Hi James, Thanks for explaining. So a piece of art (say, sculpture) that is not displayed *in* a public space, but visible *from* a public space, wouldn't be covered under that definition, right? For example, a decorated fountain or a statue in a garden near, but not on, the public road.
Nice to see though that all 'buildings' are covered, no matter where they are located or visible! Lodewijk 2016-06-01 18:49 GMT+02:00 James Heald <[email protected]>: > The UK law (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/62) > applies to > > (a) buildings, and > > (b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, > if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public. > > -- which seems plain enough. > > It applies to all buildings, regardless of where the photograph or drawing > is taken from. > > Clause (a) is considered to also include gardens. > > The Irish law is similar. > > -- James. > > > > On 01/06/2016 17:08, Raul Veede wrote: > >> In most cases, it is just "art permanently located in publicly accessible >> space". Is everyone allowed to approach it, with or without a fee, for >> most >> of the time? It's free. I'm not aware of any cases where someone would >> have >> claimed a house not being freely depictable because of a lawn. One could >> do >> it, but most likely it wouldn't make sense, and common sense is actually >> an >> important legal principle in applying the text of the laws. Of course >> drones are bringing quite a new perspective into this issue, both >> physically and metaphorically (sorry for a lousy pun), and our current >> legal frameworks are as badly suited for drones as they are for phone >> cameras and the Internet. >> >> r >> On 1 Jun 2016 18:17, "Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov" < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> To be fair, the clearest definition is the one in Germany. Most other >>> European countries just put the building in the centre and apparently >>> refrain from asking the questions you just did. >>> >>> But yes, theoretically in Austrian or Spanish law for instance, if a >>> building is not right at the street/path it might not be covered by the >>> copyright exception. I am not aware of this ever having been a real >>> problem, though. >>> >>> Dimi >>> >>> >>> >>> 2016-06-01 17:11 GMT+02:00 L.Gelauff <[email protected]>: >>> >>> Well, that is my worry. I don't really see a better definition out there >>>> that is unambiguous. I'm not so much asking because of the German >>>> situation >>>> - I totally agree it would be odd to go in strong for what is in the >>>> end a >>>> detail - but it might be helpful when working in other countries, what >>>> are >>>> the best practices, what ideal FoP would look like. >>>> >>>> If you put the building at the center, which part of the building? And >>>> which buildings? You say located at a street, but what if there's a >>>> garden >>>> (field of grass) in between? Or a low building? >>>> >>>> The only better definition I could think of, is to apply it to all >>>> architecture. But whether that is realistic? >>>> >>>> Lodewijk >>>> >>>> 2016-06-01 17:04 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < >>>> [email protected]>: >>>> >>>> Hello, everybody! >>>>> >>>>> I personally don't see this particular wording in German law as very >>>>> problematic. Sure, it would be nice to have it written otherwise, but >>>>> is it >>>>> a priority issue? Definitely not! >>>>> >>>>> If we ever got the chance it without a fight, I would simply go for >>>>> changing the perspective to the one of the building. Something like >>>>> buildings/plots/statutes that are permanently located in/at parks, >>>>> streets >>>>> and squares. This way drones or pictures from aircrafts won't be >>>>> problematic. >>>>> >>>>> Of course "parks, streets and squares" is not exhaustive enough, but >>>>> you >>>>> get my point. >>>>> >>>>> Dimi >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2016-06-01 16:31 GMT+02:00 L.Gelauff <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Raul, >>>>>> >>>>>> Changing the topic, as this becomes a quite specific discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>> What would be the better definition in your opinion? The burden of >>>>>> proof is always on the copyright holder, I'd think. But somehow, you >>>>>> need >>>>>> to define what is this 'panorama'. What you could see from a public >>>>>> space, >>>>>> is one definition. What is yours? >>>>>> >>>>>> Lodewijk >>>>>> >>>>>> 2016-06-01 14:20 GMT+02:00 Raul Veede <[email protected]>: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Has there been any discussion about possibly (re)opening the question >>>>>>> of the clause limiting FoP that demands that the pictures should be >>>>>>> taken >>>>>>> _from_ a public place? It could be argued this creates complications >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> businesses (as clearly demonstrated by the Hundertwasser case) and >>>>>>> has >>>>>>> potential for unlimited amount of uncertainty (the place where the >>>>>>> photographer stood usually remains unseen on the picture itself, so >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> legality is hard to determine afterwords, especially on the >>>>>>> Internet, e.g. >>>>>>> on Commons). Most jurisdictions with FoP can get very well by >>>>>>> without such >>>>>>> a clause, and it is hard to see what benefit it creates for the >>>>>>> public, or >>>>>>> actually even for any private rightsholders. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Raul, >>>>>>> working on FoP in Estonia >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:57 PM, John Hendrik Weitzmann < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> @Jens: Thx for the warm welcome. The settling in is not quite done >>>>>>>> yet. I'm still watching/learning and trying to tend to urgent >>>>>>>> things on the >>>>>>>> way. The justice ministry is high on the meeting agenda, a direct >>>>>>>> contact >>>>>>>> to the head of their copyright unit exists. Their ideas and >>>>>>>> initiatives >>>>>>>> around exceptions & limitations definitely touch on Wikiprojects. >>>>>>>> Any >>>>>>>> concrete suggestions welcome. Main items on this year's WMDE work >>>>>>>> plan >>>>>>>> regarding lawmaking are public works, freedom of panorama, database >>>>>>>> directive and ancillary publichers right, the three last of which >>>>>>>> happen >>>>>>>> mainly on the EU level as yet. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2016-06-01 8:01 GMT+02:00 Mathias Schindler < >>>>>>>> [email protected]>: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Jens Best <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I heard that the German ministry of justice is reevaluating the >>>>>>>>>> "Schrankenregeln" (kind of the German version of fair use) as one >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> aspect of >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> this year's copyright laws reevaluation. Wouldn't that be a >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> possible focus >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> which relates to the volunteer work of the Wikiprojects? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> a more precise translation of Schrankenregeln is "limitations and >>>>>>>>> exceptions" in copyright. EU member states can implement exceptions >>>>>>>>> listed in the InfoSoc Directive, they are not allowed to implement >>>>>>>>> exceptions not listed there. The current German government has >>>>>>>>> announced to adjust certain exceptions dealing with education. >>>>>>>>> Other >>>>>>>>> than that, the introduction of a fair use clause in German >>>>>>>>> copyright >>>>>>>>> would require some legislation on the EU level* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Mathias >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * (Martin Senftleben is slightly more optimistic here >>>>>>>>> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1959554) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Publicpolicy mailing list >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Referent für Politik und Recht >>>>>>>> Legal and Policy Advisor >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin >>>>>>>> Tel. +49 (0)30 219 158 26-0 >>>>>>>> http://wikimedia.de >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge >>>>>>>> allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! >>>>>>>> http://spenden.wikimedia.de/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. >>>>>>>> V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts >>>>>>>> Berlin-Charlottenburg >>>>>>>> unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das >>>>>>>> Finanzamt >>>>>>>> für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Publicpolicy mailing list >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Publicpolicy mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Publicpolicy mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Publicpolicy mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Publicpolicy mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >
_______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
