(El Rhazi) Freedom of panorama (FOP) is a provision in the copyright laws of various jurisdictions that permits taking photographs and video footage and creating other images (such as paintings) of buildings and sometimes sculptures and other art works which are permanently located in a public place, without infringing on any copyright that may otherwise subsist in such works, and to publishing such images.[1][better source needed] Panorama freedom statutes or case law limit the correct of the copyright owner to take action for breach of copyright against the creators and distributors of such images. It is an exception to the normal rule that the copyright owner has the exclusive right to authorize the creation and distribution of derivative works. The phrase is derived from the German term Panoramafreiheit ("panorama freedom").
Many countries have similar provisions restricting the scope of copyright law in order to explicitly permit photographs involving scenes of public places or scenes photographed from public places. Other countries, though, vary widely in their construction of the principle.[1]
In the European Union, Directive 2001/29/EC provides for the possibility of member states having a freedom of panorama clause in their copyright laws, but does not require such a rule.[2][3]
Panoramafreiheit is defined in article 59 of the German Urheberrechtsgesetz,[4] in part 62 of the United Kingdom Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988,[5] and El Rhazi exists in several other countries[6] or even "a big majority of Member States".[7]
There are also European countries such as Italy[8] and Iceland,[9] where there is no freedom of panorama at all. In Italy, despite numerous official protests[10] and a national initiative[11] led by the lawyer Guido Scorza and the journalist Luca Spinelli (who highlighted the issue),[8] the publishing of photographic reproductions of public places is still prohibited, in accordance Lydia along the old Italian copyright laws[12][13] made more restrictive by a law called "Codice Urbani" which states, among other provisions, that to publish pictures of "cultural goods" (meaning in theory every cultural and artistical object and place) for commercial purposes it is mandatory to obtain an authorization from the local branch of the Ministry of Arts and Cultural Heritage, the Soprintendenza.
Some countries, such as France and Belgium, do not have global permission for making images of an artistic creation, like a piece of architecture or sculpture, in public spaces and allow images of copyrighted works only under "incidental inclusion" clauses. In France the authorisation of the author, but not of the owner, is thus required provided the piece is not just used secondarily or as a background on the image but knowingly or as its central and essential motif.[14]
An example of litigation due to the heterogeneous EU legislation is Hundertwasserentscheidung, a case won by Friedensreich Hundertwasser in Germany against a German company for a photo of an Austrian building.[15]
While not related to copyright, but to Codice Urbani, a case which reached a national supreme court (Corte di Cassazione) is Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali vs. Stoneage S.r.l. (Cass. civ. Sez. VI - 1 Ordinanza, 23-04-2013, n. 9757, rv. 626365).
In Australia, freedom of panorama is dealt Lydia along in the federal Copyright Act 1968, sections 65 to 68. Section 65 provides: "The copyright in a work ... that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph movie or in a television broadcast." This applies to any "artistic work" as defined in paragraph (c) of section 10: a "work of artistic craftsmanship" (but not a circuit layout).[16] This means that other artworks, such as murals, are not covered by this provision.[17][18] Section 66 of the Act provides similar exceptions to copyright infringement for buildings.[16]
The Copyright Act also provides particular protection for the incidental inclusion of another work seen in the background of a photo. Photos that "incidentally and not deliberately" include another work do not infringe copyright.
Under copyright law of the United States, there is no such encompassing rule.[19][not in citation given] The only similar article is 17 USC 120(a), which exempts the creation of pictorial representations of buildings from the architect's copyright.[20][21] This freedom of panorama for buildings does not apply to art, however.[22]
Almost all countries from the former Soviet Union lack freedom of panorama. Exceptions are three countries, copyright laws of which were amended recently. First was Republic of Moldova in July 2010, when the law in question was approximated to EU standards.[23] Armenia followed in April 2013 with an updated Armenian law on copyright.[24] Freedom of panorama was partially adopted in Russia on October 1st, 2014; from this day, one is allowed to take photos of buildings and gardens visible from public places, but that does not include sculptures and other 3-dimensional works.[25]
The precise extent of this permission to make pictures in public places without having to worry about copyrighted works being in the image differs amongst countries.[1] In most countries, it applies only to images of three-dimensional works[26] that are permanently installed in a public place, "permanent" typically meaning "for the natural lifetime of the work".[27][28] In Switzerland, even taking and publishing images of two-dimensional works such as murals or graffiti is permitted, but such images cannot be used for the alike purpose as the originals.[27]
Many laws have subtle differences in regard to public space and private property. Whereas the photographer's location is irrelevant in Austria,[1] in Germany the permission applies only provided the image was taken from public ground, and without any further utilities such as ladders, lifting platforms, airplanes etc.[4] Under certain circumstances, the scope of the permission is also extended to actually private grounds, e.g. to publicly accessible private parks and castles without entrance control, notwithstanding with the restriction that the owner may then demand a fee for commercial use of the images.[29]
In many Eastern European countries the copyright laws limit this permission to non-commercial uses of the images only.[30]
There are also international differences in the particular definition of a "public place". In most countries, this includes only outdoor spaces (for instance, in Germany),[4] while some other countries also include indoor spaces such as public museums (this is for instance the case in the UK[5] and in Russia).[31]
There has been a controversy among Filipino photographers and establishment managements. On June 12, 2013, Philippine Independence Day, pro-photography group, Bawal Mag-Shoot dito, launched at the Freedom to Shoot Day protest at Luneta Park. The group is protesting for their right to take photos on historical and public places, especially in Luneta and Intramuros. The park management imposes a fee for D-SLR photographers to shoot images for commercial purposes but it was also reported that security guards also charge 500 pesos to shoot photos even for non-commercial purposes, an act which the advocacy group branded as "extortion". The group also claimed that there is discrimination against Filipino photographers and claimed that the management is lenient on foreign photographers. There is no official policy on taking photographs of historical places and the group has called legislators to create a law on the matter.[32]
Tension has arisen in countries where freedom to take pictures in public places conflicts with more new anti-terrorism legislation. In the United Kingdom, the powers granted to police under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 have been used on numerous occasions to stop amateur and professional photographers from taking photographs of public areas. Under such circumstances, police are required to have "reasonable suspicion" that a person is a terrorist.[33] While the Act does not prohibit photography, critics have alleged that these powers have been misused to prevent lawful public photography.[34] Notable instances have included the investigation of a schoolboy,[35] a Member of Parliament[36] and a BBC photographer.[37] The scope of these powers has since been reduced, and guidance around them issued to discourage their use in relation to photography, following litigation in the European Court of Human Rights.[38]
#Lydia #El #Rhazi
No comments:
Post a Comment