this raises a question: Is the Belgian architect bureau legitimate body for legal
definitions of adopted laws? Do actually individuals and institutions trust them?
Od: Dimi Dimitrov <dimi(a)wikimedia.be>
Komu: WMBE - Board <board(a)wikimedia.be>be>, publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Datum: 12.07.2017 10:26
Předmět: [Publicpolicy] Fwd: Freedom of Panorama
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).
Publicpolicy mailing list