Commons:Freedom of panorama/Europe

Freedom of panorama
Africa‌Americas‌Asia‌Europe‌Oceania‌Others

This page gives overviews of freedom of panorama rules in different countries or territories of Europe. It is "transcluded" from individual page sections giving the rules for each territory.

Countries of Europe

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Albania

Albania

OK See {{FoP-Albania}}.

Under Law No. 35/2016 of March 31, 2016, on Copyright and Related Rights, Reproduction of works permanently found in public spaces: streets, squares, parks, rest areas and other open areas that are accessible to the public is allowed without the authorization and compensation from and towards the author or copyright holder. The works cannot be reproduced in three-dimensional form. With regard to reproduction of architectural structures, this applies only to the external appearance of the architectural structure. The source and authorship of such copies shall be indicated, when this is possible.^{[35/2016 Article 82]}

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Andorra

Andorra

 Not OK Andorra's 1999 copyright law includes buildings and sculptures and fine arts works among the works subject to rights of copyright.^{[1999 Art. 2]}

There is no "freedom of panorama" exception.^{[1999 Art. 11]}

Note: "Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free."

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Armenia

Armenia

• OK for sculptures: {{FoP-Armenia}}
• OK for buildings and models of buildings: {{FoP-Armenia}}
• OK for other art works (paintings, graphics, design and other works of fine arts, works of applied decorative art and stage graphics. maps, plans, sketches and plastic works related to geography, topography, geology, urban planning, architecture and other sciences.{{FoP-Armenia}}

The version of the copyright law provided by WIPO states, "It is allowed to reproduce, broadcast for non-commercial purposes an architectural, photographic or fine art work located in places open to the public without the consent of the author and the payment of author's remuneration".^{[2013 Article 25(d)]} However, an amendment effective late April 2013 removed the restriction on commercial use, and says, "Works which are located on streets, parks, squares and other places open for attendance can be reproduced and broadcasted, and reproduced copies can be distributed, including through internet, without permission of the author and without payment to the author, in any tangible medium and by any means and in any form".^{[2013 Article 25(d) amended]}.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Austria

Austria

Generally OK, use tag {{FoP-Austria}}

Article 54 of Austrian copyright law says it is allowed to reproduce, distribute, and publish architectural works of an actual building or other works of visual arts which were created to permanently remain at a public place.^{[1936-2018 Art.54(5)]}

Architectural works may generally be reproduced, including all permanent buildings and other structures as a whole, building parts such as walls, pillars, windows (including church windows), doors, and stairs, a complete view of the interior design. This includes photographs taken in streets and public places, private grounds and the interior of buildings. However, single pieces of furniture or artworks may not be freely reproduced.

For other types of work, uploading a photograph to Wikimedia Commons is only covered by Austrian Freedom of Panorama if the picture meets the law's criteria regarding type of depicted work, place of photograph and permanence. The rules are:

Type of work

• [OK] two-dimensional works of visual arts (paintings, frescos, sgraffiti…)
• [OK] three-dimensional works of visual arts (sculptures)
• works of literature (texts)
• acoustic works (music, speech, bells, signal sounds…)

Place of photograph

• [OK] streets and public places
• private ground
• interiors of buildings, including churches, museums, and theatres (except for works, which themselves are components of the structure, including windows in churches and such)

permanence

• [OK] works created to remain permanently at a public place, for example memorials
• works placed at a public place only temporarily
• stage designs of open air theaters
• advertisements including election posters

Even if criteria for Freedom of Panorama are not met, it might be possible to upload a picture of the work to Commons, for example if the work does not meet threshold of originality, or if the copyright has expired. In such a case, the matching public domain tag is used instead of {{FoP-Austria}}.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan

 Not OK, non-commercial only: {{NoFoP-Azerbaijan}}

According to the Copyright law of 1996 as amended up to Law No. 636-IVQD of April 30, 2013,

• The following shall be permitted without the consent of the author ... to reproduce, in order to present current events by means of photography or cinematography, broadcasting, cablecasting or other public communication of works seen or heard in the course of such events to the extent justified by the informational purpose.^{[636-IVQD/2013 Article 19.4]}
• The reproduction, or public communication of architectural works, photographic works and works of fine art permanently located in a public place shall be permissible without the author's or other copyright owner’s consent and without paying author’s remuneration, except where the presentation of the work constitutes the main feature of the said reproduction, or public communication, if it is used for commercial purposes.^{[636-IVQD/2013 Article 20]}

Per Commons:Licensing, noncommercial licensing is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons, hence "not OK".

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Belarus

Belarus

 Not OK, noncommercial only. According to the Law of the Republic of Belarus No. 262-Z of May 17, 2011,

• Works of photography, architecture, fine arts can be visualized, broadcasted or cablecasted, and publicly transmitted in any other way if such works continuously remain at the place with free admission. Representation of such works shall not be the main object of visualization, broadcasting or by cablecasting or other public transmission and shall not be used for commercial purposes.^{[262-Z/2011 Art.32(7)]}

This only permits noncommercial representations, but noncommercial licensing is not accepted at Wikimedia Commons.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Belgium

Belgium

OK: {{FoP-Belgium}}

Since 1 January 2015, Belgian copyright law is defined by Title 5 of Book XI (intellectual property) of the Code on Economic Law. It replaced the Copyright Act of 30 June 1994. On 16 June 2016 the Belgian Parliament introduced freedom of panorama by adding the following to article XI.190 of the Code on Economic Law (translated here to English):

"Once a work has been lawfully published, its author may not prohibit: [...] 2/1°. reproduction and communication to the public of works of plastic, graphic or architectural art designed to be placed on a permanent basis in public places, provided that the reproduction or the communication of the work is as it is found there and that this reproduction or communication does not infringe upon the normal exploitation of the work and does not cause unreasonable harm to the legitimate interests of the author."^{[2018 Art.XI.190]}

The Act was signed into law on 27 June, published on 5 July, and took effect on 15 July 2016.

2022 amendment

Article 13(1°) of the 2022 amendment to the Code on Economic Law made Belgian freedom of panorama clause clearer by removing "en wanneer die reproductie of mededeling geen afbreuk doet aan de normale exploitatie van het werk en geen onredelijke schade wordt berokkend aan de wettige belangen van de auteur" (in Dutch, "and that this reproduction or communication does not infringe upon the normal exploitation of the work and does not cause unreasonable harm to the legitimate interests of the author"). Therefore, the current Belgian freedom of panorama since 2022 as per the current version of Code on Economic Law reads:

Once a work has been lawfully published, its author may not prohibit: [...] 2/1°. reproduction and communication to the public of works of plastic, graphic or architectural art designed to be placed on a permanent basis in public places, provided that the reproduction or the communication of the work is as it is found there.^{[2022 Art.XI.190]}

Notes

• An explanation that was attached to a draft version of the freedom of panorama provision stated that the provision was intended to apply to locations that are permanently accessible to the public, such as public streets and squares, and that the provision was not intended to apply inside of public museums or other buildings that are not permanently open to the public. According to the explanation, if a work of art is situated inside a building that is not permanently open to the public, then the artist may not have expected public exhibition of the work.
• Before 15 July 2016, there was no panorama freedom in Belgium. Modern pieces of art could not be the central motive of a commercially available photograph without permission of the artwork copyright holder. See also this discussion from 2009.
• Another exception to copyright, de minimis, is stated in article XI.190 (previously article 22 in the 1994 act) of the law: "Once a work has been lawfully published, its author may not prohibit: [...] 2°. reproduction and communication to the public of a work shown in a place accessible to the public where the aim of reproduction or communication to the public is not the work itself [...]". These conditions need not be met any more if the conditions of freedom of panorama as stated above are met.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bosnia and Herzegovina

 Not OK The 2010 law on copyright and related rights allows only non-commercial reproduction of works in public places:

• The free use of the works permanently located in squares, parks, streets or other places accessible by the public shall be permitted.^{[2010 Article 52(1)]}
• The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage.^{[2010 Article 52(2)]}
• In the case of the use referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article, the source and authorship must be indicated if they are indicated on the work used.^{[2010 Article 52(3)]}

The Bosnia and Herzegovina copyright law is based on the copyright law from Croatia but this article subtly differs from it, adding restrictions for commercial use.

Non-commercial license is forbidden on Wikimedia Commons as per Commons:Licensing#Forbidden licenses. See also a related discussion at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 17#Bosnian Authorship Law and its Article 52.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Bulgaria

Bulgaria

 Not OK, non-commercial uses only of images of permanent works in public spaces. {{NoFoP-Bulgaria}}. Under the Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights (as amended up to 2011):

• Art. 24. (amend. - SG 77/02, in force from 01.01.2003) (1) Without consent of the owner of the copyright and without payment of compensation shall be permissible:
  • 7. use of works, permanently exhibited at streets, squares and other public places without mechanical contact copying, as well as wireless broadcasting or transmitting by cable or other technical device, if done with informatory or other non-commercial purpose.^{[2011 Article 24(7)]}

Notes:

1. Please tag Bulgarian no-FoP deletion requests: <noinclude>[[Category:Bulgarian FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude>
2. "Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free."

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Croatia

Croatia

OK. {{FoP-Croatia}}; in regard to architecture, for the exteriors only.

The Copyright and Related Rights Act amended up to 111/2021 allows 2D reproductions of permanently publicly displayed works, i. e. the full Freedom of Panorama:

• It shall be permitted, without the right holder’s authorisation and without payment of remuneration, to reproduce, except in a three-dimensional form, the copyright works, which are permanently located on streets, squares, parks or other places available to the public, and to distribute and communicate to the public such reproductions.^{[111/2021 Article 204(1)]}
• The limitation referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall apply only in respect of the outer appearance of an architectural structure.^{[111/2021 Article 204(2)]}

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Cyprus

Cyprus

OK {{FoP-Cyprus}}

The WIPO version of Copyright Laws 1976 to 1993, section 7(2), includes exception (c): "the reproduction and distribution of copies of any artistic work permanently situated in a place where it may be viewed by the public;"

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Czech Republic

Czech Republic

OK. {{FoP-Czech Republic}}

Under the Consolidated Version of Act No. 121/2000 Coll. as amended up to 216/2006, Article 33: Use of a Work Located in Public Place says,

• Copyright is not infringed by anybody who records or expresses by drawing, painting, graphic art, photography or film a work permanently located on a square, in a street, in a park, on a public route or in any other public place; copyright shall likewise not be infringed by anybody who further uses a work so expressed, rendered or recorded. If possible, the name of the author (unless the work is an anonymous work) or the name of the person under whose name the work is being introduced in public, the title of the work and its location shall be indicated.^{[121/2000–2006 Art.33(1)]}
• The provisions of Paragraph (1) shall not apply to making a reproduction or imitation of a work of architecture in the form of erecting a building and to the reproduction and distribution of a work in the form of a three-dimensional reproduction.^{[121/2000–2006 Art.33(2)]}

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

Works located on streets, squares, in public parks etc. (a common interpretation includes also works which are visible from such places, although they aren't mentioned in the act) can be pictured freely. According to Telec's interpretation, the exception cannot be applied to e. g. parts of a building not visible from a public place, even if the building is generally visible.

With regard to the used term veřejné prostranství (public space) instead of veřejně přístupné místo (publicly accessible place) and the fact that the act use exterior examples only, some interpretations are that copyright exception does not apply to some (or all) types of interiors, such as shopping center interiors, waiting rooms, museums, galleries, concert halls etc., even if they are accessible to general public. Other authors perceive such places as private. However, the act itself does not distinguish or mention exteriors or interiors explicitly. Veřejné prostranství are more precisely defined in the Municipal Act (§ 34, 128/2000 Sb.) as "all squares, streets, markets, walkways, public vegetation, parks and other areas (prostory) accessible for everybody without restriction, thus serving to public use, disregarding ownership of this area." The Constitutional Court in their decision No. Pl. ÚS 50/03 presumed that areas which are made accessible only from the voluntariness of the owner or operator need not to fall under the term veřejné prostranství.

The spaciousness of the interior, a type of regulation of the public access (entrance fee zone, night closure, obligatory passability of the place etc.) and a purpose of the place can be relevant for the interpretation and application. There is lack of judicial precedents for more accurate distinction.

Enclosed parks which are publicly accessible in limited time (night closure) or conditioned by entrance fee can be disputable. However, as an example, the Prague Zoo declared repeatedly that its exteriors were public spaces when they argued that they were not eligible for a prohibition on smoking there. Romana Anděrová, an official speaker of the Prague Zoo, said: "A zoo is a public space, where smoking cannot be banned. Smoking is not allowed in pavilions and restaurants. Fortunately, the smoke does not penetrate to the animals, otherwise they would not like it." The zoological garden is a public space similar to Stromovka or other parks.

The exception is limited only to works permanently located in a public space. The word "permanently" was added to §33 during introduction of the European Parliament copyright directive. The directive contains a similar restriction. This means, according the explanatory report, that freedom of panorama is usually applied to three-dimensional artistic and architectonic works (sculptures, memorials, buildings, etc.) which are named as examples in the European Directive. However, the law text does not preclude or exclude application of the exception to two-dimensional works if all conditions are met. That is, it may apply to paintings permanently incorporated into a building facade, street art, permanent informational boards etc.

Temporary exhibitions etc. are not covered by the exception. The word "permanently" is generally understood as "for an indefinite period" and is not presumed that the work is really eternal and unremovable.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Denmark

Denmark

The Little Mermaid

• OK for buildings only: {{FoP-Denmark}}
•  Not OK for any public art still in copyright: {{NoFoP-Denmark}} (category-only template)

Under the Consolidated Act No. 1144 of 23 October 2014,

• Buildings may be freely reproduced in pictorial form and then made available to the public."^{[1144/2014 Art.24(3)]}
• Works of art may be reproduced in pictorial form and then made available to the public if they are permanently situated in a public place or road. The provision of the first sentence shall not apply if the work of art is the chief motif and its reproduction is used for commercial purposes."^{[1144/2014 Art.24(2)]}

The famous statue of The Little Mermaid by sculptor Edvard Eriksen (1876–1959) is protected by copyright until 2029, and pictures where it is the main motif cannot be used for commercial purposes.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Estonia

Estonia

 Not OK, only non-commercial use allowed if the work is the main subject. {{NoFoP-Estonia}}

Under the Copyright Act of 11 November 1992 (consolidated text of February 1, 2017): It is permitted to reproduce works of architecture, works of visual art, works of applied art or photographic works which are permanently located in places open to the public, without the authorisation of the author and without payment of remuneration, by any means except for mechanical contact copying, and to communicate such reproductions of works to the public except if the work is the main subject of the reproduction and it is intended to be used for direct commercial purposes. If the work specified in this section carries the name of its author, it shall be indicated in communicating the reproduction to the public.^{[1992/2017 §20¹]}

An obviously unsuitable freedom of panorama for architecture exists, in which architecture can be freely used, but for purpose of "real estate advertisements" only.^{[1992/2017 §20²]}

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Finland

Finland

OK for buildings only {{FoP-Finland}}.  Not OK for other works of art, including sculptures (non-commercial only).

Under the Copyright Act 404/1961, with amendments up to 608/2015,

• A work of art may be reproduced in pictorial form ... if the work is permanently placed at, or in the immediate vicinity of, a public place. If the work of art is the leading motive of the picture, the picture may not be used for the purpose of gain. A picture having a material connection to the text may, however, be included in a newspaper or a periodical.^{[404/1961–2015 Sec.25a(3)]}
• A building may be freely reproduced in pictorial form.^{[404/1961–2015 Sec.25a(4)]}

Buildings (works of architecture) are the only copyrighted works in public space from Finland that can be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Non-commercial licensing is not accepted on Commons as per Commons:Licensing (which is backed by the Definition of Free Cultural Works). Images of works of art permanently located in public places in Finland can only be used non-commercially or as illustrations to texts in newspapers and periodicals. Published works of art may also be used as illustrations to scientific texts or criticism, according to Article 25.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP France

France

 Not OK {{NoFoP-France}}

Please tag France no-FoP deletion requests: <noinclude>[[Category:French FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude>

On 7 October 2016, the French parliament approved a law recognizing a limited version of the freedom of panorama that authorizes the reproduction by individuals (not organizations) of buildings and sculptures permanently located in public space, but only for non-commercial utilizations.

• Reproductions and representations of architectural works and sculptures, permanently placed on public roads, carried out by natural persons, to the exclusion of any commercial use.^{[L.122 5]}

On 4 April 2001, a court emphasized that "droit d'auteur unquestionably applies to the reproduction of artworks placed in public space" (« le droit d'auteur s'étend incontestablement à la reproduction de l'œuvre installée dans un espace public »). Concerning buildings, case law defines several criteria for originality:

• "a definite artistic character" (« un caractère artistique certain »), as opposed to the building being purely functional, and not being part of a series (as is the case in housing development) (CA Riom, 26 May 1966) [ this decision has been criticised as the law explicitly states copyright protection is granted regardless of merit, art.L.112-1 of the French copyright act but another decision of French supreme court concludes on 20 october 2011 that creation must be original as required by art 111-1 of French copyright act and that it is up to appeal court to decide if it is original work or not.
• a harmonious combination of its composing elements, like volumes and colours (TGI Paris, 19 June 1979)
• an “esthetic preoccupation”, here the choice of a sphere and of a mirror surface (CA Paris, 23 October 1990, about en:La Géode)
• a choice which cannot be ascribed to purely technical reasons (CA Paris 20 November 1996, about stairs and a glass roof)
• Works are protected if the creation is original, but not if the realization is purely technical.
• Works without a particular or original character, which are a trivial reproduction of building types largely found across the country, are not protected. (#13).
• It is up to the author or an architectural, art or picture work to prove that it is original and not just application of a technical knowledge.

Case law traditionally admits an exception if the copyrighted artwork is "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" (CA Paris, 27 octobre 1992, Antenne 2 c/ société Spadem, « la représentation d'une œuvre située dans un lieu public n'est licite que lorsqu'elle est accessoire par rapport au sujet principal représenté ou traité »). Thus, ruling #567 of March 15, 2005 of the Court of Cassation denied the right of producers of works of art installed in a public plaza over photographs of the whole plaza:

• Because the Court has noticed that, as it was shown in the incriminated images, the works of Mr X... and Z... blended into the architectural ensemble of the Terreaux plaza, of which it was a mere element, the appeals court correctly deduced that this presentation of the litigious work was accessory to the topic depicted, which was the representation of the plaza, so that the image did not constitute a communication of the litigious work to the public.

Case law states that the said artwork must not be intentionally included as an element of the setting: its presence in the picture must be unavoidable (CA Versailles, 26 janvier 1998, Sté Movie box c/ Spadem et a.):

Courts are traditionally lenient with pictures showing urban landscapes, cf. Tour Montparnasse, C.A. Paris - 7 novembre 1980.

• Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free.

If the subject of the picture is either a building or an architectural artwork, and if the picture is already used on the French-speaking Wikipedia, w:fr:Utilisateur:Le plus bot can transfer the picture from Commons to this local Wikipedia under a local exception, as voted by the community in 2006 and 2011 (see w:fr:Wikipédia:Exceptions au droit d'auteur#Exceptions).

• This minimal exception is only for the illustration of the most directly related article in French Wikipedia (this illustration is not usable elsewhere), or outside French Wikipedia.
• Their licencing terms must not permit their extension to derived works (for example, sales of these pictures is not authorized, as well as offline republication or online republication via external proxies and aggregators)
• The copyrighted protection must be stated explicitly in their description page, with relevant licencing templates tracking usage of these images in French Wikipedia.
• The image description page will also display the full list of local pages (most often only one) embedding for their illustration a very limited number of such medias (images in galleries showing all artistic and creative aspect of the same copyrighted subject should not be integrated in these French Wikipedia articles: generally a single illustration is enough). These images should not be integrated in templates reusable in an unbound number of pages.
• Most free images currently hosted on French Wikipedia should be transferred to Commons, so that French Wikipedia will only host non-free copyrighted materials subject to these restrictions: this will allow remote proxies or Wikipedia contents aggregators, or other linguistic editions of Wikipedia to block these images, even if they display the rest of articles embedding these non-free illustration images, only by looking at the prefix of their URL on the image servers (instead of displaying these images, they can display only their textual description with a direct link to the French Wikipedia article showing these images covered by this exception).
• Do not transfer these non-free images currently hosted by French Wikipedia (including corporate logos unless they are accessory to the rest of the image and unavoidable) to any other editions of Wikipedia or to other Wikimedia sites (including Commons, as stated by licencing templates shown in their description pages in French Wikipedia).
• Even if these non-free images are now tolerated in French Wikipedia articles, the legitimate copyright holders can send their veto so that these images will be deleted on French Wikipedia too. The same deletion will occur when receiving a French court order: their long-term presence is not warranted as long as the copyright protection persists.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Georgia

Georgia

 Not OK Images cannot be used if a protected work is the main subject or it is used for commercial purposes.

It shall be permitted to reproduce or communicate to the public without the consent of the author or other copyright holder and without remuneration thereof images of works of architecture, photography, and fine arts permanently displayed in public places, except for the cases when the image of a work is the main object for such reproduction or communication to the public, or is used for commercial purposes.^{[2112-IIS/2017 Article 24]}

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Germany

Germany

OK {{FoP-Germany}}

See also: de:Panoramafreiheit#Deutschland

General

Under section 59(1) of the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG), it is permitted to "reproduce, distribute and communicate to the public, by means of painting, drawing, photography, or cinematography, works located permanently in public streets, ways, or public open spaces".

Section 59(1) applies to all types of works as long as they are reproduced by painting, drawing, photography, or cinematography. The German freedom of panorama limitation is thus capable of applying to photographs of works of artistic art (such as paintings, fountains, sculptures, or photographic works) as well as to pictures of poems and song lyrics inscribed on commemorative plaques.

For the exception to arise, two principal conditions must be met: The work must be located in a place that is "public" and the work needs to be located there "permanently". The two conditions are discussed in more detail below.

Public

Despite the somewhat ambiguous wording, a work is located "in" a public place if it can be observed from a public place. In other words, what needs to be public is the place from where the photograph is taken; it does not matter if the work itself is accessible to the public. It is important to note that only the view from the public place is privileged: If, for instance, a statue is located next to a public street, photographs of the statue taken from that street enjoy freedom of panorama, but photographs of the very same statue taken from a non-public spot do not. Accordingly, the Federal Court of Justice held that a picture of a building taken from the balcony of a privately owned flat across the street did not comply with the requirements of § 59(1) because the balcony is not a public place. To simplify life for photographers and re-users of their pictures, there is a rebuttable presumption that if a given photograph of a work could have been made from a public place, it was in fact made from a public place.

When a photographer has used special tools (such as a ladder) to create the picture or has taken the picture after removing objects that otherwise would have shielded the work from the public eye (think of a photographer brushing aside the branches of a hedge to get a better view of a sculpture), § 59(1) cannot be relied upon for the resulting view is no longer part of what the general public can visually perceive from the public place. Based on the same reasoning, the Federal Court of Justice has held that aerial photography does not meet the requirements of § 59(1). (In a 2020 decision, a regional court challenged this view, holding that the decision of the Federal Court of Justice is no longer good law as EU law compels German courts to extend the freedom of panorama to photographs created from the airspace as long as the works shown are located in public spaces. In a separate case, however, a higher regional court in 2023 squarely rejected that position. The court did allow an appeal, though, which as of November 2023 is pending before the Federal Court of Justice.) There is some controversy in the legal literature as to whether telephoto lenses should also be treated as impermissible tools—the majority of commentators answers this in the affirmative.

Whether a place is "public" for purposes of § 59(1) does not depend on whether it is public or private property. Instead, the question turns on its actual accessibility, which, according to the prevailing view, needs to be such that one can infer a (sufficient) dedication to the public. Against this backdrop, many academic and extra-judicial commentators argue that publicly accessible station halls, subway stations, and departure halls fall short of the "public" requirement because they are not in the same way dedicated to the public as streets, ways, or public open spaces. The status of atria and passages is controversial. On the other hand, the place does not need to be accessible all the time. Graveyards are often cited as an example of a place that is public despite the fact that it is often closed during night hours. Private property that cannot be freely accessed, for instance because there is some type of access control in place (or even an entrance fee is charged), does not fall under § 59(1). Buildings such as museums, public collections, churches, or administrative buildings are not "public" within the meaning of the statute, and thus photographs of works exhibited in their interior do not qualify for § 59(1).

The location alternatives listed in § 59(1) ("streets", "ways", and "open spaces") are merely illustrative; freedom of panorama also extends, inter alia, to what can be seen from international and coastal waters, waterways, and ocean harbours.

Permanent

Permanently located in a public place (see Bundesgerichtshof 27 April 2017, case I ZR 247/15 AIDA Kussmund, (2017) 119 GRUR 798): protected work of art ("Smiling Lips") on the bow and the hull of a cruise ship
(design by Feliks Büttner; pictured here near Funchal, Madeira)

Permanently located in a public place (see Bundesgerichtshof 19 January 2017, case I ZR 242/15 East Side Gallery, (2017) 119 GRUR 390): protected work of art on a remaining section of the Berlin Wall
("Hommage an die junge Generation" by Thierry Noir, East Side Gallery)

Permanently located in a public place (see Oberlandesgericht Köln 9 March 2012, case 6 U 193/11 Liebe deine Stadt, (2012) 16 ZUM-RD 593) based on having been in place for five years: installation by Merlin Bauer (protected as a work of art) on a rooftop in Cologne, Germany, Nord-Süd-Fahrt

To meet the condition as to permanence, a work does not need to remain at its location during its entire existence. According to the Federal Court of Justice, the proper test is whether the display or the erection of the work in a public place, as perceived by an objective observer, serves the purpose of a not-merely-temporary presentation. In a more recent decision, the Court clarified that a work is permanently located in a public place if "from the point of view of the general public, [it is] intended to remain in the public place for a long, mostly indefinite, period of time". On that basis, the Court determined that a work presented to the public for just two weeks—the so-called Wrapped Reichstag—cannot be reproduced under § 59(1). In the same vein, a regional court held that an artistic "grass sofa" installed in a freely accessible garden for many years without any indication of an end date of the exhibition, is located there permanently. These cases must be distinguished from the case of ephemeral works, such as ice or sand sculptures, or chalk paintings on streets, whose lifetime is limited by certain natural constraints; leading academic commentaries almost universally consider such works permanent even though they often exist only for a short period of time. The same position is usually taken with respect to graffiti on exterior walls (which in all likelihood will be painted over sooner or later).

Works displayed in shop windows do not fall under § 59(1) due to a lack of permanent display. There is some controversy in the literature over the permanent nature of posters on advertising columns and similar structures.

In order to be located "permanently" in a public place, a work does not need to remain in one and the same place—its location may change. Accordingly, the Federal Court of Justice held that a protected work of art on the bow of a cruise ship meets the "permanence" condition because the artwork and the cruise ship "are intended to be located for a long time in (different) public places". In the view of the Court, this seems to apply more broadly to "street cars, omnibuses, or even freight vehicles", which are "increasingly being used as an advertising medium and at least a non-negligible share of the designs attached to such vehicles are copyright-protected as works of applied art".

Additional requirement for architectural works

In the case of architectural works, the freedom of panorama provision is applicable only to the external appearance. Therefore, pictures of interior staircases and interior courtyards cannot be used under § 59(1) even if all of the above-described conditions are met.

Prohibition of alteration

Section 59(1) does not permit the use of modifications of the depicted work. Therefore, when the photographer of a horse sculpture digitally changed the colour of the horse and digitally added a Santa hat to it, a regional court found that he could no longer use the resulting picture under the freedom of panorama. The same conclusion was reached by a higher regional court when a photographer digitally altered the colour of a protected sign ("Liebe deine Stadt", pictured) and the colour of the sky visible in the background of his photograph. Modifications that directly result from the chosen method of reproduction are permitted. Partial reproductions are generally allowed, even if essential parts of the work are left out and even if it would be possible to reproduce the work as whole.

Acknowledgement of source

The source of the work must be clearly acknowledged. The "source" generally includes the name of the author, but goes beyond that, in that it shall enable a third party to identify the copy of the work that was depicted.

While it is straightforward to apply the attribution requirement when the author is identified directly on/next to the particular copy of the depicted work, it is not entirely clear whether a photographer needs to undertake research (and if so, how thoroughly) when the author is not named on (in the vicinity of) the particular copy. It is widely believed that those who rely for their communication to the public on the freedom of panorama need to undertake a reasonable effort to identify the author, but the interpretations of that differ. Professor Dreier argues in his treatise, for instance, that when using pictures of works of architecture or applied art, less of an effort can be expected than in the case of pictures of works of fine art; Dreyer J, writing extra-judicially, points out that what is reasonable depends primarily on the intensity of the use (publishers printing post cards depicting a work vs tourists giving photographs of a work to their acquaintances as gifts); and Professor Götting argues that it seems unreasonable to him to make the user of a picture of an unsigned architectural work research the name of the author.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Greece

Greece

 Not OK {{NoFoP-Greece}}

Note: Please tag Greek no-FoP deletion requests: <noinclude>[[Category:Greek FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude>

Under Law No. 2121/1993 as amended up to Law 5043/2023:

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.

— ^{[2121/2023 Article 26]}

It remains unclear what exactly "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media" encompasses. Even if "communication by the mass media" is seen as an extension of mere "reproduction", the interpretation of "occasional" reproduction remain to be clarified by jurisdiction or an scholarly interpretation. See talk page for a discussion.

Copyright ends 70 years after the author's death. After that, the government might claim moral rights under certain conditions.^{[2121/2018 Article 29(2)]}

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Hungary

Hungary

OK. {{FoP-Hungary}}

Under the Act No. LXXVI of 1999, updated to 2019, if a fine art, architectural or applied art creation is erected with a permanent character outdoors in a public place, a view of it may be made and used without the authorization of the author and paying remuneration to them.^{[LXXVI/1999-2019 Art.68(1)]} Please note that – as determined in this deletion request – "fine art, architectural or applied art" does not include photographs, maps and text (e.g. content of informational boards) and thus FOP does not apply to them.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Iceland

Iceland

 Not OK {{NoFoP-Iceland}}

In regard to the freedom of panorama, the unofficial translation of Article 16 reads:

• Photographs may be taken and presented of buildings, as well as works of art, which have been situated permanently out-of-doors in a public location. Should a building, which enjoys protection under the rules concerning works of architecture, or a work of art as previously referred to, comprise the principal motif in a photograph which is exploited for marketing purposes, the author shall be entitled to remuneration, unless the pictures are intended for use by a newspaper or in television broadcasting."^{[73/1972-2018 Art.16]}

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

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Ireland

Republic of Ireland

OK for 3D works {{FoP-Ireland}}

OK for 2D "works of artistic craftsmanship" {{FoP-Ireland}}

 Not OK for other types of artistic works

Under the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 (No. 28 of 2000), Section 93,

• This section applies to the copyright in (a) buildings, and (b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, where permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.^{[28/2000 Sec.93(1)]}
• The copyright in a work to which this section applies is not infringed by (a) making a painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart, plan, engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut, print or similar thing representing it, (b) making a photograph or film of it, or (c) broadcasting or including in a cable programme service, an image of it.^{[28/2000 Sec.93(2)]}
• The copyright in a work to which this section applies is not infringed by the making available to the public of copies of anything the making of which is not, by virtue of this section, an infringement of the copyright in the work.^{[28/2000 Sec.93(3)]}

The Copyright and Related Rights (Amendment) Act 2004 clarified the position:

• For the avoidance of doubt, no infringement of any right created by this Part in relation to an artistic or literary work occurs by reason of the placing on display the work, or a copy thereof, in a place or premises to which members of the public have access.^{[28/2000-2004 Sec.40(7(a))]} This does not, however, allow distribution of copies of artistic works.

Irish law is in this respect modeled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be identical. See COM:FOP UK for more details.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Italy

Italy

Pictures from public places don't formally enjoy any exception in Italian copyright law. Objects still under copyright only allow "quotation right" ^{[633/1941 art. 70]} and a minimal and never implemented "fair use" ^{[633/1941 art. 70 c. 1-bis]}. Some objects are even subject to additional non-copyright restrictions (see below).

•  Not OK {{NoFoP-Italy}}

According to the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/10#Italy FOP again and artwork copyrights supposedly held by city councils of Italy, buildings and monuments commissioned and paid for by the Italian state (including regions, cities etc.) are also official works (government works), and the copyright in these cases (20 years from publication) is held by the state or its respective subdivision.

However, objects in public places can still be exempt from copyright for other reasons:

• OK for objects that are not creative or artistic enough to be copyright-protected, see Threshold of originality ^{[42/2004 art. 11 c. 1e]}. Please use {{PD-structure|ITA}} or {{TOO-Italy}} in this case.
• OK for objects where the copyright has expired, see General rules above.

Please tag Italy no-FoP deletion requests: <noinclude>[[Category:Italian FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude>

Note: A de facto exception for works by deceased authors was discussed extensively. It was initially recognized by the Commons community in April 2021, but abandoned again a few months later after this clarifying discussion.

Additional restrictions for cultural heritage assets

Images of public domain landmarks of Italy like Palermo's Teatro Massimo (whose last-surviving architect died in 1897) may be subject to restrictions on commercial use. In a particular case for this building, the courts of Florence and Palermo ruled in 2017 that a bank's use of the image of this public domain building for their advertisement infringes the rights of Teatro Massimo Foundation who exclusively owns the images of the building. (Società Italiana Brevetti S.p.A. article, IPlens article)

In addition to copyright concerns, photos of any cultural heritage asset are generally subject to preemptive authorisation, a fee and other restriction due to the cultural heritage and landscape law which is a non-copyright restriction. The following are considered cultural heritage assets: state-owned things with some artistic, historic, archaeological or ethno-anthropological interest and libraries, galleries, museums and archives collections, unless explicitly removed on a case by case basis; other items declared cultural heritage by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities. The national catalogue of cultural heritage assets is not publicly accessible or does not exist yet. Any artwork or building should be assumed a cultural heritage asset if older than 50 years (or 70 years in some cases since 2017 ^{[42/2004 art. 11 c. 1d]}).

Simplifications were envisioned by law for certain kinds of reproductions ^{[42/2004 art. 108 c. 3-bis]} and collections ^{[36/2006 art. 7]} but are not fully implemented yet as of 2019.

For Wiki Loves Monuments participants, an agreement between the Ministry and Wikimedia has allowed in the past to publish certain photos of cultural heritage assets on Commons, provided that for the ministry-run monuments {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} is added to the respective file descriptions.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan

 Not OK Only incidental, non-commercial use is allowed.

It shall be allowed, without consent of the author or owner of the right and without paying out royalties, to reproduce, to broadcast and (or) communicate for general information via cable of works of architecture, photography, fine arts, that are permanently located in the place open for free access, except for cases when the image of the work is the main object of such reproduction, broadcasting and (or) communication for general information via cable, or when the image of the work is used for commercial purposes. ^{[419/2015 Article 21]}

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Latvia

Latvia

 Not OK: {{NoFoP-Latvia}}

Under the Copyright Law of 2000 (as amended up to June 14, 2017),

• It is permitted to use images of works of architecture, photography, visual arts, design, as well as of applied arts, permanently displayed in public places, for personal use and as information in news broadcasts or reports of current events, or included in works for non-commercial purposes.^{[2000-2017 Sec.25(1)]}
• That which is referred to in this Section shall not apply to cases when the image of a work is an object for further repetition of the work, for broadcast by broadcasting organisations or for the purpose of commercial use of the image of a work.^{[2000-2017 Sec.25(2)]}

The non-commercial use restriction is not acceptable for works uploaded to Commons.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Liechtenstein

Liechtenstein

OK {{FoP-Liechtenstein}}

The 1999 Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, amended 2006, says that works may be depicted when they are permanently located at or on public ground. The depiction may be offered, sold, sent or otherwise distributed. The depiction must not be three-dimensional and not be usable for the same purpose as the original.^{[1999-2006 Art.29]}

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Lithuania

Lithuania

 Not OK {{NoFoP-Lithuania}} Commercial use of reproductions of works of architecture or sculpture in public places is not allowed when the work is the main subject and it is used commercially.

Under Law No. VIII-1185 of 1999, as amended up to Law No. XII-1183 of 2014, Article 28,

• It shall be permitted to carry out the following acts without the authorisation of an author or any other owner of copyright and without a remuneration, as long as the source, including the author's name, is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible: to reproduce and make available to the public works of architecture and sculptures, made to be located permanently in public places, except for the cases where they are displayed in exhibitions and museums;^{[1999–2014 Art.28.1.1]}
• The provisions of Art.28.1.1 shall not be applied when a work of architecture or a sculpture is the main subject of representation in the reproduction, and when this is done for direct or indirect commercial advantage.^{[1999–2014 Art.28.2]}

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Luxembourg

Luxembourg

 Not OK {{NoFoP-Luxembourg}} Only incidental inclusion allowed. Under the Law of April 18, 2001 as modified in 2015,

• A copyright holder may not prevent "the reproduction and communication of [his or her] works located in a publicly accessible place, when such works do not constitute the primary subject of the reproduction or communication."^{[4-18-2001 Art.10(7)]}

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Malta

Malta

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

Malta's Copyright Act states that copyright "shall not include the right to authorise or prohibit (…) the inclusion in a communication to the public, the making of a graphic representation and the making of a photograph or film, of a work of architecture or sculpture or similar works made to be located permanently in public places."^{[415/2000-2011 Art. 9(1)(p)]}

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Moldova

Moldova

Under Law No. 230/2022 of 28.07.2022 on Copyright and Related Rights,

• The reproduction, broadcasting, communication to the public and making available to the public of the following acts shall be permitted without the consent of the author or rightholder and without payment of any remuneration in the following cases:... h) use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, intended for permanent location in public places;^{[230/2022 Art.57(h)]}

Prior to July 2010, there were commercial restrictions on such works similar to those of the Soviet Union, but an amendment (part of Law No. 139 of 2010) removed that restriction.

Free reproduction of artistic works (including commercial purposes) is:

• OK for architecture and sculptures made to be located permanently in public places; per article 57(h)
•  Not OK for sculptures not made to be located permanently in public places
•  Not OK for paintings, drawings, engravings or photographs.

Please use {{FoP-Moldova}} to tag images from Moldova which meet Freedom of Panorama conditions.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Monaco

Monaco

 Not OK: Chapitre - III RESTRICTIONS À L'EXERCICE DES DROITS (Chapter - III RESTRICTIONS ON THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS) does not contain an exception that allows photographic and/or videographic reproductions and commercial publication and/or distribution of images of copyright-protected architecture and artistic works situated in public places.

Il est permis de publier des emprunts faits à des œuvres littéraires ou artistiques, à condition d'en indiquer la source et l'auteur lorsque ces publications ont un caractère scientifique, scolaire ou constituent des chrestomathies.

— in: 491/1948 Art.16

It shall be permissible to publish borrowings made from literary or artistic works, provided that the source and author are indicated where the publications are of a scientific, scholarly or chrestomathic nature.

— Translation of Article 16

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Montenegro

Montenegro

 Not OK Only non-commercial use is allowed. {{NoFoP-Montenegro}}

The Law on Amendments to the Law on Copyright and Related Rights (Official Gazette of Montenegro, No. 37/2011 and 53/2016) says,

• Permission is granted without acquiring the appropriate property rights and without paying a fee, to use works that are permanently exposed in parks, streets, squares and other public places.^{[53/2016 Art.55(1)]} The works ... may not be reproduced in a three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work, or used for direct or indirect economic advantage.^{[53/2016 Art.55(2)]}

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Netherlands

Netherlands

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

 Not OK for photographs, maps, applied art, industrial design, and models

Article 18 of the Dutch copyright act states that:

• it is not an infringement of copyright to reproduce and publish pictures of a work, as meant in article 10, first paragraph, under 6°[1] or of an architectural work as meant in article 10, first paragraph, under 8°[2], which are made to be permanently located in public places, as long as the work is depicted as it is located in the public space. Where incorporation of a work in a compilation is concerned, not more than a few of the works of the same author may be included
• [1] drawings, paintings, works of architecture and sculpture, lithographs, engravings and the like
• [2] drafts, sketches and three-dimensional works relating to architecture, geography, topography or other sciences.

Article 18 limits this explicitly to "works relating to architecture", i.e., geography, topography, and other sciences are not included in article 18. Photographs are not included in Item 6. They are separately listed in Item 9 and therefore are not included in FOP. Also separately listed and therefore not included are maps, applied art and industrial design, and models.

Public place in article 18 of the Dutch copyright law not only includes open-air spaces such as public roads and squares, but also the interior of public buildings. What exactly is a public building is not defined in the Dutch law, but there are some guidelines that can be taken from the published literature and from the parliamentary debates about this article when it was introduced in this version in 2004. Among the criteria to decide whether the interior of a building is a "public place" in the sense of article 18, parliament said that the building must be freely accessible by the general public and then mentioned two negative criteria: whether an entrance fee was charged, and whether access may be denied on private law grounds. (Other criteria may exist; these two were just mentioned as examples.)

Parliament and the literature explicitly mention that schools, opera buildings, entrance halls of businesses, and museums are not public places for the purpose of article 18, but that railway stations are. Case law in the Netherlands on "freedom of panorama" issues is scarce. In one case, the interior of the Johan Cruijff ArenA was deemed to not be a public place. In a second case, a photo of a building in a private holiday resort was considered covered by article 18 because the building was visible from public ground.

Taking these guidelines and the few court cases into consideration, we interpret "public place" (openbare plaats) in article 18 to cover works on open-air roads and squares as well as works visible from there, as long as they are outside. It also includes works in the interiors of only those buildings that primarily serve a transit purpose for the general public: railway stations are explicitly mentioned by the lawmakers, but arguably this would also apply to airports, underpasses, (covered) parking lots. Article 18 also seems to apply in shopping malls. It probably does not apply within the shops in such a mall. In all likelihood it does not apply to other indoors non-private places, such as hotels, cafés, or shops. It certainly does not apply in the locations specifically excluded by the lawmakers: schools, operas, entrance halls of businesses, and museums.

Article 18 is limited to works that were originally made for being placed permanently in public places. The literature mentions that this would also apply to graffiti, even if these normally are removed rather quickly. This is consistent with the interpretation of "permanent" e.g. in Germany as explained here; the "natural lifetime" of a graffito is considered to end with its removal. Furthermore, the picture must show the work as it appears in the public place. A photograph showing a sculpture in its surroundings is OK. Cutting out the sculpture and using only the image of the sculpture is not covered by article 18. Dutch legislature seems to favor a strict interpretation of the Berne three-step test. Parliament mentioned that creating and selling a postcard from a close-up photo of a copyrighted sculpture (i.e., without the surroundings, not showing the sculpture in context) was not allowed.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Северна Македонија

North Macedonia

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Norway

Norway

OK for buildings {{FoP-Norway}}.  Not OK, non-commercial use only for other works like sculptures.

Under the Act No. 40 of June 15, 2018,

• A work can be depicted when it is permanently placed on or near a public space or road or similar publicly accessible place. However, this does not apply when the work is clearly the main subject, and the reproduction is used commercially. Buildings can be depicted freely.^{[2018 §31]}

This seems to imply that photographs of artistic works in public places are allowed if the depiction of the works is de minimis.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Poland

Poland

OK. {{FoP-Poland}} (exterior only)

The copyright act from February 4, 1994 in article 33 point 1 allows one to propagate works that are permanently exhibited on the publicly accessible roads, streets, squares or gardens provided that the propagation is not for the same use. The name of the creator and source should be provided if it is possible by article 34. This use is royalty free, provided that it does not harm the legitimate interests of the creator by article 34.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Portugal

Portugal

OK {{FoP-Portugal}} Under the Code of Copyright and Related Rights (as amended up to Decree-Law No. 100/2017 of August 23, 2017),

• It is lawful, without the author's consent, to make the following uses of a work:^{[100/2017 Art.75(2)]} ... use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places;^{[100/2017 Art.75(2.q)]}
• "Use" includes taking a photograph of such a work and publishing it.^{[100/2017 Art.68]}
• However, in conformity with the Berne three-step test, the allowed uses must not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, nor unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder.^{[100/2017 Art.75(4)]}
• Also, "The free uses mentioned in the preceding article [§75] shall be accompanied by the indication, wherever possible, of the name of the author and of the editor, the title of the work and other circumstances that identify them...."^{[100/2017 Art.76(a)]}

According to Portuguese legal scholar Teresa Nobre, "public location" includes public interiors within the context of Portuguese law.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Romania

Romania

 Not OK, non-commercial only. Under Law No. 8 of March 14, 1996 on Copyright and Neighboring Rights,

• The following uses of a work already disclosed to the public shall be permitted without the author’s consent and without payment of remuneration, provided that such uses conform to proper practice, are not at variance with the normal exploitation of the work and are not prejudicial to the author or to the owners of the exploitation rights:^{[8/1996 Art.33(1)]}
• ... the reproduction, to the exclusion of any means involving direct contact with the work, distribution or communication to the public of the image of an architectural work, work of plastic art, photographic work or work of applied art permanently located in a public place, except where the image of the work is the main subject of such reproduction, distribution or communication, and if it is used for commercial purposes;^{[8/1996 Art.33(1)(f)]}

Wikimedia Commons does not allow content that is restricted to non-commercial uses only, see Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses for more information.

Note

"Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free."

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Russia

Russia

• OK for buildings: {{FoP-Russia}}
• OK for works of garden design: {{FoP-Russia}}
•  Not OK for artwork, including sculptures: {{NoFoP-Russia}}

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

• Free Use of Work Permanently Situated in Places Open for Free Attendance
  1. Reproduction, broadcasting to the air or via cable shall be allowed, without the author's or other copyright holder's consent or payment of royalties, of visual art, or photographic work, that permanently stand in places open for free attendance, except where portrayal of the work by such method is the basic object of that reproduction, or where portrayal of the work is used in commercial purposes.
  2. It shall be allowed to freely use, to reproduce, or to broadcast to the air or via cable works of architecture, of urban development, and works of garden and landscape design, which are situated in places open for free attendance or visible from that places.

The FoP exceptions for works of architecture, urban development, and garden and landscape design, which were added under consultation with Wikimedia Russia, have taken effect with the Civil Code amendments as of October 1, 2014.

Concerning non-architectural artwork, there is still a copyright exception for non-commercial use, but non-commercial use only is not allowed on Commons and unfortunately, we don't have sufficient number of court decisions for clarifying situation. An important court decision states that the copying of a showcase photo is not a creation of a 3D-object in 2 dimensions. See discussion at Commons:Форум/Архив/2010#Судебное решение о фотографиях трёхмерных объектов.

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

Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free."

It is not clear if copyrighted buildings in Crimea are subject to the Russian or the more restrictive Ukrainian law. Following the Commons precautionary principle, images of knowingly unfree Crimean buildings should not be uploaded to Commons. See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/09#Buildings_in_Crimea. Nevertheless, photographic work created in Crimea before February 19, 1954 is the subject of the Russian law.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP San Marino

San Marino

 Not OK. There is no provision for freedom of panorama of any sort under San Marino law.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Serbia

Serbia

OK {{FoP-Serbia}}, if the work is displayed in an open public space. Under the 2009 copyright law,

• Any work that is permanently displayed in a street, a square or some other open public places may be reproduced in two dimensions and its copies thus made may be put on the market, as well as communicated to the public in some other way, without the author's permission and without paying remuneration.^{[104/2009 Art.51]}

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Slovakia

Slovakia

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Slovenia

Slovenia

 Not OK Use: {{NoFoP-Slovenia}}. Only non-commercial use allowed. Under the Consolidated Copyright Act as of 2016,

• Works permanently placed in parks, streets, squares or other public places, may be used freely.^{[12/2016 Art.55(1)]}
• The preceding paragraph does not apply to three-dimensional copies made for the same purpose as the original work, or copies made for profit.^{[12/2016 Art.55(2)]}
• The copy should state the source and authorship of the work, if indicated on the work.^{[12/2016 Art.55(3)]}

OK for all works whose creators died or published them anonymously or pseudonymously (and have remained anonymous or pseudonymous) in 1953 or earlier.

• Another exception is photographs of photographic and similarly-made works in a public space, and photographs of the works of applied art, which are acceptable for Commons if the original (non-derivative) work was published in 1969 or earlier. The copyright on these works lasted for 25 years from publication per the 1978 Yugoslav copyright act.^{[1978 Art.84]}

In addition to copyright, the usage of the reproductions of "cultural monuments" for commercial purposes is restricted by the Slovenian Cultural Heritage Protection Act, which requires consensus of the owner of the monument for any use of the image and name of the monument (Article 44). The definition of a cultural monument is the following (Article 3): heritage that has been statutorily protected as a monument or entered in the inventory of an authorised museum. For immovable cultural heritage, the national catalog is publicly accessible at gisportal.gov.si. Wikimedia Commons is not required to comply with the Slovenian Cultural Heritage Protection Act because it is hosted in the United States of America. Users who are citizens of Slovenia are warned that they are solely responsible for any possible violation of local laws.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Spain

Spain

 Unsure

{{FoP-Spain}} Under the the 1996 Intellectual Property Law as amended up to 14 April 2018,

• Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public tracks and passes may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes.^{[1/1996-2018 Article 35(2)]}

In 1998, Article 40bis was non retroactively introduced in the law, limiting this exception:

• The above may not be so interpreted that they could be applied in a manner capable of unreasonably prejudicing the legitimate interests of the author or adversely affecting the normal exploitation of the works to which they refer.^{[1/1996-2018 Article 40bis]}

After the introduction of Article 40bis, Spanish courts have ruled against commercial use of works situated in public spaces, including Monumento a Los Raqueros and Toro de Osborne, though in both cases the work had been extracted from its surrounding panorama, and commercialized in that form. However, a number of sources state that 35(2) is entirely revoked by commercial use: "After the introduction into our legal system of Article 40 bis of the LPI, the doctrine that has dealt with this issue has unanimously ruled against allowing, under the protection of Article 35.2 of the LPI, the use of works located in public places when there are profit-making purposes.", and that authorization from the copyright holder is required for commercial use of photographs and derivative and composed works of a copyrighted work, even when situated in a public place. In the case of the Toro de Osborne, the court considered that only cultural uses were allowed by Article 35.2, excluding any kind of commercial use.

Toro de Osborne Case

By decision dated January 31, 2006, the Provincial Court of Seville considered that the commercial use of the figure or silhouette of the Toro de Osborne through items such as hats, t-shirts, keychains, stickers, postcards, ashtrays, tiles, ceramics, coasters, as well as scaled reproductions of the same, constitutes a criminal infringement of the copyright under Article 270 of the Penal Code, as it involves an "intent to obtain direct or indirect economic benefit" and is carried out "to the detriment of a third party." The Court interpreted the limitation of the panorama exception provided in Article 35(2) of the Intellectual Property Law (LPI) in accordance with the provisions of Article 40 bis of the LPI, stating that: "only the exploitation of the same with a strict or predominantly cultural dimension has been allowed, and any use of the same without its consent (from the owner) that exceeds the aforementioned purpose must be understood as unauthorized.".

Raqueros Case

By decision dated April 5, 2006, the Provincial Court of Cantabria, decided that a sculptural ensemble known as the "Grupo de Raqueros", permanently installed in a public thoroughfare (Paseo Marítimo), commissioned by the Government of Cantabria or by the Santander City Council, is reproduced in an acrylic based material, intended for public sale as tourist souvenirs. According to the decision, the author keeps the exploitation rights over it, and the Provincial Court of Cantabria ordered some of the defendants to compensate the author for moral and economic damages, due to the distribution of unauthorized reproductions.

Refer to this discussion for more information. Spanish Wikimedian MarcoAurelio provides an insight on the situation of the Spanish freedom of panorama.

See also: Category:Spanish FOP cases.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Sweden

Sweden

===Public art===

 Unsure but in accordance with Wikimedia Foundation's 2017 statement, OK and do not delete photos based only on the court ruling — On 4 April 2016, the Supreme Court of Sweden ruled, that Article 24 does not extend to publication by [Wikimedia Sweden] in their online repository offentligkonst.se, regardless of commercial intent. See also: {{FoP-Sweden}}

Under Act 1960:729 with consolidated amendments up to Act (2017:323) Article 24, the first paragraph of which ('works of art...') was ruled not to apply to online publication:

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.

— Point 23 of the ruling of the Swedish Supreme Court.

Translation:

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.

The reason BUS chose to target the site "offentligkonst.se" and not Wikimedia Commons was (probably) the fact that it made an intrusion to a right previously negotiated between BUS and the municipalities of Sweden (owners of the public art). The supreme court also used the requisite of a database for the ruling, not the publication of the images by themselves.

21. ... Det handlar här om en avvägning i förhållande till det syfte som databasen ska tillgodose (se p. 1). Detta syfte ligger i och för sig inom ramen för vad som kan ses som ett allmänt intresse. En databas av nu aktuellt slag öppnar emellertid för en stor användning av upphovsrättsligt skyddade verk, utan att någon ersättning betalas till upphovsmännen. Det blir därmed fråga om en betydligt större inskränkning i deras ensamrätt än vad bestämmelsen syftar till.

— Point 21 of the ruling of the Swedish Supreme Court.

Translation:

21. ... This is a trade-off in relation to the purpose that the database is to serve (see p. 1). This purpose is in itself within the framework of what can be seen as a public interest. However, a database of the current type allows for a large use of copyrighted works, without any compensation being paid to the authors. It is thus a question of a much greater restriction on their exclusive right than what the provision aims at.

Before the ruling, it was widely believed that the exception in § 24 of the Swedish copyright law applied, permitting depiction of works of art. The exception reads as follows:

Works of fine art may be reproduced in pictorial form

• if they are permanently located on, or at a public outdoor location,^{[729/1960-2017 §24.1]}
• if the purpose is to advertise an exhibition and sale of works of art, but only to the extent necessary to promote the exhibition or sale,^{[729/1960-2017 §24.2]} or
• if they are part of a collective work, in a catalog, but not in digital form.^{[729/1960-2017 §24.3]}

Buildings may be freely depicted.^{[729/1960-2017 §24.3]}

Bildkonst Upphovsrätt i Sverige (BUS, a collection society for visual arts), hold the position, that Article 24 does not apply to publication online. Others, such as the Swedish Wikimedia chapter, reject this position.

The Swedish Wikimedia chapter was sued in 2014 by BUS for alleged copyright violations of outdoor sculptures by providing a website that allows users to view locations of artwork on a map with links to photographs hosted on Wikimedia Commons.

On 4 April 2016, the Supreme Court of Sweden ruled that the first paragraph of Article 24 does not extend to publication in an online repository, regardless of commercial intent.

The implications of that ruling were discussed.

On 6 July 2017, the Patent and Market Court at Stockholm District Court said it thinks that the Article 24 does not give anyone the right to publish photographs of copyrighted public art on the Internet without the consent of the depicted work's author, and ordered the Swedish Wikimedia chapter to cease from further distribution, and to pay damages and court costs. The ruling was not appealed.

Following the WMF official statement on 9 August 2017, it's strongly recommend not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged. If for some other reasons than FOP that the affected files must be nominated for deletion, a Swedish-speaking user must be participated in the related deletion request to explain so. See also: Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Swedish FOP?

Information boards and maps

 Not OK Information boards and maps are considered works of literature and are not covered by Article 24.

Architecture

 Unsure but in accordance with Wikimedia Foundation's 2017 statement, OK and do not delete photos based only on the court ruling. Architecture is covered in the second paragraph of Article 24:

Byggnader får fritt avbildas.

The paragraph was not discussed in the BUS vs WMSE case. However, WIPO gives a different perspective. Citing the BUS case, WIPO (2022, p. 20) states that "the Supreme Court of Sweden has held that Wikimedia required a license from the relevant right holder in order to lawfully display images of copyright-protected buildings."

Security

Swedish security law (2010:305) dictates, that it is illegal to depict certain sensitive locations in any form. However, this is a non-copyright restriction, and has not been upheld by the community as a limitation of copyrights as discussed on this page.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Switzerland

Switzerland

OK. {{FoP-Switzerland}}

Under Article 27 of the Copyright Act, a work permanently situated in a place accessible to the public may be depicted and the depiction offered, transferred, broadcast or otherwise distributed. The depiction must not be three-dimensional and it must not be possible to use the depiction for the same purpose as the original (in the German text of the Copyright Act: "nicht zum gleichen Zweck wie das Original verwendbar"). It is therefore, for example, not allowed to reproduce copyrighted paintings from a permanent outdoors exhibition and to use them for another exhibition.

Freedom of panorama does not apply to works located in interior spaces.

Accessible to the public

• The place must be accessible to the public on a de facto basis. The legal ownership status of the place is irrelevant to the applicability of the provision.
• The depicted work itself does not have to be accessible to the public. Freedom of panorama also applies to a work on private (not publicly accessible) grounds provided it can be seen with the naked eye from a place accessible to the public.

• The place does not need to be accessible to the public all the time. If a park is closed during night hours, it may still be “accessible to the public” within the meaning of Article 27 provided the other criteria are met.
• Following the majority view in the legal literature, if the place is only accessible to certain categories of persons, such as pupils and high school staff, it is no longer “accessible to the public”. Commentators do not agree whether charging entrance fees also makes the place "not public" and therefore not subject to Article 27.
• Following the majority view in the legal literature, freedom of panorama does not apply to interior spaces. Hence Article 27 cannot be invoked for depictions produced in the staircase or the rooms of a building. It is recognized in the literature that in some cases it can be difficult to determine what constitutes an “interior space”. Part of the literature suggests a differentiation of interior spaces from interior courtyards, with only the latter fulfilling the requirements of Article 27. However, definition problems remain, for instance, in the case of station halls or shopping arcades which, consequently, are assessed differently by commentators. It is generally held that the interior of a church cannot be depicted under Article 27.
• Commons opinion is that stained glass windows should be considered part of interior spaces.

Permanently situated

• A work is not “permanently situated” within the meaning of the law if it is only visible by accident (e.g. whilst being transported).
• It is controversial what is required to fulfill the feature “permanently situated”. According to one widespread view, this requires that the (objective) intent of the copyright holder is to indefinitely present the work in/at a publicly-accessible place.A minority view holds that freedom of panorama can also apply to a work such as a sculpture otherwise located inside a museum that is accessible to the public as part of a temporary exhibition. Whether Christo’s “wrapped works” can be depicted under Art. 27 is controversial. Posters in public are not considered “permanently situated” by the literature.
• Works whose lifetime is restricted by natural conditions, such as ice sculptures or chalk paintings on streets, are nevertheless considered permanent.

General

• Applicability to all works: Article 27 applies to all categories of protected works.
• Modifications: Modifications of the work are not allowed (Art. 10 URG). Article 11 prohibits the distortion of the work. However, modifications required due to the reproduction method used are generally considered permitted.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Türkiye

Turkey

OK {{FoP-Turkey}} Under Law No. 5846 of December 5, 1951 (as amended up to decision no 2020/29 of Constitutional Court of Turkey on July 17, 2020),

• Works of fine arts permanently placed on public streets, avenues or squares may be reproduced by drawings, graphics, photographs and the like, distributed, shown by projection in public premises or broadcast by radio or similar means. For architectural works, this freedom is only valid for the exterior form.^{[5846/1951 Article 40]}
• Works of fine arts are the following works, which have aesthetic value: Oil paintings or water colors, all types of drawings, patterns, pastels, engravings, artistic scripts and gildings, works drawn or fixed on metal, stone, wood or other material by engraving, carving, ornamental inlay or similar methods, calligraphy, silk screen printing; Sculptures, reliefs and carvings; Architectural works; Handicraft and minor works of art, miniatures and works of ornamentation, textiles, fashion designs; Photographic works and slides; Graphic works; Cartoons; All kinds of personifications.^{[5846/1951 Article 4]}

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Ukraine

Ukraine

 Not OK, non-profit use only. {{NoFoP-Ukraine}}

A freedom of panorama exception was added in the Law of Ukraine No. 2811-IX of December 1, 2022, on Copyright and Related Rights, under Article 22(10). It is now permissible "creation of images of works of architecture and fine arts permanently located in places accessible to the public on the street, provided that such actions do not have independent economic value."

The condition "provided that such actions do not have independent economic value" seems to imply that images of such works in public spaces should not be made for the purpose of making profit. Regardless of the clarity of the condition, it still does not fit the licensing requirements of Wikimedia Commons, which only allows content that is licensed for any uses, including commercial uses. Non-commercial content is not allowed. See also Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/05#NEW copyright law of Ukraine.

Before 2023, Law of Ukraine No. 3792-XII of December 23, 1993, on Copyright and Related Rights (with latest version from 2017) did not contain a freedom of panorama exception. It is claimed, though, that article 21(4) of the old law implied some kind of "freedom of panorama" (claim was repeated here):

• ...it shall be permitted without the consent of the author (or other copyright holder) and with mandatory indication of the author's name and of the source of borrowing: ... to reproduce, in order to highlight current events by means of photography or cinematography, to carry out public notification or other public communication of the works seen or heard in the course of such events to the extent justified by the informational purpose.^{[3792-XII/199-2017 Art.21(4)]}

This, however, is limited to "informational purposes" and to "current events". It is not general freedom of panorama but a "fair use"-like provision for news reporting.

Indeed, four separate court rulings during 2007–09 affirmed the lack of commercial freedom of panorama in Ukraine, all involving exploitations of Vasyl' Borodai's (1917–2010) 1982 sculpture Monument to the Founders of Kyiv by four different entities during late 1990s and early 2000s. According to Shtefan (2019), "all these cases went to trial and in each case the courts came to the conclusion that the author's rights were not respected." (article, page 23)

Note: Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here in Ukraine since the author's works are now in the public domain.

However, there's also a consensus that utilitarian buildings such as the New Safe Confinement (cf. a 2021 deletion request) are not considered copyrightable.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP United Kingdom

United Kingdom

OK for 3D works

OK for 2D "works of artistic craftsmanship"

 Not OK for 2D "graphic works" {{FoP-UK}}

Section 62 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is broader than the corresponding provisions in many other countries, and allows photographers to take pictures of

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

without breaching copyright. Such photographs may be published in any way.

Note that under UK law, "works of artistic craftsmanship" are defined separately from "graphic works". Graphic works are defined in Section 4 as any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work. The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works - such as a mural or poster - even if they are permanently located in a public place. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder.

The courts have not established a consistent test for what is meant by a "work of artistic craftsmanship", but one of the standard reference works on copyright, Copinger and Skone James, suggests that for a work to be considered as such the creator must be both a craftsman and an artist. Evidence of the intentions of the maker are relevant, and according to the House of Lords case of Hensher v Restawile [1976] AC 64, it is "relevant and important, although not a paramount or leading consideration" if the creator had the conscious purpose of creating a work of art. It is not necessary for the work to be describable as 'fine art'.

In Hensher v Restawile, some examples were given of typical articles that might be considered works of artistic craftsmanship, including hand-painted tiles, stained glass, wrought iron gates, and the products of high-class printing, bookbinding, cutlery, needlework and cabinet-making.

Other works that have been held (by courts in common law jurisdictions outside the UK) to fall under this definition include hand-knitted woollen sweaters, fabric with a highly textured surface including 3D elements, a range of pottery and items of dinnerware. The cases are, respectively, Bonz v Cooke [1994] 3 NZLR 216 (New Zealand), Coogi Australia v Hydrosport (1988) 157 ALR 247 (Australia), Walter Enterprises v Kearns (Zimbabwe) noted at [1990] 4 EntLR E-61, and Commissioner of Taxation v Murray (1990) 92 ALR 671 (Australia).

The word "building" is quite broadly defined by section 4(2), and includes "any fixed structure, and a part of a building or fixed structure".

The practical effect of the broad Freedom of Panorama provisions in the UK and in other countries with similar laws is that it is acceptable to upload to Commons not only photographs of public buildings and sculptures but also works of artistic craftsmanship which are on permanent public display in museums, galleries and exhibitions which are open to the public. According to Copinger and Skone James, the expression "open to the public" presumably extends the section to premises to which the public are admitted only on licence or on payment. Again, this is broader than 'public place', which is the wording in many countries.

The Design and Artists Copyright Society and Artquest provide further information on freedom of panorama in the United Kingdom.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Vatican City

Vatican City

 Not OK

Under Law N. XII on Copyright of January 12, 1960, the Vatican decreed that unless church law says otherwise, the precepts of Italian copyright law apply in Vatican City. Italy does not allow for freedom of panorama. Thus, sculptures and other works, including buildings, are not ok until 70 years after the death of the architect or designer.

Specific status

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Akrotiri and Dhekelia

Akrotiri and Dhekelia

Further information: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Cyprus#FOP

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Faroe Islands

Faroe Islands

• OK architecture only.
•  Not OK public art. Restricted to non-commercial and/or de minimis (or not-the-main-subject) use, but non-commercial content is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons.

According to Løgtingslóg nr. 30 frá 30. apríl 2015 um upphavsrætt (in Faroese text):

• "Tá listaverk varandi er sett upp við veg ella á plássi, har atkomuligt er hjá almenninginum, kann listaverkið verða avmyndað. Ásetingin í 1. pkt. er tó ikki galdandi, um listaverkið er høvuðsevnið í myndini, og myndin verður tikin við vinningi fyri eyga."^{[30/2015 §24.2.]}
• "Bygningar kunnu frítt avmyndast."^{[30/2015 §24.3.]}

Listaverk - work/s of art. Bygningar - building/s.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Gibraltar

Gibraltar

• OK for buildings, sculptures, models for buildings, and works of artistic craftsmanship, "if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public."
•  Not OK for other types of artistic works (e.g. public murals, sculptures not situated in public places, or models not meant to be permanently displayed in a public place).

Gibraltarian freedom of panorama is found at Section 77(1–3), "Representation of certain artistic works on public display."

Gibraltarian law is modelled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the freedom of panorama rules will be similar. See the COM:FOP United Kingdom for more details.

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Bailiwick of Guernsey

Bailiwick of Guernsey

OK: for buildings, sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship.  Not OK: for photographs, paintings etc.

Under the Copyright (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Ordinance, 2005, 82: representation of certain artistic works on public display",

• This section applies to (a) buildings, and (b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.^{[2005 Section 82(1)]}
• The copyright in any of those works is not infringed by (a) making a graphic work representing it (b) making a photograph or film of it, or (c) making a broadcast of a visual image of it.^{[2005 Section 82(2)]}
• Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the communication to the public, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.^{[2005 Section 82(3)]}

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Isle of Man

Isle of Man

OK For buildings, sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship. Under The Copyright Act 1991,

• This section applies to (a) buildings, and (b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.^{[1991-2013 Sec.62(1)]}
• The copyright in such a work is not infringed by (a) making a graphic work representing it, (b) making a photograph or film of it, or (c) making a broadcast of a visual image of it.^{[1991-2013 Sec.62(2)]}
• Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the communication to the public, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.^{[1991-2013 Sec.62(31)]}

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Jersey

Jersey

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

 Not OK for other types of artistic work

According to the Intellectual Property (Unregistered Rights) (Jersey) Law 2011, Section 90: Representation of certain artistic works on public display,

• This Article applies to (a) buildings; and (b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.^{[2011 Section 90(1)]}
• The copyright in such a work is not infringed by making a graphic work representing it; making a photograph or film of it; or making a broadcast of a visual image of it.^{[2011 Section 90(2)]}
• Nor is the copyright infringed by anything done in relation to copies of, or the communication to the public of, anything whose making was, by virtue of this Article, not an infringement of the copyright.^{[2011 Section 90(3)]}

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Svalbard

Template:Svalbard

Limited recognition

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Abkhazia

Abkhazia

 Not OK. Only incidental, non-commercial use allowed. Under the 2006 Law on Copyright and Related Rights,

• It is allowed without the consent of the author and without paying the author's fee to reproduce, broadcast or communicate to the public by cable of works of architecture, photography or fine art which are permanently located in a place open to the public, except when the image of the work is the main object such reproduction, transmission or broadcast to the public by cable or when the image of the work is used for commercial purposes.^{[2006 Art.21]}

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Kosovo

Kosovo

 Not OK, non-commercial only. {{NoFoP-Kosovo}} According to the Law No. 2004/45 on Copyright and Related Rights,

• Works permanently placed in public streets, squares, parks or other generally accessible public places may 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]}

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP South Ossetia

South Ossetia

 Not OK, non-commercial use only if the work is the main subject of the reproduction. However, it should be OK if the work is not the main subject of the photograph or video.

• It is allowed without the consent of the author or other holder of rights, and without payment of royalties, to reproduce, broadcast or transmit by cable works of architecture, photography, and fine art which are permanently located in a place open to public access, unless the image of the work is the main object such reproduction, broadcasting or transmission by cable or when the image of the work is used for commercial purposes.^{[2012 Art.21]}

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Transnistria

Transnistria

No information available

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP Northern Cyprus

Northern Cyprus

OK: 1911 U.K. copyright law still applies in Northern Cyprus (source) which allows Freedom of Panorama.

See also: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/02#FoP status of Northern Cyprus

Text transcluded from
COM:FOP United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus

United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus

No information available

partly located in Europe

Freedom of panorama
Africa‌Americas‌Asia‌Europe‌Oceania‌Others

Some citation text may not have been transcluded