Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 11

← Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12 →

Clarification about US

The text currently says:
"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."
Should the second sentence be read as
"For buildings completed after December 1, 1990, freedom is given only to photograph such a building [as a whole?], and photos are only allowed for buildings visible from public places. However, individual style elements (such as gargoyles, and pillars) are protected."
or somehow else?

Also, what the "protection" of "individual style elements" actually means — they cannot be the "central element of the picture" or what? Does it apply to buildings completed before December 1, 1990 or not? Since no references regarding these issues are mentioned, it would be helpful to add them...

Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is a sculpture attached to a building, it's still a sculpture, and a photo primarily of the sculpture is still a derivative work. That was true both before and after 1990 (though there was some question that the 1990 may have changed that... but it probably didn't). The individual element has to be "conceptually separable" from the architectural work, and of course has to be copyrightable on its own. Not sure where the pillars part came from -- that doesn't sound right unless it's some decoration on them, but maybe there is a case somewhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There is one case on point, Leicester v. Warner Brothers[1] which is interesting because the art in question was on a decorative wall attached to the building. The decision basically states that style elements may sometimes qualify for copyright protection on their own (stained glass windows) or as part of the new copyright afforded to buildings but that Congress probably intended only for the latter to apply (see the dissent for arguments on election). Since the works attached to the building are only protected by the building's copyright, FoP applies no matter what. This would even include crops that only show the artwork. Our current position on this is more conservative than that and is more akin to the way the French FoP works, ie it's fine to show a copyrighted work in a scene without cropping.

Reading the court literally, we are lead to a quite bizarre conclusion: Sculptures on public domain buildings from before 1990 cannot be photographed, but sculptures on copyrighted buildings can be. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

ISO Standards as a Model

I have always felt quite strongly that Wikipedia is too timid in its approach toward intellectual property.

While various global jurisdictions treat matters of copyright very seriously, they also recognise that case law has come unsettled in the internet age. FOP is sufficiently esoteric that jurisdictions with unreasonably demanding restrictions might be coaxed to normalise them to a global consensus standard.

If there is any organisation with sufficient reach and stature to represent a de facto standard, it is Wikipedia. If international consensus is to coalesce around a global standard that might be presented as a fait accompli, Wikipedia--while it has failed to recognise the opportunity for it to shape such a standard--has an established history of recognising its IP obligations in good faith.

Wikipedia has the reach, the respect, and resources to establish a reasonable standard. If Wikipedia can summon the will, it can apply the way ISO standards--(1) emerge, then (2) become established, and are (3) ultimately codified--as a model for standardising the global IP framework.

Such an ambition is certainly audacious, but does not carry serious risk while the international community is still unsure about the legitimacy of old IP paradigms. If Wikipedia is to act, it should do so with due haste--the current patchwork system will eventually harden whether Wikipedia applies its imprimatur or not. --Patronanejo (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

TL;DR Just pick a reasonable, respectful standard and apply it globally. Stand firm and watch as jurisdictions with hardline IP paradigms decide whether they want to be left behind in the digital age. --Patronanejo (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Intellectual heavyweight While only a guarantee of authoritative er...authorship could end debate over the utility of Wikipedia, the global normalisation of IP standards would establish a towering legacy for Jimbo Wales--the reflected light of which would bathe everything else he touches. --Patronanejo (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Mexico ?

Fastily closed Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FoP-Mexico as a delete without any additional comment. I asked for some clarification at their talk page, but it was auto-archived without response, so I'll ask here and see if it gets a better response.

The template was presumably deleted because of the law's no derivatives clause. As Nard pointed out in the DR, though, this page already mentions that that restriction is sometimes in effect, and Commons:FOP#Germany goes into detail about the restrictions on derivative works for such photos taken in Germany. Wouldn't those be subject to the same problem as Mexico, and so {{FoP-Germany}} (and maybe others) be deleted also if this is the chosen standard?

Regardless, if this template is indeed going to stay deleted, then this page needs updated to include the status of {{FoP-Mexico}} as unacceptable. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't think of a good reason it was deleted; I did not see the DR. Several discussions had basically determined that the restrictions were more along the lines of moral rights. It doesn't really apply to all derivative works at all (at least Germany's does not); they are separate concepts. The prohibition on "modifying" the work is not really related to creating derivative works, as far as I can tell. It's more along the lines of distorting the work such that a viewer believes the alteration was part of the original. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just undeleted based on the DR discussion, but after undeleting I see the template says provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected - which could be interpreted as a "non-commercial FOP"... What do you think? Rd232 (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The Google translation of that phrase is similar "provided it does not affect the normal exploitation of the work". I don't know if I'd read that as non-commercial as opposed to something like a non-compete clause (I'm sure there's a better way to say it, but it's not coming to mind right now). Giving away a reproduction of a work for free seems like it would have even more of an effect on the commercialization of the original.

In any case FoP only concerns the group of "works visible from public places", which depending upon their legal definition could very well mean that they're not able to charge for admission to those public places anyways, and so posting the image here isn't costing them the price of admission or in any other way affecting their normal commercialization. On the other hand, if someone had to pay to get in to see the art, then posting it here would be a problem since then it could have the effect of losing them potential admissions or whatnot. That's the way I read it at least. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Mexican FOP requires outdoor public spaces, so admission fees are not an issue. I would read the clause less generally -- that is, I think it says that you can't make full size 3D copies of a sculpture, 2D copies of a flat work that would affect sales of the original -- that is, if the original is a woodblock print with an edition of 500, you probably can't make full size photos of it that are good enough to fool the eye so that people buy the photos instead of the woodblock prints -- or copies of text that would affect sales of the original work. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

FOP Greece

There are two issues supporting "not OK" in c:

1. The links for the Greek law given in the project page lead to a non existent page. The correct one is here: [2] and the pdf is here: [3] The English translation of Art.26 in p.15 says:

Use of Images of Works Sited in Public Places

26. The occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media of images of architectural works, fine art works, photographs or works of applied art, which are sited permanently in a public place, shall be permissible, without the consent of the author and without payment.

HOWEVER the words in the Greek text (here: [4]) are NOT "mass media". Mass media would be "μέσα μαζικής ενημέρωσης") (lit. "means of mass information/briefing/updating") and that would cover the English equivalent for mass media (i.e. TV, newspapers etc). The Greek original text says "μέσα μαζικής επικοινωνίας" (lit: "means of mass communication"). Mass communication is a much broader meaning which includes all means of communication, hence it definitely includes internet media.

2. The other issue regards the word "occasional", which is "unclear". However, if "mass media" is allowed, then "mass media" is entitled to have an archive. Online newspapers have archives for each and every news article (including pictures) they have ever written! I could list here a hundred articles with pictures of buildings. Thease online archives are perfectly legitimate and cover the consideration for "occasional", since access to them is not systematic (i.e. the opposite of "occasional", eg. forced upon the user), but on a selective basis.

Finally I should highlight the fact that the Greek lawmaker treats non-profit libraries and archives in a favorable way, as evident from Art.22:

Reproduction by Libraries and Archives

22. It shall be permissible, without the consent of the author and without payment, for a non profit-making library or archive to reproduce one additional copy from a copy of the work already in their permanent collection, for the purpose of retaining that additional copy or of transferring it to another non profit-making library or archive. The reproduction shall be permissible only if an additional copy cannot be obtained in the market promptly, and on reasonable terms.

For these reasons, I think that Greece should be considered "OK". NikoSilver (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on the above, I've modified the text of COM:FOP#Greece, changing "the mass media" to "means of mass communication" and removing the inference that the exemption applies only to mass media. I'm not sure about the implications of the word "occasional" here, though. It seems very vague. --Avenue (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

All the above doesn't make Greece have FOP. It's still a limited permission for the mass media (or to means of mass communication) for occasional publication. It is not a blanked permission that would allow you to print T-shirts with a photo of a copyrighted sculpture. Hence no FOP. Article 22 is limited to libraries and archives, but we require that our media be free for anyone. Lupo 14:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've added the following to COM:FOP#Greece: 'Since the exemption only allows for distribution by "means of mass communication", and not for other potential uses (e.g. a student wanting to illustrate an assignment), it does not allow everybody free use.' Feel free to revert or modify this. --Avenue (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

In Greece, like in all free countries, the onus of proving that an interpretation of a word may constitute something "illegal" lies with the claimant. Hence we are free to interpret that the word "occasional" covers our use. It certainly doesn't say "seldomly" or, worse, "once". If it is a matter of interpretation, then the non-restrictive interpretation is valid. NikoSilver (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

We require that our media be free for anyone for any legal purpose. Greek law restricts FOP to "means of mass communication" and "libraries and archives". That's neither "anyone" nor "any legal purpose", and hence Greece remains not OK. Lupo 18:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, could you point me to where it says "we require that our media be free for anyone for any legal purpose"? I'd like to study the rationale and see if there's anything else in the Greek law that could apply positively. NikoSilver (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Start with the basics: COM:L. Lupo 19:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No matter how you read "mass communication" and "occasional", as Lupo said above, there is no indication that you can print a photograph of a copyrighted work on a tee shirt and sell thousands of them. That is neither "occasional" nor "mass communication". .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Antarctica

What is the FOP status of buildings, sculptures, and other artworks in Antarctica? --84.61.147.158 10:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Antarctica is divided into zones; see Territorial claims in Antarctica. I presume it should be based on whatever zone it is part of. If a zone is not claimed by any country, I presume that since no copyright law exists there and the US has no copyright treaty with such unclaimed territories, everything there is public domain. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. As you can see in w:Antarctic_Treaty_System#Legal_system, some laws of some countries are applied in Antartica - sometimes related to territorial claims, sometimes unrelated, in the same way some national laws would apply in international waters or even in the Moon.

Then, it depends on the country you want to use the pictures taken in Antarctica. I'm quite sure that, for example, a photograph taken in Argentina-claimed Antarctica would be seen by any Argentinian court as taken in Argentina, and treated according Argentina FOP rules.

If the question is whether FOP images from Antarctica can be hosted in Commons, it is quite difficult to answer, because the question is still unsettled for images taken in FOP countries. Anyway, since some US laws extend to Antarctica, probably US copyright laws extend to Antarctica, too - when a case is seen by US courts. Then, a photo taken in Antarctica would be judged in the US as it was taken in the US, and it could be lawfully upload to a WMF server -located in the US- if it falls under FOP-US rules.

Of course, I assume that I'm speculating more than anything else.--Pere prlpz (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Before we rack our brains to pieces on this area of unsettled law, some actual examples might help. There can't be too many artworks, and buildings many not be original enough to be copyrighted. Rd232 (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this discussion is almost useless, but it's still an interesting exercise.

I leave a couple of examples that might be challenged in Commons if they were taken in a non-FOP country.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• 
• 
  This one could be de minimis (or maybe couldn't), but an image showing only the panel would need FOP in most countries

I don't think any of this would get a copyright, or anything built in Antarctica for that matter. All buildings are only funtional in structure, and I don't think there are many arkworks. Yann (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the South Pole marker as just a functional structure. Typical survey points may be uncopyrightable functional structures, but this one seems not functional but commemorative, and its special design seems copyrightable.

Anyway, nearly all our Antarctica images would be free even in non-FOP countries, for the reason you stated. If there wasn't FOP in Antarctica it would matter just for a few photos like these two examples.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• What about this? In Russia, this would be unfree because of the lack of FoP provision.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Whether something is purely functional or not is not necessarily irrelevant. In some countries, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, purely functional works are ineligible for copyright. This also seems to be the idea in Japan for fonts: if the letters are mainly functional, then the font is ineligible for copyright, and so you may use {{PD-textlogo}} for a logo using that font. However, in other countries, it doesn't seem to matter if a work is purely functional or not. For example, Swedish courts have found lamps, sweaters and chairs to be copyrightable. These works have been given both a life+70 years copyright term as artistic works and a 25-year term as a design. Maybe we should delete File:Y Ekstroem lamino.jpg: a Swedish court found the chair to be copyrightable as an artistic work,[5] and COM:FOP#Sweden requires works to be permanently installed, which can hardly be argued to be the case in this situation.
• I suspect that most countries use their domestic FOP rules for all works, regardless of where the work is located, and that FOP rules for Antarctica only would be relevant if you wish to publish a work in Antarctica, but there could be some countries where the FOP rules of the source country also are taken into account, which seems to have been the reason to keep photos of UK statues, although the situation is untested in US courts. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

PRC and attribution

COM:FOP#China, People's Republic of tells that you have to attribute the author. Does anyone know exactly how this should be interpreted? Compare with this discussion about German law. It says that you also have to attribute the author if the work is in Germany, but User:Clindberg says that you don't have to attribute the author if the author isn't indicated on the work itself (or on a sign right next to the work itself, I suppose). Would this also be the case in China? The vast majority of all buildings do not contain a sign with the architect's name, and it would be a lot of work to find out who the architect is if we always need to list the architect for Chinese buildings. Also, User:Clindberg wrote that omission of the author's name isn't a reason for deletion, but there was a recent deletion request where a file was deleted because the sculptor wasn't credited. Remembering that deletion request, I nominated another sculpture for deletion (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fuxing Park 2241.JPG). Could someone clarify exactly what this attribution requirement means and whether we should delete photos if the author of the underlying work isn't credited or not? --Stefan4 (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

In the discussion of German law, Carl quoted another part of the law which says that there's no requirement to attribute the source if you don't know it and it's not shown on the work itself. I don't see a corresponding provision in the Chinese law. BTW, it says the author and title of the work must be mentioned. Some buildings might not have a title, although it might be hard to be certain about any particular building. Also, FWIW, the recently deleted Chinese photo showed a sculpture with a plaque in front of it containing a fair amount of Chinese text - mostly too small to be readable in the photo, but it could well have included the work's author and title. --Avenue (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, IANAL, and while I've skimmed through the Chinese copyright law (in this English translation) and read the parts I think are relevant, I could have missed something. --Avenue (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Argh, that's just horrible! Here we have a country with full FOP, with the exception that we still need to identify the architect of every single building before the images can be uploaded. Is anyone aware of any useful place where it is possible to search for names of Chinese architects and sculptors?

Also, to make it clear that people need to identify the author, I would like to adjust the Chinese section to something like this:

OK if the name of the author and the title of the work are listed on the file information page.

 Not OK if either the name of the author or the title of the work is missing from the file information page.

Thoughts? --Stefan4 (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

But if a work simply had no title to begin with, I can hardly see a Chinese court upholding that provision, which would otherwise give you the right to prevent FoP simply by refusing to name your work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I suspect you're right. I'd be more concerned about buildings or artworks that do have a title, but for some reason don't make it readily visible (as is often the case for authors). This makes our problem a bit more complex, since we should probably also allow uploads with author but not title information if we have grounds to believe the work really has no title, but might need to delete photos where we can't be sure if it does. --Avenue (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If the work doesn't have a title, I assume that it is enough to state that it doesn't have a title. However, we have a big problem with things like Category:Buildings in Beijing where we have lots of unattributed buildings. I started this discussion because I found problems with this category: it is necessary to verify whether a file complies with Commons FOP rules and then copy the images which are fine to Commons. However, there are a few images like this one where there is a photo of a recent Chinese building without attribution, and I don't know how to find out who the architect is. I can't even identify which shopping mall this is, so I don't know how to search for the architect's name. Shenyang is a big city, so there should be lots of them. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the threshold of originality like in China? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The only example I'm aware of is this image (see [6]) where a court found the character 道 to be protected by copyright. However, the threshold of originality for architecture might be different from the threshold of originality for calligraphy. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I would worry much about the title of buildings -- most buildings are referred to by their address, see, for example, 860-880 Lake Shore Drive. The architects' names, though, will be more problematic..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Right, as I mentioned elsewhere, I uploaded the photos of all stations of Beijing Subway (which are still making about 90% of all photos of Beijing subway stations), and I have no idea who the architects are. On the other hand, the architects are definitely known, we just need some help to find them out. I am pretty sure I do not want several hundreds of my files deleted just because I do not speak Chinese.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama - Brazil

This may be a bit old but the question remains: does freedom of panorama exist for this statue? Accoring to this dated article it doesn't. Yet Commons indicates FoP exists for Brazil. http://www.technollama.co.uk/copyright-in-landmarks I can find no further details on the case or its outcome. With major events coming up in Brazil we are likely to see many images uploaded of the statue. 131.137.247.6 16:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, you must take in consideration at least two facts that may colour that particular case. Firstly, the film doesn't merely represent the statue in its context. It makes a much more complex use of the statue, which may or may not be covered by the exception for permissible representation of art. 48 of the Brazilian law. Secondly, the distribution and viewing of the film is not limited to Brazil. It is distributed and viewed in many countries where the statue is not covered at all by a copyright law exception. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the film clearly goes way beyond the scope of freedom of panorama to take advantage of it. FOP does not "erase" copyright, it makes it inapplicable; if you take FOP out of the scene then normal copyright law applies. If someone took the reedemer out if its location and stores it inside a private house (yes, I know, wild imagination...), then a photo of it inside that house would not be acceptable, even if the old photos at a public place were still aceptable. Cambalachero (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The Archdiocese has pursued others in this regard. Some stock photo agencies will not accept images of the statue. Either they are just afraid of the hassle or indeed FoP does not exist for the statue. 131.137.247.6 09:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Stock photo agencies generally offer and distribute their photos for publication in many countries, not only for publication in Brazil. See above, at "secondly". Do you have examples of newspapers or other publications published exclusively in Brazil that have been sued by the Archdiocese? -- Asclepias (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

One note -- I don't think that case went anywhere (if it was even files to begin with -- it may have just been a threat). According to this article, the church may have just wanted a statement from Columbia -- "We want Columbia Pictures to publicly declare that it did not intend to cause offense," Dutra said. I can't find a reference to an actual court filing let alone a ruling. So... that UK article doesn't really indicate an answer either way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

My point wasn't so much about this particular case but rather to do with the fact the church has the copyright to the statue (not really in doubt) and seems to be able to exert some measure of control over commercial use of its likeness. I was concerned this could possibly affect the ability of images hosted here to be used commercially...in effect the licenses used may state they are free but in fact the might not be. Shouldn't there be a warning at least about the potential issue? 131.137.247.6 10:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the answer to this question is consumed by the entire FoP debate vis-a-vis http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/non-US_Freedom_of_Panorama_under_US_copyright_law Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is just one way that the church could effectively make images non-free. 131.137.247.6 10:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

In Canada, a mural that does not exist anymore

Hello,

A picture I took a while ago has been nominated for deletion, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rue Duluth, murale Grande Paix de Montréal, 2005-08-29.jpg citing the non-application of freedom of panorama for 2D artwork. My question is whether it makes any difference that the mural does not exist anymore? Presently, it is covered with other work.

Thank you,

gene.arboit (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not make a difference. The creator or creators of the mural own the copyright. It would be an infringement for anyone else to recreate the mural in the same place or elsewhere without permission and is an infringement to publish images of it.

One example of this principle is sand, ice, or butter sculptures, all of which exist for only very short times. We do not keep images of such works unless they are in countries where freedom of panorama applies. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to answer! gene.arboit (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

However, some projects (e.g. en-wp) accept limited fair-use works, and such a photo might be usable there. It will depend on the circumstances and how it is being used. cmadler (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

United Kingdom law interpretation and example request

I recently nominated File:Southwark engraving about the River Thames frost fairs 1.jpg and File:Southwark engraving about the River Thames frost fairs 3.jpg for discussion, because Commons:Freedom of panorama#United_Kingdom appears to indicate photographs of two dimensional engravings are not covered by the UK FOP:

"Graphic works are defined in Section 4 as any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work. The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works".

I am now concerned that the "any engraving" also applies to File:Dunblane Standing Stone.jpg, another work by the same sculptor. Is "engraving" meant to apply to purely text or font representations? Note that the two text fragments are in the public domain due to age.

Second, I have just sent an email to the sculptor requesting a CC license for the frost fairs engravings, see User talk:84user#License request for the River Thames frost fairs Southwark engraving. Is there a better way to make this kind of request? I only check my email every few days, but I'll update here or at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Southwark engraving about the River Thames frost fairs 1.jpg. -84user (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the UK has a weird interpretation of copyright, so we never know, but I don't think this will get a copyright anywhere else. I would keep File:Dunblane Standing Stone.jpg (and any other work where the content is PD), even if some would say that the work of engraving is within the sweat of brow UK principle. Yann (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure. The UK has a typographical copyright which runs for 25 years. I think Yann's conclusion is correct with respect to everything but that. I'm not sure whether the typographical copyright applies to works such as this or only to works actually set in type or its equivalent printing processes.

Your request is correct, but the best thing is to have the artist send the reply directly to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, making sure that he or she refers to the filename here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Like I said above, UK has really a weird copyright law... Yann (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see why the Southwalk engraving couldn't be copyrightable in most countries. Sure, it's based on various elements that may be PD (the text, an old map, the various graphic elements over the river, maybe even the people) but their combination in the engraving seems like it could be reasonably original.

The engraved explanatory statements seem less creative, graphically speaking, as does the Dunblane stone. If these texts are PD, I doubt the engravings themselves would pass the threshold of originality in the US. In the UK, I'm not so sure. Typographical copyright only applies to "published editions"[7] of "literary, dramatic or musical works".[8] These are publicly exhibited, but have they been published? If they have been published, who is the publisher? (Typographical copyright is held by the publisher, not the creator.)[9]

I also wonder if the texts collated on the Dunblane stone would be copyrightable in the US as a compilation. --Avenue (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Several good questions. Please remember that copyright law construes "literary work" very broadly -- computer software is copyrighted as a literary work, so the texts on the Dunblane stone are clearly literary works. Similarly "publish" has a special meaning and it is clear to me that the stone represents publication. I don't know whether the church or the stone carver is the publisher. "Editions" is more troublesome, but I don't think it is limited to print on paper -- I think an e-book would be a "published edition" for the purposes of typographical copyright, and I see no reason why the stone would not.

The problem I see with frost fair stones is the text. Why do you think it is PD? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I tried not to express an opinion on whether most of the texts were PD, because I haven't checked. I think the text running through the main Southwalk engraving could be PD, but probably not the explanatory Southwalk texts. --Avenue (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

@Avenue: I was only talking about the Dunblane stone, where the text is in the PD. For the other files, the content is probably not in the PD, so the issue is different. Yann (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. For the Dunblane stone, I'm now thinking that it would probably fall under copyright in the US as a creatively selected compilation of PD texts. I'd be interested in other's opinions on this. --Avenue (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be surprising. How is this different that publishing the same texts side by side on a piece of paper? This is not 2D art. It is 3D work, so it should be covered by FOP in UK. Yann (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

For a selection of two elements, no way. From the Copyright Compendium: A compilation is registrable if its selection, coordination, or arrangement as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The greater the amount of material from which to select, coordinate, or order, the more likely it is that the compilation will be registrable. Where the compilation lacks a certain minimum amount of original authorship, registration will be refused. Any compilation consisting of less than four selections is considered to lack the requisite original authorship. So at least four elements, and (depending on the situation) likely more than that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that's good to know. However, the Dunblane stone does incorporate another two verses that aren't visible in this shot, i.e. there are four in total: see w:Dunblane Cathedral#The Dunblane Commemoration for details. Would that be original enough?

As for the 3D aspect, in the UK, engravings are graphic works, not works of artistic craftmanship, so they are not covered by FOP. The stone is 3D, yes, but the engravings are still essentially 2D, so (assuming the engravings attract a typographical copyright) I think it wouldn't be covered by FOP unless the engravings were somehow obscured. It's similar to a building covered by murals like so. I think most photos of that building would infringe on the mural's copyright. --Avenue (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

@Avenue: No, I think that's a wrong interpretation. The copyright for engravings is for 2D work. This looks like more a monument, or a sculpture, i.e. a 3D work. Yann (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that the law doesn't mention 2D or 3D at all. As far as I have understood, a 2D work is usually a graphic work (i.e. not covered by FOP), whereas a 3D work usually is a work of artistic craftsmanship (i.e. covered by FOP), but there are probably exceptions for both 2D and 3D works. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This work has sculptural aspects, which would be covered by UK FOP, as well as graphic/typographic elements, which I believe would not. My thinking was that although the graphic/typographic parts would not be covered by FOP (and are probably too prominent to be de minimis), obscuring them would result in an image that would clearly be covered by UK FOP. --Avenue (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you automatically get a copyright at four, just that four is the minimum number where it's at all possible. Secondly, it's probably a lot less likely that a photograph could be derivative of that sort of copyright in the first place -- that is completely different than a photo of a sculptural work and I'm not sure we have any type of precedent to show that could even be an issue. If a photo only shows a portion of the work, and that portion is not copyrightable, then there is no issue anyways, even with sculpture or other pictorial/graphic works. I even have my doubts that the UK photographs are an issue either, if the depicted map and other elements are really just copies of older works. There probably is some sort of selection and arrangement copyright on that as a whole, but it's a very different question when it comes to a photograph of the installation which amounts to more then just a photographic copy (a photo primarily just showing the compilation itself could be an issue, but a photo of one particular PD element definitely not, and a photo showing a wider scene... lot less likely I'd think). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't think I really understand the implications of different "sort[s] of copyright" for different types of works, so I should read up on that. --Avenue (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, for example, a pictorial work should really never be able to be derivative of a literary work. You can base an image off the ideas expressed in text, but in the end it is a separate expression of the same idea. The "expression" (copyrightable aspect) of a literary work is generally the specific words chosen, and does not extend to any ideas or information present. The picture may be "based on" the literary work in a English-language meaning way, but it is not "based on" the literary work in a copyright sense -- the actual expression of the pictorial work is entirely original. There can be some more abstract concepts copyrighted from literary works, such as a specific plot, or specific characters (but not genres or general character types), and those can be infringed by movies or comic books or other literary works, but it's usually pretty hard with a single image. Similarly, there may be a 25-year typographical arrangement for printed editions in the UK (which is not recognized in the US), but that does not mean that a photograph which happens to show that arrangement is necessarily a derivative work. It's an issue if directly reproducing the printed edition, or producing another printed edition which mirrors the arrangement too closely, but a photo which happens to show a page from a book is almost never going to have its artistic expression really be based on that arrangement -- that would almost always be incidental or de minimis. A cool photo of a statue is different -- the statue itself provides a fair amount of the expression seen in the photo; it's an essential part of what makes the photo. That is "based on" in the copyright sense. For a arrangement of pictorial objects like the UK Southwark stuff... it's a bit fuzzier to me. We see all sorts of pictorial elements, but it seems likely they were all copied from very old brochures or maps, so the individual elements are almost certainly PD. The entire combination is undoubtedly copyrightable -- if someone was to reproduce the entire design as a whole that would undoubtedly be a problem. But does the expression of the *arrangement* itself really constitute an essential part of the expression in the photo? Usually just a small part of the arrangement is really visible or focused on, where the photo more seems to show the entire environment. To me it's not nearly the same as if the entire thing was a straight copyrightable mural -- when that much mural is part of a photo, it's usually going to constitute an essential part of the photo. I'm just not sure it's as clear cut in a case like this, where the only copyrightable aspect is the arrangement of elements. For another aspect of this kind of thing... if you were a photographer at an event taking a picture of a person who just so happened to be wearing a copyrightable pair of glasses that day (such things do exist), I don't think there is any way that photo could be considered derivative. The presence of the glasses was purely incidental and was not part of any expression or choice attributable to the photographer (expression must be attributable to a human author). However... there was a case where a fashion photographer had a model wear a pair of glasses because he thought it made the resulting photos look better, even though the focus was on the clothes. Those glasses turned out to have been copyrighted, and the photos were ruled derivative works -- their presence was not incidental, rather a deliberate choice of the photographer, and did in fact contribute to the expression in the photograph. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your long reply (and sorry for my slow one). I see what you mean about the expression in the Southwalk photos not being overtly based on the engraver's arrangement of the pictorial elements. We now also have permission from the engraver to host those two photos. --Avenue (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Monaco and San Marino

I don't know whether there is FOP in Monaco or San Marino. --84.61.164.80 16:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Monaco, I can find no provision for FOP in the main copyright text (Law No. 491 of 24 November 1948 on the Protection of Literary and Artistic Property). There may be other texts, but the country profile at UNESCO (dated 2009) doesn't mention any such exception either. It's probably safe to assume there is no FOP in Monaco. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Greece

"...It is also unclear exactly what "occasional" reproduction means..." - if it's "unclear", it is the problem of the lowmaker, not of the user. If it's "unclear" it may not be forbidden. --Dimkoa (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If it is unclear whether an image violates copyright, then it should be deleted per COM:PRP. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if the low is clear. But when the low itself is not clear, it is quite a different situation. You have to choose which one philosophy is right ?

• "the legal is only what is allowed"
• or "the illegal is only what is not allowed" ?

I've been taught at school, that the first kind of filosophy is typical for a dictatorship and the second one is for a democracy.

• --Dimkoa (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

the term "occasional reproduction" appears in Greek law only in a clause that we consider to be a non-copyright restriction. We therefore ignore that restriction anyway so there is no need to interpret it. rgds --h-stt !? 17:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The links given for “Consolidated Greek Copyright law of 1993” are dead. I found another link to the text Article 26 mentions:

Use of Images of Works Sited in Public Places

The occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media of images of architectural works, fine art works, photographs or works of applied art, which are sited permanently in a public place, shall be permissible, without the consent of the author and without payment.

I wonder whether indeed photos of simple buildings in the public area fall under the copyright. For each building there will have been an architect who made a drawing before the building was built. That means that not any photo of a building (less than about 70 years old) in Greece is allowed on Commons. For example see Files in Category:Naval Museum of Chania. Wouter (talk) 09:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I doubt there's ever going to be any picture taken in Greece without some kind of building in the background. So this restriction implies that there's not going to be any picture taken in Greece, ever. Nice interpretation... 188.4.165.8 08:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The term mass media is ambiguous, and a strict interpretation would probably lead to that Commons does not fall in that category. Now there are at least 2 cases where recent buildings can be included: 1. When the building is de minimis in the whole image, and 2. When the building is very simple, i.e. that an architect was not involved in it (huts, etc.). Regards, Yann (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually extending that tought further, I wonder how other encyclopedias deal with this kind of law wording, and where there is no FOP in general. I would not be surprised that they are included in mass media. Yann (talk) 08:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Slovenian edit war

Can all interested parties please stop reverting themselves and take the matter here on the talk page, where it belongs? This is getting tedious. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The thing is that per the Yugoslav copyright law, which was in force until 1995, the copyright on architecture and other works lasted for 50 years p.m.a / since the publication (for anonymous works), whereas the copyright on photographs and works of applied art lasted for 25 years post the publication. This can be verified in the law itself.[10] (article 84, 85). In 1995, a new copyright act was passed in Slovenia that prolonged the copyright to 70 years, so works that were copyrighted in 1995 are still copyrighted today (i.e. 1995-50=1945). At this page we're discussing the copyright on architecture, so I don't know where does 1988 come from. User:Smihael himself said here that the copyright on architecture lasts for 50 years. Now I've got reverted by User:Yann for no reason,[11] without any rationale. I also don't see why this page would discuss the copyright on photographs. This belongs to Commons:Copyright rules by territory. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 19:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking about saying what Jastrow said about this edit war. Except that the discussion doesn't even belong here. This page is about FoP, it is not about public domain. The text the belligerents are fighting about should not even be on this page at all, in any version. The interested users should take the matter to Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Please check which edits are you actually reverting. I don't see any mention of 1988:

• Works published before 31.12.1995
  • OK for all works (except photographic) whose creator died at least 50 years prior to this date (1945 or earlier)
  • OK for photographic works whose creator died at least 25 years prior to this date (1978 or earlier)
  • OK for all anonymous works published 25 or more years prior to this date (and for all works whose author remained unknown in this same period of time) (1978 or earlier)
• Generally  Not OK for all other cases (works enter public domain 70 years after death of the last (co)author / after publishment of anonymous work)

I agree that we move the exception about photographs to Commons:Copyright rules by territory; I included it since we already had cases where photos were (permanently) displayed on a public place, just like arhitecture (i.e. it is not true that all works were copyrighted for 50 years). --Miha (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, great that we agree about this. I've missed that you've written 1978, however 1995-25=1970, and the copyrighted works are all prior to 1970 (i.e. 1969 or earlier). As is written in article 85, the copyright on anonymous works lasted for 50 years (petdeset godina), not 25 (dvadesetpet godina): "na anonimno autorsko djelo in autorsko djelo objavljeno pod pseudonimom prestaje nakon proteka petdeset godina, odnosno nakon proteka dvadesetpet godina ako su u pitanju djela iz člana 83". [the copyright on anonymous works and pseudonymous works ceases after 50 years, or after 25 years in the case of works from Article 83][12] Anyone may check this with the Google translator, and I really don't see where does 25 years for anonymous works originate from. Otherwise, I have no problem moving this discussion to some other place eventually, however the edit war started on this page and concerns this page. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah mea culpa, I probably swapped 1970 and 1978 (the Yugoslav law was published in 1978). One should also note, that photos of buildings that were taken before 1995 and break-up are solely photographic works as there was Freedom of panorama in Yugoslavia. --Miha (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It's true that there was freedom of panorama in Yugoslavia, but now there is no such freedom anymore (except non-commercial). These images were then rightfully used in Yugoslavia for commercial usage, but now cannot be included into new commercial products and as such are not free for Commons. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I wouln't be so sure about that. Can you provide a source for this? The law published in 1995 did not retrospectvely extend copyright for works that were already in public domain on 31.12.1995. If something (even a derivative work) was in public domain in 1995 it is also in public domain now. I'll ask the lawyer for a clarification on this matter. IMHO, it doesn't matter if the original work (for example the Tripple bridge) is still copyrighted now. Fortunately, all this mess will get a little bit less complicated in 2 years (1995+(70-50)=2015) when it won't matter anymore if something has been published befre 1995 or not (as these 20 years of extention will pass) ... --Miha (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that you can't commercially use works that are copyrighted and in a public place. A derivative work can be in the public domain, but it's usage can still be limited. I can for example make a photo of the Triple Bridge and put it in the public domain, but this does not mean that it may be commercially used then. If putting a photo of architecture in the public domain or under a free license would mean that it may be used for any purpose then, we would have no problem here and images of copyrighted architecture would not be deleted from Commons. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you please state if there is anything in the original version that still bothers you? Otherwise, I suggest restoring it and perhaps mentioning that according to the Yugoslav law works of applied art came into the public domain after 25 years since creation; therefore, they may be freely photographed in public spaces if created in 1969 or earlier. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can't kill two birds with one stone. You have to consider that what you call a derivative work actually had a different status under the old law. A house might have been copyrighted back then (and it might be copyrighted even today), but it was perfectly permissable to take a picture of it and use it for any purpose. The photo itself, of course was a copyrighted item (unless it had no inner artistic value). If it enter public domain before 1995 (or its creator released it into public domain), it is still in public domain and it can't be considered a derivative work as it was not considered to be derivative work back then (generally you can't retrospectively delegalize things that already happened). However, one might not be able to take a picture of the very same building today (and put it into public domain), since this would be considered making a derivative work.

I don't see why a photo of a copyrighted building made in Yugoslavia would not be a derivative work. The first paragraph of this very page states: "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.", followed by :"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." --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

As regards your second comment: Yes, the problem is two-folded:

1. Check if the work was published before 1995
   1. Yes
      • (photography: 25 years upon publishment/p.m.a.)
      • anonymous: did 50 years upon publishment already pass on 1995
      • other cases: 50 years p.m.a.
   2. No
      • anonymous: PD-EU-70
      • other cases: 70 years p.m.a

Otherwise it might happen that some works that are in public domain now will be misrecognized as copyvio. In 2015 we can simpify this to 1945 or earlier for all works except photographic.

Moreover, the second note about case law and cultural refference is also very important. --Miha (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your algorithm, with the following corrections:

• photography: 1969 or less (simpler to check)
• anonymous: 1969 or less (simpler to check)
• other case: 1944 or less, because the author who has been dead for 50 years in 1995 died in 1945 (the copyright period starts with the year following the year of author's death; simpler to check)

Published after 1995: redundant for now, such works are not free yet in any case, unless the author explicitly specified this.

I'd use the algorithm to correct Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Slovenia, because this is where it belongs; here we only discuss the FOP.

This then simplifies to the original version, with a special mention of applied art.

Otherwise, the tree may only be simplified in 2016, because 1945+71=2016, and as said, the copyright period starts with following year. Whereas for photos, it may be only simplified in 1969+71=2040.

I have no problem keeping the note about the cultural reference, when you find a source for it. I'd leave the courts out, because this is the same in all countries (that the courts have the final word), as well as common sense (because it is hard to define and our common sense may differ from what the courts use). The case law is very limited, so I would leave this out too. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Last paragraph

I suggest removing the last paragraph: " However, according to the Slovene Office for Intellectual Property are in ambigous cases (where no case law exists) the only and the absolute authority the courts. In such cases common sense should prevail. This is the case especially with modern minimalistic architecture, where even among architechts and lawyers opinions are divergent (Ribja brv case), as well as traditonal landmarks such as hayracks which generally are not copyrightable.

Article 5 of the current law defines copyright works as "individual intellectual creations in the domain of literature, science, and art, which are expressed in any mode". This means an individual creative process of expression is a prerequirement for a work to be copyrighted.",

for the following reasons:

• it is redundant to mention the case law (very limited, there is actually only one case that I know of)
• as stated: it is hard to define common sense and our common sense may differ from what the courts use
• the courts are the absolute authority in all country; the only seems spurious
• the definition of minimalistic architecture is spurious; the Ribja brv has not been brought to the court, so it does not relate to the paragraph
• hayracks are just as much copyrightable as houses; they're copyrightable in the cases there is something special about them
• the last paragraph clearly belongs to COM:Copyright rules by territory.

--Eleassar ^(t/p) 22:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You actually already mentioned the key point of my concern, namely, there the case law is almost non existent. This means we have to be especially careful about our decisions and avoid statements like "this would clearly be copyrighted in the USA and Slovene copyright law is broader than the US one" (which is the most common justification when closing deletion requests)... As a matter of plain formal logic, it can not be concluded neither assumed that the Slovene breadth of copyright is a perfect superset of that in the US. Therefore it is reasonable to explicitly state the importance of differences between cultural reference frames (actually this should be mentioned in the very introduction of this entire page; and the same applies to argument of common sense). Actually we have no ground to say that simple and common types of buildings (like factories, hotels, shoping mols, residence flats ...) are generally copyrighted. On the contrary, we can say that precisely the lack of case law shows that either no one cares or that in fact the threeshold of originality in Slovenia is higher. --Miha (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem, but as you say, this isn't Slovenia-specific, therefore it doesn't belong to FOP#Slovenia. It would belong to the lead. Feel free to add it there, whereas the section about Slovenia should focus on Slovenia-specific law. Perhaps it's true that not many people care, but this does not mean we should not care (see COM:PRP). --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

FoP and British Royal Residences // National Trust.

Do the liberal FoP laws in the UK extend to protected properties such as the Royal Residences? 131.137.247.6 10:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The FoP law does not contain any kind of exemption for the Queen's gaff, and plenty of tourists take snaps of Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle etc. That said, you may not be able to get at certain parts of the royal residences to take photos without attracting the attention of Special Branch. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

As I dig into this further I also find the National Trust's policy on photography to be in defiance of the FoP provisions of UK copyright law. Has this been tested in case law or by Wikimedia engagegment? 131.137.247.6 11:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It depends... If you take a photo inside a NT property you aren't breaking FOP rules, and are not committing a copyright violation (provided its not things like a temporarily displayed work or copyrighted graphic works). Therefore If you take photos in defiance of such a restriction, the copyright to the photo is yours. That doesn't mean its completely legal to take such pictures: You may be committing a breach of contract if you ignore such restrictions, and so be potentially liable for damages.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I am certain that is the position the NT would take; however, purchasing a ticket without having been offerd the option to read the fine print photographic policy would fail several tests. Frankly, I think the NT is just using an effective scare tactic to effect some measure of control over commercial use of what are otherwise fairly clear FoP provisions in UK law. Unless someone can show me how NT bylaws trump national copyright laws I'd say they don't have a leg to stand on. Regardless, I am still unlear as to Wikimedia's position on NT properties. We accept NT images based on FoP provisions yet ignore that the copyright is contested by the fact NT insists on a property release for any commercial use. In effect wikimedia is saying we accept images that are illegally obtained so long as all risk for copyright issues are held by the creator. I suppose this issue is similar to Personality Rights?131.137.247.10 11:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The important thing is not every restriction is a copyright restriction. A couple extreme examples of that: If you take a photograph inside a UK court, you would end up in the dock yourself. However, you would still be the copyright holder of that photo. A similar situation applies with graffiti - the copyright belongs to the graffiti artist, even though the work is illegal.

FOP is about copyright, and no copyright rules are violated by taking photos in NT properties. Please read Commons:Non-copyright restrictions and Commons:Image casebook#Museum and interior photography. Note specifically: "It is up to the photographer to decide whether s/he wishes to upload images which have been taken in breach of any private rules of the museum."

NT can practically enforce their rules, as there are generally prominent signs at the entrance to a property, and staff will challenge photographers. Presumably same situation applies in Buckingham Palace. NT could not contest the copyright of the photograph, but can argue other rules have been broken and seek damages on that basis. Copyright is not the only factor to consider, and FOP is entirely about copyright - it has no implications on non-copyright restrictions. This is similar to personality rights.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, as an NT Member, I can say that NT now endorses photography on most NT sites where copyright in not an issue (certain artworks, etc on display), inside and out...for non-commercial use. You are rarely presented with a policy (I never have) and prominent signs are non-existent. The same cannot be said for Royal Residences. I have been challenged by staff every time I have taken a picture indoors. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

 Comment User:131.137.247.10 said, "In effect wikimedia is saying we accept images that are illegally obtained...". Probably not. Taking a photograph in violation of a museum's rules, as at an NT property, is a violation of the admission contract, but not against the law and therefore not "illegal". This may seem a small difference, but in most countries if the photograph were actually illegal (as in the case of child pornography), then that status extends to any use of the photograph, so that there can be no free use of the photograph. The same may apply in countries that have laws against photographing certain government installations. On the other hand, as noted above, an image taken in a museum in violation of the museum's rules can be freely used unless the subject is still under copyright. The museum may have a cause of action against the photographer, but that does not extend to other users. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Any provision to the tune of "photography not allowed" can be simply ignored by Commons; if the museum wishes to take action against the photographer, that is their business. When you have a provision pertaining to copyright, it gets a little more complicated. First the case where they explicitly mention copyright, such as by making themselves joint copyright holders. If it's just on some sign near the entrance, I call BS. I doubt it is legally possible to transfer copyright just be walking in through a door. If it's on the back of a ticket, we often handle it on a case-by-case basis. If the photographer actually signs a document, then of course that document is king. On the other hand they may not necessarily mention copyright but may say something about "commercial use prohibited." In that case, it may be interpreted as a property rights issue depending on the context, making it a non-copyright restriction and thus OK for Commons. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Your input did raise another question for me. If there is a property rights issue is there any obligation on third party users of the image to address that? 131.137.247.10 13:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)