Commons:Freedom of panorama

In almost all countries, art, architecture, and other works are copyrighted for a specified period. That means any photograph taken of such a work during the copyright period is a derivative work.

A derivative work usually requires a license from the creator of the work. However, in many (but not all) countries there is an exception in copyright law which eliminates the need for a license. We call this exception freedom of panorama (FOP), after the term used in German copyright law, Panoramafreiheit.

The works to which the FOP exception applies vary widely from country to country. The exception generally applies only to works on permanent public display. In some countries, this is only in outdoor public places; in others it extends to indoor places where admission is charged. It may cover only architecture, only architecture and sculpture, or all copyrightable works including literary works.

Note that in every country, even one without an FOP exception, once a work goes out of copyright it may be freely photographed. Also, the exception does not eliminate the need for a license from the photographer.

Legal status

Buildings and sculptures as works of art

Collegium Stomatologicum w Poznaniu, the author of the work depicted in the photograph is Grzegorz Sadowski.

Every building and sculpture we can see in our neighbourhood is subject to the copyright law, as far as it incorporates artistic creativity. The Berne convention, art.2-1 explicitly states so: "The expression "literary and artistic works" shall include [...] works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography".

Usually, the copyright law acts mention such an object explicitly as their subject matter. This is reproduced in national laws (for instance the US Copyright Law in §102-8).

Legal status of pictures

The Berne convention Article 9 explicitly states that:

1. Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form.
2. It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.
3. Any sound or visual recording shall be considered as a reproduction for the purposes of this Convention.

This has been reproduced for instance in §106 of the US Copyright Law, and corresponding national laws. According to copyright laws, then:

Taking pictures of buildings is a reproduction, which must theoretically be authorized by the architect if the right to reproduction is not in the national copyright law.

This is the situation for any derivative work based on any artistic creation.

Photographs of buildings

A photograph of a building or even any scene in a city or a village inevitably depicts some pieces of architecture or even sculptures. The photograph may or may not have its own creative element, making it a work of its own, but the value of this work clearly depends on the value in the works that are depicted on it. In case of such a dependency the photograph is deemed to be a derivative work.

This restriction on building photographs is often weakened by a separate clause for photographs or pictures of buildings in public places. However, this clause is not always made explicit in national laws.

Uploading images covered under Freedom of Panorama to the Commons

When uploading images subject to Freedom of Panorama provisions to the Commons, please tag them with the {{FOP}} template, which contains a legal disclaimer on the copyright status of the work, and sorts the image into a category of images subject to these provisions. If the country the image is taken in does not have these provisions, or only allows them for non-commercial purposes, they cannot be licensed under a license compatible with our Licensing policy and must be deleted. Please file requests for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests.

Nuances in the panorama freedom

We will discuss here the case of the German legislation. Here is the content of §59 of the German Copyright Law (Urheberrechtsgesetz, UrhG):

1. It shall be permissible to reproduce, by painting, drawing, photography or cinematography, works which are permanently located on public ways, streets or places and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies. For works of architecture, this provision shall be applicable only to the external appearance.
2. Reproductions may not be carried out on a work of architecture.

Quoted from an English translation.

Publishing of reproductions

The article above allows to reproduce and publish photographs taken in public places. It is understood that this includes publishing the pictures in a commercial way.

Public places

German law allows photographers to take pictures that are visible from publicly accessible places. This includes private ways and parks with common access. However, it does not include railway station buildings or platforms. The picture must be taken from a publicly accessible point. It is not permitted to take a picture of such a building from a private house or from a helicopter.

In other countries, these restrictions are sometimes less stringent. For instance, the Australian, Austrian, British, Mexican and Indian law allows taking pictures of publicly accessible interiors.

Permanent vs temporary

The exhibited objects must be exhibited in a permanent way. If a work is presented on a public place temporarily, one may be obliged to get the explicit permission to take its picture.

Whether a work is installed at a public place permanently or not is not a question of absolute time, but a question of what the intention was when the work was placed there. If it was put there with the intention of leaving it in the public place indefinitely or at least for the whole natural lifetime of the work, then it is "permanent".

A sculpture is typically placed with the intent of leaving it for an indefinite time. But if it was clear from the beginning that it would be left there only, say, for three years and then be moved to a museum, then the placement was not "permanent". On the other hand, if a sculpture was placed with the intent of leaving it "open end", but is then removed due to new construction plans some time later, its placement remains "permanent" even if the sculpture is eventually removed.

Even quickly decaying works can thus be "permanent" and therefore be subject to freedom of panorama. Street paintings, ice, sand, or snow sculptures rarely last more than a few days or weeks. If they're left in public space for their natural lifetime, they are considered "permanent" all the same. But if, for instance, an ice sculpture is exhibited only for a few hours and then moved to cold storage, it may not be permanently placed.

Architecture vs sculptures

The German law allows photography of both buildings and sculptures. The situation in the United States is different. See below.

Music, literature etc.

Sometimes, a literary work is a part of a sculpture or is presented on a publicly accessible plaque. It is usually understood that the particular presentation of the work falls under the panorama freedom.

Acknowledgment of source

The copyright law usually obliges the photographer to give credits of his photograph. That usually means that he must provide a description of the depicted objects and its authors. However, he can be exempted from the obligation when the authorship is difficult to deduce. For instance, German copyright law says in §62 that the photographer needs not provide the credits if they are not clearly present on the object that is depicted.

The right to modify

The panorama freedom is restricted to taking pictures of the actual objects. Generally, the freedom to modify such pictures is restricted. For example, the German law in §62 forbids any modifications except those technically required by the method of replication.

Further derivative works

A derivative work based on a photograph is most often also a derivative work based on the depicted object. The panorama freedom usually does not include the delegation of the right to authorize the derivative works. The author of a photograph has the right to authorize the derivative work based on the photograph only to the extent that results from the creative element of his work. However, he does not have the right to authorize the derivative work in the extent associated with the original object.

Pictures of public domain objects

Public domain objects are not protected by copyright, so objects of this kind can be freely photographed and the pictures can be published both royalty free and commercially, at least so far as copyright law is concerned (there may be contractual or other restrictions on picture-taking, though, especially on private property). Moreover, pictures of public domain objects can be freely modified and derivative works can be freely developed. For example, old buildings and statues where the architect or artist died more than a certain number of years ago (depending on the country), are in the public domain.

Situation in different countries

This section presents more detailed accounts of the legal situation of panorama freedom in different countries and regions. Again, this is not a legal advice, but just a presentation for educational purposes.

Notice: If you want to contribute, please consider the following guidelines:

Try to make the description as comprehensive as possible Don't forget that sometimes small formulation nuances have big impact Add reference to particular articles in the copyright law Provide a link to the copyright law in the original language, if possible Provide a link to the copyright law in English, if possible Provide links to web pages which discuss panorama freedom issues in given country or region

Albania

 Not OK, Not Commercial only

According to article 12 of the Albanian copyright law, when a publicly displayed copyrighted work is the main subject of a derivative work, that derivative work cannot be used for commercial purposes.

Article 12: "It is allowed without the author’s approval and without payment or remuneration the reproduction, broadcasting or the communication to the public by wire of a picture of an architectonic work, of a fine arts work, photographic work or applied arts work placed in a public area, excluding the cases when the picture is the main theme of the reproduction, broadcasting or communication and when it is used for commercial purposes."

Algeria

OK

According to article 51 of the Algerian copyright law, it shall be lawful to reproduce or to communicate to the public, without authorization of the author and without remuneration, a work of architecture or the fine arts, a work of applied arts or a photographic work that is permanently situated in a public place, with the exception of art galleries, museums and classified cultural or natural sites.

Article 51: "Est considérée licite sans autorisation de l'auteur ni rémunération, la reproduction ou la communication au public d'une oeuvre d'architecture ou des beaux arts, d'une oeuvre des arts appliqués ou d'une oeuvre photographique lorsqu'elle est située en permanence dans un lieu public, à l'exception des galeries d'art, musées et sites culturels et naturels classés."

• Ordonnance relative aux droits d'auteur et aux droits voisins

Andean Community of Nations (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru)

OK

Decision 351 of the Andean Community of Nations provides for FOP as follows:

• "Artículo 22.- Sin perjuicio de lo dispuesto en el Capítulo V y en el artículo anterior, será lícito realizar, sin autorización del autor y sin el pago de remuneración alguna, los siguientes actos:...h) Realizar la reproducción, emisión por radiodifusión o transmisión pública por cable, de la imagen de una obra arquitectónica, de una obra de bellas artes, de una obra fotográfica o de una obra de artes aplicadas, que se encuentre situada en forma permanente en un lugar abierto al público" (translation):
• "Article 22.- Without prejudice to that put forth in the Chapter 5 and in the previous article, it will be legal to realize, without authorization from the author and without the payment of any remuneration, the following acts:...h) Realizing the reproduction, emitting by radio diffusion or public transmission by cable, of the image of an architectural work, of a work of fine arts, of a photographic work or of a work of applied art, that is found situated in permanent form in a place open to the public".
• [1]

Argentina

OK for buildings,  Not OK for sculpture and other works

Argentina has no "freedom of panorama" provision in its copyright law, neither are buildings mentioned among works to which copyright apply. At least some think there is de facto freedom of panorama in Argentina regarding buildings:

It is uncontroversially accepted that buildings can be reproduced by paintings or photographs, without this reproduction infringing copyright.

Se ha admitido pacificamente que los edificios puedan ser reproducidos mediante pinturas o fotografías, sin estimarse que esta reproducción lesione los derechos de autor. (Dr. Emery, Miguel Angel (profesor of Intellectual property law in Argentina), Propiedad Intelectual, Astrea Editors 4th. edition ISBN 9789505085231. p.40 op cit

• Copyright law of Argentina (in Spanish)

Armenia

 Not OK see Former Soviet Union

Australia

OK {{FoP-Australia}}

Freedom of Panorama is dealt with in the Australian Copyright Act, sections 65–68, and is based on the laws of the United Kingdom. See the United Kingdom section for more details. For “Work of artistic craftsmanship” under Australian law, see this article.

• Australian Copyright Act
• A note on the copyright law in Australia that concerns photographers

Austria

OK

Freedom of panorama in Austria is similar to Germany, but there are a few differences: it includes also the publicly accessible interiors of buildings, and the photo need not have been taken from a public place (c.f. Hundertwasserentscheidung). Also, the law limits the provision to works of the "bildende Künste" (fine arts, applied arts, photography, and architecture, see §3(1)).

• Austrian copyright law, §54 (5)

Azerbaijan

 Not OK see Former Soviet Union

Bahamas

OK

The Bahamas has freedom of panorama for architecture, and 2D and 3D artistic works on display in places or premises open to the public.

"78 (1)The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing or public display of pictures,

paintings, photographs or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or is ordinarily visible from a public place."

"79. (1) The copyright in an artistic work does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs or other pictorial representations of the work if the work is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

(2) This section applies to —

(a) buildings;

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

"2 (1) In this Act... “artistic works” include two-dimensional and three dimensional work of fine, graphic and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models,architectural plans and technical drawings;"

Bahrain

 Not OK, Non-Commercial Only

According to Article 25 of Act No. 22 of the Year 2006 relating to the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, there is FOP for artwork permanently located in a public place, but only for non-commercial uses:

It is lawful, without the consent of the author and without paying compensation, to broadcast to the public for non­commercial purposes, works of the fine, applied, visual or architectural arts, if those works are permanently located in a public place.

Copyright copyright expires after 50 calendar years from the death of author or last surviving author (Joint work).

Source : English & Arabic

Bangladesh

OK: According to the "2000 Copyright Act of Bangladesh", artistic recreations of public architecture and art work are exceptions to the rights of authors.

Exceptions to infringement states:

The Copyright Act provides certain exceptions to infringement. The object of these provisions is to enable the encouragement of private study and research and promotion of education. They provide defences in an action for infringement. [...]

10. Making of a drawing, engraving or photograph of an architectural work of art, or a sculpture kept in a public place,

• Copyright law in Bangladesh

Belarus

 Not OK see Former Soviet Union

Belgium

 Not OK

There is no panorama freedom in Belgium. Modern pieces of art cannot be the central motive of a commercially available photograph without permission of the artwork copyright holder. See also the talk page.

• The Belgian copyright act (dead link)
• The Belgian copyright act (dead link)
• The Belgian copyright act (dead link)

• 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."
  • If deletion, please use: Category:Belgian FOP cases

Belize

OK

Article 78 of the Belize's Copyright Act of 2000 states that photographs, films, or graphic works depicting a building, sculpture, or work of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public, do not infringe the copyright of the original work.

Bolivia

OK see Andean Community of Nations

Bosnia and Herzegovina

 Not OK

Article 52 of the 2010 law on copyright and related rights states that reproductions of artistic works displayed in public places are only allowed "provided they are not used for gaining economic profit".

Brazil

OK

Article 48 of Law nº 9.610 of February 19, 1998 states:

Works permanently located in public places may be freely represented by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes.

The original Portuguese text:

As obras situadas permanentemente em logradouros públicos podem ser representadas livremente, por meio de pinturas, desenhos, fotografias e procedimentos audiovisuais.

• Articles 46-48 (Limitations on Copyright) of Law No. 9.610
• Law No. 9610 of February 19, 1998, on Copyright and Neighboring Rights

Bulgaria

 Not OK

Freedom of panorama is limited in Bulgaria to informational "or other non-commercial purposes". (Article 23(5) of the Bulgarian copyright law of 1993, with amendments up to 2000.)

• 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."

Burma

OK for 3D works, buildings and models of buildings;  Not OK for most 2D works.

According to section 2(1)(iii) of the First Schedule to the Burma Copyright Act 1914, which is based on the UK Copyright Act 1911, it is not an infringement of copyright to make or publish paintings, drawings, engravings or photographs of (1) a work of sculpture or artistic craftsmanship permanently situated in a public place, or (2) an architectural work of art (except that architectural drawings or plans may not be produced).

Artistic work is defined as including "works of painting, drawing, sculpture and artistic craftsmanship, and architectural works of art and engravings and photographs", which suggests that works of artistic craftsmanship do not include paintings, drawings, sculptures, engravings, photographs and architectural works of art. An "architectural work of art" is any building or structure having an artistic character or design or any model for such building or structure, but does not include processes or methods of construction: First Schedule, section 35(1).

Burundi

OK for buildings only

Under Title III, Chapter I, Section I, Article 26 (c)4 Law No. 1/021 of December 30, 2005 on the protection of copyright and related rights in Burundi.

"Similarly, the reproduction of works of architecture through photography, cinematography, television or any other similar process, in addition to the publication of corresponding photographs in the press, periodicals and textbooks, shall be free and may not give rise to copyright payment. "

Cambodia

 Not OK - Copyright protection will be from the Creation of work + life of the author + 50 years after his/her death. As per Article 30 of Cambodian copyright law

Unfortunately, it seems like FOP is only allowed for incidental inclusion.

• Copyright Law of Cambodia (English translation)

Canada

OK for 3D works,  Not OK for 2D works ({{FoP-Canada}}):

Under Section 32.2 (1)(b) of the Canadian Copyright Act 1985 (PDF, 786 kB), it is not an infringement of copyright for any person to reproduce, in a painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or cinematographic work … (i) an architectural work (defined as any building or structure or any model of a building or structure"); or

• (ii) "a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship, that is permanently situated in a public place or building".

Canadian law was originally derived from UK concepts and some of the United Kingdom section may therefore be of relevance, in particular the restricted legal meaning of "work of artistic craftsmanship". Some non-sculptural works can qualify for Canadian FOP under this clause, such as Body Shop Yonge.jpg for example. The freedom provided by the quoted section does not apply to typical two-dimensional works such as paintings, murals, advertising hoardings, maps, posters or signs. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder even if they are permanently located in a public place, unless they are in the public domain.

Chile

OK

Articles 43 and 44 of the Chilean copyright law 17.336 (empty link; new one[2]?) allow freedom of panorama.

• Article 43: The reproduction of works of architecture through photography, film, television and any other analogous procedure as well as publication of the aformentioned photographs at newspapers, magazines and textbooks, is free and not subject to copyright compensation.
• Article 44: All monuments and, in general, the artistic works that decorate plazas, avenues and public places can be reproduced freely through photography, drawing or any other procedure, being lawful the publication and sale of these reproductions.

China, People's Republic of

OK {{FoP-China}}

The "Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China" (2001) Article 22, clause 10 states that:

[A] work may be exploited without the permission from, and without payment of remuneration to, the copyright owner, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned and the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law are not infringed upon...

in the case of:

copying, drawing, photographing, or video recording of an artistic work located or on display in an outdoor public place

• 中华人民共和国著作权法（2001修正）
• Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (2001)

Colombia

OK see Andean Community of Nations

Congo (Democratic Republic of the)

 Not OK

Ordinance-Law No. 86-033 of 5 April 1986 on the Protection of Copyright and Neighboring Rights article 28 allows reproduction of architectural works in newspapers, magazines and school textbooks. Article 29 allows incidental inclusion of artworks into films or television. Neither is free enough for Wikimedia Commons.

Costa Rica

OK: art acquired by the authorities. {{FoP-Costa Rica}}
 Not OK: works not acquired by the authorities whose copyright has not expired

It shall be lawful to make reproductions by photographic or other pictorial processes of statues, monuments and other works of art acquired by the authorities that are displayed in streets, parks and museums. [3].

Côte d'Ivoire

 Not OK

Law No. 96—564 of July 25, 1996 on the Protection of Intellectual Works and the Rights of Authors, Performers and Phonogram and Videogram Producers, article 34:

"Works of art, including works of architecture, permanently located in a public place may be reproduced and made available to the public by means of cinematography or television."

• English version of statute (dead link)

Croatia

OK

Croatian law from 2003 allows 2D reproductions of permanently publicly displayed works, i. e. the full Freedom of Panorama (translation of relevant Article 91):

Article 91.

(1) It is permitted to reproduce copyrighted works permanently located on streets, squares, parks or other places accessible to public, and to distribute and publish such reproductions.

(2) Works from chapter 1 of this article cannot be reproduced in a three-dimensional form.

(3) On the instances of work from chapter 1 of this article, source and authorship must be stated, except when not possible.

• Copyright Law from 2003

Cuba

OK

Cuban law from 1997 allows 2D reproductions of works of art permanently installed in publicly accessible places, except museums and exhibition venues under Article 38 (c) (translation as follows):

Article 38 — It is permissible, without the author's consent and without remuneration, but with obligatory reference to his name and provided the work is public knowledge and respectful of the artist's specific values:

c) to reproduce by any means, except those involving direct contact with its surface, a work of art of any type on permanent display in a public place, except those in exhibitions and museums;

• Copyright law from 1997

Cyprus

OK

"Copyright Laws 1976 to 1993", page 7 has section 7 (1) which 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;"

Czech Republic

OK

An analogy of Freedom of panorama in the Czech Republic is defined by § 33 of the law No. 121/2000 Coll., Copyright Act (as amended).

The law allows anyone to create and further use (e.g. distribute) drawings, paintings, graphics, photographs, movies or other works recording or expressing a work permanently located in any public space (e. g. streets, squares, parks and public ways), without the original work’s author’s consent. The name of the author and the title of the work should be indicated if possible. However, it is not allowed to make a three-dimensional reproduction of the work.

The law itself does not explicitly define the meaning of the phrases “public space” (veřejné prostranství) and “permanently located” (trvale umístěno). (Also, as with all copyright exceptions, the use must fulfill the Berne three-step test, i.e. this is a special-case exception, not a normal case, the uses allowed by this exception do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder.)

While works located on streets, squares, in public parks etc. (a common interpretatation includes also works which are visible from such places, although they aren't mentioned in the act) can be pictured freely, this copyright exception does not apply to shopping center interiors, waiting rooms, museums, galleries, concert halls etc., even if they are accessible to general public, if such place has a private character or if cannot be considered as "prostranství" (space). According to Telec's interpretation, the exception cannot be applied to e. g. parts of a building not visible from a public place, even if the building is generally visible.

The exception is limited only to works permanently located in a public space. This restriction (added during the transposition of the European Parliament copyright directive, which contains a similar restriction) means, according the explanation report, the socalled freedom of panorama is usually applied to three-dimensional artistic and architectonic works (sculptures, memorials, buildings, etc.) which are in the European Directive named as examples; however, the law text does neither preclude nor exclude (de lege lata) an application of the exception to two-dimensional works, if all conditions are met (e. g. paintings permanently incorporated into a building facade, street art, permanent informational boards etc.). Temporary exhibitions etc. are not covered by this exception.

References:

• Consolidated Version of Act No. 121/2000 Coll., on Copyright and Rights Related to Copyright and on Amendment to Certain Acts (the Copyright Act), as amended by Act No. 81/2005 Coll., Act No. 61/2006 Coll. and Act No. 216/2006 Coll.
• Czech Copyright Act (on the Czech Wikisource)
• Telec, Ivo; Tůma, Pavel (2007). "§ 33 Užití díla umístěného na veřejném prostranství [Article 33: Use of a Work Located in Public Place]" (in Czech). Autorský zákon: Komentář [Copyright Act. Commentary]. Velké komentáře (1st ed.). Praha: C. H. Beck. pp. 366–368. ISBN 978-80-7179-608-4.

Denmark

OK for buildings only

The article 24 of the Danish copyright law permits panorama freedom for architecture. This, however, does not extend to the works of art that are located in public places. They cannot be commercially published when they constitute the central element of the picture.

• English translation

Dominican Republic

OK

Dominican law allows reproduction of works by painting, drawing, photograph or audiovisual fixations those works that are permanently located in public ways, street or places and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies. For works of architecture, this provision is applicable only to the external appearance.

Se podrá reproducir por medio de pinturas, dibujos, fotografías o fijaciones audiovisuales, las obras que estén colocadas de modo permanente en vías públicas, calles o plazas y distribuir y comunicar públicamente dichas reproducciones. En lo que se refiere a las obras de arquitectura, esta disposición es sólo aplicable a su aspecto exterior.

Copyright Law from 2000. Title IV, chapter I, article 39

Ecuador

OK see Andean Community of Nations

Egypt

OK {{FoP-Egypt}}

Article 171 of Law No. 82 of 2002:

Without prejudice to the moral rights of the author, pursuant to the provisions of the law herein, the author may not prevent third parties, after the publication of his work, from undertaking any of the following acts:

[Section 2]

...Nevertheless, the author or his successors may prevent third parties, after the publication of his work, from undertaking any of the following acts, without permission therefrom:

- Reproducing, photographing or copying fine, applied or plastic arts, unless existing in public, or is an architectural work;...

By expressly denying the copyright holder the ability to enforce his copyright on applied or plastic arts "existing in public...or architectural work" freedom of panorama for these items is implied. "Applied art" means art incorporated into useful articles. Plastic arts are three dimensional artworks. So while freedom of panorama may exist in Egypt for useful articles, three dimensional artworks, and buildings, it does not appear to exist for two dimensional artwork.

• Law No. 82 of 2002 Pertaining to the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights

El Salvador

OK, more or less

Article 45: "the following shall be allowed without the consent of the author or remuneration: . . . the reproduction of a work of art on permanent display in a street, square or other public place in an artistic medium different from that used for the making of the original; with regard to buildings, this right shall be limited to the outer walls" [4]

Original Spanish: "es permitida sin autorización del autor ni remuneración: . . . f) La reproducción de una obra de arte expuesta permanentemente en las calles, plazas u otros lugares públicos, por medio de un arte diverso al empleado para la elaboración del original. Respecto de los edificios, dicha facultad se limita a la fachada exterior"

Estonia

 Not OK, only non-commercial use allowed

According to §20¹ of Estonian copyright law as last amended in 2004, "it is permitted, without the authorisation of the author and without payment of remuneration, 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 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."

This essentially means that the freedom of panorama in Estonia can be exploited non-commercially only.

• English translation
• Autoriõiguse seadus, § 20¹. Üldsusele külastamiseks avatud kohtades asuvate teoste kujutiste vaba kasutamine

European Union

Freedom of panorama in European countries.

OK, including public interiors

OK

OK for buildings only

Not OK

There is a European Parliament directive on the harmonisation of the copyright law 2001/29/EC which asserts in article 5 section 3 letter h that the copyright law of the member states may restrict the copyright rights for sculptures and buildings exposed in public places:

Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 in the following cases: (...) (h) use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places;

• w:Copyright Directive
• The text of the Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament (as corrected)

Finland

OK for buildings only

Article 25a of the Finnish copyright law permits panorama freedom for buildings, both exteriors and interiors, regardless of whether the place is public (laws of privacy do apply). This, however, does not extend to works of art (other than architecture), when they constitute the central element of the picture. Pictures of works of art permanently located in public places can be used non-commercially or as illustrations to texts in newspapers and periodicals. Published works of art may according to article 25 also be used e.g. as illustrations to scientific texts or criticism.

• Finnish law of copyright (8.7.1961/404) in Finnish (as amended; maintained by the Ministry of Justice)
• Finnish law of copyright (8.7.1961/404) in Swedish (as amended; maintained by the Ministry of Justice)
• Unofficial English translation of the law (PDF, maintained by the Ministry of Justice; at least amendments up to 31.10.2008/663 included; see list of changes)

Former Soviet Union

 Not OK Non-commercial: Most of the successor nations of the Soviet Union have identical provisions on freedom of panorama and restrict it to non-commercial uses only. The legal information for the member state is available at the web page of the Coalition for Intellectual Property Rights.

Note: The three Baltic states Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (that have never been member of CIS but only of the former USSR before their independence) also have similar provisions in their copyright laws.

Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan

All these countries' laws only allow this limited form of freedom of panorama: images of copyrighted architectural works, photographic works, or works of fine art (which includes sculptures and statues) that are permanently located in publicly accessible places may be published only if the depicted copyrighted base work is not the main subject of the image and the image is for non-commercial purposes.

• Copyright law of Armenia, §16
• Copyright law of Azerbaijan, §20
• Copyright law of Belarus, §19
• Copyright law of Georgia, §24
• Copyright law of Kazakhstan (1996), §21
• Copyright law of Kyrgyzstan, §21
• Copyright law of Moldova, §22(1)(f)
• Copyright law of Russia of 1993, with amendments up to 2004, §21
  • Since January 1, 2008 Fourth Part of Civil Code of Russian Federation, §1276
• Copyright law of Tajikistan, §21.1 (Russian translation)
• Civil Code of Turkmenistan, §1088 (Russian translation)
• Copyright law of Uzbekistan, §30 [5]

France

 Not OK {{NoFoP-France}}

There is no freedom of panorama in France, neither for sculptures, nor for buildings that pass the threshold of originality. 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" (« le droit d'auteur s'étend incontestablement à la reproduction de l'œuvre installée dans un espace public »). Concerning buildings, case law defines several criteria for originality:

• "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]
• 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)

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.):

Can be considered as an illicit representation of a statue by Maillol, the broadcasting of a commercial in which it appears, as it was not included in a film sequence shot in a natural setting—which would explain the brief, and non-essential to the main subject, appearance of the sculpture, which is set in the Tuileries gardens—but used as an element of the setting (« Constitue une représentation illicite d'une statue de Maillol la diffusion d'un film publicitaire dans laquelle elle figure, alors qu'elle a été utilisée, non pas dans une séquence tournée en décor naturel, ce qui justifierait une apparition fugace de la sculpture, placée dans le jardin des Tuileries, totalement accessoire au sujet traité, mais comme un élément du décor. »).

• Copyrighting the Eiffel Tower
• French copyright act, covered in Book I
• Unofficial English translation

Related matter: ownership rights limited to protection of privacy only While architects may have rights to works derived from their work of art, this is not the case of the owners of works of art or buildings, in general. The summary of the conclusions of a May 7, 2004 ruling by the Court of Cassation was:

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

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

The Court already ruled on June 5, 2003, that the right of property comprised absolutely no right to the image of this property. However, they also upheld the right to privacy of the homeowners: in this case, not only a photograph of a house was published (this is legal because the image of a property, as seen from the public domain, is not part of that property), but also its exact location and the name of the owners (attempt to privacy). Earlier rulings (May 2, 2001) similarly rejected requests based on ownership without a justification of an abnormal disturbance.

The other rights related to the image of the property are in fact those of the designer of that property, just like an artistic right protected under the exclusive right of authors and their related moral rights, but not under property right and rights of usage. This may mean that even the authorization by the property owner only is not enough to make the snapshot legal for use, but the property owner cannot oppose the publication and use of this image when it has been authorized by the designer/architect, provided that there's no damage for the owner's privacy (the exact location and owner name cannot be both cited along with the image, if this property owner is a physical person, without also asking for his permission).

• 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."
  • If deletion request, please use: Category:France FOP cases

Georgia

 Not OK see Former Soviet Union

Germany

OK {{FoP-Germany}}

See also: de:Panoramafreiheit#Deutschland

It is possible by § 59 of the Urheberrechtsgesetz, the Act on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, to take pictures or otherwise reproduce works that are permanently found on public ways, streets or places (e.g. squares, plazas) and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies. 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 shown work itself does not need to be dedicated to the public or publicly-accessible (although, depending on the object shown, there may of course be restrictions based on privacy or personality rights). “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. It is consensus in the literature that the use of accessories, such as ladders or helicopters, disqualifies from the application of § 59 UrhG; whether telephoto lenses constitute “accessories” in this sense is controversial. 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. 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. Private ways fulfill the criterion if they are open to the public; the status of atria and passages is controversial. 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. 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.

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. (For completeness it should be added that if a work that otherwise would be reproducable under § 59 UrhG is only visible by accident—e.g. through an open door or window—, this is not sufficient.) As is the case more generally with § 59 UrhG, this applies irrespective of whether or not permission was given to take photographs there.

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. 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. 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 application of § 59 UrhG. Further examples: Works displayed in shop windows do not fall under § 59 UrhG due to a lack of permanent display; advertisements on advertising columns are not considered permanent by most of the literature; the same is true for artwork on cars temporarily parked on the street.

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. Note that it is (as always) necessary to attribute the author properly (§ 63 UrhG).

§ 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). 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. It does, however, not apply to, e.g., the recording of a musical performance in the public.

Germany’s implementation is one of the most well-known implementations, known locally as Panoramafreiheit (which roughly translates to “panorama freedom,” hence our usage of the term “freedom of panorama”).

• Unofficial translation to English of the copyright law
• The original German text of the copyright law
• An assignment in juristic studies with solution—photographies of university buildings
• Article in www.fotorecht.de on photography of buildings (German)
• Article in JurPC about the history of the panorama freedom legislation

Ghana

Probably  Not OK

Article 19(1)(f) of this online version of Copyrights Act, 2005 restricted panorama freedom to cinema or television or in a broadcast by television.

Greece

 Not OK

According to §26 of the Greek Copyright Law as last amended in 2003, the "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media" of images of works of architecture, works of the fine arts, photographs, and works of the applied arts is allowed for works permanently situated in a public place without the consent of the author of the work and without payment of any remuneration.

It is unclear what "occasional reproduction" means exactly. Furthermore, the provision appears to apply only to the "mass media", but not to other publishers.

The copyright ends 70 years after the author's death. After that, the government might claim some rights under certain conditions (see § 29).

• Consolidated Greek Copyright law of 1993, as last amended in 2003
• Consolidated Greek Copyright law of 1993, with amendments up to 1996

Guatemala

OK

Article 64 of Guatemala's copyright law says "ARTÍCULO 64. Respecto de las obras ya divulgadas también es permitida, sin autorización del autor, además de lo dispuesto en el artículo 32:

d) La reproducción de una obra de arte expuesta permanentemente en lugares públicos, o de la fachada exterior de los edificios, realizada por medio de un arte distinto al empleado para la elaboración del original, siempre que se indique el nombre del autor, si se conociere, el título de la obra, si lo tuviere, y el lugar donde se encuentra."

"Article 64. With respect to already published works it is permitted, without the author's consent, besides what is set forth in article 32:

d) The reproduction of a work of art exposed permanently in public places, or of the outer surface of buildings, realized by means of an art distinct from that used in making the original, provided that the name of the author, if known, the title of the work, if it has one, and the place it is located are indicated."

• Guatemala Law 33–98

Guernsey

OK

According to the Copyright (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Ordinance 2005 [6]:

Representation of certain artistic works on public display.

82. (l) 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.

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

The extent of law covers the whole Bailiwick, and therefore covers Guernsey, Sark, and Alderney (and for the avoidance of doubt, Herm, Jethou, Brecqhou, Burhou and any other territories of the Bailiwick).

Honduras

OK {{FoP-Honduras}}

The Law on Copyright and Related Rights, Decree No. 4-99-E, published in the official journal "La Gaceta" No. 29,072 of January 15, 2000, states:

Title IV

"Limitations and Exceptions to the Copyright Law"

Chapter II "Limitations to the Protection"

Article 52.- It is lawful to reproduce a work of art on permanent display in the streets, plazas or any other public place by means of an art different from that used for the making of the original. With respect to buildings, this right is limited to the exterior facade.

The original Spanish text:

"TÍTULO IV

LIMITACIONES Y EXCEPCIONES AL DERECHO DE AUTOR

CAPÍTULO II LIMITACIONES A LA PROTECCIÓN

ARTÍCULO 52.- Es lícita la reproducción de una obra de arte expuesta permanentemente en las calles, plazas u otros lugares públicos, por medio de un arte diverso al empleado para la elaboración del original. Respecto de los edificios, dicha facultad se limita a la fachada exterior."

• Legislative Decree No. 4-99-E, Title IV, Chapter II, Article 52

Hong Kong

OK for 3D works, not always for 2D

According to Sect 71 of the Copyright Ordinance of Hong Kong, it is not a copyright infringement to make graphic representations, take photographs, or broadcast the images of buildings, sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if the object is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public. Because Hong Kong was a territory of the United Kingdom until 1997, Hong Kong law is modeled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be similar. See the United Kingdom section for more details.

Similar to the UK law, 'works of artistic craftsmanship' is defined separately from 'graphic work'. The latter includes any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, and any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work. Therefore freedom given in Sect 71 does not apply to posters or maps in public places.

• Cap 528 Sect 71, Copyright Ordinance (in traditional Chinese)
• Definition of 'graphic work' (in traditional Chinese)

Hungary

OK {{FoP-Hungary}}

According to article 68 of the Hungarian copyright law (1999/LXXVI), 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.

• Unofficial translation to English of the Hungarian copyright law
• Original Hungarian text of the copyright law

Iceland

 Not OK

The copyright law of Iceland basically allows freedom of panorama for both buildings and works of the arts in general that have been permanently placed outdoors. If the work is the main subject of the photo and the photo is used commercially, the author of the work (this applies to both buildings and other works!) is entitled to remuneration, unless the publication of the image is in a newspaper or a TV broadcast.

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

• Article 16 of the copyright law of Iceland (English translations)

India

OK

According to the Indian Copyright Act of 1957, Section 52, as currently revised:

52. Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright—(1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely:

...

(s) the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a work of architecture or the display of a work of architecture;

(t) the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture, or other artistic work failing under sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of section 2 ["any other work of artistic craftsmanship"], if such work is permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access;

Note that this does not include copies of paintings, drawings, or photographs, as they do not fall under the referenced sub-clause (iii). They fall under sub-clause (i).

(u) the inclusion in a cinematograph film of-

(i) any artistic work permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access;

Indian law is modelled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be similar. See the United Kingdom section for more details.

• [7]
• s:en:Indian Copyright Law (Wikisource)

Indonesia

 Not OK, with exception on educational purpose and non-commercial use, fully cited materials and Indonesian govt public domain works.

Excerpted from Indonesian copyright law:
Part Four
Works Protected under Copyright

Article 12

(1) In this Law, a work that is protected shall be the work in the field of science, arts and literature which includes:

[...]

f. all forms of art, such as paintings, drawings, engravings, calligraphy, carvings, sculptures, collage, and applied arts;

g. architecture;

[...]

(2) Works as referred to in item l are protected as a work of its own without prejudice to the Copyright over the original work.

(3) The protection as referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) includes all works that are not or have not yet been published but have already been in an obvious form, which would enable its reproduction.

However, in most of the cases copyright is restricted, and in some publications of works there shall be no infringement of Copyright:

In Indonesia, monuments and landmarks in public spaces are owned by the government. The state shall hold the copyright for works of popular culture that are commonly owned.
Article 10, Copyright to Works of Unknown Authors
(2) The State shall hold the Copyright for folklores and works of popular culture that are commonly owned, such as stories, legends, folk tales, epics, songs, handicrafts, choreography, dances, calligraphies and other artistic works.

Part Five
Copyright Restrictions

Article 14

There shall be no infringement of Copyright for:

a. [...]

b. publication and/or reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government, except if the Copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by a statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published; or

c. [...]

Article 15

Provided that the sources are fully cited, the following shall not be deemed as Copyright infringement:

a. the use of a work of another party for the purpose of education, research, scientific thesis, report writing, criticising or reviewing an issue, provided that it does not prejudice the normal interest of the Author;

[...]

c. the excerpt of a work of another party, in whole or in part, for the purposes of:

(i) lecturers of which the purpose is solely for education and science; or

(ii) free-of-charge exhibitions or performances, provided that they do not prejudice the normal interests of the Author.

[...]

Note:

1. In article 15 section c. (ii) free of charge exhibition or performance is not be deemed as Copyright infringement. Works displayed in public (architecture, building, statues in park etc.) are free of charge, therefore enjoy freedom of Panorama.
2. Article 29 of Indonesian copyright law states that the term of protection for the author’s work is protected for a period of fifty years after the author's death. Thereafter, the work will become public domain. In the case of joint authorship, the 50 year time period will be calculated after the death of the last author.

• LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA NUMBER 19 YEAR 2002 REGARDING COPYRIGHT

Iran

 Not OK

There is no usable FoP provision in the copyright law of the Iran.

According to article 2 of copyright law of Iran (passed on January 1, 1970) architectural works, designs, sketches and buildings and sculptures of all types are protected by copyright law.

According to article 12 of copyright law of Iran, such works remains on protection for a period of 50 years (Reformation of article 12 - 22 August 2010) after the death of its author(s). Also according to article 13, copyright of the works which produced on order by an employer belongs to the employer for a period of thirty years from the date of production. In cases where the work belongs to a legal personality or rights are transferred to a legal personality, it will fall into public domain after 30 years from the date of publication or public presentation (Article 16).

• Commons:Licensing#Iran
• Copyright Law of Iran (English)
• قانون حمايت حقوق مؤلفان و مصنفان و هنرمندان

Iraq

 Not OK

Excerpted from most recent amendment to Iraq's Copyright Law No. 3 of 1971 passed by Coalition Provisional Authority in 2004.

Article 2 amendment includes the following provisions relevant to FoP:
The protection shall include the works whose method of expression is in writing, sound, drawing, painting or movement, and in particular the following:

[...]

4. Works entered under the arts of drawing and painting with lines and colors, engraving, sculpture and architecture.

Article 8 amendment includes the following provisions:

The author holds the exclusive right to exercise the rights in his/her works. Without the written permission of the author or his/her successors, no person shall do any of the following acts:

Reproduce a work in any manner or form, whether transitory or permanent, including onto photographic (including cinematographic) film or onto a digital or electronic storage medium.

Article 20 amendment includes following provisions relevant to FoP:

1. The author’s economic rights provided for in this Law shall be protected throughout the lifetime of the author and for 50 years from the date of his death.

2. The economic rights relating to works of joint authorship shall be protected throughout the lives of all co-authors and for 50 years from the death of the last survivor.

• Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 83 Amendment to the Copyright Law

Ireland

OK {{FoP-Ireland}}

§93 of the Irish copyright law permits photographers to take pictures of sculptures, buildings, and works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently located in a public place or premises open to the public, and to publish such pictures in any way. Irish law is in this respect modeled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be identical. See the United Kingdom section for more details.

• Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000, Chapter 6, §93
• Irish copyright law

Israel

OK {{FoP-Israel}}

Section 23 of the 2007 Copyright Act states that "Broadcasting, or copying by way of photography, drawing, sketch or similar visual description, of an architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of applied art, are permitted where the aforesaid work is permanently situated in a public place."

• Israeli Copyright Act of 2007 in Hebrew
• English translation of the Israeli Copyright Act of 2007

According to Dr Sarah Presenti, an Israeli copyright lawyer, the scope of the term "work of applied art" in Israel is broader than the equivalent term in Commonwealth jurisdictions (see the United Kingdom). Presenti suggests that "it includes art work (like adverts, advertising, maps etc.) which transfers useful information" and that "it does not matter if it is 2D or 3D as long as it is a work of art that is meant to deliver useful information. Therefore, an artistic work created for artistic purpose is by no means applied art (e.g. painting)."

You may also want to read the opinion of three Commons users on this matter:

• User:Deror avi: Commons:Freedom of Panorama in Israel
• User:Pieter Kuiper: User:Pieter Kuiper/Freedom of Panorama in Israel
  • User:Drork: User:Drork/Fallacies in Pieter Kuiper's FoP in Israel

Italy

 Not OK {{FoP-Italy}}

The Italian copyright law does not contain any exception for pictures from public places. Therefore, only "fair use" of images is permitted (according to copyright act, §70 and §70 1-bis), unless they don't portray any object still under copyright (as recent buildings, subjects to architect's copyright) nor any cultural heritage asset, subject to a fee and other restriction due to the cultural heritage and landscape law. The following are considered cultural heritage assets: state owned things with some artistic, historic, archeologic or ethnoantropologic interest; libraries, galleries, museums and archives collections; other items declared cultural heritage by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities unless explicitly removed on a case by case basis. The national catalog of cultural heritage assets is not publicly accessible.

• Italian copyright act (file format: TGZ with PDF)
• Overview of the Italian copyright law (at www.fipr.org)
• Decreto Legislativo 22 gennaio 2004, n. 42 "Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio" (cultural heritage and landscape law)

• 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."

Jamaica

OK

Copyright legislation in Jamaica follows closely that of the United Kingdom, in particular §73, dealing with freedom of panorama, is identical to section 62 of the relevant British law.

• Jamaican copyright act

Japan

• for artistic works:  Not OK {{NoFoP-Japan}} except in cases governed by article 46.
• for buildings only: OK {{FoP-Japan}}

Japanese copyright law allows the reproduction of artistic works located permanently in open places accessible to the public, such as streets and parks, or at places easily seen by the public, such as the outer walls of buildings, only for non-commercial purposes; therefore, such photographs are not free enough for Commons.

Architectural works (i.e., buildings) located in such places may be photographed and the photos may be reproduced for any purposes; §46(iv), which contains the "non-commercial" restriction, applies only to "artistic works". Some buildings like the Tower of the Sun can be regarded as artistic works (discussion).

• Japanese copyright law, §46

Note: According to Article 51 of Japanese copyright law, Japan has a copyright lifetime of 50 years after the death of the author (ie. creator/designer) or following "the death of the last surviving co-author in the case of a joint work." Heceforth, the author's works shall become copyright free and enter the public domain.

Kazakhstan

 Not OK see Former Soviet Union

Kenya

OK {{FoP-Kenya}}

Kenyan copyright law (Copyright Act 2001), states that copyright on artistic works "does not include the right to control reproduction and distribution of copies, or the inclusion in a film or broadcast, of an artistic work situated in a place where it can be viewed by the public." Note that the definition of artistic works under Kenyan law includes paintings, drawings, sculptures, photographs, and architecture. Furthermore, unlike freedom of panorama exemptions in some other countries, in Kenya it is not restricted to only works permanently located in a public place, and can include works in private places if viewable by the public.

Korea (North)

OK:

Copyright Law (Translated English version) of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Article 32 (Original version in Korean 조선민주주의인민공화국 저작권법) states that "A copyrighted work may be used without the permission of the copyright owner [...] When a copyrighted work in public places is copied."

Korea (South)

 Not OK, non-commercial only for artistic works

Although Article 35.(2) of the Republic of Korea: Copyright, Act of 1957 (Law No. 432, as last amended by Law No. 9625 of April 22, 2009) permits any reproduction of works permanently installed in "open places", 35.(2).4 specifically states that the rule does not apply "where reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies." Reproduction is defined in Section 2.(22) as "...the fixation or the reproduction in a tangible medium by means of printing, photographing, copying, sound or visual recording, or other means." Selling reproduction of artistic works in public place is not allowed, for examples, selling postcard, calendar, collection of photos in which the artistic works have major part is not allowed.

Kosovo

 Not OK, non-commercial only

Only a limited form of freedom of panorama exists in Kosovo. Works permanently placed in public streets, squares, parks or other generally accessible public places may be used freely. However, they 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: Law No. 2004/45 on Copyright and Related Rights adopted by the Assembly of Kosovo and issued by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), Article 54.

Kyrgyzstan

 Not OK see Former Soviet Union

Latvia

 Not OK

The Latvian copyright law permits taking pictures of architectural works, photographs, visual arts, design works and the works of applied arts when displayed permanently in public places. The pictures can be used for non-commercial purpose. Such permission is not valid on Commons.

• UNESCO translation

Article 25 states (original):

25.pants. Publiski izstādīta darba izmantošana

(1) Publiskās vietās pastāvīgi izstādīta arhitektūras, fotogrāfijas, vizuālās mākslas, dizaina, kā arī lietišķās mākslas darba attēlojumu drīkst izmantot personiskai lietošanai, informācijā ziņu raidījumos vai aktuālo notikumu apskatos vai ietvert darbos nekomerciālā nolūkā.

(2) Šajā pantā minētais neattiecas uz gadījumiem, kad darba attēlojums ir objekts tālākai darba atkārtošanai, raidorganizācijām raidīšanai vai darba attēlu izmantošanai komerciālos nolūkos. (Ar grozījumiem, kas izdarīti ar 22.04.2004. un 06.12.2007. likumu, kas stājas spēkā 05.01.2008.)

Laos

 Not OK

According to the Lao People's Democratic Republic's Intellectual Property Laws No. 08/NA of December 24, 2007, in force on April 14, 2008, there is a limited form of freedom of panorama in Laos which does not appear to be sufficiently free for purposes of the Wikimedia Commons. On the one hand, works of fine art, photographs, reports and adapted arts for presentation to the public may be photographed or video-recorded without authorization from copyright owners and without the payment of remuneration: sections 96(1) and 96(1.8). On the other hand, the reuse of the photographs and video-recordings is restricted in the following ways: (1) the reuse must not prejudice the rights or normal benefits of the owner of the works; and (2) the derivative works cannot be used in architectural works, works of fine art or computer programs: sections 96(2) and (3).

Lebanon

 Not OK

Lebanese copyright law provides for FOP only for the media as follows: "31. The media shall be permitted, without the authorization of the author and without obligation to pay him compensation, to publish pictures of architectural works, visual artistic works, photographic works or works of applied art, provided that such works are available in places open to the public."

http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/text_html.jsp?lang=EN&id=2786#P46_5104

Libya

 Not OK

The Copyright Protection Law of Libya (Libyan Law No. (9) for 1968) does not have any provisions dealing with freedom of panorama.

Liechtenstein

OK

The Liechtenstein Copyright Act, in article 29, 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.

• Gesetz über das Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz, URG), LGBl. 1999 Nr. 160 (The Liechtenstein copyright act; in German)

Lithuania

 Not OK

Limited freedom of panorama in Lithuania is granted by article 28 ("Limitations to Copyright in Works of Architecture and Sculptures") of the Law Amending the Law on Copyright and Related Rights. This allows a photographer to make and publish pictures of sculptures and works of architecture that are permanently located in public places (excluding works presented in museums and exhibitions), but they cannot be used commercially in any form.

• Official English translation

Luxembourg

 Not OK

The regulation is presented in the article 10 point 7. A copyright holder may not prevent "the reproduction and communication of [his or her] works located in a publicly accessible place, when such works do not constitute the primary subject of the reproduction or communication."

• Unofficial French coordinated text
• Official French text of the law as it was in 2001
• Official French text of the modification of the law in 2004
  • If deletion, please use: Category:Luxembourgish FOP cases

Macedonia, Republic of

OK

According to Article 39 of the Law on Alterations and Additions to the Law on Copyright and Related Rights adopted by the Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia on 24 December 2002(2002-12-24), copyrighted works permanently exposed in parks, streets, squares or other public places may be used freely. However, one may not make a three-dimensional reproduction of a work and use it for the same purpose as the original work or to obtain an economic benefit.

Malaysia

OK {{FoP-Malaysia}}

According to Malaysian copyright law (2000) Section 13(2)(d), the right of control is excluded from "the reproduction and distribution of copies of any artistic work permanently situated in a place where it can be viewed by the public". Section 3 defines "artistic work" as any graphic work, photograph, sculpture, collage, and work of architecture or artistic craftsmanship. Layout-designs of integrated circuits are not artistic works.

For the meaning of the term works of artistic craftsmanship, see the commentary under "United Kingdom" below.

Mali

 Not OK

Article 36 ii) of the Malian Ordinance of 12 July 1977 allows reproduction for cinematographic or broadcasting purposes and communication to the public of works of figurative art and of architecture permanently located in a place where they can be viewed by the public and included in the film or broadcast only by way of background or as incidental to the essential matters represented. This is not enough for Commons because it deals only with films and broadcasts, allowing nothing for photographs, and allows only "incidental or background" inclusions.

Malta

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

Article 9 (1) (p) of 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."

Mexico

OK {{FoP-Mexico}}

Chapter 2 of Mexico's copyright law, titled "De la limitación a los derechos patrimoniales" ("On the limitation of ownership rights"), Article 148 says: "Las obras literarias y artísticas ya divulgadas podran utilizarse, siempre que no se afecte la explotación normal de la obra, sin autorización del titular del derecho patrimonial y sin remuneración, citando invariablemente la fuente y sin alterar la obra, sólo en los siguientes casos... VII. Reproducción, comunicación, y distribución por medio de dibujos, pinturas, fotografías, y procedimientos audiovisuales de las obras que sean visibles desde lugares públicos." ("Literary and artistic works already published may be used, provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected, without authorization from the copyright holder and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases ... VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places.")

• Mexican copyright law, article 148

Article 148, section VII uses the term "lugares publicos", which has been interpreted to include both interior and exterior public places. The question of whether a place requiring a fee for admission is a public place is unanswered.

Moldova

 Not OK see Former Soviet Union

Mongolia

 Not OK see Mongolian law on Copyright. Although there is a limited FOP (see Articles 14 and 16), it is for non-commercial use only.

Montenegro

OK

Serbia and Montenegro law from 2004 allows 2D reproductions of permanently publicly displayed works, i. e. the full Freedom of Panorama (translation of relevant Article 50):

Article 50:

It is permitted to make two-dimensional reproductions of works permanently located on streets, squares or other open places accessible to public, and to distribute such reproductions, without author's permission or paying author's fee.

• Copyright Law from 2004

Morocco

 Not OK

As described in Article 20 of the 2000 Copyright Law, Morocco only grants freedom of panorama for incidental, noncommercial uses (similar to France).

• 2000 Copyright Law

Mozambique

 Not OK

There is only non-commercial freedom of panorama in Mozambique, as per chapter III, sec 15:

15. It is permitted, without authorization by the author or payment of any remuneration, to reproduce, broadcast or communicate by cable to the public the image of a work of architecture, three-dimensional art, photography or applied art that is permanently located in a place open to the public, except where the image of the work is the principal subject of such reproduction or broadcast or communication and is used for commercial purposes.

Source : Law No. 4/2001 of 27 February (Copyright Law)- Mozambique

Myanmar

See Burma.

Namibia

 Not OK

Unauthorized inclusion of works permanently situated in a street, square or a similar public place is restricted to films, television, and transmission in a diffusion service, and the inclusion must be merely by way of background or incidental. copyrights act 1994 §18.

Nepal

 Not OK

No freedom of panorama in nepal Link

The Netherlands

OK {{FoP-Nederland}}

The article 18 of the Dutch copyright act states that: "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

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

Original (Dutch) text:
Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 6°, of op een werk, betrekkelijk tot de bouwkunde als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 8°, dat is gemaakt om permanent in openbare plaatsen te worden geplaatst, wordt niet beschouwd de verveelvoudiging of openbaarmaking van afbeeldingen van het werk zoals het zich aldaar bevindt. Waar het betreft het overnemen in een compilatiewerk, mag van dezelfde maker niet meer worden overgenomen dan enkele van zijn werken.

• The Dutch copyright act as presented by Universiteit van Amsterdam
• Official English version of the copyright act from justitie.nl.

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.) The 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. Case law in the Netherlands on "freedom of panorama" issues is scarce. In one case, the interior of the Amsterdam ArenA was deemed not a public place; 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.

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're outside), and 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 (but probably not 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.

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. 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.) 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.

New Zealand

OK

Copyright legislation in New Zealand also follows that of the United Kingdom. In the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be identical. See the United Kingdom section for more details.

• §73 of the Copyright Act of 1994 of New Zealand

Nicaragua

OK

As per the article 43 of Nicaragua Law No. 577 on Amendments and Additions to Law No. 312 on Copyright and Related Rights Works located permanently in parks, streets, squares or other thoroughfares may be reproduced, without the author’s authorization, by means of painting, sketching, photographs and audiovisual recordings for personal use. In respect of works of architecture, the previous article shall only apply to their external aspect.

Sources

English

Spanish

Norway

OK for buildings only

The Norwegian Copyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works Act, in section 24, 2 says that works of art and photographic works may be depicted when they are permanently mounted or located in or near a public place or a publicly accessible passage through some place. However, this does not apply when the work is clearly the main motive and the reproduction is exploited commercially. The same section says buildings may be freely depicted.

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

• The Norwegian copyright act
• Unofficial English translation (DOC)
• English translation

Pakistan

OK

Pakistani copyright law says that the following shall not be an infringement of copyright: "making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph or an architectural work of art" and "making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture or other artistic work if such work is permanently situated in a public place or any premises to which the public has access".

Paraguay

OK

Article 39 of Paraguay's copyright law provides for FOP for works permanently present in public places, and for the exterior of buildings, however the work must be attributed. Article 39 also provides that the insignia of political parties, other associations, and non-profit organizations may be freely copied by others.

• "Article 39 - Respecting already published works, it is permitted without either authorization from the author or payment of remuneration:

4. Reproduction of a work of art exposed permanently in the streets, plazas, or other public places, or of the exterior surface of buildings, realized by a means of art distinct from that employed in making the original, always indicating the name of the author if known, the title of the work if it has one, and where it is found;

[...]

7. When the work constitutes the sign, emblem, or distinctive mark of political parties, associations, or non-profit civil entities.

Reproductions admitted in this article will be permitted only if they do not cross the normal exploitation of the work or cause an unjustifiable damage to the legitimate interests of the author."

• "Artículo 39 - Respecto de las obras ya divulgadas, es permitida sin autorización del autor ni pago de remuneración:

4. la reproducción de una obra de arte expuesta permanentemente en las calles, plazas u otros lugares públicos, o de la fachada exterior de los edificios, realizada por medio de un arte diverso al empleado para la elaboración del original, siempre que se indique el nombre del autor si se conociere, el título de la obra si lo tuviere y el lugar donde se encuentra;

[...]

7. cuando la obra constituya un signo, emblema, o distintivo de partidos políticos, asociaciones y/o entidades civiles sin fines de lucro.

Las reproducciones admitidas en este artículo serán permitidas en tanto no atenten contra la explotación normal de la obra ni causen un perjuicio injustificado a los intereses legítimos del autor."

• Organization of American States - OAS
• Copyright law of Paraguay of 1998

Peru

OK

Peru has full "freedom of panorama", allowing reproducing artworks on streets, squares, or other public places or on the outside façades of buildings by means different from the original technique. The reproduction must not interfere with the author's exclusive rights to exploitation. This is protected both by national law and the Andean Community treaty.

• Peruvian copyright law of April 23, 1996, article 43(e)

also see Andean Community of Nations

Philippines

 Not OK

Chapter VIII ("Limitations on copyright) of part IV ("The law on copyright") of AN ACT PRESCRIBING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE AND ESTABLISHING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE, PROVIDING FOR ITS POWERS AND FUNCTIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (chapter found on pp. 84-90) does not appear to make any exception for photographs of copyrighted works. Bizarrely, the law itself is entirely based on the law of the United States and contains identical fair use provisions, which however are not acceptable.

Ijon met with the Director of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines in November 2011, and asked about FoP. The Director said "The law is silent on the matter", and said they are waiting for case law to settle the question one way or another. The matter has not reached the supreme court yet.

Poland

OK {{FoP-Poland}}

The copyright act from July 4, 1994 in article 33 point 1 allows 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.

• An English translation of the copyright act at Wikisource
• The original text of the copyright act at Wikisource

Portugal

OK

Portuguese copyright law allows the use of works permanently installed at public locations. The law explicitly mentions buildings and sculptures as examples of such works (§75(2)q). "Use" includes taking a photograph of such a work and publishing it (§68). However, according to 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 (§75(4)).

• Portuguese Copyright law, version of August 24, 2004.

Qatar

 Not OK

No provision for freedom of panorama of any sort under Qatari law.

• Copyright Law of Qatar, 2002, No. 7

Romania

 Not OK

Per the Romanian copyright law of 1996, images of architectural works, of three-dimensional works of art, of photographic works or of works of applied art permanently located in public places may be published only for non-commercial uses or if the work is not the main subject of the image.

• Romanian copyright law, §33(1)(h).

[The following are permitted] "(h) the reproduction, to the exclusion of any means involving direct contact with the work, circulation or communication to the public of the image of an architectural work, work of three-dimensional art, photographic work or work of applied art permanently located in a public place, except where the image of the work is the principal subject of such reproduction, circulation or communication, and if it is used for commercial purposes;"

• 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."

Russia

 Not OK {{NoFoP-Russia}}

See also Former Soviet Union

There may be 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 (discussion) states that the copying of a showcase photo is not a creation of a 3D-object in 2 dimensions.

Article 1276 of Part IV of Civil Code of the Russian Federation:

“ Free Use of Work Permanently Situated in Place of Public Resort Reproduction, broadcasting to the air or via cable shall be allowed, without the author's or other copyrightholder consent or payment of royalties, of photographic work, work of architecture or visual art, that permanently standed in places of public resort, except where portrayal of the work by such method is the basic object of that reproduction, broadcasting to the air or via cable or where portrayal of the work is used in commercial purposes. ”

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

• 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."

Saudi Arabia

 Not OK

• The Copyright Law detailed in the Royal Decree No. M/41, 2 Rajab, 1424 (30.08.2003) and the Implementing Regulations of Copyright Law contain no mention of freedom of panorama.

Senegal

 Not OK {{NoFoP-Senegal}}

There is no freedom of panorama in Senegal. In fact the Senegal's law is very similar to the french law. The Loi 2008-09 du 25 janvier 2008 sur le droit d’auteur et les droits voisins au Senegal, (article 46) says that it not possible to reproduce an artwork if it's the main subject of the photo or it is for commercial purpose (source: Bureau Sénégalais du Droit d'Auteur).

« L’auteur ne peut interdire la reproduction ou la communication d'une oeuvre graphique ou plastique située en permanence dans un endroit ouvert au public, sauf si l'image de l’oeuvre est le sujet principal d'une telle reproduction, radiodiffusion ou communication et si elle est utilisée à des fins commerciales. » (Official link)

The question still on: does it apply to things before 2008?

Serbia

OK

Serbian law from 2004 allows 2D reproductions of permanently publicly displayed works, i. e. the full Freedom of Panorama (translation of relevant Article 51):

Article 51:

It is permitted to make two-dimensional reproductions of works permanently located on streets, squares or other open places accessible to public, and to distribute such reproductions, without author's permission or paying author's fee.

• Copyright Law from 2004

Singapore

OK for 3D objects;  Not OK for 2D objects {{FoP-Singapore}}

In Singapore, copyright in sculptures and other works of artistic craftsmanship "situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast" according to section 63 of the Copyright Act. Section 64 allows for reproducing a building or model of a building by "painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the building or model or by the inclusion of the building or model in a cinematograph film", with no restriction on location or permanency.

The term work of artistic craftsmanship excludes paintings, drawings, engravings and photographs, whether the works are of artistic quality or not: see section 63(1) read with the definition of artistic work in section 7 of the Copyright Act. This means that freedom of panorama does not apply to two-dimensional works such as billboards, posters and paintings in a gallery, even if these are permanently displayed in a public place. For cases that may shed more light on the meaning of the term works of artistic craftsmanship, see the commentary under "United Kingdom" below.

• Singapore's Copyright Act, sections 63 and 64

Slovakia

OK

According to section 27 of the Slovak copyright law, Slovakia has freedom of panorama. Works permanently located at public places may be freely reproduced by drawing, painting, graphics, relief picture or relief model, or by photography or film, and such reproductions may be freely published and sold without the consent of the original author.

• English translation of the Slovak copyright law as of 2004.
• Slovak copyright law

Slovenia

OK for works of authors who died in 1944 or earlier.

 Not OK for works of authors who died in 1945 or later.

According to Section IV, article 55 of the Slovenian copyright law, works permanently placed in parks, streets, squares, or other generally accessible premises may be used freely, except that they may not be reproduced in a three-dimensional form or used for the same purpose as the original work or used for economic gain (original Slovene text: "Dela, ki so trajno v parkih, na ulicah, na trgih ali na drugih splošno dostopnih krajih, so v prosti uporabi. Uporaba iz prejšnjega odstavka se ne sme izvršiti v tridimenzionalni obliki ali za isti namen kot prvotno delo ali vršiti za doseganje gospodarske koristi."). The copyright shall run for the life of the author and for 70 years after his death, unless otherwise provided by the copyright act. (Section IV, article 59. Original Slovene text: "Avtorska pravica traja za avtorjevega življenja in 70 let po njegovi smrti, če ni s tem zakonom drugače določeno."). In the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works, as well as collective works, the copyright expires 70 years after the lawful disclosure of the work. (Section IV, article 61: "Avtorska pravica na kolektivnih delih traja 70 let po zakoniti objavi dela.", article 63: "Avtorska pravica na kolektivnih delih traja 70 let po zakoniti objavi dela.") In the case it is known without doubt who used the pseudonym, or the creator discloses himself during the period of valid copyright, the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author (Section IV, article 61: "Če psevdonim ne dovoljuje nobenega dvoma o tem, kdo je avtor, ali če avtor med rokom iz prejšnjega odstavka odkrije svojo identiteto, velja rok iz 59. člena tega zakona.") If the author of the work, belonging to one of the above mentioned categories, is given on the work, he or she has to be cited (Article 55: "V primerih iz prvega odstavka tega člena je treba navesti vir in avtorstvo dela, če je navedeno na uporabljenem delu.")

• English translation of the Slovenian copyright law as of 2007.
• Original text of the law in Slovenian

Note: In addition to copyright, the usage of the reproductions of "cultural monuments" for commercial purposes is restricted by the Slovenian Cultural Heritage Protection Act, which requires a consensus of the owner of the monument for any use of image and name of the monument (article 44). The definition of a cultural monument is the following (article 3): heritage, which has been statutorily protected as a monument or entered in the inventory of an authorised museum. As much as it concerns immovable cultural heritage, the national catalog is publicly accessible at rkd.situla.org. Wikimedia Commons is not required to comply 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.

South Africa

 Not OK

The Copyright Act 1978 of South Africa (as at 18 June 2002(2002-06-18)), section 15(3), states: "The copyright in an artistic work shall not be infringed by its reproduction or inclusion in a cinematograph film or a television broadcast or transmission in a diffusion service, if such work is permanently situated in a street, square or a similar public place."

A diffusion service is defined in section 1(1) as "a telecommunication service of transmissions consisting of sounds, images, signs or signals, which takes place over wires or other paths provided by material substance and intended for reception by specific members of the public; and diffusion shall not be deemed to constitute a performance or a broadcast or as causing sounds, images, signs or signals to be seen or heard; and where sounds, images, signs or signals are displayed or emitted by any receiving apparatus to which they are conveyed by diffusion in such manner as to constitute a performance or a causing of sounds, images, signs or signals to be seen or heard in public, this shall be deemed to be effected by the operation of the receiving apparatus."

Since section 15(3) does not mention photographs, there is no freedom of panorama exemption in South Africa that would permit photographs of artistic works to be taken without infringing the copyright in the works.

Spain

OK {{FoP-Spain}}

Article 35 of the Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996 of April 12, 1996, and amended by Law 5/1998 of March 6, 1998, states:

1. Any work liable to be seen or heard in the reporting of current events may be reproduced, distributed and communicated to the public, but only to the extent justified by the informatory purpose.
2. Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes.

Article 40bis further states the above law "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."

The original Spanish text:
El artículo 35 del Real Decreto Legislativo 1/1996 de 12 de abril de 1996, modificado por la ley 5/1998 del 6 de marzo de 1998, establece:

1. Cualquier obra susceptible de ser vista u oída con ocasión de informaciones sobre acontecimientos de la actualidad puede ser reproducida, distribuida y comunicada públicamente, si bien sólo en la medida que lo justifique dicha finalidad informativa.
2. Las obras situadas permanentemente en parques, calles, plazas u otras vías públicas pueden ser reproducidas, distribuidas y comunicadas libremente por medio de pinturas, dibujos, fotografías y procedimientos audiovisuales.

Artículo 40 bis. "Los artículos del presente capítulo no podrán interpretarse de manera tal que permitan su aplicación de forma que causen un perjuicio injustificado a los intereses legítimos del autor o que vayan en detrimento de la explotación normal de las obras a que se refieran".

• Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996

Sri Lanka

 Not OK Sri Lankan copyright law limits reproducing copyrighted artworks and buildings placed permanently at public places or visible from there without the rights holder's consent to film and TV broadcasts only.

• Sri Lanka: Intellectual Property Act with amendments up to 2000, Article 13(d).
• Sri Lankan copyright law was revised 2001-2003. The current law is the Code of Intellectual Property Act 36 of 2003, which in "Chapter I: Copyright" introduced U.S.-style "fair use" and dropped any direct reference to anything resembling "freedom of panorama" at all.

Sudan

 Not OK

• Sudan's Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Protection Act 1996, 12/12/1996 article 6-7, 32-33.

Sweden

OK {{FoP-Sweden}}

Buildings OK	Public Art OK
Maps  Not OK	Protected object  Not OK

The Swedish copyright law (1960:729) allows in the article 24 to take pictures of works of art that are located permanently at public places outdoors. It is assumed that one can also publish the photograph for commercial purposes.

• The Swedish copyright act
• An article by a professional Swedish photographer
• English translation of the law

Swedish copyright law explicitly requires that a work needs to be permanently (stadigvarande) placed at a public place outdoors (på eller vid allmän plats utomhus) to be covered by FOP.

The law also explicitly require the object to be a work of art (konstverk). Information boards and maps are considered works of literature (litterära verk) and are not covered by article 24. The law explicitly states that buildings may be freely reproduced in pictorial form. Exceptions are made for buildings and other facilities that are covered by the Swedish security law (2010:305) (Skyddslagen). Such facilities have clearly visible yellow signs with the text "Skyddsobjekt" and it is forbidden to depict them in any form.

Switzerland

OK

According to article 27 of the Copyright Act (de/fr/it), works installed at or on publicly accessible places or ground may be pictured, and such pictures may be offered for sale, sold, transmitted, or otherwise published. The image must not be three-dimensional and it must not be possible to use the picture for the same purpose as the original.

The works must be permanently installed, but for the purposes of the law, "permanent" means a fixed installation which may be temporary -- time limited -- but not "accidental", e.g. due to transport of the work. However, it is controversial whether, for instance, a sculpture located in a public park during a temporary exhibition is covered by FOP. The work may also be of a transient nature, e.g. ice sculptures. The commentary by Barrelet/Egloff also explicitly mentions a "wrapped building" installation by the artist Christo (in Berne, 1968) as an example of a work where freedom of panorama does apply; in a similar case, however, Rehbinder/Vigano explicitely disagree with this assumption.

Whether Swiss freedom of panorama also applies to works in publicly accessible interior spaces is a matter of controversy among legal scholars as well. Sandro Macciacchini, legal counsel of the Swiss Press Association, expressed in 1999 the opinion that it applies to rooms used for transit purposes, such as railway stations or passageways. In a law review article of 1997, the same author argued that based on the French text of the provision, "une voie ou une place accessible au public", the law probably only covers works under open sky, but he noted that freedom of panorama also extends to works that can be seen from a public space even if they are located on inaccessible ground. According to the legal commentary by Barrelet/Egloff (3rd ed. 2008), "the inside of a building, the staircase, its rooms" aren't "allgemein zugänglich" (publicly accessible) in the sense of the law, even if the building is publicly owned, and therefore freedom of panorama doesn't apply to works in interior spaces; others find themselves mostly in agreement with this position.

Taiwan (Republic of China)

 Not OK for artistic works OK for buildings

• The "Copyright Act" of Republic of China (2004) Article 58 states that:

Artistic works or architectural works on outdoor long term displays on the streets, in parks, on outside walls of buildings, or other outdoor locales open to the public, may be exploited by any means except as specified in the following circumstances:

1. Reproduction of a building by construction of another building.
2. Reproduction of a work of sculpture by another sculpture.
3. Reproduction for the purpose of long term public display in locales specified in this article.
4. Reproduction of artistic works solely for the purpose of selling copies.

Reproductions of artistic works are thus only for non-commercial purposes; therefore, such photographs are not free enough for Commons :  Not OK.

• 中華民國九十三年著作權法
• Copyright Act of Republic of China
• s:Copyright Act (Republic of China, 2006)

Tajikistan

 Not OK see Former Soviet Union

Thailand

OK {{FoP-Thailand}}

Sections 37 to 39 of the Thai Copyright Act of B.E. 2537 (A.D. 1994) state that:

Section 37. A drawing, painting, construction, engraving, moulding, carving, lithographing, photographing, cinematographing, video broadcasting or any similar act of an artistic work, except an architectural work, which is openly located in a public place shall not be deemed an infringement of copyright in the artistic work.

Section 38. A drawing, painting, engraving, moulding, carving, lithographing, photographing, cinematographing or video broadcasting of an architectural work shall not be deemed an infringement of copyright in the architectural work.

Section 39. A photographing or cinematographing or video broadcasting of a work of which an artistic work is a component shall not be deemed an infringement of copyright in the artistic work.

• Copyright Act of B.E. 2537 (A.D. 1994)
• English translation

Trinidad & Tobago

OK

Section 17 of the Copyright Act, Cap. 82:80 states:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 8(1) and 16, the inclusion of an artistic work in a work, broadcast or communication to the public shall not be considered an infringement if the artistic work—

(a) is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public; or

(b) is included in the work, broadcast or communication to the public by way only of background or as incidental to the essential matters represented.

Tunisia

OK for works permanently situated in public places, with the exception of art galleries and museums^[art.10(g)]. Note, though, that Tunisian copyright law also claims to restrict the commercial use of "artistic heritage bequeathed by preceding generations"^[art.7], even if situated in public and even if not protected by normal copyright.

• Loi n° 94-36 / n° 2009-33, Chapitre II, Article 10(g)
• Loi n° 94-36 / n° 2009-33, Chapitre I, Article 7

Turkey

• OK for the exterior surfaces of buildings and all works of fine art permanently displayed on public streets, avenues or squares. Article 4, which defines the term "works of fine art", shows it is ok for all 2D and 3D works permanently displayed on public streets, avenues or squares.
  • Art. 40. 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.
  • Madde 40 - Umumi yollar, caddeler ve meydanlara, temelli kalmak üzere konulan güzel sanat eserlerini; resim, grafik, fotoğraf ve saire ile çoğaltma, yayma, umumi mahallerde projeksiyonla gösterme, radyo ve benzeri vasıtalarla yayımlama caizdir. Bu salahiyet mimarlık eserlerinde yalnız dış şekle munhasırdır.

• Turkish copyright law of 1951 with amendments up to 2006
• Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Kanunu

Turkmenistan

 Not OK see Former Soviet Union

Uganda

OK

According to section 15(1)(g) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006 (Act 19 of 2006) of Uganda, a work of art or architecture may be used in a photograph, an audiovisual work or a television broadcast without infringing the author's copyright and without the author's consent where the work:

• is permanently located in a public place; or
• is included in the background or is otherwise incidental to the main object in the photograph, audiovisual work or television broadcast.

Ukraine

 Not OK: Ukrainian copyright law does not contain a general exception for reproductions of works in public places. Architectural works (plans, models, and actual buildings, §8(1)(9) and §8(1)(12)) as well as a statues and sculptures (§8(1)(8); definition of "work of fine art" in §1) are objects of copyright. 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 [8], 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. 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.

• The Law of Ukraine on Copyright and Related Rights
• Ukrainian copyright law of August 2001

United Arab Emirates

 Not OK {{NoFoP-UAE}}

There is no usable FoP provision in the copyright law of the UAE (Federal Law #1 of 1972, Federal Law #15 of 1980, Federal Law #40 of 1992, and Federal Law (7) 2002) Arabic, English. UAE copyright law discusses an FoP like provision in article 22 (7), but it is restricted to "broadcasts". Please see Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 6#Update: UAE FoP situation under dispute for the most recent discussion on FoP in the UAE.

United Kingdom

OK (for 3D works, not always for 2D) {{FoP-UK}}

Section 62 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is much 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 - 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- Restawhile [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- Restawhile, 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.

• Section 4 of the Copyright, Designs and patents Act 1988 including amendments
• Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and patents Act 1988, including amendments
• Public Art online on Section 62.
• http://www.artquest.org.uk/artlaw/copyright/confusion.htm An article on copyright law in the UK from artquest.org.uk (April 27, 2006 copy from archive.org)

United States

OK for buildings only {{FoP-US}}

Buildings are works subject to copyright in the U.S. according to 17 USC 102(a)(8) since the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act was passed in 1990. It applies to all buildings that were completed (not begun) after December 1, 1990, or where the plans were published after that date.

However, the U.S. federal copyright law explicitly exempts photographs of such copyrighted buildings from the copyright of the building in 17 USC 120(a). Anyone may take photographs of buildings from public places. This includes such interior public spaces as lobbies, auditoriums, etc. The photographer holds the exclusive copyright to such an image (the architect or owner of the building has no say whatsoever), and may publish the image in any way. 17 USC 120 applies only to architectural works, not to other works of visual art, such as statues or sculptures.

This means that for buildings completed before December 1, 1990, there is complete FoP, without regard to whether the building is visible from a public place, because the building is public domain, except for the plans. For buildings completed after December 1, 1990, freedom is given only to photograph such a building, and individual style elements (such as gargoyles, and pillars) are protected, and photos are only allowed for buildings visible from public places.

Note that copyright applies only to "buildings".

"The term building means structures that are habitable by humans and intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and office buildings, and other permanent and stationary structures designed for human occupancy, including but not limited to churches, museums, gazebos, and garden pavilions."

All such works are copyrighted and, therefore, covered by the FOP exemption only if they are visible from a public place.

"Bridges, cloverleafs, dams, highways or walkways are not ‘buildings’ under the definition of architectural works."

Such works do not have a copyright and therefore may be photographed freely, whether or not from a public place.

For artworks and sculptures not OK.

For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, the U.S. copyright law has no similar exception, and any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork. However, public artwork installed before 1923 is considered to be public domain, and can be photographed freely. In addition, any public artwork installed before 1978 without a copyright notice is also in the public domain (unless the copyright owner actively prevented anyone from copying or photographing the work until 1978). In these situations, document the date of installation and the creator (sculptor) of the pictured work as much as possible. (A good resource for finding information about U.S. sculptures is the Smithsonian Art Inventories Catalog.)

Applicable templates:

• For public artwork installed before 1923, use {{PD-US}} or {{PD-1923}}.
• For public artwork installed between 1923 and 1977 inclusive, use {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}.

The line of argument that a large sculpture or memorial is a building and therefore covered by the FOP exemption was specifically rejected in Federal claims court (Gaylord v. The United States, 2008), which noted that the building exemption to the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (AWCPA) does not extend to "The Column" sculpture in the Korean War Veterans Memorial because "[t]he structures used in the definition of 'building' by the Copyright Office are intended to house individuals; either for the sake of providing shelter or for another purpose such as religious services."[9] While the court ruled in favor of the defendant under a fair use rationale it was later overturned in favor of the plaintiff; the photograph was deemed a derivative work. The court also contended that had Congress intended to extend the AWCPA to monuments and memorials, the law would have been drafted to reflect that in the first place.

For further information, refer to Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US and the following resources:

• 17 USC 120(a)
• Towards a Functional Definition of Publication in Copyright Law
• Travel Photography and the Law
• Information from photostop.istep.com
• A discussion on the panorama freedom in photo.net
• Another discussion on the panorama freedom in photo.net
• American Society of Media Photography on panorama freedom
• Article in www.sculpture.org on photos of sculptures

Uzbekistan

 Not OK see Former Soviet Union

Vatican City (Holy See)

 Not OK

Under Law N. XII on Copyright of January 12, 1960 [10], the Vatican decreed that unless church law says otherwise, the precepts of Italian copyright law apply in Vatican City. As noted above, Italy does not allow for freedom of panorama. Thus, sculptures and other works, including buildings, are not ok until 70 years after the death of the architect or designer. The Vatican's publishing house, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, also claims perpetual copyright on the writings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI [11], [12].

Venezuela

OK

The following shall be considered lawful reproductions: (...) (9) the reproduction of a work of art permanently displayed in a street, square or other public place by means of a technique different from that used for the making of the original; with respect to buildings, the said right shall be limited to the external elevations: Law on Copyright, §44 (9).

Vietnam

OK

According to article 25.1(h) of the Vietnamese copyright law, it is allowed to use (i.e. take and publish pictures, or televise) published works of the fine or applied arts or photographs, if the works have already been publicly displayed for "introduction purposes", without obtaining permission from and without paying royalties or other remuneration to the copyright owner.

• Intellectual Property Law of Vietnam of November 2005; entry in force July 1, 2006.
• Civil Code of Vietnam of September 2005; contains in part 6 (articles 736 to 757) some additional copyright provisions (not relevant for freedom of panorama). In case of discrepancies between the Civil Code and the IP law, the IP law prevails (article 5 of the IP law).

See also

• Commons:Derivative works
• Commons:De minimis

Bibliography

• Vogel. In: Gerhard Schricker (Hrsg.): Urheberrecht. Kommentar. 2. Auflage. Beck, München 1999, ISBN 3-406-37004-7
• Dreier. In: Thomas Dreier/Gernot Schulze: Urheberrechtsgesetz. 2. Auflage. München: Beck 2006 ISBN 340654195X
• Cornelie von Gierke: Die Freiheit des Straßenbildes (§59 UrhG). In: Hans-Jürgen Ahrens (Hrsg.): Festschrift für Willi Erdmann. Zum 65. Geburtstag. Heymann, Köln u.a. 2002, S. 103-115, ISBN 3-452-25191-8

External links

• American Intellectual Law Association
• Franklin Pierce Law Center on the intellectual law

---

This page is based on the German Wikipedia article Panoramafreiheit

---