Open main menu
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Freedom of panorama/Europe and the translation is 100% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Freedom of panorama/Europe and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

Other languages:
Deutsch • ‎English • ‎français • ‎македонски

Cette page donne un aperçu des règles de la liberté de panorama dans différents pays ou territoires de l’Europe. Il est "inclus" à partir de sections de page individuelles donnant les règles pour chaque territoire.

Contents

Pays d’Europe

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Albania

Albanie

   Voir {{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 Germany

Allemagne

   {{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.[1]

Public

The criterion "public" requires the way/street/place to be both dedicated to the public and publicly-accessible. Note that despite the ambiguous wording, this restriction refers to the place from which the picture is taken. The 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.[2]

"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.[3] There is consensus among legal commentators that the use of accessories, such as ladders or helicopters, disqualifies from the application of § 59 UrhG.[4] Whether telephoto lenses constitute “accessories” in this sense is controversial.[5]

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.[6] Private ways fulfill the criterion if they are open to the public; the status of atria and passages is controversial.[7]

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.[8] 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.[9]

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.[10] 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.[11]

Permanent

The second important criterion for the application of § 59 UrhG is the permanent display of the work. The Federal Court of Justice held in 2002 that neither does this require the work to remain at its place for the entire duration of its existence, nor is it purely a question of the author’s dedication.[12] 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.[13]

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.[14] Advertisements on advertising columns are not considered permanent by most of the literature.[15]

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.[11]

Interdiction de modification

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.[16]

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

Application à toutes les œuvres protégées

§ 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).[17] 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.[18] 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”).

Exemples de jugements

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.”[19]

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.”[20]

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.[21]

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.[11]

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Andorra

Andorre

  Pas d'accord 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

Arménie

  •    pour les sculptures : {{FoP-Armenia}}
  •    pour les bâtiments et les miniatures/représentations de bâtiments : {{FoP-Armenia}}
  •    pour les autres œuvres d'art (tableaux, graphiques, conception et d'autres œuvres d'arts plastiques, des œuvres d'art décoratif appliqué et décors de scène. Cartes, plans, croquis et ouvrages plastiques relatives à la géographie, la topographie, la géologie, l'urbanisme, l'architecture et d'autres sciences) : {{FoP-Armenia}}

La version de la loi sur le droit d'auteur fournie par l'OMPI dispose : "Il est autorisé de reproduire, diffuser à des fins non commerciales une œuvre architecturale, photographique ou artistique située dans des lieux ouverts au public sans le consentement de l'auteur et le paiement de sa rémunération" [2013 Article 25 (d)]. Toutefois, un amendement entré en vigueur fin avril 2013 a supprimé la restriction à l'utilisation commerciale et stipule que "les œuvres situées dans des rues, des parcs, des places et d'autres lieux ouverts à la fréquentation peuvent être reproduites et diffusées, et des copies reproduites peuvent être distribuées, notamment via l'Internet, sans l'autorisation de l'auteur et sans rémunération de son part, sous quelque support que ce soit, de quelque manière que ce soit et sous quelque forme que ce soit ". [2013 Article 25(d) modifié]

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Austria

Autriche

En général :  OK, utiliser le bandeau {{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

Azerbaïdjan

  Pas d'accord: 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 Belgium

Belgique

   : {{FoP-Belgium}}

Depuis le 1er janvier 2015, la loi belge sur le droit d'auteur est définie par le titre 5 du livre XI (propriété intellectuelle) du code de droit économique. Elle a remplacé la loi sur le droit d'auteur du 30 juin 1994. Le 16 juin 2016, le Parlement belge a introduit la liberté de panorama de en ajoutant ce qui suit à l'article XI. .190 du Code de droit économique :

  • Lorsque l'oeuvre a été licitement divulguée, l'auteur ne peut interdire : ... 2/1° la reproduction et la communication au public d'oeuvres d'art plastique, graphique ou architectural destinées à être placées de façon permanente dans des lieux publics, pour autant qu'il s'agisse de la reproduction ou de la communication de l'oeuvre telle qu'elle s'y trouve et que cette reproduction ou communication ne porte pas atteinte à l'exploitation normale de l'oeuvre ni ne cause un préjudice injustifié aux intérêts légitimes de l'auteur[2018 Art.XI.190] ;

La loi a été promulguée le 27 juin, publiée le 5 juillet et entrée en vigueur le 15 juillet 2016.

Remarques:

  • Une explication jointe à une version provisoire de la disposition relative à la liberté de panorama indiquait que cette disposition était destinée à s'appliquer aux lieux "accessibles en permanence" au public, tels que les rues et les places publiques, et qu'elle n'était pas destiné à être appliqué à l'intérieur de musées publics ou d'autres bâtiments qui ne sont pas ouverts au public de façon permanente. Selon l'explication, si une œuvre d'art est située à l'intérieur d'un bâtiment qui n'est pas ouvert en permanence au public, l'artiste ne s'est peut-être pas attendu à une exposition publique de l'œuvre.
  • Avant le 15 juillet 2016, il n'y avait pas de liberté de panorama en Belgique. Les œuvres d'art modernes ne pourraient constituer le motif central d'une photographie disponible dans le commerce sans l'autorisation du détenteur des droits d'auteur. Voir aussi cette discussion de 2009.
  • Une autre exception au droit d'auteur, le [[[Commons: De minimis | de minimis]]], est énoncée à l'article XI.190 (ancien article 22 de la loi de 1994) de la loi: " Lorsque l'oeuvre a été licitement [3 divulguée]3, l'auteur ne peut interdire : [...] 2 ° la reproduction et la communication au public de l'oeuvre exposée dans un lieu accessible au public, lorsque le but de la reproduction ou de la communication au public n'est pas l'oeuvre elle-même [...] ". Ces conditions ne doivent plus être remplies si les conditions de liberté de panorama énoncées ci-dessus sont remplies.
Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Belarus

Biélorussie

  Pas d'accord 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)]

  Pas d'accord 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

Bulgarie

  Pas d'accord 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

Croatie

   {{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

Chypre

   {{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 Denmark

Danemark

 
The Little Mermaid

   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.[22]

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Spain

Espagne

 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 Estonia

Estonie

  Pas d'accord, l'usage est autorisé seulement pour un usage non comercial non-commercial, si l'œuvre est le sujet principal{{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

Finlande

   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)][23]
  • A building may be freely reproduced in pictorial form.[404/1961–2015 Sec.25a(4)]
Text transcluded from
COM:FOP France

France

  Pas d'accord {{NoFoP-France}}

Merci de marquer les demandes de suppression pour manque de liberté de panorama en France : <noinclude>[[Category:French FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude>

Le 7 octobre 2016, le Parlement français a approuvé une loi reconnaissant une version limitée de la liberté de panorama autorisant la reproduction par des particuliers (et non par des organisations) d'édifices et de sculptures situés de manière permanente dans un espace public, mais uniquement à des fins non commerciales[24][25].

  • Reproductions et représentations d'œuvres architecturales et de sculptures, placées de manière permanente sur la voie publique, effectuées par des personnes physiques, à l'exclusion de toute utilisation commerciale.[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:[26]

  • "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.[27]
  • 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.[28]
  • Works without a particular or original character, which are a trivial reproduction of building types largely found across the country, are not protected. (#13).[29]
  • 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.[27]

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.[30]

  • 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 Greece

Grèce

  Pas d'accord {{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

Hongrie

   {{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 Ireland - Éire

Irlande

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Iceland

Islande

  Pas d'accord {{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 Italy

Italie

  Pas d'accord {{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].[31]

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 actively forbidden 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

  Pas d'accord 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

Lettonie

  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

   {{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

Lituanie

  Pas d'accord 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

  Pas d'accord {{NoFoP-Luxembourg}} Seule l'inclusion accessoire est autorisée. En vertu de la loi du 18 avril 2001 modifiée en 2015 :

  • Lorsque l’œuvre a été licitement rendue accessible au public, l’auteur ne peut interdire : ... la reproduction et la communication d’œuvres situées dans un lieu accessible au public, lorsque ces œuvres ne constituent pas le sujet principal de la reproduction ou de la communication [4-18-2001 Art.10(7)].

   pour les œuvres 3D {{FoP-North Macedonia}} selon la loi sur le droit d'auteur et les droits voisins (2010),

  • L'utilisation d'une œuvre protégée par le droit d'auteur sans rémunération est applicable dans les cas suivants: ... Utilisation d'oeuvres architecturales ou sculpturales situées en permanence dans des lieux publics (rues, places, parcs, etc.); [2010 Art. 52.1.11]
Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Malta

Malte

   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

Moldavie

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:

  •    for buildings or similar constructions; per article 26(2)(a)
  •    for sculptures made to be located permanently in public places; per article 28(k)
  •   Pas d'accord for sculptures not made to be located permanently in public places
  •   Pas d'accord 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

Monténégro

  Pas d'accord 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 Norway

Norvège

   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 Netherlands

Pays-Bas

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

  Pas d'accord for photographs, maps, applied art, industrial design, and models

Article 18 of the Dutch copyright act states that:[33]

  • 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.)[34]

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.[35][36] 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.[37] 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.[38]

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.[39][40] 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.[41] 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.[36]

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.[36] 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.[41] 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.[35]

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Poland

Pologne

   {{FoP-Poland}} (uniquement à l'exétrieur)

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

   {{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.[42]

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Česko

République tchèque

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Romania

Roumanie

  Pas d'accord 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 United Kingdom

Royaume-Uni

   pour les œuvres en 3D
   pour les "œuvres d'artisanat" en 2D
  Pas d'accord pour les "œuvres graphiques" en 2D {{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.[43][44]

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Russia

Russie

Article 1276 of Part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation states:[45]

  • 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.[46]

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.[47]

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

Saint-Marin

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Serbia

Serbie

   {{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

Slovaquie

   {{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

Slovénie

  Pas d'accord 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)]

   for all works whose creators died or published them anonymously or pseudonymously (and have remained anonymous or pseudonymous) in 1948 or earlier.[48]

  • 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[49] is restricted by the Slovenian Cultural Heritage Protection Act, which requires consensus of the owner of the monument for any use of the image and name of the monument (Article 44). The definition of a cultural monument is the following (Article 3): heritage that has been statutorily protected as a monument or entered in the inventory of an authorised museum. For immovable cultural heritage, the national catalog is publicly accessible at rkd.situla.org.[50] 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 Sweden

Suède

  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.[51][52] 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[53] 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.[54][53]

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Switzerland

Suisse

   {{FoP-Switzerland}}

En vertu de l'article 27 de la loi sur le droit d'auteur, une œuvre située en permanence dans un lieu accessible au public peut être représentée et la représentation présentée, transférée, diffusée ou autrement diffusée. La représentation ne doit pas être tridimensionnelle et ne doit pas servir le même objectif que l'original.

Accessible au public

  • Le lieu doit être accessible au public "de facto". La propriété légale du lieu n’a aucune incidence sur l’applicabilité de la disposition. [55]
  • L'œuvre présentée elle-même ne doit pas nécessairement être accessible au public. La liberté de panorama s'applique également aux travaux sur des terrains privés (non accessibles au public), à condition qu'ils puissent être vus à l'oeil nu depuis un lieu accessible au public.[56]
  • L'endroit n'a pas besoin d'être accessible au public tout le temps. Si un parc est fermé pendant la nuit, il peut toujours être "accessible au public" au sens de l'article 27, à condition que les autres critères soient remplis[57].
  • Selon l'opinion majoritaire dans la littérature juridique, si le lieu n'est accessible qu'à certaines catégories de personnes, telles que les élèves et le personnel des écoles secondaires, il n'est plus "accessible au public"[58]. Les commentateurs le font pas d'accord si le fait de percevoir des droits d'entrée rend également le lieu "non public" et donc non soumis à l'article 27.[59]
  • Conformément à l'opinion majoritaire dans la littérature juridique, la liberté de panorama ne s'applique pas aux espaces intérieurs[60]. L'article 27 ne peut donc pas être invoqué pour les représentations réalisées dans l'escalier ou les pièces d'un bâtiment[61]. Il est reconnu dans la littérature que dans certains cas, il peut être difficile de déterminer ce qui constitue un "espace intérieur". Une partie de la littérature suggère une différenciation des espaces intérieurs des cours intérieures, seule cette dernière satisfaisant aux exigences de l'article 27[62]. Toutefois, des problèmes de définition subsistent, par exemple dans le cas des halls de magasins ou des galeries marchandes. qui, par conséquent, sont appréciés différemment par les commentateurs[63]. Il est généralement admis que l’intérieur d’une église ne peut être décrit en vertu de l’article 27.[64]

Situé en permanence

  • Une œuvre n’est pas "située en permanence" au sens de la loi si elle n’est visible que par accident (par exemple pendant son transport)[65].
  • Il est controversé ce qui est nécessaire pour remplir la fonction "situé en permanence". Selon un point de vue répandu, cela suppose que l'intention (objective) du détenteur du droit d'auteur présente indéfiniment l'œuvre dans un lieu accessible au public.[66] Un point de vue minoritaire dit que la liberté de panorama peut également s'appliquer à une œuvre telle qu'une sculpture située autrement dans un musée accessible au public dans le cadre d'une exposition temporaire[67]. La question de savoir si les "œuvres emballées" de Christo peuvent être décrites dans l'article 27 est controversée[68]. Les affiches en public ne sont pas considérées comme "situées en permanence" par la littérature.[69]
  • Les œuvres dont la durée de vie est limitée par les conditions naturelles, telles que les sculptures de glace ou les peintures à la craie dans les rues, sont néanmoins considérées comme permanentes.[70]

Généralités

  • Applicabilité à toutes les œuvres: l'article 27 s'applique à toutes les catégories d'œuvres protégées[71].
  • Modifications: les modifications du travail ne sont pas autorisées (Art. 10 URG). L'article 11 interdit la déformation du travail. Toutefois, les modifications requises en raison de la méthode de reproduction utilisée sont généralement considérées comme autorisées.[72]
Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Turkey

Turquie

   {{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

  Pas d'accord : {{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 [1], 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.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Vatican City

Vatican

No information available

Statuts particuliers

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Gibraltar

Gibraltar

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Guernsey

Guernesey

  : for buildings, sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship.   Pas d'accord: 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 Jersey

Jersey

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

  Pas d'accord 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)]
Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Isle of Man

île de Man

   Pour les bâtiments, les sculptures et les œuvres de l'artisanat. Selon la Copyright Act de 1991,

  • cette section s'applique (a) aux bâtiments, et (b) aux sculptures, maquettes de bâtiments et œuvres de l'artisanat, si elles se trouvent en permanence dans un lieu public ou dans des locaux ouverts au public.[1991-2013 Sec.62(1)]
  • les droits d'auteur sur une telle œuvre ne sont pas enfreints par (a) la réalisation d'une œuvre graphique la représentant, (b) la prise d'une photographie ou la réalisation d'un film de celle-ci[1991-2013 Sec.62(2)].
  • ne constitue pas non plus une infraction aux droits d'auteur le fait de communiquer ces copies au public, ou la communication au public, de toute chose dont la création ne constituait pas, selon cette section, une infraction aux droits d'auteur[1991-2013 Sec.62(31)].
Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Faroe Islands

îles Féroé

No information available

Reconnaissance limitée

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Abkhazia

Abkhazie

  Pas d'accord. 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]

No information available

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Republic of Artsakh

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Kosovo

Kosovo

  Pas d'accord, 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]

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Transnistria

Transnistrie

No information available

situé partiellement en Europe

Certaines citations peuvent ne pas avoir été incluses

  1. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named FOPOther66
  2. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Public11
  3. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Public22
  4. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Public29
  5. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Public35
  6. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Public40
  7. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Public45
  8. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Public50
  9. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Public60
  10. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Public70
  11. a b c Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named FOPPublic90
  12. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Permanent10
  13. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Permanent30
  14. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Permanent40
  15. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Permanent50
  16. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named FOPOther20
  17. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named FOPOther05
  18. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named FOPOther50
  19. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named FOPCourt10
  20. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named FOPCourt20
  21. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named FOPCourt50
  22. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Kehlet2007
  23. Tekijänoikeuslaki 25 a § (14.10.2005/821) (in Finnish). finlex. Retrieved on 2019-05-25.
  24. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Manara2016
  25. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Rees2016
  26. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Buren2001
  27. a b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Verbrugge2011
  28. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Franck2008
  29. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Etendueetlimites
  30. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Jactrow2010
  31. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named 70c1bis
  32. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Normattiva
  33. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Art18
  34. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named kamerstuk_28_482_8
  35. a b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named kamerstuk_28_482_5
  36. a b c Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named spoor_et_al
  37. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named AU5454
  38. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named AT4169
  39. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named kammerstuk_28_482_3
  40. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named de_zwaan
  41. a b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Engelfriet
  42. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Nobre2016
  43. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named DACSfactsheet
  44. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Artquest
  45. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named CodeIV-1276
  46. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named CCAmend2014
  47. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named WS199353511
  48. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Dlib2010-09-29
  49. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Matejčič2003
  50. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named situla
  51. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Sverigeblog
  52. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Ö849-15
  53. a b Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named PMT8448-14
  54. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Westman
  55. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access05
  56. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access10
  57. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access15
  58. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access20
  59. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access25
  60. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access30
  61. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access35
  62. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access40
  63. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access45
  64. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named access50
  65. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named perm10
  66. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named perm20
  67. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named perm30
  68. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named perm40
  69. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named perm50
  70. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named perm60
  71. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Rehbinder-Viganó
  72. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Macciacchini-Oertli