As they use it in logo's etc, it might very well
be that for this
particular case, they acquired permissions etc. But it's all guessing,
couldn't find a reliable source..
Lodewijk
2016-06-04 15:25 GMT+02:00 Raul Veede <raul.veede(a)gmail.com>om>:
It would surprise me, actually, if they thought
about the copyright of
the building and solved the problem in time, smoothly. I've talked to many
officials in EU, states, municipalities, etc, and whenever they state
something about copyright, it is usually just lorem ipsum, they have no
idea what they are talking about. Any kind of explanation will have to
start from the basics and it will take a lot of time. There are exceptions
but they're truly rare, especially when it concerns FoP.
Raul
On 4 Jun 2016 16:07, "Owen Blacker" <owen(a)openrightsgroup.org> wrote:
Belgium doesn't have freedom of panorama, so
certainly someone owns the
copyright. It wouldn't surprise me if the Commission did.
On Sat, 4 Jun 2016, 12:34 Raul Veede, <raul.veede(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The Estonian office of European Commission is
trying to convince me the
copyright of the Berlaymont building in Brussels belongs to the EC. While I
think it might be possible that someone might have asked for the
architect's permit to spread photos of the building, I have seen no proof
of it. Can anyone prove or disprove that claim?
Raul
_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org