Shortcut: CT:FOP

This page is for discussing improvements to Commons:Freedom of panorama. For discussions of specific copyright questions, please go to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Discussions that do not relate to changes to the page Commons:Freedom of panorama may be moved, with participants notified with the template {{subst:moved to VPC|FOP}}.

New column for Commons:Freedom of panorama/table and some other suggestions

• Involved: Commons:Freedom of panorama/table.

Posting here since there are more page watchers for FoP page than the table page (467 watchers vs. 33 watchers as of this post/writing).

I'm proposing a new column for "public interior architecture" or "interior architecture", while the current column for public indoors shall be renamed "interior public art" or something similar (for artworks in public interiors).

There are some nuances in public indoors, such as the Austrian FoP rules (in which interior architecture is OK but interior public art is NOT OK). Additionally, several FoP rules restrict FoP to building exteriors only, like those of Spain, Türkiye, Colombia, and Albania, either as a pre-emptive rule in copyright law or as a rule established by courts (like Spanish one), therefore denying commercial images of interior architecture.

This will help further aid reusers and photographer-uploaders in deciding what content to upload and not to upload, in terms of interior artistic works.

suggested phrase/wording

• To be placed between "text" and "public interiors".
• Interior architecture or Building interiors (but the latter is vague and may suggest inclusion of artworks within buildings)
• "Public interiors" be renamed "Indoor public artwork".

If possible or feasible, the current "Building" column may be renamed "Exterior architecture" for consistency. Also, "3D artwork" to "Outdoor 3D artwork" and "2D artwork" to "Outdoor 2D artwork".

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Ping participants of the latest topic on "Freedom of panorama/table" talk page ("Useless column"), for their opinions/insights on my suggestion. @Basile Morin, Cmglee, Nosferattus, Pajz, and Davey2010: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

 Support - Jmabel ! talk 02:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

 Support How about adding second- or third-level headings like so? cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 08:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good, @Cmglee. I may need some assistance for the headings, though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Ta. Best to get a second opinion before making a major change, though. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 11:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Legal clarification of Article 52 which deals with the use of works permanently located in public places. Here’s a breakdown:

1. Free Use: Works that are permanently located in public places such as squares, parks, or streets can be freely used and accessed by the public.

2. Restrictions on Three-Dimensional Reproductions:

- No Three-Dimensional Reproductions: While these works can be freely viewed, they cannot be reproduced in three-dimensional form.

- No Economic Advantage from Reproductions: Any reproduction of these works in three-dimensional form must not be used for economic gain.

3. Attribution: If the work includes information about its source and authorship, that information must be provided when the work is used.

So, while you can view and interact with public works, creating three-dimensional copies of them for commercial purposes is prohibited, and proper attribution is required if applicable information is displayed. Therefore there is FOP in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

My-wiki-photos (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Also this... https://blog.google/products/maps/street-view-comes-to-bosnia-and-herzegovina/ My-wiki-photos (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, the same location showing the Kuwait Mosque on Google Street View: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sarajevo,+Bosnia+and+Herzegovina/@43.8506851,18.3727318,3a,75y,55.72h,86.93t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJ70lirGKdI2Yb-S6gp1Ing!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D3.0695909336816243%26panoid%3DJ70lirGKdI2Yb-S6gp1Ing%26yaw%3D55.72290926218766!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x4758cbb1ed719bd1:0x562ecda6de87b33e!8m2!3d43.8562586!4d18.4130763!16zL20vMDZuOGo?authuser=0&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTEwNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

IMPORTANT NOTICE

Google Street View is now available in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The service was officially launched on November 4, 2025, providing extensive panoramic imagery across the country's major cities and connecting routes. Coverage Details: Google's Street View cars traveled over 30,000 kilometers to capture imagery of Bosnia and Herzegovina's diverse landscapes and urban centers. You can virtually explore locations such as: Major Cities: Sarajevo, Banja Luka, Mostar, Tuzla, Zenica, Bijeljina, and Trebinje. Key Landmarks: The iconic Stari Most (Mostar Bridge). Natural Scenery: Routes through the rugged Dinaric Alps and along serene rivers. This launch makes exploring Bosnia and Herzegovina easier for tourists planning trips or anyone interested in virtually wandering its streets and historical sites.

This only proves that Wikimedia Commons got it all wrong. THERE IS FREEDOM OF PANORAMA IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA. Notice to Administrators: DO NOT DELETE photographs from Bosnia and Herzegovina, and start undeleting the images previously deleted. Notice to Editors: START EDITING the articles and media contradicting this fact.

My-wiki-photos (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@My-wiki-photos: By itself, this doesn't mean Bosnia and Herzegovina have FoP. France is also covered by Street View but has no FoP. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 11:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Google uses Street View imagery for commercial purposes, and it also allows businesses to use the imagery commercially under specific conditions and through its APIs. While the general use of screenshots is restricted, Google charges for high-volume access to its imagery for commercial applications like games or other paid services. My-wiki-photos (talk) 09:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

 Info this concerns Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Kuwait's Mosque (Sarajevo). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@My-wiki-photos again, don't use Google Street View. Firstly, their imagery isn't commercially licensed (not under CCBY / CCBYSA / PD licensing). Secondly, it's more likely that Google pays royalties to groups that represent the architects and artists. YouTube, owned by the same company that runs Google Maps and Street View, has an agreement with French artists' groups ADAGP and SACD that began in 2010, paying fees on the same level as TV channels' payments, with YouTube's remuneration payments providing compensation for 28,000 artists (as of 2015), as per Slide 35 of their anti-FoP presentation to the EU Parliament in 2015. Note that paying royalties allows YouTube to continue hosting content creators' videos that show copyrighted buildings and sculptures, especially those authored by French architects and artists. Again, YouTube and Google Maps/Street View are both owned and run by Alphabet Inc. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Note, there is also some discussion concerning GSV at meta:Talk:Pilipinas Panorama Community/Freedom of Panorama#Streetview. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong. I will repeat once again. If there was not Freedom of Panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Google would be violating the law, because Google uses the photographs of buildings for commercial purposes. You get that? Obviously not. I won't be wasting my precious time here any more. You have been warned! My-wiki-photos (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Calm down, dear! I can understand the frustration when one's contributions are deleted, but threatening to leave doesn't make things better for anyone.

JWilz12345 wrote why Google might have special access, as they do in France, for example. We might get a new consensus given new developments or the country might relax its laws, similar to Belgium. Give it some time. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 15:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

No, I am not frustrated with the pictures being taken out. I won't leave Wikimedia and stop contributing. I am frustrated with Bosnians. The problem with the text of the copyright law in BiH is that some illiterate Bosnian politician had put a comma instead of a colon, thus changing the intended meaning. Instead of: "(2) The use referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work, or used for gaining an economic advantage." the clause should have read: "(2) The use referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form: used for the same purpose as the original work, or used for gaining an economic advantage." Of course, with the political situation in BiH, which has always been complex and turbulent, no one would even bother to correct that mistake, because essentially, they don't care about such things. If you had lived in Bosnia, as I had, you would have understood what I mean. My-wiki-photos (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@My-wiki-photos perhaps it's a good opportunity to form a Wikimedia organization in your country, at least a user group. meta:Template:Affiliates does not list a single Wikimedia NGO in your country.

A good starting point is this reference in Meta-Wiki: meta:Connected Open Heritage/Countries/Bosnia and Herzegovina#Legislations hindering the distribution of pictures in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as "Wikimedia activity in Bosnia and Herzegovina" section in the same page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

The last known meeting of Bosnian Wikipedians was a small meeting in December 2014, per w:bs:Wikipedia:Sastanci. February 2011 was the last known major (non-virtual) meeting. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I have lived in Canada for 30+ years. I am in my senior years, and I really don't have time to do anything about it. My-wiki-photos (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@My-wiki-photos just sharing: the author of this 2016 blog admits how their law is "clumsily worded" and even suggested "the need to rewrite the mentioned Article so that it is understandable at first reading and does not create confusion, and therefore at the end of this text I would like to send such a message to the legislator." In the end, a change of the copyright law wording is required so that modern works of cultural heritage from Bosnia and Herzegovina can be accepted on WikiCommons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with the author of the blog post. Regarding the items highlighted in it, I comment that while I blame the BiH legislators for the clumsy wording of Article 52, which may have happened for various reasons, I place even greater blame on the Wikimedia Commons legal team for failing to derive the only existing logical interpretation of that article. My-wiki-photos (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Architecture in Germany: both forbidden and allowed? clarification needed

In the section Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Nuances in the panorama freedom – German case Article 59.2. Reproductions may not be carried out on a work of architecture is stated, but there is no explanation in the wiki text of what this actually means. It appears to mean that photographs of buildings in Germany are forbidden, since photographs are "reproductions". But there is a subsection Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Architecture vs sculptures which states that photography of both buildings and sculptures is allowed, and presumably buildings are architecture.

So the current text seems to say that photographs of buildings are both forbidden and allowed in Germany. Which is right?

A clarification such as Although point 2 of the Article 59 says that ..., in fact, photography of buildings is allowed because [insert explanation of some sort of legal interpretation, e.g. why point 2 doesn't mean what it seems to mean]. Boud (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Photographs are not reproduction of buildings and 3D artworks, that's why they are allowed. Taken a picture of a statue is allowed, making a copy of the statue is not. Yann (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Buildings and sculptures are covered by FoP in Germany. (Germany is the country where the concept of freedom of panorama originated from, see Freedom of panorama#Background) Nakonana (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@Boud perhaps it's an insophisticated translation from German text. It also exists in the English translation of their copyright law. The original German text reads: "Die Vervielfältigungen dürfen nicht an einem Bauwerk vorgenommen werden." A more extensive explanation is at w:de:Panoramafreiheit#Keine Vervielfältigung an einem Bauwerk (Abs. 2). To quote:

Ausdrücklich nicht erlaubt ist die Vervielfältigung des Werkes „an einem Bauwerk“. Ein geschütztes Denkmal auf dem Marktplatz darf also beispielsweise nicht in Wandgemälden oder Stuckverzierungen an Gebäuden dargestellt werden. Die dahinterstehende Überlegung besteht darin, dass es nicht Sinn und Zweck der Straßenbildfreiheit ist, dass eine Vervielfältigung der ursprünglichen Werkfunktion entsprechend verwendet wird, ohne den Urheber dafür zu vergüten. Soweit sich die Literatur dazu äußert, wird vielfach eine Auslegung dahingehend befürwortet, dass nur die Außenseite des Bauwerks gemeint ist. Damit wäre zwar einerseits etwa die Übernahme eines Freskos über dem Hauseingang unzulässig, andererseits aber seine Kopie an der Wand im Treppenhaus eines Gebäudes erlaubt.

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:48, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

So if I understand it correctly, 59.1 means that you cannot "reproduce" architecture in the sense of e.g. building another copy of the Eiffel Tower (if it were in Germany, so making the Lyon or Tokyo copies of the 'German' Eiffel Tower, if it were still within the time limit, would be forbidden). So how about extending from German law allows photography of both buildings and sculptures. to something like German law allows photography of both buildings and sculptures (but making a physical copy of a piece of architecture, i.e. "reproducing" it, is forbidden under the part 2 of the Article). (I guess this still leaves unstated the question of whether making e.g. tourist copies scaled down by a linear factor of 100 per dimension is allowed, but that's irrelevant to Commons.) Boud (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. If the Eiffel Tower was not already in the public domain, the creation of a copy in Las Vegas would not be allowed. Yann (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Boud@Yann re: 2nd para., it's correctly interpreted on German Wikipedia. It just means reproductions of art must not be made on a building, like an drawing of a statue being painted on a building, or a mural of the famed Fernsehturm being painted on the outer walls of a mansion house. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I think we are talking about the same thing. I understood the question was about "reproduction" of an artwork, not 2D art. Yann (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 and Yann: So if I understand this new (for this talk page) interpretation right: I can go to the Brandenburg Gate and paint my original work of art there (at least as far as this particular Article of German law is concerned, ignoring that I am not the owner), as if I were Banksy, but I may not paint a 2D reproduction of the Mona Lisa there. (For the sake of argument, let's assume I have the artistic/painting skills of Banksy and of people who reproduce imitations of classical paintings.)

Is this what Article 59.2 means? Boud (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Boud almost right, except that you chose a public domain 2D art.

It's like, copyright-wise, it's not allowed for you to go to Brandenburg Gate and reproduce (through painting) "Hommage an die junge Generation (author: Thierry Noir, original at Berlin Wall area's East Side Gallery) by painting it on the gate. That right belongs to Noir.

German FoP is only limited to photography, videography, TV/films, and drawings/paintings that are made on usual mediums (canvas, paper, vellum boards etc.). The public has no right to reproduce any copyrighted public landmark through making paintings of these works on physical buildings. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

So how about adding immediately after Quoted from an English translation. something like (Paragraph 2 is normally irrelevant to Commons, since it refers to reproductions physically done on (e.g. painted on) works of architecture, while objects on Commons are virtual. However, beaming a laser image using a Commons copyright-protected image file onto a German building would be forbidden.) Boud (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

 Support for revised wording. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:05, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done per rough consensus. Boud (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Since we do not store actual buildings on Commons (!) I see nothing that needs to change here. - Jmabel ! talk 20:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

We don't want people like me to have to spend 10-20 minutes trying to make sense of the apparently contradictory information or assume that they will read and understand the original German or understand the nuances that get lost in translation. Boud (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

United States

Awesome Aasim just added a massive, transcluded U.S. section here. I have no idea why it should be on this page, but while discussing, rather than revert them, I have merely collapsed it. - Jmabel ! talk 19:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

It is quite difficult to find the relevant copyright rules on this main page. United States is what is most important because if a file is not free in the United States, it is not allowed on Commons regardless. It is also consistent with how other pages are structured like COM:TOO and COM:DM. Aasim (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

if a file is not free in the United States, it is not allowed on Commons regardless: not the case for FoP. Or are you proposing (as others have before) that we should delete all pictures of copyrighted artworks that we host under FoP in the countries where they are located? That was pretty roundly rejected last time it was proposed. - Jmabel ! talk 22:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

See #Proposal to abolish acceptance above. - Jmabel ! talk 22:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

My understanding is Commons only accepts material which are free to use in both the United States and the country of origin, per COM:LIC. Unless if my understanding of this is wrong, then please let me know. Aasim (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

In the last few days, the link I gave above has been archived, now at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 19#Proposal to abolish acceptance. @Awesome Aasim: did you read the discussion there? - Jmabel ! talk 00:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Seems like unnecessary focus on a single country to me. From my understanding of Commons policy, the relevant FOP rules are the ones for the country where the work is located. —Mx. Granger (talk  · contribs) 02:02, 11 April 2026 (UTC)