Hi Dimi,
It is certainly not convincing as we know (at least) one member of the
Belgian parliament who proposed this law change to implement Freedom of
Panorama.
Second, there were ammendments from other parties in the Belgian parliament
to make it only non-commercial, but those did not get a majority in
parliament.
Also this law change was done to make it legally possible for people to
share photos of (modern) buildings on social media and Wikipedia, both
requiring commercial usage to be allowed.
As you indicated, the normal exploitation of a design from an architect is
to sell the design and get the building built, and not to do anything with
the photos taken in the public environment of the building.
Greetings,
Romaine
2017-07-12 10:26 GMT+02:00 Dimi Dimitrov <dimi(a)wikimedia.be>be>:
Dear WMBE, dear Public Policy list,
According to a Belgian architect bureau I have been in touch with (and the Atomium
itself <http://atomium.be/AuthorsRights.aspx>), FoP in Belgium is valid
only for non-commercial purposes, because of the Berne 3-Step-Test. See
attachment.
I find this explanation very unconvincing, because the so-called
3-Step-Test is valid in all EU Member States and thus would mean that FoP
for commercial purposes is questionable everywhere in the EU.Furthermore, I
would argue that the "normal exploitation of a work" in the case of
architecture isn't printing it on a T-shirt and selling it.
Anyhow, this is the thesis currently circulating in Belgium among some
groups. It would be good to have our own legal expertise on this (checking
with WMF legal).
Greetings,
Dimi