as an advertising medium and at least a non-negligible share of the designs attached to such vehicles are copyright-protected as works of applied art".[39]

Additional requirement for architectural worksEdit

In the case of architectural works, the freedom of panorama provision is applicable only to the external appearance.[40] Therefore, pictures of interior staircases and interior courtyards cannot be used under s 59(1) even if all of the above-described conditions are met.[41]

Prohibition of alterationEdit

Section 59(1) does not permit the use of modifications of the depicted work. Therefore, when the photographer of a horse sculpture digitally changed the colour of the horse and digitally added a Santa hat to it, a regional court found that he could no longer use the resulting picture under the freedom of panorama.[42] The same conclusion was reached by a higher regional court when a photographer digitally altered the colour of a protected sign ("Liebe deine Stadt", pictured) and the colour of the sky visible in the background of his photograph.[43] Modifications that directly result from the chosen method of reproduction are permitted.[44] Partial reproductions are generally allowed, even if essential parts of the work are left out and even if it would be possible to reproduce the work as whole.[45]

Acknowledgement of sourceEdit

The source of the work must be clearly acknowledged.[46] The "source" generally includes the name of the author, but goes beyond that, in that it shall enable a third party to identify the copy of the work that was depicted.[47]

While it is straightforward to apply the attribution requirement when the author is identified directly on/next to the particular copy of the depicted work, it is not entirely clear whether a photographer needs to undertake research (and if so, how thoroughly) when the author is not named on (in the vicinity of) the particular copy. It is widely believed that those who rely for their communication to the public on the freedom of panorama need to undertake a reasonable effort to identify the author,[48] but the interpretations of that differ. Professor Dreier argues in his treatise, for instance, that when using pictures of works of architecture or applied art, less of an effort can be expected than in the case of pictures of works of fine art;[49] Dreyer J, writing extra-judicially, points out that what is reasonable depends primarily on the intensity of the use (publishers printing post cards depicting a work vs tourists giving photographs of a work to their acquaintances as gifts);[50] and Professor Götting argues that it seems unreasonable to him to make the user of a picture of an unsigned architectural work research the name of the author.[51]

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Greece

Greece

  Not OK {{NoFoP-Greece}}

Under Law No. 2121/1993 as amended up to Law No. 4531/2018, "occasional/casual reproduction and communication by the mass media of images of architectural works, fine art works, photographs or works of applied art, which are sited permanently in a public place, shall be permissible, without the consent of the author and without payment."[2121/2018 Article 26]

It remains unclear what exactly "occasional/casual reproduction and communication by the mass media" encompasses. Even if "communication by the mass media" is seen as an extension of mere "reproduction", the interpretation of "occasional/casual" reproduction remain to be clarified by jurisdiction or an scholarly interpretation. See talk page for a discussion.

Copyright ends 70 years after the author's death. After that, the government might claim moral rights under certain conditions.[2121/2018 Article 29(2)]

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Hungary

Hungary

 OK {{FoP-Hungary}}

Under the Act No. LXXVI of 1999, updated to 2019, if a fine art, architectural or applied art creation is erected with a permanent character outdoors in a public place, a view of it may be made and used without the authorization of the author and paying remuneration to him.[LXXVI/1999-2019 Art.68(1)]

Images of people require their consent, except for public performances: Civil Code (Act No. IV of 1959), section 80.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Iceland

Iceland

  Not OK {{NoFoP-Iceland}}

In regard to the freedom of panorama, the unofficial translation of Article 16 reads:

  • Photographs may be taken and presented of buildings, as well as works of art, which have been situated permanently out-of-doors in a public location. Should a building, which enjoys protection under the rules concerning works of architecture, or a work of art as previously referred to, comprise the principal motif in a photograph which is exploited for marketing purposes, the author shall be entitled to remuneration, unless the pictures are intended for use by a newspaper or in television broadcasting."[73/1972-2018 Art.16]

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

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Ireland - Éire

Ireland

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Italy

Italy

  Not OK {{NoFoP-Italy}}

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

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

  • Object still under copyright (as recent buildings, subjects to architect's copyright) only allow "quotation right" [633/1941 art. 70] and a minimal and never implemented "fair use" [633/1941 art. 70 c. 1-bis].[52]

The following are considered cultural heritage assets: state-owned things with some artistic, historic, archeological or ethno-antropological interest and libraries, galleries, museums and archives collections, unless explicitly removed on a case by case basis; other items declared cultural heritage by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities. The national catalog of cultural heritage assets is not publicly accessible or does not exist yet. Any artwork or building should be assumed a cultural heritage asset if older than 50 years (or 70 years in some cases since 2017 [42/2004 art. 11 c. 1d]).

Simplifications were envisioned by law for certain kinds of reproductions [42/2004 art. 108 c. 3-bis] and collections [36/2006 art. 7] but are not fully implemented yet as of 2019.

For Wiki Loves Monuments participants, an agreement between the Ministry and Wikimedia has allowed in the past to publish certain photos of cultural heritage assets on Commons, provided that for the ministry-run monuments {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} is added to the respective file descriptions.

  • Note: Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free.
    • For works published by the Italian state (i.e. under the name of the state, and on their account), and by non-profit or educational institutions (and similar), copyright generally expires after 20 years (+ the period to the next first January); there's an exception for academic writings (and similar): 2 years of institution-owned copyright, after which the full copyright returns to the original author (apart from particular contracts between author and institution)[633/1941 art. 11 and 29].
Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan

  Not OK Only incidental, non-commercial use is allowed.

It shall be allowed, without consent of the author or owner of the right and without paying out royalties, to reproduce, to broadcast and (or) communicate for general information via cable of works of architecture, photography, fine arts, that are permanently located in the place open for free access, except for cases when the image of the work is the main object of such reproduction, broadcasting and (or) communication for general information via cable, or when the image of the work is used for commercial purposes. [419/2015 Article 21]

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Latvia

Latvia

  Not OK: {{NoFoP-Latvia}}

Under the Copyright Law of 2000 (as amended up to June 14, 2017),

  • It is permitted to use images of works of architecture, photography, visual arts, design, as well as of applied arts, permanently displayed in public places, for personal use and as information in news broadcasts or reports of current events, or included in works for non-commercial purposes.[2000-2017 Sec.25(1)]
  • That which is referred to in this Section shall not apply to cases when the image of a work is an object for further repetition of the work, for broadcast by broadcasting organisations or for the purpose of commercial use of the image of a work.[2000-2017 Sec.25(2)]

The non-commercial use restriction is not acceptable for works uploaded to Commons.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Liechtenstein

Liechtenstein

 OK {{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]

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Lithuania

Lithuania

  Not OK Commercial use of reproductions of works of architecture or sculpture in public places is not allowed when the work is the main subject and it is used commercially.

Under Law No. VIII-1185 of 1999, as amended up to Law No. XII-1183 of 2014, Article 28,

  • It shall be permitted to carry out the following acts without the authorisation of an author or any other owner of copyright and without a remuneration, as long as the source, including the author's name, is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible: to reproduce and make available to the public works of architecture and sculptures, made to be located permanently in public places, except for the cases where they are displayed in exhibitions and museums;[1999–2014 Art.28.1.1]
  • The provisions of Art.28.1.1 shall not be applied when a work of architecture or a sculpture is the main subject of representation in the reproduction, and when this is done for direct or indirect commercial advantage.[1999–2014 Art.28.2]
Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Luxembourg

Luxembourg

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

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Malta

Malta

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

Malta's Copyright Act states that copyright "shall not include the right to authorise or prohibit (…) the inclusion in a communication to the public, the making of a graphic representation and the making of a photograph or film, of a work of architecture or sculpture or similar works made to be located permanently in public places."[415/2000-2011 Art. 9(1)(p)]

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Moldova

Moldova

Under Law No. 139 of 2010 as amended in 2016,

  • It shall be permitted without the consent of the author or other holder of copyright and without payment of remuneration ... use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places;[139/2010-16 Art.28(k)]

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

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

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

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

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Monaco

Monaco

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Montenegro

Montenegro

  Not OK Only non-commercial use is allowed.

The Law on Amendments to the Law on Copyright and Related Rights (Official Gazette of Montenegro, No. 37/2011 and 53/2016) says,

  • Permission is granted without acquiring the appropriate property rights and without paying a fee, to use works that are permanently exposed in parks, streets, squares and other public places.[53/2016 Art.55(1)] The works ... may not be reproduced in a three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work, or used for direct or indirect economic advantage.[53/2016 Art.55(2)]
Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Netherlands

Netherlands

 OK for buildings and most 2D and 3D artwork {{FoP-Nederland}}

  Not OK for photographs, maps, applied art, industrial design, and models

Article 18 of the Dutch copyright act states that:[54]

  • 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.)[55]

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.[56][57] 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.[58] 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.[59]

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.[60][61] 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.[62] 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.[57]

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.[57] 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.[62] 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.[56]

 OK for 3D works {{FoP-North Macedonia}} Under the Law on Copyright and Related Rights (2010),

  • The use of a copyright work without payment of remuneration shall apply to the following cases: ... Use of architectural or sculptural works permanently located in public places (streets, squares, parks, etc.);[2010 Art.52.1.11]
Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Norway

Norway

 OK for buildings only {{FoP-Norway}}

Under the Act No. 2 of 1961, consolidated version of 2015,

  • Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. Buildings may be freely depicted.[2/1961-2015 §24]

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

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Poland

Poland

 OK {{FoP-Poland}} (exterior only)

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

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Portugal

Portugal

 OK {{FoP-Portugal}} Under the Code of Copyright and Related Rights (as amended up to Decree-Law No. 100/2017 of August 23, 2017),

  • It is lawful, without the author's consent, to make the following uses of a work:[100/2017 Art.75(2)] ... use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places;[100/2017 Art.75(2.q)]
  • "Use" includes taking a photograph of such a work and publishing it.[100/2017 Art.68]
  • However, in conformity with the Berne three-step test, the allowed uses must not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, nor unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder.[100/2017 Art.75(4)]
  • Also, "The free uses mentioned in the preceding article [§75] shall be accompanied by the indication, wherever possible, of the name of the author and of the editor, the title of the work and other circumstances that identify them...."[100/2017 Art.76(a)]

According to at least one legal scholar, "public location" includes public interiors within the context of Portuguese law.[63]

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Romania

Romania

  Not OK Under Law No. 8 of March 14, 1996 on Copyright and Neighboring Rights,

  • The following uses of a work already disclosed to the public shall be permitted without the author’s consent and without payment of remuneration, provided that such uses conform to proper practice, are not at variance with the normal exploitation of the work and are not prejudicial to the author or to the owners of the exploitation rights:[8/1996 Art.33(1)]
  • ... the reproduction, to the exclusion of any means involving direct contact with the work, distribution or communication to the public of the image of an architectural work, work of plastic art, photographic work or work of applied art permanently located in a public place, except where the image of the work is the main subject of such reproduction, distribution or communication, and if it is used for commercial purposes;[8/1996 Art.33(1)(f)]

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

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Russia

Russia

Article 1276 of Part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation states:[64]

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

The FoP exceptions for works of architecture, urban development, and garden and landscape design, which were added under consultation with Wikimedia Russia, have taken effect with the Civil Code amendments as of October 1, 2014.[65]

Concerning non-architectural artwork, there is still a copyright exception for non-commercial use, but non-commercial use only is not allowed on Commons and unfortunately, we don't have sufficient number of court decisions for clarifying situation. An important court decision states that the copying of a showcase photo is not a creation of a 3D-object in 2 dimensions. See discussion at Commons:Форум/Архив/2010#Судебное решение о фотографиях трёхмерных объектов.

Before January 1 2008, freedom of panorama was regulated by the similar (but not the same) article 21 of Copyright Law of Russia.[66]

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

It is not clear if copyrighted buildings in Crimea are subject to the Russian or the more restrictive Ukrainian law. Following the Commons precautionary principle, images of knowingly unfree Crimean buildings should not be uploaded to Commons. See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/09#Buildings_in_Crimea. Neverless photowork created in Crimea before February 19, 1954 is the subject of the Russian law.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP San Marino

San Marino

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Serbia

Serbia

 OK {{FoP-Serbia}}, if the work is displayed in an open public space. Under the 2009 copyright law,

  • Any work that is permanently displayed in a street, a square or some other open public places may be reproduced in two dimensions and its copies thus made may be put on the market, as well as communicated to the public in some other way, without the author's permission and without paying remuneration.[104/2009 Art.51]
Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Slovakia

Slovakia

 OK {{FoP-Slovakia}}

Under Act No. 185/2015 Coll. as amended by Act No. 125/2016 Coll,

  • Copyright is not infringed by a person who without authorisation of its author uses the work permanently situated in public places by making copies, communication to the public or public distribution by transfer of title.[125/2016 Section 41(1)]
  • The above does not apply to making a copy of architectural work by means of building.[125/2016 Section 41(2)]
Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Slovenia

Slovenia

  Not OK Use: {{NoFoP-Slovenia}}. Only non-commercial use allowed. Under the Consolidated Copyright Act as of 2016,

  • Works permanently placed in parks, streets, squares or other public places, may be used freely.[12/2016 Art.55(1)]
  • The preceding paragraph does not apply to three-dimensional copies made for the same purpose as the original work, or copies made for profit.[12/2016 Art.55(2)]
  • The copy should state the source and authorship of the work, if indicated on the work.[12/2016 Art.55(3)]

 OK for all works whose creators died or published them anonymously or pseudonymously (and have remained anonymous or pseudonymous) in 1948 or earlier.[67]

  • Another exception is photographs of photographic and similarly-made works in a public space, and photographs of the works of applied art, which are acceptable for Commons if the original (non-derivative) work was published in 1969 or earlier.

The copyright on these works lasted for 25 years from publication per the 1978 Yugoslav copyright act.[1978 Art.84]

In addition to copyright, the usage of the reproductions of "cultural monuments" for commercial purposes[68] is restricted by the Slovenian Cultural Heritage Protection Act, which requires consensus of the owner of the monument for any use of the image and name of the monument (Article 44). The definition of a cultural monument is the following (Article 3): heritage that has been statutorily protected as a monument or entered in the inventory of an authorised museum. For immovable cultural heritage, the national catalog is publicly accessible at gisportal.gov.si.[69] Wikimedia Commons is not required to comply with the Slovenian Cultural Heritage Protection Act because it is hosted in the United States of America. Users who are citizens of Slovenia are warned that they are solely responsible for any possible violation of local laws.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Spain

Spain

 OK {{FoP-Spain}} Under the the 1996 Intellectual Property Law as amended up to 14 April 2018,

  • Works permanently located in parks, streets, squares or other public places may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by means of paintings, drawings, photographs and audiovisual processes.[1/1996-2018 Article 35(2)]
  • The above may not be so interpreted that they could be applied in a manner capable of unreasonably prejudicing the legitimate interests of the author or adversely affecting the normal exploitation of the works to which they refer.[1/1996-2018 Article 40bis]
Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Sweden

Sweden

  Inconclusive {{FoP-Sweden}}

Under Act 1960:729 with consolidated amendments up to Act (2017:323), Article 24,

  • Works of art may be depicted if they are permanently located on, or at outdoor location.[729/1960-2017 §24.1]
  • If the purpose is to advertise an exhibition and sale of works of art, but only to the extent necessary to promote the exhibition or sale.[729/1960-2017 §24.2]
  • If they are part of a collective work, in a catalog, but not in digital form.[729/1960-2017 §24.3]
  • Buildings may be freely depicted.[729/1960-2017 §24.3]

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

Some, such as Bildkonst Upphovsrätt i Sverige (BUS, a collection society for visual arts), hold the position that Article 24 does not apply to publication online. Others, such as the Swedish Wikimedia chapter, reject this position. The Swedish Wikimedia chapter was sued in 2014 by BUS for alleged copyright violations of outdoor sculptures by providing a website that allows users to view locations of artwork on a map with links to photographs hosted on Wikimedia Commons. On 4 April 2016, the Supreme Court of Sweden ruled that article 24 does not extend to publication in an online repository, regardless of commercial intent.[70][71] The implications of that ruling were discussed.

On 6 July 2017, the Patent and Market Court at Stockholm District Court ruled that Article 24 does not give anyone the right to publish photographs of copyrighted public art on the Internet without the consent of the depicted work's author[72] and ordered the Swedish Wikimedia chapter to cease from further distribution and to pay damages and court costs. The ruling may be appealed no later than 27 July 2017.[73][72]

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Switzerland

Switzerland

 OK {{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.[74]
  • 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.[75]
  • 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.[76]
  • 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”.[77] Commentators do not agree whether charging entrance fees also makes the place "not public" and therefore not subject to Article 27.[78]
  • Following the majority view in the legal literature, freedom of panorama does not apply to interior spaces.[79] Hence Article 27 cannot be invoked for depictions produced in the staircase or the rooms of a building.[80] 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.[81] However, definition problems remain, for instance, in the case of station halls or shopping arcades which, consequently, are assessed differently by commentators.[82] It is generally held that the interior of a church cannot be depicted under Article 27.[83]

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).[84]
  • 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.[85] 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.[86] Whether Christo’s “wrapped works” can be depicted under Art. 27 is controversial.[87] Posters in public are not considered “permanently situated” by the literature.[88]
  • Works whose lifetime is restricted by natural conditions, such as ice sculptures or chalk paintings on streets, are nevertheless considered permanent.[89]

GeneralEdit

  • Applicability to all works: Article 27 applies to all categories of protected works.[90]
  • 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.[91]
Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Turkey

Turkey

 OK {{FoP-Turkey}} Under Law No. 5846 of December 5, 1951 (as amended up to Law No. 6552 of September 10, 2014),

  • Works of fine arts permanently placed on public streets, avenues or squares may be reproduced by drawings, graphics, photographs and the like, distributed, shown by projection in public premises or broadcast by radio or similar means. For architectural works, this freedom is only valid for the exterior form.[6552/2014 Article 31]
  • Works of fine arts are the following works, which have aesthetic value: Oil paintings or water colors, all types of drawings, patterns, pastels, engravings, artistic scripts and gildings, works drawn or fixed on metal, stone, wood or other material by engraving, carving, ornamental inlay or similar methods, calligraphy, silk screen printing; Sculptures, reliefs and carvings; Architectural works; Handicraft and minor works of art, miniatures and works of ornamentation, textiles, fashion designs; Photographic works and slides; Graphic works; Cartoons; All kinds of personifications.[6552/2014 Article 4]
Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Ukraine

Ukraine

  Not OK: {{NoFoP-Ukraine}}

Ukrainian copyright law does not contain a general exception for reproductions of works in public places. Architectural works (plans, models, and actual buildings, as well as a statues and sculptures; are objects of copyright.[3792-XII/199-2017 Art.8(1)] The author holds, amongst other rights, the exclusive rights to reproduction, public display, and communication to the public (§15). Architectural and sculptural works are in no way treated differently than other kinds of works in Ukrainian law.

It is claimed, though, that article 21(4) of the Ukrainian law on copyright and related rights implied some kind of "freedom of panorama":

  • ...it shall be permitted without the consent of the author (or other copyright holder) and with mandatory indication of the author's name and of the source of borrowing: ... to reproduce, in order to highlight current events by means of photography or cinematography, to carry out public notification or other public communication of the works seen or heard in the course of such events to the extent justified by the informational purpose.[3792-XII/199-2017 Art.21(4)]

This, however, is limited to "informational purposes" and to "current events". It is not general freedom of panorama but a "fair use"-like provision for news reporting.

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

 OK for 3D works
 OK for 2D "works of artistic craftsmanship"
  Not OK for 2D "graphic works" {{FoP-UK}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Design and Artists Copyright Society and Artquest provide further information on freedom of panorama in the United Kingdom.[92][93]

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Vatican City

Vatican City

No information available

Specific statusEdit

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Faroe Islands

Faroe Islands

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Gibraltar

Gibraltar

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Guernsey

Guernsey

 OK: for buildings, sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship.   Not OK: for photographs, paintings etc.

Under the Copyright (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Ordinance, 2005, 82: representation of certain artistic works on public display",

  • This section applies to (a) buildings, and (b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.[2005 Section 82(1)]
  • The copyright in any of those works is not infringed by (a) making a graphic work representing it (b) making a photograph or film of it, or (c) making a broadcast of a visual image of it.[2005 Section 82(2)]
  • Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the communication to the public, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.[2005 Section 82(3)]
Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Isle of Man

Isle of Man

 OK For buildings, sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship. Under The Copyright Act 1991,

  • This section applies to (a) buildings, and (b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.[1991-2013 Sec.62(1)]
  • The copyright in such a work is not infringed by (a) making a graphic work representing it, (b) making a photograph or film of it, or (c) making a broadcast of a visual image of it.[1991-2013 Sec.62(2)]
  • Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the communication to the public, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.[1991-2013 Sec.62(31)]
Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Jersey

Jersey

 OK {{FoP-Jersey}} for buildings, sculptures, works of artistic craftsmanship.

  Not OK for other types of artistic work

According to the Intellectual Property (Unregistered Rights) (Jersey) Law 2011, Section 90: Representation of certain artistic works on public display,

  • This Article applies to (a) buildings; and (b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.[2011 Section 90(1)]
  • The copyright in such a work is not infringed by making a graphic work representing it; making a photograph or film of it; or making a broadcast of a visual image of it.[2011 Section 90(2)]
  • Nor is the copyright infringed by anything done in relation to copies of, or the communication to the public of, anything whose making was, by virtue of this Article, not an infringement of the copyright.[2011 Section 90(3)]

Limited recognitionEdit

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Abkhazia

Abkhazia

  Not OK. Only incidental, non-commercial use allowed. Under the 2006 Law on Copyright and Related Rights,

  • It is allowed without the consent of the author and without paying the author's fee to reproduce, broadcast or communicate to the public by cable of works of architecture, photography or fine art which are permanently located in a place open to the public, except when the image of the work is the main object such reproduction, transmission or broadcast to the public by cable or when the image of the work is used for commercial purposes.[2006 Art.21]
Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Republic of Artsakh

Artsakh

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Republic of Artsakh

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Kosovo

Kosovo

  Not OK, non-commercial only. According to the Law No. 2004/45 on Copyright and Related Rights,

  • Works permanently placed in public streets, squares, parks or other generally accessible public places my be used freely.[2004/45 Art.54.1]
  • Works mentioned in the preceding paragraph may not be reproduced in a three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work, or used for direct or indirect economic gain.[2004/45 Art.54.2]
Text transcluded from
COM:FOP South Ossetia

South Ossetia

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Transnistria

Transnistria

No information available

No information available

partly located in EuropeEdit

Some citation text may not have been transcluded

  1. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named News20160512
  2. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Kehlet2007
  3. Tekijänoikeuslaki 25 a § (14.10.2005/821) (in Finnish). finlex. Retrieved on 2019-05-25.
  4. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Manara2016
  5. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Rees2016
  6. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Buren2001
  7. a b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Verbrugge2011
  8. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Franck2008
  9. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Etendueetlimites
  10. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Jactrow2010
  11. Note that in the English translation of the UrhG provided by the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (accessed 18 August 2019), s 59(1) UrhG is incorrectly translated (the means adjunct in the first sentence is missing).
  12. G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 8.
  13. See T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 2; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 13.
  14. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [22].
  15. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [22]; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 18.
  16. See Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [35]; Bundesgerichtshof 5 June 2003, case I ZR 192/00 Hundertwasser-Haus, (2003) 105 GRUR 1035, 1037.
  17. Bundesgerichtshof 5 June 2003, case I ZR 192/00 Hundertwasser-Haus, (2003) 105 GRUR 1035, 1037.
  18. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [37].
  19. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [35]; see also CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 140ff.
  20. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [35]; H Schack, Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht (8th edn, Mohr Siebeck 2017) para 567; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 17.
  21. See C Czychowski, "§ 59" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 7; G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 6; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 17; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 142ff. Contra T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 4. See the Wikipedia article in German for additional references.
  22. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [23]; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 16. See also Landgericht Frankenthal 9 November 2004, case 6 O 209/04 Grassofa, (2005) 107 GRUR 577, 577 (holding that a freely accessible park owned by a charitable foundation is public).
  23. M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 16. But see Bundesgerichtshof 17 December 2010, case V ZR 45/10 Preußische Gärten und Parkanlagen, (2011) 64 NJW 749, 751 (affirming the higher regional court's holding to deny freedom of panorama on the grounds that the "de facto free access to the park is based on a decision by plaintiff [...] which they may change at any time"), widely criticised, see inter alia H Schack (2011) 66 JZ 371 (note), 376.
  24. C Czychowski, "§ 59" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 7; G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 6; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 16; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 137; S Ernst, "Zur Panoramafreiheit des Urheberrechts" (1998) 42 ZUM 475, 476. Contra S Lüft, "§ 59" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2019) para 3; EI Obergfell, "§ 59" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 3.
  25. In favour of applicability of freedom of panorama: T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 3; EI Obergfell, "§ 59" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 3; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 135f. Opposed: C Czychowski, "§ 59" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 7. See the Wikipedia article in German for additional references.
  26. T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 3; R Kirchmaier, "§ 59" in E-J Mestmäcker and E Schulze (eds), Urheberrecht (Luchterhand R 55 2011) para 9; EI Obergfell, "§ 59" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 3; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 16. See also Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [33] ("The fact that the ship may at times not be located in publicly accessible places [...] does not preclude the application of s 59(1)").
  27. C Czychowski, "§ 59" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 6 ("private property that has constant public exposure but is not freely accessible due to fencing and entry controls"); S Lüft, "§ 59" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2019) para 3 ("private property that is not freely accessible due to fences and controls"); EI Obergfell, "§ 59" in W Büscher, S Dittmer, and P Schiwy (eds), Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht (3rd edn, Heymann 2015) para 3 ("fencing, access control, and similar"); M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 16 ("private property with access control").
  28. G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 6; R Kirchmaier, "§ 59" in E-J Mestmäcker and E Schulze (eds), Urheberrecht (Luchterhand R 55 2011) para 9; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 14 ("universal view"); CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 133. See also the official motives accompanying the draft bill proposing the UrhG, Bundestag Printed Paper IV/270 of 23 March 1962, p 76 (stating that "the artwork permanently exhibited in public museums" shall not be privileged for it is "not to the same degree dedicated to the public as the works erected in public squares"). Cf Oberlandesgericht Köln 5 May 2000, case 6 U 21/00 Gies-Adler, (2000) [53] NJW 2212, 2213 (denying freedom of panorama for photographs of a work of art inside the former house of parliament on the grounds that it is not located in a public street, way, or public open space).
  29. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [24].
  30. Bundesgerichtshof 24 January 2002, case I ZR 102/99 Verhüllter Reichstag, 150 BGHZ 6, 10f.
  31. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [32]. It is readily apparent that the actual duration of the presentation does not matter: If, say, a fountain is inadvertedly destroyed two days following its construction, this does not affect the applicability of s 59(1) in respect of the pictures created during the two days of its existence. See M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 25; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 149.
  32. Landgericht Frankenthal 9 November 2004, case 6 O 209/04 Grassofa, (2005) 107 GRUR 577, 577.
  33. C Czychowski, "§ 59" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 8; G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 17; H Schack, Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht (8th edn, Mohr Siebeck 2017) para 568. Contra T Koch, "Von dreidimensionalen Vervielfältigungen und schwimmenden Kunstwerken – Die Panoramafreiheit in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs" in Hans-Jürgen Ahrens and others (eds), Festschrift für Wolfgang Büscher (Heymanns 2018) 205. See the Wikipedia article in German for additional references.
  34. T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 5; G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 17; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 23; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 154f.
  35. T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 5; G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 18; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 24; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 169.
  36. In favour: T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 5; G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 17; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 170. Contra M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 23; S Ernst, "Zur Panoramafreiheit des Urheberrechts" (1998) 42 ZUM 475, 477. See the Wikipedia article in German for additional references.
  37. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [32].
  38. Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [33].
  39. Not entirely clear from Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798 [29] on account of the discussion taking place in relation to the "public" requirement, but see the various notes on the judgement, eg T Koch, "Von dreidimensionalen Vervielfältigungen und schwimmenden Kunstwerken – Die Panoramafreiheit in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs" in H-J Ahrens and others (eds), Festschrift für Wolfgang Büscher (Heymanns 2018) 204; M Stieper, "Die Freiheit des Straßenbildes im Urheber- und Designrecht – Anmerkung zu BGH ZUM 2017, 766 – AIDA-Kussmund" (2017) 61 ZUM 770 [771]; D Ettig (2017) 63 WRP 955 (note) para 13.
  40. Section 59(1), 2nd sentence.
  41. M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 31.
  42. Landgericht Mannheim 14 February 1997, case 7 S 4/96 Freiburger Holbein-Pferd, (1997) 99 GRUR 364, 366.
  43. Oberlandesgericht Köln 9 March 2012, case 6 U 193/11 Liebe deine Stadt, (2012) 16 ZUM-RD 593, 595.
  44. Section 62(3) so provides for artistic works and photographic works. In the literature, this is extended to architectural works. See T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 11; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 29; CG Chirco, Die Panoramafreiheit (Nomos 2013) 207.
  45. Bundesgerichtshof 19 January 2017, case I ZR 242/15 East Side Gallery, (2017) 119 GRUR 390 [41], [43]. But see M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 12 (arguing that in certain cases the partial reproduction may not comply with the three-step test pursuant to art 5(5) of the Information Society Directive (2001/29/EC), art 10(2) of the WCT, and art 13 of the TRIPS Agreement).
  46. Section 63.
  47. W Bullinger, "§ 63" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2019) paras 11f; A Dustmann, "§ 63" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Fromm/Nordemann: Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 6. Cf Oberlandesgericht Brandenburg 15 October 1996, case 6 U 177/96 Stimme Brecht, (1997) 50 NJW 1162, 1163 (in the context of the quotation limitation, which is also subject to s 63).
  48. See eg T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 12; M Vogel, "§ 59" in U Loewenheim, M Leistner, and A Ohly (eds), Schricker/Loewenheim: Urheberrecht (5th edn, Beck 2017) para 30; R Kirchmaier, "§ 59" in E-J Mestmäcker and E Schulze (eds), Urheberrecht (Luchterhand R 55 2011) para 7.
  49. T Dreier, "§ 59" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (6th edn, Beck 2018) para 12.
  50. G Dreyer, "§ 59" in G Dreyer and others (eds), Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht (4th edn, CF Müller 2018) para 20.
  51. H-P Götting, "§ 31" in U Loewenheim (ed), Handbuch des Urheberrechts (2nd edn, Beck 2010) para 245.
  52. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named 70c1bis
  53. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Normattiva
  54. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Art18
  55. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named kamerstuk_28_482_8
  56. a b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named kamerstuk_28_482_5
  57. a b c Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named spoor_et_al
  58. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named AU5454
  59. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named AT4169
  60. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named kammerstuk_28_482_3
  61. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named de_zwaan
  62. a b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Engelfriet
  63. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Nobre2016
  64. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named CodeIV-1276
  65. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named CCAmend2014
  66. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named WS199353511
  67. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Dlib2010-09-29
  68. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Matejčič2003
  69. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named RKD
  70. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Sverigeblog
  71. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Ö849-15
  72. a b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named PMT8448-14
  73. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Westman
  74. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access05
  75. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access10
  76. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access15
  77. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access20
  78. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access25
  79. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access30
  80. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access35
  81. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access40
  82. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access45
  83. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access50
  84. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named perm10
  85. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named perm20
  86. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named perm30
  87. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named perm40
  88. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named perm50
  89. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named perm60
  90. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Rehbinder-Viganó
  91. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Macciacchini-Oertli
  92. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named DACSfactsheet
  93. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Artquest