Misplaced Pages

#880119

65-400: The KCC researches policies and legislations on copyright, deliberates copyright-related issues, mediates copyright disputes, provides copyright education and public awareness programs, and serves as a copyright registration agency. The KCC copyright dispute moderation role serves as the non-judiciary dispute resolution body while the organization in charge of administering copyright enforcement

130-402: A public space , without infringing on any copyright that may otherwise subsist in such works, and the publishing of such images. Panorama freedom statutes or case law limit the right 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

195-470: A fee for commercial use of the images. In many Eastern European countries the copyright laws limit this permission to non-commercial uses of the images only. 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), while some other countries also include indoor spaces such as public museums; this

260-634: A few works by the same creator may be included.voorkomen. There is adequate freedom of panorama in Poland, guaranteed by Article 33(1) of the Act on Copyright and Related Rights . It states that "it is permissible to disseminate works permanently displayed in generally accessible roads, streets, squares or gardens, but not for the same use." Distribution is through the use of photographs or pictorial representations of works (such as buildings and public sculptures) in any media, including commercial video games and apps. Because

325-575: A freedom of panorama clause in their copyright laws, but does not require such a rule. In 2015, former German MEP Felix Reda proposed applying freedom of panorama to all countries of the European Union. He claimed that through the exception people would be free to share images of public spaces that might contain buildings and public art, in order "to express and share their experiences and thoughts" and to "preserve our journeys and curate our impressions for entire generations to come." His proposal

390-472: A freedom of panorama provision at Article 35(2), which states that "works permanently located in parks, streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by means of paintings, drawings, photographs and audiovisual procedures." Commercial uses of several Spanish buildings may be restricted by virtue of trademark law . Santiago Calatrava 's Auditorio de Tenerife can be freely photographed by tourists, but as

455-583: A hotly debated concept in and out of court". While the Korean copyright law has some unique characteristics, it has heavily drawn from foreign examples—particularly those of the United States. Freedom of panorama in Korea is limited with regard to works of art in public places which cannot be distributed for commercial purposes. The 2009 law has generated a number of criticisms, including from organizations such as

520-486: A national treasure like the Little Mermaid without violating copyright laws." Alice Eriksen, granddaughter of the sculptor, defended the restrictions and said that such restrictions are in compliance of the laws of the country. She added, "It's the same as receiving royalties when a song is played." Berlingske was sued again after exploiting the statue in 2019 as an illustration in a cartoon concerning debate culture in

585-606: A protection of their cultural heritage. The concept of freedom of panorama originated in Germany in the 19th century. The Kingdom of Bavaria introduced an analogous exception in 1840 for pictorial depictions of "works of arts and architecture in their exterior contours" in public spaces. It was intended to reduce the severity of the new copyright rules of the German Confederation which prohibited reproductions, with exception to "mechanical reproductions." Other component states of

650-411: A public place or in premises open to the public". Such works may be photographed, filmed, broadcast on television, or otherwise reproduced without infringing the copyright in the work. Copies of such reproductions do not infringe the copyright in the original work. In Italy freedom of panorama does not exist. Despite many official protests and a national initiative led by the lawyer Guido Scorza and

715-477: A public place, "permanent" typically meaning "for the natural lifetime of the work". In Switzerland, taking and publishing images of two-dimensional works such as murals or graffiti is permitted, but such images cannot be used for the same purpose as the originals. Many laws have subtle differences in regard to public space and private property. Whereas the photographer's location is irrelevant in Austria, in Germany

SECTION 10

#1732852666881

780-582: A public place." Article 68(1) of the Hungarian copyright law states that views of fine arts, architectural and applied arts permanently situated in public outdoors can be made and used without the need of permission from and remuneration to the authors of the works. Article 93 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 provides freedom of panorama for buildings (and models thereof), sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship which are "permanently situated in

845-491: A reexamination of the 2009 law, noting that its benefits are poorly documented, while it poses serious concerns to the issues related to cultural expression and human rights. Freedom of panorama 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

910-472: A trademarked work since 2003, it cannot be freely used by commercial photographers and cinematographers unless the said users pay relevant fees to the owner of the building. It is also required to make a deposit to ensure the photographs are used appropriately. On April 4, 2016, the Swedish Supreme Court ruled that Wikimedia Sweden infringed on the copyright of artists of public artwork by creating

975-456: A website and database of public artworks in Sweden, containing images of public artwork uploaded by the public. Swedish copyright law contains an exception to the copyright holder's exclusive right to make their works available to the public that allows depictions of public artwork. The Swedish Supreme Court decided to take a restrictive view of this copyright exception. The Court determined that

1040-592: A year before, which in turn upheld an earlier ruling by the Regional Court of Bochum. The case involved a Ruhr -based book publisher that sold books containing drone images of art installations made by artists who were represented by the plaintiff, the artists' society Verwertungsgesellschaft Bild-Kunst . Accordingly, the FoP legal right only protects images taken from the street level, and not images taken using special devices such as ladders; drone images are from airspace which

1105-570: Is "generally inaccessible to the public" and should not be made available for public distribution or marketing purposes. Freedom of panorama does not exist in Greece. The Greek copyright law, 2121/1993 on Copyright, Related Rights and Cultural Matters (as last amended in 2021), only provides a vague but restrictive exception allowing "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media of images of architectural works, fine art works, photographs or works of applied art, which are sited permanently in

1170-586: Is for instance the case in the UK and in Russia . 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, differ widely in their interpretation of the principle. In the European Union , Directive 2001/29/EC provides for the possibility of member states having

1235-649: Is mandatory to obtain an authorization from the local branch of the Ministry of Arts and Cultural Heritage, the Soprintendenza . Latvian copyright law provides for a restrictive freedom of panorama provision limited to non-commercial uses only. Images of works permanently showcased in public spaces, including architecture, visual arts, and applied arts, can only be exploited "for personal use and as information in news broadcasts or reports of current events, or include in works for non-commercial purposes." Freedom of panorama

1300-593: Is not granted in Luxembourg. Article 10(7°) of their copyright law permits the depictions of public art found in publicly-accessible places, if the said works "are not the main subject of reproduction or communication." The Netherlands has freedom of panorama; this is regulated in Article 18 of the Copyright Act. Self-made photographs of works of art (including buildings) in public spaces may be freely distributed, as long as

1365-440: Is prohibited if the intent of exploitation is for profit. In practice, however, this means that without permission from the author of the works, objects like buildings and statues whose copyrights have not yet expired can only be photographed for personal use, and publications of such images in a tourism portal or a newspaper are prohibited (since newspaper publishing is considered commercial). The copyright law of Spain provides

SECTION 20

#1732852666881

1430-475: Is regulated by Article 76, paragraph 1, point a., that requires attribution of the author and the identification of the name of the work for every free use, including the use of works under Portuguese freedom of panorama. There is no full freedom of panorama in Romania ; it is limited only to non-commercial purposes. Under Article 35(f) of their copyright law, it is allowed to reproduce, distribute, and communicate to

1495-588: Is the Korea Copyright Protection Agency. The copyright law in South Korea is regulated by the Copyright Act of 1957 and has been subject to several amendments over the years. In 2009, a new revision of the Act introduced new policy for online copyright infringement including the power to delete illegal copies, notify the copyright infringers, and suspend online access to “repeated” infringers. In 2012,

1560-493: Is very limited when it comes to public art. Works permanently located in public spaces cannot be photographed for commercial purposes if those become the main subjects in the photographs. The provision, however, explicitly permits newspapers and magazines to fully exploit public art, provided that there exist captions that accompany the published photographs. In contrast, buildings can be freely photographed with no non-commercial restrictions. Since October 7, 2016, article L122-5 of

1625-703: The Electronic Frontier Foundation . The critics argue that the current copyright law gives too much power to the copyright holders, which can hurt Korean competitiveness and culture, and de facto limits the freedom of expression and thus boosts Internet censorship in South Korea . Hundreds of Korean Internet users have been disconnected from the Internet after not three, but one strike; "half of those suspended were involved in infringement of material that would cost less than 90 U.S. cents". In March 2013 Korea's National Human Rights Commission recommended

1690-623: The Louvre Pyramid , the Opéra Bastille , and the new buildings of the Bibliothèque nationale de France . French jurisprudence has never considered " accessory " reproduction as a copyright infringement even in for-profit reproductions, if the element reproduced is not the main subject being depicted. In a 2005 case concerning postcards of Lyon 's Place des Terreaux , the Cour de cassation upheld

1755-500: The Universal Copyright Convention . However, the transitional provisions laid out in the addendum of the 1986 law noted that the new law (and thus its longer term) did not apply to works whose copyright term under the earlier law had already expired. As of 1999, acts of criminal copyright infringement were punishable with a prison term of up to three years and a fine of up to three million won. The 2009 revision gives

1820-654: The EU legislation is the Hundertwasserentscheidung (Hundertwasser decision), a case won by Friedensreich Hundertwasser in Germany against a German company for use of a photo of an Austrian building. In accordance with a 2024 decision by the Federal Court of Justice, drone photographs of copyrighted public art are not covered by the panorama exception, upholding a ruling by the Higher Regional Court of Hamm

1885-574: The European Union for an efficient functioning of the digital internal market "for the greater good of the society." According to a representative of the Ministry of Justice , most of the nearly 40 agencies and stakeholders who answered the questionnaire support the expansion of the freedom of panorama through clarification of the exception, but several groups representing authors are opposed to this amendment. Finnish freedom of panorama, found at third and fourth paragraphs of Article 25a of their copyright law,

1950-1106: The Founders of Kyiv. However, changes were made in some countries after 2000 closer to the status in US and western countries. Armenia decided in April 2013 to update its legislation in the Armenian law on copyright . Moldova approximated its law in question in July 2010 to EU standards. Freedom of panorama was partially adopted in Russia on October 1, 2014, after intense lobbying by Russian Misplaced Pages members. The majority of Spanish-speaking countries in Central America do not allow broad freedom of panorama. The copyright laws of Guatemala , Honduras , and Nicaragua only permit personal uses of pictorial representations of public art permanently found on streets, squares, and other types of public spaces as well as exteriors of architectural works. Article 71 of

2015-507: The French Code of Intellectual Property provides for a limited freedom of panorama for works of architecture and sculpture. The code authorizes "reproductions and representations of works of architecture and sculpture, placed permanently in public places ( voie publique ), and created by natural persons , with the exception of any usage of a commercial character". French lawmakers and politicians were reluctant to introduce freedom of panorama in

Korea Copyright Commission - Misplaced Pages Continue

2080-505: The KCC launched GongU Madang , a searchable database for works with permissive or expired copyrights. Copyright law of South Korea Copyright law of South Korea ( Korean : 저작권법 ) is regulated by the Copyright Act of 1957. It has been amended several times, with a recent 2009 revision introducing a three strikes policy for online copyright infringement. The concept of copyright first appeared in Korean writings in 1884. The history of

2145-523: The Korean copyright law dates to 1908, when during the occupation of Korea , the Japanese copyright law was extended to cover the Korean territories in the form of the international treaty between the United States and Japan on the Protection of Industrial Property in Korea . The Japanese law on copyright was used in Korea until 1957. The major Korean copyright legislation up to date, the Copyright Act of 1957,

2210-468: The Korean law has been amended numerous times to protect the interests of various industries creating copyrighted works and bring Korean copyright law more in line with the international standards, such as those of the WIPO . The number of copyright cases and rulings has grown significantly since 1986. Kyu Ho Youm noted that since the 1980s, copyright law has been transformed "from a largely ignored legal notion to

2275-677: The accounts of repeat file-sharing offenders, as determined by the Commission, for six months, and to upgrade this request to a demand if the Ministry becomes involved; the ISP has to follow the Ministry-backed demand or face a fine. However, user email accounts are not to be suspended. In 2011, the copyright law was controversially changed as a precondition to the United States–Korea Free Trade Agreement . The changes introduced

2340-500: The bridge are subject to "prior express permission of the CEVM". Additionally, CEVM has the sole right to distribute images of the viaduct in souvenir items such as postcards . However, private and/or non-commercial uses of images are tolerated by CEVM. Also exempted from obligatory permission and remuneration payment are "landscape images where the Viaduct appears in the background and is thus not

2405-636: The caricature drawing nor the photograph of The Little Mermaid with a mask on, which was brought to Berlingske in connection with newspaper articles, infringed the copyright of the heirs to the sculpture The Little Mermaid", citing the parody principle enshrined in the copyright law of Denmark. Freedom of panorama in Estonia, found at Section 20¹ of the Copyright Act , is restricted to non-commercial use of images of works of architecture, visual art, applied art, and photographs permanently situated in places open to

2470-399: The concept of fair use , in order to place a limit on exceptions to copyright. In general, copyright legislation in Korea has grown increasingly restrictive. In the 1950s, the public opinion in Korea did not consider acts such as copying a book to be equivalent to stealing. The 1957 act was very rarely implemented, and it was only after the revisions of 1986 that this changed. Since then,

2535-512: The confederation soon emulated the legal right, and in 1876 the legal right, based on Bavarian exception, was finally implemented throughout the confederation by the German parliament. 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. In most countries, it applies only to images of three-dimensional works that are permanently installed in

2600-587: The country, as well as using an image of the sculpture in 2020 "to represent a link between the far right and people fearing COVID-19 ." They were ordered by the Eastern High Court to pay 300,000 kroner ($ 46,000) worth of compensation to the Eriksen family, which was increased from 285,000 kroner ($ 44,000) as ruled by a district court. However, the Danish Supreme Court ruled on May 17, 2023 that "neither

2665-426: The creation and distribution of derivative works . In the past, photography and other methods of visually representing public space were severely restricted, for reasons other than authors' rights. France prohibited such acts in the 19th century for protection of privacy. Italy began disallowing representations of archaeological sites in engravings in the 18th century, even if such sites were found in public places, as

Korea Copyright Commission - Misplaced Pages Continue

2730-457: The current copyright holders of the work. The rightsholders of Atomium, however, continue to assert that commercial uses of any depictions of the landmark are still subject to prior permission and royalty fees, notwithstanding the introduction of the legal right in the country. Article 24(2) of the Danish copyright law allows the pictorial reproductions of artistic works situated in public places, if

2795-479: The database was not of insignificant commercial value, for both the database operator or those accessing the database, and that "this value should be reserved for the authors of the works of art. Whether the operator of the database actually has a commercial purpose is then irrelevant." The case was returned to a lower court to determine damages that Wikimedia Sweden owes to the collective rights management agency Bildkonst Upphovsrätt i Sverige (BUS), which initiated

2860-631: The debate is "bogus and misleading". On July 9, the plenary of the European Parliament rejected both proposals, thereby maintaining the status of freedom of panorama throughout the European Union. Freedom of panorama was introduced in Belgium on June 27, 2016, with the addition of a new provision in the Economic Code. According to XI.190 2/1°, the authors of architectural, visual, and graphic artworks permanently situated in public places cannot restrict

2925-464: The exteriors of architectural works. A 2002 decision by the Federal Court of Justice denied the panorama exception to postcards of Christo and Jeanne-Claude 's Wrapped Reichstag made by a Berlin publisher, due to the non-permanent nature of the architectural exhibition; the court opined that unauthorized private uses of images of it are permissible under the law. An example of litigation due to

2990-708: The government (represented by the Korean Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism and the Korea Copyright Commission ) the power to delete illegal reproductions, notify the copyright infringers, and suspend their online access, and is an implementation of the three strikes policy . Article 133bis of the Korean Copyright Act allows the Korean Copyright Commission to request that the ISPs suspend

3055-487: The images are to be used commercially. Ukraine introduced a limited freedom of panorama exception in 2022, as part of reforms in their Law of Copyright and Related Rights . Accordingly, images of public monuments and architecture can be created freely, "provided that such actions do not have independent economic value." There exists Ukrainian case laws from 2007–09 in which four commercial entities were found to have infringed Vasyl Borodai 's copyright on his 1982 Monument to

3120-407: The journalist Luca Spinelli (who highlighted the issue), the publishing of photographic reproductions of public places is still prohibited, in accordance with the old Italian copyright laws. A 2004 law called Codice Urbani states, among other provisions, that to publish pictures of "cultural goods" (meaning in theory every cultural and artistic object and place) for commercial purposes, it

3185-622: The lawsuit on behalf of artists they represent. In 2017, Wikimedia Sweden was ordered to pay damages equivalent to around US$ 89,000 to BUS. After the breakup of the Soviet Union most of the former member states lacked complete freedom of panorama. For instance, Article 20 of the Azerbaijani copyright law and Article 21 of the Kazakh copyright law do allow photography of public art and architecture but those works should not become main subjects if

3250-590: The lower courts' decisions on the accessory inclusion of the plaza's modern artistic constructions on postcards, stating that the copyrighted works blended in with the public domain architecture of the plaza surroundings, and that "the work of art was of secondary importance to the subject", which is the plaza itself. CEVM ( Compagnie Eiffage du Viaduc de Millau ), the exclusive beneficiary of all property rights of Millau Viaduct on behalf of its architect Norman Foster , in their website explicitly requires that professional and/or commercial uses of images of

3315-623: The main focus of the image." In 2023, a French appeals court awarded €40,000 to a graffiti artist whose depiction of an Asian Marianne (in response to the violent arrest of Théo Luhaka ) was used in LFI campaign videos in 2017 and 2020. A lower court had rejected the artist's claim to €900,000 in damages two years earlier. The appeals court, according to Agathe Zajdela, set a new precedence regarding graphic works like street art: that such works are not works of architecture or sculptures and therefore not under

SECTION 50

#1732852666881

3380-463: The panorama exception would lead to "a loss of 3 to 6 million euros, or 10 to 19% of the collections" annually in France alone. Criticism to Cavada's proposal culminated in an online petition by digital rights activists with hashtag #SaveFOP, garnering more than 460,000 signatures within two weeks after its launch. IT journalist Andrew Orlowski of The Register alleges that Misplaced Pages's intervention to

3445-607: The past; former National Assembly member Patrick Bloche in 2011 called freedom of panorama an "amendement Wikipédia". For-profit reproductions of recent architectural works by photographers, filmmakers, graphic artists, or other third party users without permission from the architect or the entity whom the architect has assigned their patrimonial rights to are copyright infringement. Two separate court decisions in 1990 ruled that unauthorized postcards depicting Grande Arche and La Géode as principal subjects constitute infringements. Other monumental works protected by copyright include

3510-399: The permission applies only if the image was taken from public ground, and without any further utilities such as ladders, lifting platforms, airplanes etc. 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, however with the restriction that the owner may then demand

3575-419: The photo is an image of the work "as it is there". It is therefore not permitted to edit the photo in such a way that (almost) only the subject is visible, or to create a derivative work that no longer meets this condition (for example, a stylized representation or a silhouette of the work). In addition, the legislator also stipulates that when including such images in a compilation work (collection) of works, only

3640-457: The public images of architectural, sculptural, photographic, and applied art works situated in public places, except that if the works become the main subject of the reproduction and if this reproduction is used for commercial purposes. Article 55 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act of Slovenia states that "Works that are permanently situated in parks, streets, squares, or other generally accessible places shall be freely exploited," but this

3705-511: The public. Also, the images must not show the said works as main subjects. A very limited provision for commercial use of architecture exists at Section 20², restricted for "real estate advertisements" only. The Cultural Affairs Committee of the Riigikogu discussed the freedom of panorama on June 6, 2016, with the committee chairman Laine Randjärv stressing the need to establish a common but clear wording on freedom of panorama for all member states of

3770-464: The purpose is non-commercial. Article 24(3) states that buildings can be freely reproduced in pictorial form. There is still no full freedom of panorama for non-architectural works in Denmark. The Little Mermaid , a sculpture of Edvard Eriksen (who died in 1959), is under copyright until 2030, and the Eriksen family is known to be litigious. Several Danish newspapers have been sued for using images of

3835-525: The purpose of a photograph of such a work (such as an office building, a shopping mall, or a bridge) is not the same as the original purpose of establishing a work, it is a permissible use under national copyright law. Freedom of panorama for Portuguese works is found at Article 75, paragraph 2, point q. of the Portuguese Code of Authors' Rights and Neighbouring Rights, covering permanent works in public spaces such as architecture and sculptures. However, it

3900-657: The reproduction and public communication of such works, "providing that it concerns the reproduction or communication of the work as it is and that said reproduction or public communication does not affect the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author". The provision came into effect on July 15, 2016. Since the provision became effective, people are able to take photographs of Brussels ' famous Atomium landmark and distribute these for any purpose, including sharing of such photos to their families and friends on social media , freely and without risk of copyright lawsuits from

3965-477: The scope of the non-commercial panorama exception, and that such works are not permanently placed on public roads because those are subject to natural hazards like inclement weather. Panoramafreiheit is defined in article 59 of the German Urheberrechtsgesetz , and the legal right is only limited to works "permanently situated along public thoroughfares, streets, and squares" as well as to

SECTION 60

#1732852666881

4030-415: The sculpture without permission by the Eriksen family. The purpose of the Danish media is considered commercial. Søren Lorentzen, photo editor of Berlingske which was one of the newspapers slapped with fines, once lamented, "We used a photo without asking for permission. That was apparently a clear violation of copyright laws, even though I honestly have a hard time understanding why one can't use photos of

4095-543: The works commercially without compensation to the authors; his office added that non-commercial freedom of panorama would not affect Internet freedom, but would guarantee that "platforms like  Facebook ,  Instagram , and  Flickr  provide fair compensation to artists." Dailymotion and YouTube earlier had agreements with the collective management society ADAGP  [ fr ] , in 2008 for Dailymotion and 2010 for YouTube, for legal use of images of buildings and public art on their platforms. ADAGP argued

4160-408: Was criticized by former French MEP Jean-Marie Cavada , who introduced an alternate proposal seeking to restrict freedom of panorama provisions of all the European Union countries to non-commercial uses only. Cavada claimed that commercial freedom of panorama harms the rights of the authors of architectural and artistic works by allowing entities like  Wikimedia and  Facebook to exploit

4225-459: Was enacted on January 28 of that year. This act protected the works for 30 years after the death of the author, and included fair use provisions. Later revisions also addressed issues such as moral rights . The Act has had 14 amendments, including two consolidations (in 1986 and 2006). The 1986 law extended the length of copyright to 50 years after the author's death, and introduced other modifications, bringing Korean copyright law in line with

#880119