File talk:Freedom of Panorama world map.svg/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

CAVEATS

On File talk:Freedom of Panorama in Europe NC.svg Greece yellow vs. red and Lithuania light-green vs. yellow are slightly unclear. For Lithuania the FAQ on Meta does not match the EU SVG. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. The map shows only the FoP law as it applies to Wikipedia/Commons, so non-commercial legality is considered "not ok". It would make sense to make a different map File:Freedom of Panorama world map NC.svg for FoP in non-commercial applications. For Commons though, this is less important.
On the individual points:
Lithuania: Seems to be non-commercial only, so I think it is correct that it is red here.
Greece: "occasional/casual reproduction" is dangerously vague, so I think it is safer to mark it red here.
Cheers, — Julian H.✈ 08:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Surinam

Surinam should not be represented with a grey colour ("No information, assume not OK") but light green ("OK, with permanently placed sculptures / 3D art"). The Surinam copyright law (dating from 1913, with many revisions) can be found on the website of SASUR, the Surinam "copyright office", here, PDF in Dutch. Art. 18: "Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk, als bedoeld bij artikel 10, 6°, hetwelk blijvend op of aan de openbare weg zichtbaar is gesteld, wordt niet beschouwd de verveelvoudiging, welke door haar grootte of door de werkwijze, volgens welke zij vervaardigd is, een duidelijk verschil vertoont met het oorspronkelijk werk en zich, wat bouwwerken betreft, tot het uitwendige daarvan bepaalt." Paraphrased: "Photographs or drawings of buildings and sculptures that are permanently placed in the public space form no infringement on the copyright of these works." Vysotsky (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Vysotsky: now done, by Bes-ART :-) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Kosovo

Kosovo is under Serbia, FoP is OK. --Mile (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@PetarM: I don't think so. Kosovo has their own copyright law (see COM:Kosovo#Background), Law No. 2004/45 on Copyright and Related Rights. Its FOP provision is entirely unacceptable (noncommercial) and does not conform with COM:Licensing, so it is not OK. Relevant provisions: Works permanently placed in public streets, squares, parks or other generally accessible public places my be used freely. (2004/45 Art.54.1) Works mentioned in the preceding paragraph may not be reproduced in a three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work, or used for direct or indirect economic gain. (2004/45 Art.54.2) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Kaliningrad

Could somebody please correct the Kaliningrad Oblast of Russia? It is between Poland in the South and Lithuania in the North-East. I don't think they'll have their own laws about FoP. Thank you in advance. Dqfn13 (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dqfn13: since it is under Russia, then Russian FOP provision applies. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: I can't see why I posted my comment in 2018. In the history of the file I can't find a version with different collours for Kaliningrad. Dqfn13 (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Sweden

There seems to be a mistake in the colour of Sweden. A court ruled that a public database of images of public art was illegal, after hearing the supreme court. The supreme court made an odd distinction between publishing images otherwise and publishing them on Internet. Although the supreme court did not make any decision about FoP in general, but what the supreme court said could be interpreted to mean that FoP does not apply to publishing images of public art on the Internet.

So we might want to be on the secure side, and say that FoP does not apply to public art in Sweden.

Buildings however, are treated treated separately in a second paragraph in the article 24. This is not evident in the linked version of the law, as a paragraph break is missing. The supreme court however explicitly narrows down its reasoning to the first paragraph.

So FoP should still apply to buildings (whether "some interiors" are covered, I cannot say).

The essence of supreme court ruling:

23. Bestämmelsen i 24 § första stycket 1 upphovsrättslagen, där inskränkningen i upphovsmannens ensamrätt är begränsad till avbildningar, ger inte Wikimedia rätt att från sin databas med fotografier av konstverk, stadigvarande placerade på eller vid allmän plats utomhus, överföra verken via internet till allmänheten. Huruvida förfogandet sker i kommersiellt syfte saknar betydelse. De hänskjutna frågorna ska besvaras i enlighet med detta.

(Note the "första stycket", "first paragraph".)

--LPfi (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@LPfi: That said in talk page of png version, red is good, because since 2017, the scope has now been limited to outside the Internet only. Remember the keyword: Internet --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
You do not need to shout. Did you at all read what I wrote? Public art and buildings are handled in different paragraphs, and the supreme court explicitly did not express any opinion about the latter. The court case was about a database, not individual images, which also might have affected the outcome, although it is possible that the reasoning would be the same in that case. For buildings the economics, which the supreme court used as base for its reasoning, is different. --LPfi (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
@LPfi: I've read that supreme court's decisions, it applies to the entire Article 24, not some sections within it. Unless if the hearts of supreme court changed to make more benefits to you, it's weird to contest it. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Why does the supreme court then specifically talk about "första stycket" in the quoted passage (and in fact all over the document)? Where does it in any way hint that the decision applies to the rest of the article? When I read the statement again, I notice that point 20 ("I förevarande fall blir verken allmänt tillgängliga i en öppen databas....") indeed shows that the decision depended on the specific case, and did not even cover individual images, but let's keep to the buildings here. --LPfi (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@LPfi: If you're asking me that why I consider your "Sweden has a buildings-only FoP" isn't valid, well, we can compare the de facto panorara with the Japanese one (to which their buildings-only FoP is valid, but for things other than buildings, they have to keep such FoP images on ja.wikipedia locally, note that that FOP Japan section cited the 2014 amendment, but to not violate COM:PRP, I instead cite the 2018 amendment here):
“ 第四十六条　美術の著作物でその原作品が前条第二項に規定する屋外の場所に恒常的に設置されているもの又は建築の著作物は、次に掲げる場合を除き、いずれの方法によるかを問わず、利用することができる。

Article 46　It is permissible to exploit an artistic work the original copy of which is permanently installed in an outdoor location as provided for in paragraph (2) of the preceding Article or an architectural work, in any way whatsoever except the following:
一　彫刻を増製し、又はその増製物の譲渡により公衆に提供する場合 (i)　producing additional copies of a sculpture or making those additional copies of the sculpture available to the public by transferring them;
二　建築の著作物を建築により複製し、又はその複製物の譲渡により公衆に提供する場合 (ii)　reproducing an architectural work by means of construction, or making copies of an architectural work so reproduced available to the public by transferring them;
三　前条第二項に規定する屋外の場所に恒常的に設置するために複製する場合 (iii)　reproducing a work in order to permanently install it in an outdoor location as provided for in paragraph (2) of the preceding Article;
四　専ら美術の著作物の複製物の販売を目的として複製し、又はその複製物を販売する場合 (iv)　reproducing an artistic work for the purpose of selling copies of it, or selling those copies.
（美術の著作物等の展示に伴う複製等） (Reproduction in Connection with the Exhibition of an Artistic Work; Related Matters)

”

Can you please tell me that which article(s) of your Swedish Copyright Act defined the purely same rules, to which all the courts don't ever mentioned, and announced as "not valid for the Internet"? If not, there are nothing that at least I can agree with you. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@LPfi and Esquilo: Please also tell me that how do you think that your FoP is allowed for the commercial usages (at least 3 cases, either real world or Internet, are required for me), otherwise I may also consider that Swedish FoP is a bit like France (the French FoP is for non-commercial only, so far not allowed on Commons). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
First: The verdict from the Stockholm District Court (the case was never tried in the Swedish Supreme Court, they were only consulted on the matter) does not disallow photos of art to be publish on the Internet. The verdict only says it is not allowed to publish a systematic catalogue of photos of artwork on the internet. Since Wikimedia Commons is a systematic catalogue of photos, this is the problem we have to address. We can either remove all photos of artwork in Sweden (that is not free for some other reason), but in my opinion that is overdoing it. Removing the metadata that makes the photos systematicaly catalogized would be a better solution IMHO.
Second: The distinction between "publish" and "publish on the internet" is based on the principle of broadened audience. Publishing a photo of an artwork for the same audience that can view the original artwork is allowed, but publishing the same photo to a broader audience is not necessarily so. It used to be allowed in Sweden by the so called "postcard exception", but the statement from the Supreme Court voids this exception by referring to EU-law. However, I have not been able to find this EU-regulation on the internet. It would be appreciated if someone could point me in the right direction on this. /ℇsquilo 06:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Since this map is referred to again; Sweden should not be red. It should be either yellow (the FoP for buildings has a much clearer definition in the Swedish copyright law and has never been contested in court) or olive green (unclear). /ℇsquilo 09:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I think "unclear" is the only sensible option. The supreme court ruling was confused, and the case was not about FoP in general. What about the "widened audience" in the case where photos of the artwork are widespread on the Internet, or easily found at an institution's web site? As seen in recent DRs, an "OK" or "not OK" colour makes people jump to conclusions about individual cases. –LPfi (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This is the translated text from Swedish:
„23. The provision in § 24, first paragraph, 1 of the Copyright Act, where the restriction on the author's exclusive right is limited to reproductions in pictorial form, does not give Wikimedia the right to transmit the works via the Internet to the public from its database of photographs of works of art, permanently placed in or at a public place outdoors. Whether the disposal is for commercial purposes is irrelevant.“
As far as I'm concerned, it's rather unambiguous, that FOP no longer applies. While the decision is not does not mention FOP, then it substantially restricts freedom of panorama anyway. Therefore, there cannot be any libreal interpretation, and all non-Public Domain images must be deleted in order to comply with the court order. Meantime, the non-Public Domain works of those architects and artists can fall into oblivion, and I really don't mind. -Mardus /talk 06:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
It is noteworthy that "Wikimedia" here refers to Wikimedia Sweden and "their database" to Offentligkonst.se, not to Wikimedia Commons. We are extrapolating their statement. Thus, in interpreting the statement, we should know why the first point of the forts paragraph does not apply to WMSE and its database. What is special about those two? The thing that makes the statement non-unambiguous is that the reasoning about the "why" is extremely convoluted. It was unambiguous in what it said, and that's why WMSE did not appeal, but how to extrapolate it is extremely unclear.
Obviously the point – giving FoP – applies to somebody in some situations (and the second paragraph, on architecture, should apply for images with no restrictions). That the point on FoP of art did not apply to WMSE makes FoP ambiguous: it applies in some situations (including commercial use), and not in others. Isn't that the definition of "unclear" for the purpose of this map?
–LPfi (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Belgium

Hello. Please see File:Freedom of Panorama in Europe.svg and File talk:Freedom of Panorama in Europe.svg#Belgium. Should be light green (exteriors only). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Coloring scheme changes/updates

The color of Angola should be green (light green?). Commons:FOP Angola states it is OK. Change is also for File:Freedom of Panorama world map.png. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

:Another one is Kyrgyzstan. This should be OK now according to Commons:FOP Kyrgyzstan. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Slashed this one as it is contested at COM:UNDEL

Others that need updating on both FOP maps (mostly those with gray coloring)

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Also:

And also:

Seems my request went unnoticed. Paging the three recent map contributors per the file history: @VulpesVulpes42, Bes-ART, and PetarM: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I hope in "Personal rigths" map is OK'ed. If i make an unallowed shot of the building I suppose they won't sue me, but for a living person that would be more problematic. --Mile (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

So, should I make those changes you are suggesting or wait?Bes-ARTTalk 11:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
It seems the map is much harder to edit than I thought because of microstates and islands. I would suggest uploading the common use map which is used all over Wikipedia. I can make the coloring and new edits.Bes-ARTTalk 11:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bes-ART: that's a good suggestion. But by the way, I reviewed again the CRT pages of the aforementioned states/territories, amd here are the verified updates.

  • Angola - light green (CRT page says "at public locations")
  • Antigua and Barbuda - light green (CRT)
  • Barbados - dark green ("permanently situated in a public place or on premises open to the public", 2D works not OK)
  • Belgium - should be light green (outdoor/exterior only)
  • Benin - red
  • Botswana - red
  • Chad - red
  • Djibouti - red
  • Dominica - red
  • Fiji - dark green ("permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public")
  • Gabon - red (changed from my earlier "light green", as COM:FOP Gabon states it is only OK for reporting purposes)
  • Grenada - dark green ("permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public")
  • Guinea - red
  • Guinea-Bissau - light green
  • Guyana - dark green ("permanently situated in a public place, or in premises open to the public", but not OK for 2D works)
  • Honduras - red
  • Kiribati - dark green ("a work which is permanently situated in a public place, or in premises open to the public")
  • Kuwait - red
  • Liberia - red
  • Malawi - red
  • Maldives - red
  • Mauritania - light green
  • Mauritius - red
  • Nauru - dark green ("permanently situated in a public place, or in premises open to the public")
  • Nicaragua - red
  • Niger - red
  • Nigeria - light green
  • Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville) - red
  • Rwanda - red
  • St. Kitts and Nevis - dark green ("if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public")
  • St. Lucia - dark green ("if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public")
  • St. Vincent and the Grenadines - dark green ("if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public", 2D works unsure)
  • Surinam - light green
  • Taiwan - light green
  • Tanzania - mainland is light green, but Zanzibar island is red (reason: COM:FOP Tanzania)
  • (Western) Samoa - red
  • Solomon Islands - light green
  • Suriname - light green
  • Togo - red
  • Yemen - red

I removed Haiti since the wording at COM:FOP Haiti is dubious to me (incidental is allowed, but if it is the main subject may be not OK). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok then, if no one has objections I am continuing with the new map. Tomorrow I believe the map is ready, as I have to check all the countries one by one.Bes-ARTTalk 11:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@Bes-ART: Zimbabwe should be light green per COM:FOP Zimbabwe. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the updates Bes-ART. However, Taiwan is supposed to be light green (per COM:FOP Taiwan), and both Nicaragua and Honduras are now not OK (red) per COM:FOP Nicaragua and COM:FOP Honduras, respectively, as of their latest copyright laws (amended). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I will update the Taiwan (it seems it have similar legislation as Albania), aswell as the two others you mentioned. Although, I think Kosovo too need to be updated as light green but it needs a discussions before. I read the law and it doesnt specify "only for personal use", so I think the FoP is Ok in there too.Bes-ARTTalk 15:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
And wait, @Bes-ART: , Spain and Portugal are supposed to be both light green (COM:FOP Spain and COM:FOP Portugal). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it seems both countries have made changes to the law in recent years. Although it seems strange why no one has reflected these changes to maps over the past two years, however, they have reflected on the map for Europe. I will add these two but I am waiting for an answer for Kosovo [1] for which I have opened a discussion on the relevant page to see if there is a consensus on it.Bes-ARTTalk 10:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Update @Bes-ART: (sorry again for bothering hehe) after a discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#FOP in more "grey countries" revisited, here are the following more additions of colors:

  • Central African Republic, Djibouti, Eritrea, and South Sudan — red
  • Eswatini/Swaziland - dark green ("if permanently situate in a public place or building" - COM:FOP Eswatini)

Also, per that discussion, Gabon is light green - there's FOP only for permanent works and in public places (COM:FOP Gabon) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Updates on Comoros and Diego Garcia

I think the Comoros should be red as per Article 26 of this - "Le droit d’exploitation appartenant à l’auteur comprend : - le droit de représentation; - le droit de reproduction." Also Diego Garcia should be colored similarly to the United Kingdom. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

New updates

Hello (pinging @Bes-ART: ). Another updates, per discussions at COM:VPC. Red (not OK) for Micronesia, Palau, and Vanuatu. Apologies for bothering, and happy new year to all :-) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

 Info Equatorial Guinea now red too ("assume not OK") COM:FOP Equatorial Guinea JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Swedish FOP coloring revisited

In light of the discussion at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Swedish FOP?, which finally concluded that there is still FOP in Sweden (unrestricted for buildings, though for sculptures etc. may be OK for commercial post cards, calendars, ads, and T-shirt prints but not for third-party online databases, whether that database is commercially-licensed or noncommercial), the coloring of Sweden may need to be changed. I propose the following suggestions:

  • Olive green OK yet unclear (IMO the Swedish FOP fits to this color; Brazilian FOP is also subjected to some restrictions)
  • Yellow for buildings only, but some may still find this as "no FOP for sculptures" and may launch future DR's.
  • Red if some may insist this is not OK;

Ping the participants in that Swedish CRT forum: @LPfi, Mardus, Esquilo, and Liuxinyu970226: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The most accurate description would imho be olive and yellow stripes. I understand that can be difficult to both achieve and comprehend, so my second option would be yellow. /ℇsquilo 11:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@B dash, Holger.Ellgaard, Yuraily Lic, BevinKacon, and Túrelio: @Gunnex, TwoWings, LX, De728631, and Amitie 10g: @Goteborgenergi, Sammyday, EugeneZelenko, JuTa, and Taivo: @Tooga~commonswiki, Lavallen, Green Giant, Yann, and Ankry: @Srittau and A1Cafel: may also be affected --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Poll

@Esquilo: I added a fourth proposed color designation for Sweden. I think this fourth proposed color is the best option, based on your input. Though seemingly worky, the wikigraphist here will take care of that (adding legend or modifying the existing "olive green" since no country on the map is using olive green designation) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Attention:  On hold as Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Swedish FOP? seems to be not done. Pinged users and other interested users may wish to put their inputs there for the meantime. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC) No need to hold this now. Edits made by Mardus at COM:CRT/Sweden#Freedom of panorama to change Sweden back to "100% not OK" have been reverted as lacking consensus. Poll can now be proceeded with no hindrances. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

So when to change the color? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Updates Apr 2021

Hello @Bes-ART: . Here are some updates:

To dark green (as their provisions are identical to British FOP wording "or premises open to the public")
  • Antigua and Barbuda
  • Bahamas
  • Barbados
  • Belize
  • Fiji
  • Grenada
  • Guyana
  • Hong Kong
  • Jamaica
  • Saint Kitts and Nevis
  • Saint Lucia
  • Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
  • Trinidad and Tobago

- much of them followed the British copyright law heritage, considering many of them were formerly British overseas colonies/territories.

To dark green
  • Malaysia (per COM:FOP Malaysia "the reproduction and distribution of copies of any artistic work permanently situated in a place where it can be viewed by the public", and is known to include indoors).
To red
  • Kiribati (as their now updated copyright law lacks FOP provision)
  • Tonga (see my edit summary at COM:CRT/Tonga for the reason)

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Done all the changes Bes-ARTTalk 10:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

2nd batch of updates on the same month

Hello again @Bes-ART: . After reviewing FOP provisions of some countries that were formerly part of UK (as British colonies), here are some more updates:

To dark green
  • Bangladesh (has wording "any premises to which the public has access", follows British copyright law heritage)
  • Pakistan (has wording "any premises to which the public has access", follows British copyright law heritage)
  • Portugal - based on COM:FOP Portugal: "According to at least one legal scholar, 'public location' includes public interiors within the context of Portuguese law." (http://www.communia-association.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/BCS_Communia_FoP_study.pdf)
  • Singapore (has wording "in a public place, or in premises open to the public", follows British copyright law heritage)
  • Uganda (according to their copyright law, the public place is defined as "any building, or conveyance to which for the time being the public are entitled or permitted to have access, with or without payment which may include cinema, concert, dance or video halls, bars, clubs, sports grounds, holiday resorts, circuses, restaurants, counter vehicles, banks or other commercial establishments" - COM:FOP Uganda - follows British copyright law heritage).
Change to light green
  • Belgium (because COM:FOP Belgium, as it stands, doesn't apply to interiors)
To red

Also, please add Macao as a light green circle and Monaco as a red circle. Thank you and stay safe amid the pandemic. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Done! Bes-ARTTalk 20:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Greenland

Any idea to adopt a color instead of remain grey here? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: https://naalakkersuisut.gl/~/media/Nanoq/Files/Attached%20Files/Kultur/DK/2019/Anordning%20om%20ophavsret%20fra%202019%20DK.pdf is the current copyright legislation of Greenland. Note specifically (according to Google Translate) "PCS. 2. Works of art may be depicted when they are permanently placed on or near a place or road accessible to the public. The provision in the 1st sentence. does not apply if the work of art is the main motif and the reproduction is professionally.PCS. 3. Buildings may be freely depicted." Some of the information in the law will be useful to expand COM:Greenland as well. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
So Greenland might be at least yellow as they allowed buildings "freely depicted"? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, a more accurate translation is "The provision in the 1st sentence. does not apply if the work of art is the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially," which I guess would be just de minimus, so yellow (like Denmark) is most likely correct. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@Zoozaz1: it is identical to COM:FOP Denmark. I already added the FOP section at COM:Greenland. Pinging also the Wikigraphist, @Bes-ART: (pardon me for another disturbance hehe) to color Greenland yellow (for buildings only). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

East Timor and Niue

Firstly, Niue should be light green as per COM:Niue. Secondly, East Timor should be red. The UN states that East Timor created no copyright law outside of the Constitution and the Civil Code. The Civil Code states "The provisions of this code are, in a subsidiary fashion, applicable to authorial and industrial ownership rights to the extent that they are related in kind to those rights, and when they do not conflict with the regime especially established for them," and later states "The property owner fully and exclusively enjoys the rights of use, enjoyment and disposition of the things that belong to him, within the limits of the law and in observance of any restrictions it imposes." Applying that in kind to IP rights means there is no freedom of panorama. If that is insufficient (as one could argue that "in kind" is too vague, or the "regime especially established" refers to Indonesian law), Indonesian law passed and imposed before October 25 1999 would apply (note that Timorese legislation on the subject would supersede Indonesian legislation), and as far as I am aware there is no provision for freedom of panorama there; it explicitly mentions that architecture can be copyrighted. Zoozaz1 (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Zoozaz1: It's better to continue discussing TL issues at VPC discussion, to let this discussion not be "cut everywhere" (because, if you can search the Sweden-related discussions, these are raised up on a lot of talk namespaces' pages), for Niue, just use same color as New Zealand (and hence UK?!) --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'll reply to your message on the VPC page. Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

New updates from July 2021

Mentioning the Wikigraphist Bes-ART (pardon for another trouble hehe).

Per recent updates, the colors of the ff. countries are now updated:

@JWilz12345: Ok. I will edit this. And I will edit File:Whether to allow uploading of currency World Map.png, too. Ox1997cow (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: I edited. See. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: I would like to request also to change coloring classifications for three North African nations: Algeria, Mauritania, and Tunisia to grass green (same as both Peru and Netherlands). Per COM:FOP Algeria, COM:FOP Mauritania, and COM:FOP Tunisia, it appears interiors are implied to be included except the interiors of museums and art galleries. But interiors of other places are fine. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: I edited. See. And I wii edit File:Whether to allow uploading of currency World Map.svg. To do that, we need to further investigate the status of currency copyrights in several countries. Ox1997cow (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: btw, can you update São Tomé and Príncipe's color? Per COM:FOP São Tomé and Príncipe, it is now OK. Analyze the content of the section and the linked VP/C discussiom to determine the type of green color. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: ✓ Done. Ox1997cow (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow new request after a year: may you please modify Brazil to dark green similar to Canada etc.? COM:FOP Brazil states that existing jurisprudence there allows also public indoors. Also take note of my request at the bottom of this talk page to revert Somaliland to gray (as FOP status is unclear similar to Somalia's). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: ✓ Done Ox1997cow (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Add a new classification

Add black colour key for those countries where not even taking photos of those buildings is allowed, even for personal use. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

That's not particularly useful for Commons as not being allowed to share it and not being allowed to take a photo for personal use have the same result for Commons: the picture cannot be uploaded. Zoozaz1 (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, that would be useful for the users of Commons for the things outside Commons. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@Erkinalp90: that is just the same color: red. If not OK for personal use, then red. If not OK for fair use, red. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
@Erkinalp90: but theoretically, it is allowed in all countries to use the buildings for personal use. No harm to the economic rights of the architect/s who designed the building/s is made if you will only enjoy your image of his building privately or personally, as this means you will not sell your images to others (the right to profit only belongs to the architect/s of the building you photographed, unless there is explicit freedom of panorama in a certain country).
Maybe you're talking about security guards who prohibit you or your apprentices from photographing the building. That is not relevant; it is just privacy or security measure, which is a COM:Non-copyright restriction. Restriction from the owners is not equal to restriction from the architects. We have accepted content that sometimes intrudes security of many facilities, and we keep them all. Best example: COM:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ringhals nuclear power plant (Sweden has freedom of panorama, but strict security laws, but security laws are not important here). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Freedom_of_Panorama_world_map.svg/Archive_1&oldid=824969155"