Commons talk:Freedom of panorama

Shortcut: CT:FOP

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.[1] (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,[2] 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][3] 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)

challenge the Slovenian interpretation

The WIPO version of the Slovenian law [4] says under Subsection II Free use ...

“

Article 55 Works located in generally accessible premises (1) Works permanently placed in parks, streets, squares, or other generally accessible premises may be used freely. (2) Works mentioned in the foregoing paragraph may not be reproduced in a threedimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work, or used for economic gain. (3) In cases stated in paragraph (1) of this Article, the source and authorship of the work must be indicated, if the latter is indicated on the work used.

”

To me that clearly indicates that FoP is allowable in 2-D representation of 3-D, ie. you can take photographs, when you are doing such in a public space. I believe that we should be changing our interpretation unless there is case law to the contrary.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The article allows only for free non-commercial use, when the reproduction is 2D, and no reproduction at all in 3D. This has also been stated e.g. here (pg. 67), where the author clearly states that commercial reproduction (e.g. for postcards [which of course are 2D]) is not allowed. There has also been a court case, where a publisher had to pay a sculptor a restitution for having used a photo of his sculpture in a book.[5] --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

As Eleassar notes, yes that allows for 2-D representations of 3-D objects, but only if not used for economic gain. All three conditions of part (2) must be satisfied. The first two would not be a problem here (the second part just prohibits photos which are essentially copies of other photos or 2-D works), but the third is the problem. So usually legal, but such photos are non-free. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

What's interesting to me is that (as far as I understand) the sculpture mentioned above stands in Croatia (Međugorje), which allows for commercial use of reproductions of works at publicly accessible premises. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

So are you saying that the court case is another example of what de:Hundertwasserentscheidung concluded? If so, consider adding a note to the page Commons:Lex loci protectionis. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Does this restrict FOP even for photographs taken before the current law (previous allowed FOP)? --Sporti (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I've also posted a question about this at Carl's talk page. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Where in the Belgium legislation does it restrict photographs of buildings

Excuse my wikilawyering, however, I have just scanned the WIPO legislation for Belgium, and I am wondering how and where we decided that photographs of buildings are not allowable. The English translation [6] has the following opening sections ...

“

Section 1: Copyright in General ..........................................................................1–7 Section 2: Special Provisions on Literary Works ....................................................8 Section 3: Special Provisions on Works of Fine Art .........................................9–13 Section 4: Special Provisions on Audiovisual Works......................................14–20

”

Buildings will not fall into sections 2 to 4, and definitely not in subsequent sections of the law. There is no evident part of section one that can relate to a constructed building.

• Article 1 — The author of a literary or artistic work alone shall have the right to reproduce his work or to have it reproduced in any manner or form whatsoever ...
• Article 2 — The author of a literary or artistic work shall enjoy an inalienable moral right in his work...
• Article 3 — The economic rights shall be movable, assignable and transferable ...
• Article 4 — Where copyright is indivisible, exercise of the right shall be governed by agreement ...
• Article 5 — In the case of a work of collaboration ...
• Article 6 — Copyright shall belong as of origin to the natural person ...
• Article 7 — After the death of the author ...

None of those copyright in general areas go near buildings. If we are going to try and uphold and point to a restricting legislative process, then we need to be able to clearly show the section of the legislation that we would breach, and here we have not. Someone clearly needs to demonstrate how the Belgium copyright laws impact Freedom of Panorama, at this stage we have done a pretty poor interpretative approach. Again, is there case law to which we can point?  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Belgium is a member of the Berne convention. The Berne convention, in its article 2, paragraph (1), provides that the expression "literary and artistic works" includes works of architecture (and also a lot of other stuff). A case could be made that the expression "literary or artistic work" in the Belgian law should be interpreted in the light of the Berne convention. Thus, a work of architecture would be a "literary or artistic work" (more artistic than literary, I suppose) for the scope of section 1 of the Belgian law, although it is not a "literary work" for the scope or section 2 and it is not a "work of fine art" for the scope of section 3 of the law. In short, "artistic work" is broader than "work of fine art". And "works of architecture" are included in "artistic works" but not in "works of fine arts". -- Asclepias (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and that gives them rights to their work, but a picture of a building (2-D image of one facet of 3-D construct) is not a copy of a work of architecture, and especially not all buildings are a work of architecture. Many countries signed the Berne convention and do not apply provisions in that sense, so someone is drawing a long bow to say that it specifically should be inferred that way when it is not covered in the legislation. We are not legals, nor international treaty experts, so we should interpret law as it is written, not some inference. Is there a significant legal opinion that supports FoP for Belgium, or is there direct or indirect case law that would do so? The legislation itself has provisions within it for special cases, and one would expect that freedom of panorama would have been equally treated.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Then if you want to make such an inference section 5 would then apply in that articles 21 and 22 could be applied to 2-D images of 3-D objects that equates to publishing when the work is open and in a public place, and all those components could apply. If you are going to say copyright equivalent, there has to be the publishing equivalent.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not a long bow. There have been (European) court cases which have confirmed that (and cases ruled as not derivative works under certain conditions, which directly imply that other types of photos can be derivative works). "Artistic works" is a more generic term, and is generally understood to include architecture and most any kind of copyrightable work. Rather, I think we'd need case law to show that buildings are *not* considered copyrightable -- and I think that's unlikely. Civil law countries are more likely to consider treaties self-executing (i.e. the text of the treaty becomes actual law in that country once ratified). The U.S. often does not, and definitely does not in regards to Berne, but many countries do. It seems pretty clear to me that architecture is included in "artistic works" as Asclepias said. I can't think of a country which does not consider photographs of copyrightable works either reproductions or adaptations (derivative works) -- buildings are treated like any other work, unless there is a specific provision in the copyright law indicating differently. So, we generally need to see the explicit exception listed in copyright laws, and those exceptions can't have non-commercial limitations if we want to make use of them. It's possible that some buildings are too simple to be considered "artistic works" in the first place, but that is a very hairy area where it's difficult to make judgments without specific case law guidance. You are correct that articles 21 and 22 do allow certain limited uses, but they would not extend to usages such as a photo of the work on a postcard, which would be required to be "free". Using photos on Wikipedia articles likely would not violate the law in a great number of countries, but the "free" determination is the larger problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Morocco

The WIPO version of the Moroccan legislation [7] states in article 20

“

Free Use of Images of Works Permanently Located in Public Places Article 20 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 10 above, it shall be permitted, without the author’s authorization or payment of a fee, to republish, broadcast or communicate to the public by cable an image of a work of architecture, a work of fine art, a photographic work, or a work of applied art which is permanently located in a place open to the public, unless the image of the work is the main subject of such a reproduction, broadcast or communication and if it is used for commercial purposes.

”

where Article 10 is about economic rights. This clearly contradicts the advice that we give. I believe that we are in error in our advice unless we can demonstrate that there is case law to the contrary.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Why does that contradict the advice we give? If the image of the work is the main subject of the photo, and it is used for commercial purposes, it is not permitted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, if you think that it does, then consider it closed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Our advice contradicts the law because we're saying that uses have to be both incidental and non-commercial, while the law says they have to be either incidental or non-commercial. Incidental here meaning "not the main subject of such a reproduction", this might give us much better FOP than our usual de minimis cases (not similar to France at all). -- Orionist ★ talk 04:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

As explained by billinghurst and Orionist, if I understand them correctly because I don't practice much English, I agree with them, and believe it's a case of logical conjunction. Some people around me, asked for their opinions, agree also. Here is a synthetic table that summarizes my perception regarding the case of Morocco (but not only, I'm also thinking for example of Mozambique).

AND

	Main subject	Not the main subject
Commercial purposes	Not OK	OK
Noncommercial purposes	OK	OK

It would be different if the text was : unless the image of the work is the main subject of such a reproduction, broadcast or communication or if it is used for commercial purposes.

OR

	Main subject	Not the main subject
Commercial purposes	Not OK	Not OK
Noncommercial purposes	Not OK	OK

--Frenchinmorocco (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

There are some cases where the wording might make a difference, but it's still not FoP usable by us in the general case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I'm not sure I understand your reply. (1) In which cases ? (2) Does it mean that Commons can't accept images of buildings that are not the main subject and commercially usable ? --Frenchinmorocco (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I toke a look on the Arabic version (p.13) of the Law text (i.e. the "original version") and, as I understood it, it says that it has to be both the main subject and commercially usable to be unfree. I support Frenchinmorocco's interpretation above.

Here you got my opinion, and maybe you should ask more Arabic-speaking people to have more views.

Regards.

--Omar-toons (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It is also my anderstanding that FOP is permitted unless the work is used for commercial purposes.

Best regard. --Indif (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

O.k., but that means it is not usable for Commons, as we require all media to be free also for commercial use. --Túrelio (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That is, for example, why South Korea and Slovenia are listed as  Not OK. In South Korea, an architect once sued a marketing company because a house appeared in a TV commercial for a bank, and in Slovenia, a sculptor once sued the publisher of a book, and in both cases, the architect & sculptor won. If you can't use buildings in TV commercials, and if you can't publish photos of sculptures in a book, then there is not enough freedom of panorama. Moroccan copyright law doesn't seem to permit photos of sculptures in books, nor does it seem to permit showing buildings in TV commercials --Stefan4 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

@Túrelio: it's not exactly what I'm saying. FOP is not allowed (and thus not usable on Commons) only if the work is not freely (free as in beer) available, in other words if the work is used for commercial purposes. Say you have a protected work permanently located in a museum (which is a place open to the public), FOP is allowed if the entrance is free, otherwise it's not permitted. Regards. --Indif (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Guys, look at the text of the law again: commercial uses are allowed as long as the copyrighted work is not the main subject. See the first table above by Frenchinmorocco which is a correct representation. This makes a difference here because I see images deleted all the time because of buildings that are not the main subject, but at the same time the use is not minimal enough as to accept de minimis. The law doesn't require uses to be minimal, just not dominant, which is an important distinction. Not only this gives us more flexibility when dealing with images of urbanscape, museum halls, public parks etc. but it might also mean that for example, we can have a 10-minute video of Casablanca, that includes a couple of 30-second, full-on shots of the Hassan II Mosque. -- Orionist ★ talk 01:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)