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@wikimedia.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