Pilipinas Panorama Community/Freedom of Panorama

PILIPINAS PANORAMA
Freedom of Panorama

Main page

Membership

Freedom of Panorama

Cultural Heritage

Movement Charter

Projects

Meetups

The Pilipinas Panorama Community is a thematic community based in Metro Manila, Philippines. It was founded in 2022 by Filipino Wikimedians advocating cultural heritage, history, language & ethnicity, art, freedom of panorama, and Wikimedia's Movement Strategy, contributing to expand the global availability of free knowledge.

Freedom Of Panorama (FOP) in the Philippines

Majority contributions from User:JWilz12345/FOP.

Definitions of "Freedom of Panorama" (FOP)

• According to Dulong de Rosnay and Langlais (2017) – "the legal right in some countries to publish pictures of artworks, sculptures, paintings, buildings or monuments that are in public spaces, even when they are still under copyright."
• As per IPOPHL's Atty. Chuck Valerio as quoted by Reyes (2021) – "an exception under copyright laws, similar to fair use, that dispenses with the need to secure prior permission from a copyright owner for the use of a work."

In other words, freedom of panorama is a little-known yet important legal right for photographers, netizens, and content creators to freely shoot public works of art and architecture found in or seen from public spaces, usually installed on a permanent (e.g. Swiss freedom of panorama) or long-term basis (e.g. Taiwanese freedom of panorama).

For example, an indie film producer shoots a famous public building in a Metro Manila city made by a famous architect and National Artist, producing assorted photographs with that building both as the main subject and as the background or incidental element. He then uses these photos on his film, which got the attention of Netflix that then purchases the right to stream his film in their famous streaming platform. Without freedom of panorama he still needed commercial license authorization from the architect (or his heirs if he is already deceased for less than 50 years), but with this exception such prior permission is no longer necessary. The same principle of freedom of panorama applies to shooting of works of monuments still under their sculptors' copyrights.

Benefits of Freedom of Panorama

See also: EU policy/Strategy/FoP/Argumentation

• Photographers can host their photos of works of architecture and monuments on Wikimedia Commons, Flickr, Unsplash, Pexels, Pixabay, and Getty Images under licenses they desire. For Wikimedia Commons, this is elaborated later in this advocacy page.
• Images of the same works can be used in tourism souvenir items like T-shirt prints, calendar designs, post cards, coffee mug designs, and many more. This boosts the tourism industry of a country.
• State-owned philatelic agencies, such as the Philippine Postal Corporation (PhilPost) in the Philippines, can freely use the same works in their commemorative stamps.
• Content creators can use their photos of the same works in their YouTube or Facebook vlogs, even for commercial or semi-commercial purposes. Donation drives by vloggers are semi-profitary in nature as these involve collecting some amount.
• Developers or web admins of travel portals and blogs can freely use photos of the same works in their websites.
• Painters are free to create paintings that depict cityscape or townscape as their subjects, and liberally include the same works in their paintings that they can sell for their livelihood.
• Netizens can freely share vacation photos of the same works in social media (Twitter, Instagram et cetera) and in Flickr, under Creative Commons licenses.
• Book publishers can freely use the same works in the covers of the books they published, such as novels or short stories that they will sell to millions.
• Advertising companies can legally use the same works in their ads (TV commercials, tarpaulins, etc..) as significant element (e.g. background) of their advertising works.
• Teleserye and film making production companies (like Regal, Viva, Dreamscape, ABS-CBN, GMA, et cetera) can legally depict the same works in their audio-visual outputs.
• For architects: Freedom of panorama is important for building up discourse on architecture, in print, in audio-visual media, and in online media. As per Archify: "But most importantly for architects, we live in a world where images of our built environment - shared freely between people via the internet - are increasingly important in constructing a discourse around that built environment. We live in a world that requires freedom of panorama in order for architects to make the world a better place. And architects should be pretty upset about how many restrictions have been placed, and continue to be placed, on that freedom."

Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons (or "Commons"), a sister site of Wikipedia and hosted by Wikimedia Foundation, only accepts freely-licensed media files as per its "Commons:Licensing" policy page, such as files under Creative Commons Attribution and/or Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike. It not accept fair use content as well as media licensed for non-commercial use only (like BY-NC-SA). Therefore, the media repository treats freedom of panorama with utmost importance, with a dedicated policy page on it. Through freedom of panorama photos of works of architecture and monuments can be hosted on Commons under free licenses. Therefore, helping facilitating knowledge on architecture, public art, and heritage throughout Wikimedia umbrella.

Images on Wikimedia Commons can be freely used in all websites under Wikimedia umbrella. While English Wikipedia has accepted original resolutions of photos of unfree architecture from no-FOP countries (following only U.S. copyright law), local files there cannot be used in other language editions of Wikipedia (like Tagalog Wikipedia) as well as other sister sites like Wikivoyage and Wikinews. In addition, since the U.S. freedom of panorama is for architecture only, photos of copyrighted public art like monuments cannot be freely hosted on English Wikipedia unless applicable fair use tags are used, and such photos cannot be used on list articles. It is noteworthy that the article "List of public art in Metro Manila" is lacking any illustration for contemporary monuments still under sculptors' copyright.

Courtesy of freedom of panorama, the annual Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM) photo competition can be conducted with broader scope, to include modern and contemporary monuments and architecture, not just limited to old or public domain monuments and architecture. Thus complete documentation of the country's heritage structures becomes possible.

The Philippines

According to Atty. Valerio, the current version of the Philippines copyright law (Republic Act No. 8293), as it stands, does not have this important exception, reinforcing the Wikimedia Commons interpretation that the Philippines does not have freedom of panorama in the list of copyright exceptions (Article 184).

No-FOP impact for Pinoy Wikimedians

The lack of complete freedom of panorama in the Philippines deprives Pilipino Wikimedians' ability to record assorted contemporary public buildings and monuments through freely-licensed photos hosted on Wikimedia Commons. As said before Commons only accepts freely-licensed content. It cannot accept photos of public works and art from countries that lack adequate freedom of panorama. Photos of such works caught by license reviewers and administrators on Commons are immediately tagged for deletion through "Deletion requests" discussions.

In Wikimedia jargon "deletion" does not result to permanent removal of content; rather it only redacts the content and makes it invisible to non-administrators. Therefore, deleted content can be "undeleted" or "restored" if there is a valid reason to do so, like the introduction of freedom of panorama in a no-FOP country.

The first Philippine FOP deletion request (2007) involved a photo of the 11th World Scout Jamboree Memorial roundabout, authored by sculptor Florante Beltran Caedo. Since then Commons photos of many other public structures have been redacted, including:

• "The Angry Christ" mural, Victorias
• Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
• Crown Regency Hotel, Cebu City
• Divine Mercy Shrine, El Salvador, Misamis Oriental
• Eagle of the North
• EDSA Shrine
• "The Execution of Dr. Jose P. Rizal", Rizal Park
• Iloilo International Airport
• Kartilya ng Katipunan and Bonifacio Monument
• Lion's Head
• LRT Line 1 (Metro Manila) stations, including the United Nations station
• MacArthur's Landing (Leyte Landing Memorial)
• Malacañan Palace
• New Clark City Athletics Stadium
• Philippine Arena
• SM Mall of Asia
• Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkhia Mosque
• TriNoma
• A certain public art in Naga, Camarines Sur, involved in a hotly-debated deletion request.
• Certain murals in Makati.

More Philippine FOP deletions at Commons can be found at this Commons category.

Deletions have also been made at English Wikipedia itself too. As said before, public art is not allowed if not tagged as fair use. Non-fair use photos have been deleted since at least 2009. Among these are photos showing Peter Tiamzon de Guzman's Memorare – Manila 1945 Monument and Eduardo Castrillo's People Power Monument. Additionally, one People Power Monument photo was speedily deleted under a vague reasoning: "Derivative work lacking adequate licensing information regarding its components," possibly derivative work of a copyrighted sculpture without license from Castrillo's heirs (had the Philippines had freedom of panorama, this issue would not surface in the first place, and image file could have been transferred to Wikimedia Commons so that other wiki sites under Wikimedia umbrella could use this image too).

Ironically, an in-depth investigation on the freedom of panorama status of the Philippines began in 2008 at a forum on English Wikipedia, regarding a photo showing a billboard of Pinoy Idol. This, in turn, was asked on Wikimedia Commons, and the entry for the Philippines at c:Commons:Freedom of panorama was added two years later. The passage "Bizarrely, the law itself is entirely based on the law of the United States and contains identical fair use provisions, which however are not acceptable." was added a few days after. User:Ijon added an update a year later. The section, originally at "Commons:Freedom of panorama", was moved to Philippines-specific page in 2018, during the transfers of copyright rules of countries to their specific pages aiming to reduce user wait time and server load.

Recent developments

18th Congress

Rep. Rufus Rodriguez gives his comment on the proposal of inclusion of Freedom of Panorama in Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines

On February 4, 2021, IPOPHL Director-General Rowel Barba proposed to the House of Representatives to include Freedom of Panorama in the amendments to the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. Then-Representative Wes Gatchalian (now city mayor of Valenzuela) filed House Bill 8620 where Freedom of Panorama to be placed under Section 184(m) of the IP Code. It was one of the three house bills aimed at modernizing the copyright law; the two others were House Bill 1597 by 1-Pacman party-list Rep. Michael Romero and House Bill 8062 by Rep. Christopher De Venecia and then-AAMBIS-Owa party-list Rep. Sharon Garin. Rep. Rufus Rodriguez expresses support for the freedom of panorama legal right. (Facebook Live video – 1:18:40 for the IPOPHL's mention of the legal right, 2:20:15 for Rodriguez's input)

On February 10, 2021 an online dialogue via Zoom was conducted between Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines–Bureau of Copyright and Related Rights (IPOPHL–BCRR) and some Filipino Wikimedians with Atty. Jacob Rogers of Wikimedia Foundation (Jrogers (WMF)), with freedom of panorama as the principal topic. House Bill No. 8620 was shown. However, IPOPHL–BCRR said that the current status ("no freedom of panorama") will still remain until the amendment has passed into law and the accompanying Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) refining the future Philippine freedom of panorama provision have been created. As copyright laws are statutory rights, according to IPOPHL–BCRR, provisions like the freedom of panorama must be defined or indicated in the copyright laws, and cannot be made into existence only by legal studies.

IPOPHL said on February 24, 2021 that the three copyright law amendment bills were being consolidated by a Technical Working Group of the Committee on Trade and Industry of the House of Representatives.

19th Congress

• See also: w:en:19th Congress of the Philippines#Sessions

This 19th Congress, there are six pending bills in the House of Representatives seeking to amend or modernize the copyright law. These are the following (with bolded house bill numerical designations denoting the house bill containing freedom of panorama provision):

House Bill numerical designation	Author/s	Status	Notes
House Bill 799	Rep. Joey Salceda	pending	FOP provision found at page 79, assigned as Section 206(m).
House Bill 888	Rep. Michael Romero of 1-Pacman party-list	pending
House Bill 2672	Rep. Christopher de Venecia	pending	FOP provision found at the bill's Section 48.
House Bill 3633	Rep. Aniela Tolentino	pending
House Bill 3838	Rep. Lex Colada of AAMBIS-Owa party-list	pending	FOP provision found at page 85, assigned as Section 203(m).
House Bill 7028	Rep. Joey Salceda	Substituted by House Bill 7600 since March 14, 2023
House Bill 7600 (committee report)	Various authors, including Rep. Joey Salceda	"Approved by the House on 2023-05-22, transmitted to the Senate on 2023-05-24 and received by the Senate on 2023-05-24"	Substitutes House Bill 7028.

All of the three bills containing the freedom of panorama provision bear the same wording as that of the now-obsolete House Bill 8620 of the previous 18th Congress. The FOP wording will be:

"The copyright in a work that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of the work, or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast."

As of February 10, 2023, there are three pending copyright law amendment bills in the Senate, all not related to freedom of panorama though.

Senate Bill numerical designation	Author/s	Status	Notes
Senate Bill 173	Sen. Francis Tolentino	pending	Similar to House Bill 3633, aiming to protect indigenous works of folklore and cultural expressions.
Senate Bill 891	Sen. Francis Tolentino	pending	Adding copyright enforcement to digital world.
Senate Bill 1734	Sen. Imee Marcos	pending	Proposed to extend copyright terms to align with international norms, most notably extending posthumous copyright to 70 years (from current 50 years) and applied art copyright to 50 years from making (from current 25 years).
Senate Bill 2150	Sen. Jinggoy Estrada	pending	Similar to both House Bills 7028 and 7600, in empowering Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines to restrict or block access to cyber platforms (like websites and apps) that host pirated or copyvio content, like pirated films, e-books, and software products.

The House of Representatives' Committee on Trade and Industry conducted its initial deliberation on the six House Bills on February 14, 2023, Valentine's Day. (Facebook Live video) Related online articles: from The Philippine Star and from the Philippine News Agency.

IPOPHL published an article, entitled Updating IP Code for stronger protection of IP assets emphasized at 2nd Creative Industry Summit, on March 10, 2023 in relation to the initial deliberation last February 14. Important excerpt: "Indeed, we truly feel that the 19th Congress is taking this call to heart as our honorable lawmakers in the House of Representatives, particularly the Committee on Trade & Industry Chaired by Cong.  Marvey A. Mariño,  recently initiated the consolidation of all bills related to the IP Code amendments and approved House Bill (HB) 7028 sponsored by Cong.  Joey S. Salceda, giving IPOPHL the power to issue site blocking orders to be implemented by internet service providers," the IPOPHL chief added. The four separate bills filed to amend the IP Code and now being consolidated are HB 799 by Cong. Salceda, HB 888 by Cong. Michael L. Romero, HB 2672 by Cong. Christopher "Toff" V.P. De Venecia, HB 3838 by Cong. Lex Anthony Cris A. Colada.

On May 22, 2023, the House of Representatives approved House Bill 7600 (that substituted House Bill 7028) on third and final reading. It seeks "to strengthen the powers and functions of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL), and amend the Intellectual Property Code (IP Code) to adapt to recent advancements in technology and further address piracy and counterfeiting."

Possible suggestions

For the pending bills

• Consolidation of the pending intellectual property code amendment bills from HoR and Senate into one new consolidated bill, with the FOP provision remained intact in the exact same wording (or in alternate wording as prescribed below).

Concern 1, artists not attributed

• If desired so as to provide respect to the authors of the public art and works: add a clause that mandates users (content creators, netizens, and photographers) to attribute the work author (architect, sculptor, or muralist), if he/she is known or can be immediately identified:

The copyright in a work that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of the work, or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast, provided that the author of the work is attributed, if known.

Concern 2, possible alteration of the work

• If desired to prevent disrespect to the works (through vandalism or destructive alteration), a non-alteration clause is added:

The copyright in a work that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of the work, or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast, provided that the author of the work is attributed, if known, and that the work is depicted as it is found there.

Wikimedia Commons implicitly allows freedom of panorama legal rights that prohibit alterations that harm the integrity of the depicted works. These are the freedom of panorama legal rights of Belgium, Brazil, Germany, and the Netherlands. As long as the commercial use is not restricted. The additional condition is based on Belgian FOP. The Belgian FOP, in turn, is inspired from Dutch FOP.

For the upcoming Implementing Rules and Regulations

• Per IPOPHL (in February 2021), once the amendments are passed into law and become part of the copyright law, an accompanying Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) for the Philippine freedom of panorama will be formulated to further define, streamline, and clarify it.
• Priority target types of works as covered by the legal right:

1. all architecture
2. all monuments outdoors and public indoors meant to be permanently placed (should also cover those that were meant to be permanent but suddenly destroyed, like the Bust of Ferdinand Marcos and Kalinga Anti-Chico River Dam Monument)
3. all 3D decorative/aesthetic works meant to be permanent in public like Jones Bridge lamp poles, and
4. land arts like the Relief Map at Rizal Park.

If church frescoes and murals are to be included, then the IRR must state that only photography, cinematography, and TV broadcasting are the allowed methods of representing the said works visually, since the wording of future Philippine FOP is generalized.

Respect to public work and art authors' rights

While the Philippine freedom of panorama as proposed will be broad enough for the benefit of Wikimedians, content creators, and netizens, the provision as it stands will still not cause undue harm to economic rights of architects, sculptors, and muralists, because:

• "Otherwise than temporarily situated" – the aim of the Philippine FOP will only cover works that are not meant to be permanently seen or installed in public. Hence, works not covered include, but not limited to: sculptures meant for auctions or temporary exhibitions in malls or galleries, models of buildings found inside malls (like Camella house models), artists' paintings, children's works on paper or illustration boards, billboard advertisements, advertisements painted on trains or vehicles, campaign material used in elections or rallies/demonstrations, posters, banners, tarpaulins, and photographs sticked on the likes of municipal or church information boards.
• For buildings: only actual buildings will be covered by freedom of panorama. Building plans and blueprints are normally not for long-term exhibition in public spaces and therefore not covered, still respecting the important asset of architects and not affecting their livelihood or occupation.
• For buildings and sculptures: freedom of panorama concerns representing these works in media stated by the proposed clause, such as photography, TV broadcasting, and cinematography. Three-dimensional representations like miniatures of Eduardo Castrillo's Kartilya ng Katipunan and Bonifacio Monument are not covered. Or exact reproduction like building a house in the style of Mañosa's Coconut Palace. These acts are reserved for authors' or their heirs (like heirs of Mañosa and Castrillo). Yet it may be subject to debate the 3D-style representations in computer technology, like Minecraft. This type of 3D representation needs further consultations.
• For murals and frescoes: if there is an upcoming "Implementing rules and regulations", it should be clear that only photography, cinematography, and television broadcasting are allowed forms of representing these works through freedom of panorama.

Respect to owners of the same works

Freedom of panorama only removes the burden need of Wikimedians, photographers, netizens, and content creators to ask for license from work architects, sculptors, or muralists for uses, publications, and distributions of their photos of the said authors' works permanently placed or installed in public spaces. The legal right does not in any way remove the owners' rights to privacy and/or security. Wikimedians, photographers, netizens, and content creators are still encouraged to respect privacy and security rules of every establishment, even those owned by the Philippine government, when conducting photography of the said works. Museum house rules still apply too: avoid using flash if the museums prohibit using flash in photography.

This is illustrated in the British FOP situation. Their legal right is broad enough to cover also interiors of publicly-accessible museums, irrespective of entrance fee and opening hours. British FOP does not cover murals and frescoes (2D flat works), however. But as per the UK section of this English Wikipedia article, they have one of the strictest anti-terror laws in the world, and photography of sensitive sites is prohibited or regulated. Among those caught by their law were a BBC photojouralist and a representative of their Parliament. This is a security law that is not in any way related to copyright.

Freedom of Panorama (FOP) statuses internationally

See: User:JWilz12345/FOP/Global statuses for a summary of FOP statuses internationally. A slightly more-detailed table exists at Wikimedia Commons.

ASEAN + APEC

Combined countries that are members of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). The list does not include dependencies or overseas territories. Partial means the country's FOP provision only covers architectural works, not other types of public space works.

Selected country	FOP status	FOP provision	Note/s
Philippines	no		(thoroughly discussed earlier on this page)
Australia	yes	Copyright law: Part III, Division 7, Sections 65–66. Publication is governed by Section 68.	Follows British copyright law heritage, hence the Australian FOP is very similar to the British FOP. Most flat arts like murals and frescoes are not covered as a result. Section 65, with respect to sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship, is subject to criticism from artists' groups, claiming that this provision of Australian freedom of panorama "conflicts with the normal exploitation rights of the artist by allowing others to freely exploit their work." (Per 2006 article by Arts Law Center.) Articles of Arts Law Center of Australia over the matter: 2006 article, 2013 article.
Brunei	yes	Copyright law: Section 66	Follows British copyright law heritage, hence the Bruneian FOP is very similar to the British FOP. Most flat arts like murals and frescoes are not covered as a result.
Cambodia	no	Copyright law: Article 25, second paragraph	Incidental inclusion only ("doesn't constitute the principle [sic] subject for subsequent reproduction"). More like de minimis than freedom of panorama. The "principle" word in the English translation is probably a typographical error; it should have been "principal".
Canada	yes	Copyright law: Section 32.2, (b), (i) and (ii)	Follows British copyright law heritage, hence the Canadian FOP is very similar to the British FOP. Most flat arts like murals and frescoes are not covered as a result.
Chile	yes	Article 71F	Outdoor works only, including exterior architecture. Photos of other architecture, like interior architecture, can only be used in traditional media and in textbooks. Lawful commercial uses of public art is allowed, provided that those works are permanently seen in public outdoors, and that extends to exterior architecture. Refer to: c:COM:FOP Chile.
China (People's Republic of China)	yes	Copyright law: Article 24(10)	The FOP wording is probably generalized. While it may seem to appear that even temporal artworks can be freely used, a 1995 statement from Supreme People's Court explicitly gives the opposite perspective: outdoor artistic works used in a Chinese Lantern Festival event cannot be considered as "art works installed or displayed in public places" because of their temporal nature. Court rulings in the past defined Chinese freedom of panorama: refer to c:COM:FOP China.
Indonesia	no	Copyright law (in Indonesian). Closest provision is Article 43(d). Translation: "the creation and distribution of Copyrighted content through information and communication technology media that are not commercial and/or lucrative to the Author or related parties, or the Author expresses no opposition to the creation and distribution."	This is considered unfit for Wikimedia Commons, because it means photos of such works can only be distributed in the Internet under non-commercial licenses. See a discussion by the Indonesian chapter of Creative Commons here (in Indonesian).
Japan	partial	Copyright law: Article 46, which features a non-commercial restriction for images of public art at the fourth condition.	Legal interpretations regarding the Japanese FOP vary, but most accept that some buildings such as the Tower of the Sun in the city of Suita, Osaka Prefecture are artistic works and not architectural works, which means these "special buildings" cannot be freely photographed commercially. See also: c:Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 1#Hideyuki Murata, regarding an opinion from a Japanese lawyer. It is noteworthy that the freedom of panorama provisions of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are very similar to each other, having four conditions in which FOP no longer applies (including the fourth condition that disallows commercial use). Only difference is that the South Korean legal right did not include "artistic works", which made architectural works subject to restriction too. According to User:Stefan2's guess here, "South Korea and Taiwan used to be Japanese colonies, so maybe the FOP provision simply was copied from an older Japanese law."
Korea, South	no	Copyright law: Article 35(2), which features a non-commercial restriction at the fourth condition.	According to c:COM:FOP South Korea (with reference to an article by Jin-won Choe): "Selling reproduction of artistic works in public place is not allowed, for examples, selling postcard, calendar, collection of photos in which the artistic works have major part is not allowed." It is noteworthy that the freedom of panorama provisions of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are very similar to each other, having four conditions in which FOP no longer applies (including the fourth condition that disallows commercial use). Only difference is that the South Korean legal right did not include "artistic works", which made architectural works subject to restriction too. According to User:Stefan2's guess here, "South Korea and Taiwan used to be Japanese colonies, so maybe the FOP provision simply was copied from an older Japanese law."
Lao People's Democratic Republic	no	Copyright law: Article 115(3.)	No actual freedom of panorama as public space works can only be included in photos "incidentally" (de minimis).
Malaysia	yes	Copyright law: Section 13(2)(d)	Covers almost all works meant to be permanent in public spaces, but excludes layout designs, blueprints, and other similar works, in accordance with Section 3 that defines terms like "artistic work".
Mexico	yes	Copyright law: Article 148(VII.); in Spanish. Translation: "Article 148. – Literary and artistic works already disclosed may be used, provided the normal exploitation of the work is not affected, without authorization from the owner of the economic right and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases:.... VII. Reproduction, communication and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs and audiovisual procedures of the works that are visible from public places;	But according to c:COM:FOP Mexico, some indoor locations like metro (subway) stations of Mexico City are denying the FOP right to photographers. In accordance to Federal Law of Telecom and Broadcasting, public places are "those that are in the charge of dependencies of federal, state or municipal entities, or under public programs of any one of the three orders of government." Such locations would include educational institutions (e.g. schools and universities), healthcare facilities (e.g. clinics and hospitals), government offices, open areas and areas with free admission (e.g. parks, greeneries, sports facilities), and "places that collaborate in public federal programs." This would inevitably exclude most transportation facilities as well as all places of worship (churches, chapels, mosques, and temples).
Myanmar / Burma	no		Likely not OK, at least at the first glance of the unofficial translation of the 2019 law provided by Lincoln Legal Services (Myanmar) Ltd. (Wayback Machine copy) that repealed the 1914 British colonial-era law which featured a British-style freedom of panorama provision. Sections 24–33 (limitations/exceptions) do not contain a provision resembling FOP.
New Zealand	yes	Copyright law: Section 73	Follows British copyright law heritage, hence the New Zealander FOP is very similar to the British FOP. Most flat arts like murals and frescoes are not covered as a result.
Papua New Guinea	no		c:COM:FOP Papua New Guinea
Peru	yes	Article 43(e)	For more details: c:COM:FOP Peru. Some public indoors are covered.
Russian Federation	partial	Copyright law: Article 1276(2), in Russian. (1) governs uses of non-architectural public space works, still subject to Soviet-era non-commercial restriction.	According to c:COM:FOP Russia, "the FOP exceptions for works of architecture, urban development, and garden and landscape design, which were added under consultation with Wikimedia Russia, have taken effect with the Civil Code amendments as of October 1, 2014." See also this article on Wikimedia's blogging site Diff, written by Linar Khalitov (User:Rubin16).
Singapore	yes	Copyright law: Section 265	Follows British copyright law heritage, hence the Singaporean FOP is very similar to the British FOP. Most flat arts like murals and frescoes are not covered as a result.
Taiwan (Republic of China)	partial	Copyright law: Article 58, which features a non-commercial restriction for images of public art at the fourth condition.	During 2018–22, an apparent misunderstanding from Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) resulted to Wikimedia Commons accepting photos of copyrighted non-architectural public works (like monuments and murals) from Taiwan (2018 discussion, 2020 discussion). After two official replies of TIPO from December 2022 (No.1111122 and Reply No.1111230), it became evident that the original restrictive interpretation of Commons is correct after all, and that only de minimis (incidental or not-the-main-subject) images of such public space works can be freely shared or distributed. For full discussion on Wikimedia Commons regarding the matter, see this Village pump/Copyright forum. Note that since this new reply from TIPO, the 2018 and 2020 discussions are rendered obsolete. Recent official reply from TIPO (No.11260001910) reaffirms this restrictive perspective, despite some protests from Wikimedia Taiwan community. In the new reply, it was explicitly stated that the use of Creative Commons licenses as mandated by Wikimedia can infringe the copyrights held by artists of non-architectural public works, as the licenses do not prevent reusers from using photos of works like Ju Ming sculptures and Hongtong village murals in post cards and other items where the main purpose is to sell photographic copies of those artworks. It is noteworthy that the freedom of panorama provisions of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are very similar to each other, having four conditions in which FOP no longer applies (including the fourth condition that disallows commercial use). Only difference is that the South Korean legal right did not include "artistic works", which made architectural works subject to restriction too. According to User:Stefan2's guess here, "South Korea and Taiwan used to be Japanese colonies, so maybe the FOP provision simply was copied from an older Japanese law."
Thailand	yes	Copyright law: Sections 37 and 38	According to Thai-speaking Wikimedian User:Paul_012 here, the FOP text in original language (Thai) features a condition that only works regularly placed in public can be freely used. The "regularly" wording is missing in most English translations, whether official (like the link provided here) or unofficial (like the versions at WIPO Lex database).
United States of America	partial	Copyright law: Section 120(a) "Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works". Cornell Law School copy of the provision.	The FOP exception for U.S. architectural works was added in 1990. According to Wikilegal/Pictorial Representations Architectural Works: "Motivation for the exemption stems from the key role that architectural works play in a citizen's daily life, not only as a form of shelter or investment, but as a work of art with a very public and social purpose. Congress also reasoned that exempting pictorial representations of architectural works would not interfere with the normal exploitation of architectural works because of the nature in which the pictorial representations are used. For example, millions of people visit cities every year and take back photographs, posters, and other pictorial representations of architectural works as mementos of their trip. Architectural photographs are also often essential bases of scholarly books on architecture. Given the important public purpose and the lack of harm to the copyright owner's [architect's] market, Congress decided to provide the exemption, rather than relying on the doctrine of fair use." There is no equivalent freedom of panorama right for other types of public space works. If it had it would have been under Section 113 ("Scope of exclusive rights in pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works"). Hence, notable real-life cases and issues emerged, like "Gaylord v. United States" concerning Korean War Veterans Memorial (USA Today article, judicial document from United States Court of Federal Claims), the issue of Portlandia statue's lack of recognition which is apparently a result of its sculptor's continued copyright hold on it (Willamette Week article), and the three cases launched by Arturo Di Modica involving his public art Charging Bull in New York City (against Walmart, North Fork Bank, and Random House).
Vietnam	no	Copyright law, 2022 amendment (in Vietnamese): Article 25.1.(h) or Điều 25.1.(h). Translation: "1. Cases of use of published works that do not require permission and payment of remuneration, but "must have information about the author's name and the origin and origin of the work" include: ... h) Photography or broadcasting works of fine art, architecture, photography or applied art displayed in public places for presentation of images of such works of a non-commercial nature;"	The Vietnamese copyright law was amended in 2022, with the amendments becoming effective on January 1, 2023. Prior to the amendments the FOP provision did not feature the "không nhằm mục đích thương mại" ("not for commercial purposes") restriction. Discussions: on Wikimedia Commons and on Vietnamese Wikipedia.

EU

Combined countries that are members of European Union (EU). The list does not include dependencies or overseas territories. Partial means the country's FOP provision only covers architectural works, not other types of public space works.

Selected country	FOP status	FOP provision	Note/s
Austria	yes	Copyright law (in German): Article 54(1)(5.). Translation: "5. To reproduce, distribute, present publicly through visual methods, broadcast by radio, and make available to public works of architecture after being completed or other works of fine arts after being prepared made to be permanently situated in a public place; excluded are the duplication of works of architecture, the duplication of a work of painting or graphic arts for permanent attachment at a location of the type mentioned as well as the duplication of works of sculpture by the sculpture.
Belgium	yes	Copyright law: Article XI.190 (in Dutch, in French) 2/1°. the Translation: "XI.190 Once a work has been lawfully published, its author may not prohibit:... 2/1° reproduction and communication to the public of works of plastic, graphic or architectural art intended to be placed permanently in public places, provided that it concerns the reproduction or the communication of the work as it is found there."	The introduction of freedom of panorama in Belgium in summer of 2016 was made possible through the efforts of Wikimedia Belgium (documentation).
Bulgaria	no	Copyright law (in Bulgarian): Article 24(1)(7.). Translation: "7. the use of works permanently displayed in streets, squares and other public places, without mechanical contact copying, as well as their transmission by wireless means or their transmission by cable or other technical means, if this is done for informational or other non-commercial purpose;"
Croatia	yes	Copyright law: Article 204 (page 73 in the provided English translation copy)	The Croatian FOP provision explictly limits to exterior architecture as well as presumably outdoor permanent works. All interior architecture and permanent works not covered.
Cyprus	yes	Copyright law (in Greek; translatable WIPO Lex copy in Greek): Section 7(2)(c). Translation: "(c) the reproduction and distribution of copies of any artistic work permanently installed in a place where it can be viewed by the public;"	Seems to exclude literary-type works like memorial texts and commemorative markers.
Czech Republic	yes	Copyright law (translatable WIPO Lex copy in Czech): Section 33(1). Translation: "(1) Anyone who records or expresses by drawing, painting or graphics, photography or film or otherwise a work which is permanently located in a square, street, park, public road or other public space, does not infringe with the copyright; the person who further uses the work expressed, captured or recorded in this way does not infringe with the copyright. If possible, the name of the author, if the work is not anonymous, or the name of the person under whose name the work is made public, as well as the name of the work and the location, must be given."	c:COM:FOP Czech Republic provides further information on Czech freedom of panorama, including the eligibility of different types of public spaces, whether indoors or outdoors.
Denmark	partial	Copyright law (in Danish) Article 24(2–3). Translation: "2. Works of art may be depicted when they are permanently placed on or near a place or road accessible to the public. The provision in the first clause does not apply if the artwork is the main subject and the reproduction is used commercially. 3. Buildings may be freely depicted." (eLov copy of the provision, in Danish)	Architectural works are only covered in Danish FOP. Due to the lack of adequate FOP for other permanent works, the The Little Mermaid is still under posthumous copyright held by sculptor's current heirs, and various entities (mainly newspapers) have been slapped with fines from the sculptor's heirs: refer to the articles by The Local and by PetaPixel for more information. See also this Associated Press article for the latest case against a user of the famous statue (that user was Berlingske, the oldest newspaper of Denmark still in circulation).
Estonia	no	Copyright law (WIPO Lex copies in Estonian and in English): Section 20¹.	Non-commercial freedom of panorama since it no longer applies "if the work is the main subject of the reproduction and it is intended to be used for direct commercial purposes." A strange exception (but obviously unfit for Commons) is provided by Section 20², permitting architectural FOP for use "in real estate advertisements."
Finland	partial	Copyright law (in Finnish): Article 25(a). Translation: "Photographing a work of art is also permitted in situations other than those referred to in subsections 1 or 2, if the work of art is permanently placed in a public place or in its immediate vicinity. If the work of art is the main subject of the image, the image cannot be used commercially. However, a photograph with an accompanying text may be included in a newspaper or magazine....A building can be freely photographed."	Subsections 1 and 2 are about artistic works meant for display on exhibits only. Still the non-commercial FOP for non-architecture in Finland makes the country "partial FOP" only.
France	no	Copyright law (in French): Chapter II, Article L122-5(11°). Translation: "11° Reproductions and representations of architectural works and sculptures, permanently placed on the public thoroughfare, made by natural persons, excluding any use of a commercial nature."	The lack of commercial freedom of panorama has deprived Wikimedia Commons the ability to host numerous photos of permanent public space works from France, from Louvre Pyramid to the scenic Millau Viaduct that carries A75 autoroute (consequently, a segment of European route E11) above Tarn River valley. c:Category:French FOP cases/deleted has perhaps the most number of successful redactions of all FOP sorting categories at Commons. Noteworthy cases, including some documented by Lipovetsky and de Dampierre (2012), show the tendency of French jurisprudence involving uses of public space works of France: incidental or accessory inclusion (de minimis) is fine but main subject inclusion is not (as per separate cases in 1990 involving post cards showing Grande Arche and La Géode dome). As per the viaduct manegement website, CEVM is the exclusive beneficiary of Architect Norman Foster's rights and all commercial uses of photos of the viaduct are not allowed without their permission.
Germany	yes	Copyright law: Article 59 (in German). Translation from Wikimedia Commons: "It shall be permissible to reproduce, by painting, drawing, photography or cinematography, works which are permanently located on public ways, streets or places and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies. For works of architecture, this provision shall be applicable only to the external appearance."	Germany is considered as the birthplace of freedom of panorama, having existed in that country since the 1870s. According to c:COM:FOP Germany, various German courts have defined the extent of the freedom of panorama in Germany. Notably, the location of the photographer is a number one condition. For example, a photo of a public monument as taken by a photographer from the street is covered by German FOP, but a photo of the same monument taken by the same photographer from his balcony is no longer covered, and the sculptor has the right to sue him if he distributes his photos commercially. In the same context, German FOP no longer protects photos of any public space works from Germany taken by photographers who used special objects and methods like ladder, platforms, trucks or vehicles, telephoto lenses, aerial vehicles (like airplanes and helicopters), balloons, and even drones, yet a 2020 ruling by the district court of Frankfurt finally permits aerial photography of public space works (yet it remains to be seen if the Supreme Courts of Germany, like Bundesgerichtshof, will folow the same ruling in the future or not, as there is no such thing as precedence in German judicial system). It is very clear that outdoor locations are only permitted coverage of German FOP; all indoors are not covered, even government and public buildings: sculptors can sue reusers and end-users should they attempt to exploit their permanent works inside government buildings for commercial purposes. Unfortunately, this means Wikimedia Commons cannot host close-up photos of the dome of Reichstag building in Berlin.
Greece	no	Copyright law: Article 26	While somewhat vague, the wording "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media" makes Greek FOP not suitable for Wikimedia Commons.
Hungary	yes	Copyright law: Section 68(1)
Ireland	yes	Copyright law: Section 93	Follows British copyright law heritage, hence the Irish FOP is very similar to the British FOP. Most flat arts like murals and frescoes are not covered as a result.
Italy	no		Freedom of panorama does not exist in Italy. More information: c:COM:FOP Italy, IPKat article, and MediaLaws article. Wikimedia Italy did made a survey in 2017 among architects in Italy, if they favored a freedom of panorama legal right. Surprisingly, majority are in favor of or affirmative to FOP (68.6%), with 20% of them in favor of it provided that attribution to architect is made a requirement. See Research:Freedom of panorama survey among architects of Italy. Vatican City FOP follows Italian FOP; see c:COM:FOP Vatican.
Latvia	no	Copyright law (in Latvian): Article 25(1–2). Translation: "(1) The representation of a work of architecture, photography, visual art, design, as well as applied art permanently displayed in public places may be used for personal use, information in news broadcasts or reviews of current events, or included in works for non-commercial purposes. (2) What is mentioned in this article does not apply to cases where the representation of the work is the object of further repetition of the work, broadcast to broadcasters or use of images of the work for commercial purposes."	No commercial use, and no further reproductions too (no derivatives).
Lithuania	no	Copyright law (in Lithuanian): Article 28(1.)(1)) Translation: "1. Without the permission of the author of the work or another subject of the copyright of this work and without royalties, but with indication, if possible, of the source used and the name of the author, it is allowed: 1) to reproduce and publicly announce architectural works and sculptures created to stand permanently in public places, except for the cases when they are exhibited in exhibitions and museums;..." The article features a non-commercial restriction at (2.): "The provision of paragraph 1, point 1 of this article does not apply when the architectural work or sculpture is the main object of representation in the reproduction and when this is done for direct or indirect commercial gain."
Luxembourg	no	Copyright law (in French): Article 10(7°). Translation: "7° the reproduction and communication of works located in a place accessible to the public, when these works are not the main subjects of the reproduction or communication."	More like de minimis, not freedom of panorama.
Malta	yes	Copyright law: Article 9(1)(p)
Netherlands	yes	Copyright law: Article 18 (in Dutch). Translation per Wikimedia Commons: "It is not an infringement of copyright to reproduce and publish pictures of a work, as meant in article 10, first paragraph, under 6° or of an architectural work as meant in article 10, first paragraph, under 8°, which are made to be permanently located in public places, as long as the work is depicted as it is located in the public space. Where incorporation of a work in a compilation is concerned, not more than a few of the works of the same author may be included."	Dutch freedom of panorama only covers public space works that fall under two categories under Article 10(1) which defines terms: "drawings, paintings, works of architecture and sculpture, lithographs, engravings and the like" from 6° and "drafts, sketches and three-dimensional works relating to architecture" from 8° ("drafts, sketches and three-dimensional works relating to geography, topography or other sciences" are explicitly excluded). Also excluded from Dutch FOP are maps (listed at 7°), photographs (9°), applied art (11°), models (11°), and industrial blueprints and layouts (11°).
Poland	yes	Copyright law (in Polish): Article 33(1.). Translation: "Art. 33. It is allowed to distribute: (1.) works permanently displayed on generally-accessible roads, streets, squares or gardens, but not for the same use;"
Portugal	yes	Article 75(2.)(q.)	In-depth discussion on Portuguese FOP is provided by Lisbon-based Atty. Teresa Nobre for Communia, which can be accessed and read here.
Romania	no	Copyright law (in Romanian): Article 35(1)(f) Translation: "f) reproduction, excluding any means that come into direct contact with the work, distribution or communication to the public of the image of a work of architecture, plastic art, photography or applied art, permanently placed in public places, except in cases where the image of the work is the primary subject of such reproduction, distribution or communication and whether it is used for commercial purposes;"	Non-commercial exception which is not suitable for Wikimedia Commons. There was a case in 2018 involving the Parliament of Romania which was sued by heirs of Architect Anca Petrescu after their Chamber of Deputies sold souvenirs bearing the image of the exteriors of Petrescu's Palace of the Parliament (2018 Romanian article).
Slovakia	yes	Copyright law (in Slovak): Section 41(1). Translation: "(1) A person who, without the consent of the author, uses a work permanently placed in a public space by making a reproduction, public transmission or public dissemination by transfer of ownership right does not infringe on copyright.	Physical reproduction is not allowed as per second paragraph (Article 41(2)): "The provision of paragraph 1 does not apply to the creation of a reproduction of an architectural work by construction and to the public dissemination by paid transfer of the ownership right of a three-dimensional material reproduction of a work of visual art that does not take the form of an engraving or relief."
Slovenia	no	Copyright law (in Slovenian): Article 55. Translation: "(1) Works that are permanently found in parks, on streets, in squares or in other generally accessible places are freely usable. (2) The use from the previous paragraph may not be performed in a three-dimensional form or for the same purpose as the original work or to achieve economic benefit. (3) In the cases referred to in the first paragraph of this article, the source and authorship of the work must be indicated, if it is indicated on the used work."
Spain	yes	Copyright law (in Spanish): Article 35(2). Translation: "2. Works permanently located in parks, streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated through paintings, drawings, photographs and audiovisual procedures."	Article 35(2) is part of Chapter II (Limitations to Copyright). All provisions under this chapter are bound for common provision Article 40 bis. which states "The articles of this chapter may not be interpreted in such a way that they allow their application in a way that causes unjustified prejudice to the legitimate interests of the author or that is detrimental to the normal exploitation of the works to which they refer."
Sweden	yes	Copyright law (in Swedish): Article 24. An unofficial English translation exists at the WIPO Lex database. Per that translation: "Article 24. Works of fine art may be reproduced in pictorial form: 1. if they are permanently located outdoors on, or at, a public place, 2. if the purpose is to advertise an exhibition or a sale of the works of fine art, but only to the extent necessary for the promotion of the exhibition or the sale, or 3. if they form part of a collection, in catalogues, however not in digital form.... Buildings may be freely reproduced in pictorial form."	The status of Swedish FOP as it applies to Commons was put into jeopardy after the 2016 case in which the Swedish artists' society, Bildkonst Upphovsrätt i Sverige (or BUS), slapped Wikimedia Sweden with a lawsuit due to the latter's use of Commons photos of Swedish public space works in their website Offentlig Konst i Sverige, in which users could view where the public space works were found on a map, with links to Commons photos for such works. On-wiki and off-wiki this was talked about: on the forum page of Sweden's policy page at Commons, on Wikimedia's blog site Diff in 2016 (article by Michelle Paulson) and in 2017 (article by Atty. Jacob Rogers), and on BBC. But as per advice of Atty. Jacob Rogers at this Commons Village pump forum, the current uploads at Commons should still be retained with c:Template:FoP-Sweden permanently tagged on Swedish architecture and public art still under copyright. The template itself got nearly annihilated. See also: c:COM:FOP Sweden.

Other countries that are of relevance to Filipinos

Inclusion of selected countries here: based on lists of countries preferred by Overseas Filipino Workers, preferred by Filipino trevellers, and top destinations for Filipinos.

Selected country	FOP status	FOP provision	Note/s
Bahrain	no	Copyright law: Article 25	Clearly not suitable for Wikimedia Commons because of the mode of depiction and non-commercial restriction: "through radio broadcasts for non-commercial purposes."
India	yes	Copyright law: Section 52(s and t)	Follows British copyright law heritage, hence the Indian FOP is very similar to the British FOP. Most flat arts like murals and frescoes are not covered as a result.
Israel	yes	Copyright law: Section 23	It seems it follows British copyright law heritage and that flat arts like murals and frescoes are not covered. A few legal experts, like Dr. Sarah Presenti, provided a more liberal perspective, that paintings can be considered as "applied arts". Applied arts are defined by them as communicating "useful information", whether it is 2D or 3D (see c:COM:FOP Israel).
Kuwait	no		c:COM:FOP Kuwait
Lebanon	no	Copyright law: Article 31	Not suitable for Wikimedia Commons because the only allowed user is the "media" (presumably traditional media): "The media shall be permitted...to publish pictures of architectural works, visual artistic works,...." The French translation uses a more restrictive term that translates to English as "information agencies"; see c:Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 1#Lebanon for more information.
Palau	no		c:COM:FOP Palau
State of Palestine	no		Home of historical Biblical-era cities of Bethlehem, Hebron, Jericho, and Nābulus (formerly Shechem/Flavia Neapolis), but see c:COM:FOP State of Palestine.
Qatar	no		c:COM:FOP Qatar
Saudi Arabia	no		c:COM:FOP Saudi Arabia
Sri Lanka	no	Copyright law	The limitations/exceptions to copyright, styled as fair uses, are found at Section 12 and do not include a freedom of panorama-like provision. It is noteworthy that the law, which dates to 2003, replaced the 1979 law that had a limited freedom of panorama exclusively for film and television broadcasts (at Section 13(d)).
Switzerland	yes	Copyright law: Article 27	Per c:COM:FOP Switzerland, legal literatures there agree that most public indoors are not covered. Courtyards within private properties are still covered. Important condition is stated at the second paragraph of the article, that the depiction should not be in 3D form (such as small-scale models or dioramas of existing Swiss works and art) and should "not serve the same purpose as the original."
Türkiye	yes	Copyright law (in Turkish, in English): Article 40	Limited only to outdoor settings: public streets, avenues, and squares. Exterior architecture only, excluding interior architecture.
United Arab Emirates	no	Copyright law: Article 22(7)	"Broadcasts" only. Wikimedia Commons cannot benefit as it is not a broadcasting entity; thus numerous photos of Burj Khalifa have been deleted since at least 2010. A major discussion, which did not yield anything advantageous for uploaders and Wikipedians, is found here.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland	yes	Copyright law: Section 62	See also c:COM:FOP United Kingdom. In British freedom of panorama, most flat arts like murals and frescoes are not covered. Works of artistic craftsmanship are 2D works made by artisans and craftsmen, like pottery, textiles, mosaics, and stained glass artworks of cathedrals and churches.
Vatican City	no		Non-ecclesiastical rules on copyright, like on artistic works and architecture, are reliant on the Italian copyright rules. Since Italy does not have freedom of panorama, the Holy See does not have that legal right too. See c:COM:FOP Vatican.

Extending Freedom of Panorama in Europe

Successful freedom of panorama introductions with Wikimedian intervention

• Russia (2014): architectural freedom of panorama. But as the cited article indicates: "Unfortunately, sculptures and monuments are still not covered by the changed law, but photos of historic buildings are permitted now and this opens wide opportunities for participation in the contest."
• Belgium (2016): broad freedom of panorama (not only limited to architecture).

See also

• w:en:Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 49#Copyright law amendment bills – now-archived August‐September 2022 discussion at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines
• w:en:Wikipedia:Commons Upload Campaign — an old enwiki campaign encouraging migration of eligible local enwiki image files to Wikimedia Commons

References