The UK law (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/62) 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.
-- which seems plain enough.
It applies to all buildings, regardless of where the photograph or drawing is taken from.
Clause (a) is considered to also include gardens.
The Irish law is similar.
-- James.
On 01/06/2016 17:08, Raul Veede wrote:
In most cases, it is just "art permanently located in publicly accessible
space". Is everyone allowed to approach it, with or without a fee, for most
of the time? It's free. I'm not aware of any cases where someone would have
claimed a house not being freely depictable because of a lawn. One could do
it, but most likely it wouldn't make sense, and common sense is actually an
important legal principle in applying the text of the laws. Of course
drones are bringing quite a new perspective into this issue, both
physically and metaphorically (sorry for a lousy pun), and our current
legal frameworks are as badly suited for drones as they are for phone
cameras and the Internet.
r
On 1 Jun 2016 18:17, "Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov" <
dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
To be fair, the clearest definition is the one in Germany. Most other
European countries just put the building in the centre and apparently
refrain from asking the questions you just did.
But yes, theoretically in Austrian or Spanish law for instance, if a
building is not right at the street/path it might not be covered by the
copyright exception. I am not aware of this ever having been a real
problem, though.
Dimi
2016-06-01 17:11 GMT+02:00 L.Gelauff <lgelauff@gmail.com>:
Well, that is my worry. I don't really see a better definition out there
that is unambiguous. I'm not so much asking because of the German situation
- I totally agree it would be odd to go in strong for what is in the end a
detail - but it might be helpful when working in other countries, what are
the best practices, what ideal FoP would look like.
If you put the building at the center, which part of the building? And
which buildings? You say located at a street, but what if there's a garden
(field of grass) in between? Or a low building?
The only better definition I could think of, is to apply it to all
architecture. But whether that is realistic?
Lodewijk
2016-06-01 17:04 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <
dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com>:
Hello, everybody!
I personally don't see this particular wording in German law as very
problematic. Sure, it would be nice to have it written otherwise, but is it
a priority issue? Definitely not!
If we ever got the chance it without a fight, I would simply go for
changing the perspective to the one of the building. Something like
buildings/plots/statutes that are permanently located in/at parks, streets
and squares. This way drones or pictures from aircrafts won't be
problematic.
Of course "parks, streets and squares" is not exhaustive enough, but you
get my point.
Dimi
2016-06-01 16:31 GMT+02:00 L.Gelauff <lgelauff@gmail.com>:
Hi Raul,
Changing the topic, as this becomes a quite specific discussion.
What would be the better definition in your opinion? The burden of
proof is always on the copyright holder, I'd think. But somehow, you need
to define what is this 'panorama'. What you could see from a public space,
is one definition. What is yours?
Lodewijk
2016-06-01 14:20 GMT+02:00 Raul Veede <raul.veede@gmail.com>:
Hi.
Has there been any discussion about possibly (re)opening the question
of the clause limiting FoP that demands that the pictures should be taken
_from_ a public place? It could be argued this creates complications for
businesses (as clearly demonstrated by the Hundertwasser case) and has
potential for unlimited amount of uncertainty (the place where the
photographer stood usually remains unseen on the picture itself, so the
legality is hard to determine afterwords, especially on the Internet, e.g.
on Commons). Most jurisdictions with FoP can get very well by without such
a clause, and it is hard to see what benefit it creates for the public, or
actually even for any private rightsholders.
Best,
Raul,
working on FoP in Estonia
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:57 PM, John Hendrik Weitzmann <
john.weitzmann@wikimedia.de> wrote:
Hi all,
@Jens: Thx for the warm welcome. The settling in is not quite done
yet. I'm still watching/learning and trying to tend to urgent things on the
way. The justice ministry is high on the meeting agenda, a direct contact
to the head of their copyright unit exists. Their ideas and initiatives
around exceptions & limitations definitely touch on Wikiprojects. Any
concrete suggestions welcome. Main items on this year's WMDE work plan
regarding lawmaking are public works, freedom of panorama, database
directive and ancillary publichers right, the three last of which happen
mainly on the EU level as yet.
Best
John
2016-06-01 8:01 GMT+02:00 Mathias Schindler <
mathias.schindler@gmail.com>:
Hi,
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Jens Best <best.jens@gmail.com>
wrote:
I heard that the German ministry of justice is reevaluating theaspect of
"Schrankenregeln" (kind of the German version of fair use) as one
this year's copyright laws reevaluation. Wouldn't that be apossible focus
which relates to the volunteer work of the Wikiprojects?
a more precise translation of Schrankenregeln is "limitations and
exceptions" in copyright. EU member states can implement exceptions
listed in the InfoSoc Directive, they are not allowed to implement
exceptions not listed there. The current German government has
announced to adjust certain exceptions dealing with education. Other
than that, the introduction of a fair use clause in German copyright
would require some legislation on the EU level*
Mathias
* (Martin Senftleben is slightly more optimistic here
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1959554)
_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
--
Referent für Politik und Recht
Legal and Policy Advisor
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49 (0)30 219 158 26-0
http://wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge
allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt
für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy