Commons talk:Freedom of panorama

Shortcut: CT:FOP

Sticky table header

It appears that we should have the ability to make the table header row fixed as one scrolls, per phab:T283505. Any idea why that's not happening or how to make it happen? Sdkb ^talk 23:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

So only nature pictures safe

So only nature pictures safe

OK, I will only upload nature pictures from now on. Jidanni (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The user's concern may be related to Commons:Deletion requests/File:House being sold by no less than five real estate companies.jpg, based on their talk page. To be clear, the deletion request concerns the presence of potentially-copyrighted billboard posters, and the Taiwanese copyright law disallows commercial selling of copies of artworks in public spaces, which is not compatible to COM:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

So now they tell us

So after years of being encouraged to upload painstaking made photos it turns out they are all illegal and will be deleted.

Commons: what a waste of time. Jidanni (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

No-FoP deletion is not only specific to the case of your image that was nominated as possibly breaching the restrictive Panorama exception of Taiwan for public artworks. You can see from hundreds of thousands of deletion requests under subcategories of Category:FOP-related deletion requests/deleted that it has been a practice on Wikimedia Commons to not accept images of unfree works of art and monuments from countries that have no sufficient Freedom of Panorama privileges for commercial uses of those monuments and public art. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Not illegal, just can't be used here unblurred because commercial use must be allowed. If we allowed non-commercial restrictions, then there wouldn't be a need to censor. We could always restore if Taiwan changes their laws. Abzeronow (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Warn on the Upload Form

Warn on the Upload Form that there is a 90% chance that what you are uploading is illegal and will be deleted. Jidanni (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

And warn when adding categories that "Don't bother. Because most categories contain illegal pictures anyway." Jidanni (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This one, I agree however. Personally, I can't see an obvious and simply-worded notice that warns uploaders in advance that images that may contain copyrighted artworks or objects (inclusive of newer sculptures and architecture) may not be accepted here, and if there are questions or doubts, the uploaders must be referred to Commons:Help desk for insights from admins and longtime Commons users. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Just use StreetView

Just use Google Streetview instead of taking pictures for Commons. Advantages:

• Updated every few years.
• Permalink that won't end up pointing to deleted images, as street views are supposedly illegal in your country according to Commons, except if you are Google.

Jidanni (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jidanni street views are perfectly legal, since their images are not under commercial-type Creative Commons licenses in the first place. So the architects and sculptors are sure that the street view imagery of their artworks cannot be easily reused by postcard makers, website developers, professional photographers, content creators, and other users or businesses engaging in lucrative enterprises that may undermine the extended rights of architects and sculptors or their heirs.

Freedom of Panorama, in its essence, permits the general public, most especially the reusers like those I mentioned, to freely use, share, publish, or distribute images of copyrighted archutecture and monuments without needing prior clearances from the landmarks' architects and sculptors. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Added input from me: Google Street View (hereafter "GSV") is from the parent company Google (Alphabet Inc.), which also runs YouTube. Per this 2015 presentation by France-based ADAGP to the European Parliament sharply rebuking the Wikipedians for "disrespecting rights of architects and sculptors", they only praised YouTube (hereafter YT), while at the same time criticizing Facebook, Instagram, Flickr, and Pinterest for not respecting non-commercial FoP rules of dozens of European countries. ADAGP argues YT gives royalties to them and SACD. We can assume that YT's sister platform, GSV, also pays some royalties to ADAGP and SACD, for the legal showcasing of pieces of public artistic works of 100+ countries that do not provide sufficient Freedom of Panorama, Taiwan included (which only allows commercial FoP for architecture). Alphabet Inc. really does their job at preventing the anger from ADAGP in the first place, by mandating their products (like YT, GMaps and GSV) to pay certain royalties to the said artists' society. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

So the Commons Upload form should have, in the questions section, "Does this image include any man-made feature?", and if so "Did you take it in {select country}", and if so: "Sorry you bothered to upload it. Maybe post it to Instagram instead." Jidanni (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jidanni not manmade feature. The UploadWizard and regular upload forms should have this question "Does this image contain a recent work of art, for example, a monument or a street art (like mural or poster)?", and if "yes" is given as the answer from the combobox, another combobox appears which prompts the uploader to choose where country is the said work located, and if one of the 117 countries (as per my crib notes on FoP at meta page, at meta:User:JWilz12345/FoP global statuses) is selected (Taiwan included), then a warning appears telling the uploader to not upload it with simplified reason like "The copyright law of this country does not give Freedom of Panorama which allows free shooting and distribution of freely-licensed images of copyrighted works of art in public spaces. Kindly ask at Commons:Help desk if you need to ask for more questions."

Not all manmade structures are eligible for copyright. Firstly, in around seven or eight countries like Taiwan, commercial FoP is recognized for architecture but not public art like sculptures and murals/graffiti/posters. Secondly, certain structures are not copyrightable as these do not reach artistic threshold, like communications towers, overpasses, roads, bridges and viaducts (except those in France), nuclear plants, storage warehouses, and modern lamp poles (not elegantly-designed ones). And finally, even in the likes of France and Taiwan, once the artist has died for more than 50/70/75/90 years (depending on the country's copyright terms), the sculpture, painting, or poster falls out of copyright, becoming in public domain and can now be freely exploited even by Wikimedian uploaders, without needing Creative Commons licensing clearances from the grandchildren of those artists. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

OK good. Then can you please tell them on Commons:Deletion requests/File:House being sold by no less than five real estate companies.jpg that they don't need to delete, or even blur, the crappy real estate ads that you see, as nobody including the real estate agents themselves, would call them "a work of art". Also while I am here, I would like to point out the irony, where on Google StreetView, one only encounters blurred licence plates, but on Commons, real soon, they're gonna blur much much more. Well at least that's better than simply deleting. Anyway I will think twice next time I see anything notable... I was planning to upload a bird call recording I made in fact. What could go wrong? Five years down the line who knows what new legal surprize is in store here on Commons. Jidanni (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Oops. While maybe not "art museum-class art" but still "'arts and crafts class'-class art". So OK, blur the crappy real estate posters. Jidanni (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jidanni you can ask copyright-related questions at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. More users who are very familiar with copyright may respond to your other concerns (since my area of interest here is mostly FoP). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of the ads, the Taiwanese law does not distinguish most types of graphic works, including advertisement posters or billboards. Per COM:TOO Taiwan, the threshold of originality (TOO) there is relatively low, with their courts ruling most works of art as copyrightable, unfortunately. The ads can b copyrightable in Taiwan, even if possibly not so in the countries with higher TOO like the U.S. and Canada. Those ads need to be blurred, if possible. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, when you look at Google Street View in countries that are tight about limiting freedom of panorama, you will often see a lot of blurred content. - Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel most blurred content are on content that are not related to copyright, most especially houses or establishments whose owners requested GSV to conceal their appearances. In the case of our country, many of the blurred content are several residences or business establishments, but many of the works that we don't accept right now are fully visible on street view, like People Power Monument, w:en:PBCom Tower, and w:en:Lion's Head (Benguet).

Other blurring is made to sites that may cause trigger warning to users who may be "disturbed" on seeing such sites, like 2207 Seymour Avenue in Cleveland, OH (the site of w:en:Ariel Castro kidnappings), the "disturbing symbols" on w:en:W. H. Dorrance House in Camden, NY which some claim to be the work of a ghost (despite the current owner dismissing the alleged symbols as works of trespassing "naughty kids"), and the house on Detroit's Brinker Avenue where a baby was found dead in July 2012 (although before blurring the house completely, one could see a group of male teenagers on the porch, with one wielding a gun seemingly wanting to shoot the GSV driver).

Not to mention Google's practice of blurring all faces of all people as well as all license plates. None of the blurring I observed are related to copyright restrictions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. - Jmabel ! talk 23:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hyperallergic article re: Commons & FoP

An interesting discussion that may be relevant to folks here. This was published last week in Hyperallergic, discussing Freedom of Panorama and its applications in occupied Artsakh as interpreted by Commons users. --19h00s (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Has anyone approached Baghdasaryan's estate for permission to use photos of the monument? - Jmabel ! talk 04:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll also ping @Nemoralis: who messaged me about this. Essentially, nothing is changed. Artsakh appeared to have its own copyright law patterned after the pre-2013 copyright law of Armenia, and this was still in effect until Azerbaijan ultimately took the region in 2023. There is no evidence that Artsakh adopted the liberal Freedom of Panorama right (no restrictions to commercial uses of public landmarks) which Armenia implemented in 2013. I reinstated the FoP section at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Artsakh which Aymatth2 removed, with some modifications including a link to the Hyperallergic article. FoP section should stay, as it is not so simple to simplify it by removing it entirely. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed correction for Serbia

The summary table provides the 'OK' status in all columns for Serbia. This contradicts the map where Serbia is in light green (OK, excluding public interiors). I think we should change the fourth parameter to NO. See additional info on Wikimedia, the applicable law says that the freedom is limited to works displayed on streets, squares and other open public places. Not sure about the columns 2 to 4 tho. Ur frnd (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I changed it to No myself, for there were no objections. Ur frnd (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)