CT:FOP

Shortcut: CT:FOP


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)

Jordan

How can I challenge the claim that Jordan does not have freedom of panorama?

I disagree with the interpretation of Jordanian copyright law provided in .

Article 17 is cited there as preventing photography, but it doesn't consider the important caveat stated within that articleː

17 b) Employing the work for private personal use through making one copy thereof by reproduction, recording, photographing, translation or musical distribution provided that the foregone does not conflict with normal exploitation of the work and does not cause unjustified injury to the legitimate interests of the author.

I don't think it can be argued that a photographic image -with its own visual creative elements of a real life publicly viewable object- would 1- conflict with the exploitation of the work or 2- cause unjustified injury to the architect. It's not as if this is a photograph of architectural blueprints; or that only by looking at this photograph from a singular angle without figures of dimensions, someone can replicate the design and cause harm to the author. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss not enough. "Private personal use" is not enough. Wikimedia Commons requires images of copyrighted buildings, monuments, and sculptures/statues to be freely usable even for commercial or lucrative IT/new media purposes. See also COM:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. Jordanian copyright law is outdated and not fit for modern IT and online media purposes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:28, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
None of the available exceptions or limitations from Article 17 to Article 20 relate to the freedom to freely use images of architecture and sculptures without restrictions. To quote here all the exceptions Google Translate-d to English):

Article (17)
Published works may be used without the author's permission, provided that this does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and does not cause undue harm to the legitimate interests of the rights holder in any of the following cases:

a) The performance, presentation, recitation, acting, or staging of a work, if it takes place in a private family gathering or in an educational, cultural, or social institution, for the purpose of demonstration or educational purposes. State-affiliated musical groups may also perform musical works, provided that no financial gain is derived from such performance and that the source and the composer's name are acknowledged.
b) Using the work for private personal use by making a single copy of it through photocopying, recording, photography, translation, or musical arrangement.
c) The use of the work as an educational aid through printed materials, programs, audio recordings, or audiovisual materials for educational, cultural, religious, or vocational training purposes is permitted to the extent necessary to achieve those purposes, provided that the use of the work is not intended to generate any financial gain and that the source and author's name are acknowledged. This use must not involve copying the work or using it in whole or in part.
d) Citing passages from one work in another work for the purpose of clarification, explanation, discussion, criticism, education, or testing, to the extent justified by this purpose, provided that the source and the name of its author are mentioned.

Article (18)
Newspapers and periodicals may not reproduce serialized novels, short stories, and other works published in other newspapers and periodicals without the consent of their authors. However, newspapers may reproduce articles of a political, economic, and religious nature that are of public interest and are published in other newspapers, unless the newspaper in which those articles were published explicitly prohibits their reproduction. In all cases, it is required to indicate the source from which they were reproduced.

Article (19)
Newspapers and other media may publish, without the author’s permission, speeches, lectures, talks, and other similar works delivered publicly or directed to the public, provided that in all these cases the author and the work are mentioned, and that the author of any of these works has the right to publish it in a single publication or in any other way or form he chooses.

Article (20)
Public libraries, non-commercial documentation centers, educational institutes, and scientific and cultural institutions may photocopy any work without the author’s permission, provided that the copying and number of copies are limited to the needs of those institutions, that it does not harm the rights of the author of the work, and that it does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work.

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:26, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Recent removal

JWilz12345 recently removed several links. Offhand, this looks ill-advised to me. All are relevant to the topic, and as far as I can see none could be readily found starting from this project page, now that they are removed from the "See also" section. JWilz12345, could you please clarify your rationale beyond just saying you don't think they are needed? - Jmabel ! talk 06:34, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel FoP page is supposed to cater even to non-Wikimedians. Those links to maintenance categories are only for advanced users. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:03, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
So how should they be discoverable? - Jmabel ! talk 16:37, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Do they need to be discoverable by non-Wiki users? For sometime now, my impression is that Wiki users can always go to Category:FOP to remove the FoP category header templates if the object falls out of copyright. IMO, Category:FOP-related deletion requests is the only maintenance category that non-Wiki users need to discover, read, and learn. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:04, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
No, not "by non-Wiki users". If I, as a Commons editor, perfectly reasonably go here to find info about Freedom of panorama on Commons, how do I possibly navigate to find these? And, no, I disagree entirely that Commons editors only care about one category. All I can readily imagine is that you are assuming something like that no one on here does any tasks that you personally don't do. - Jmabel ! talk 00:33, 28 June 2026 (UTC)