Template talk:FoP-USonly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Moved from PUF[edit]

Section below moved from Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_February_6#File:Toys_R_Us_Philippines.jpg where the discussion went on about the use of this template - it will be better discussed here.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Question What is the correct way to handle photos of unfree buildings on English Wikipedia? Some get {{FoP-USonly}} (which, combined with a free licence for the photographing task, allows them to be used as a standard free image) while others get {{Non-free architectural work}} (which requires a fair use rationale and limits the usage to fair use). The two templates seem to mean the same thing but lead to different usage terms of the images. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think this counts as a photograph of any one "copyrightable" creative work. Neither the architecture nor any one particular element of copyrighted design of the shop seems to be the main topic of the photograph. Making a copyright issue out of this would mean taking the no-FoP position to an absurd extreme. Fut.Perf. 18:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I would think the only way for this to stay would be non-free. It's a photo of an obviously new building, so there has to be copyright. It's just a pain that countries don't agree on a common FoP policy - it causes so much confusion.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
    • There is still the question about the double templates for this situation (see above): one of them treats the photo as free in the United States (but unfree in the source country) while the other one treats it as unfree everywhere. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Good question. Honestly, I have no idea. It's the first time I even see {{FoP-USonly}}, and I'm not sure its existence was ever vetted by any informed consensus about the legal position expressed there. It's something I've been wondering about myself, but I wouldn't want to answer without a copyright lawyer. Let's put it like this: If a US court were ever to decide in a matter of a copyright infringement claim regarding a photograph of, say, a building in France, I suppose it would look into French law to figure out whether or not the building as such was or wasn't copyrighted in the first place. Fine. But once it has decided the building is in fact copyrighted in France, when it comes to figuring out whether that copyright also entails control over the right to photographic reproduction, would it still look towards French law or would it apply US law? I really don't know. Fut.Perf. 21:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
        • But that {{FoP-USonly}} links to Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama#United_States - which is only about images in taken the USA... So it does not make a lot of sense to me.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
          • I've posted a message at the template's author's page - User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre#Template:FoP-USonly - I think we need to know if we can apply this template.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Artworks like paintings are subject to copyright, especially if they're new. However, I don't think copyright applies to buildings. Photographers and tourists are often free to take shot at some structures. FoxLad (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
            • Copyright applies to everything - in the US there is a Freedom of Panorama which allows you to take images of buildings, but not sculptures, in the UK you can take pictures of anything outside, in some countries you can take images of buildings outside, but only for non-commercial use, and in some countries there is no exemption for taking images outside (but for own personal use, no one is likely to complain)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Where does it say there's no FoP in the Philippines? FoxLad (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
          • One of the tags mentioned here probably only applies within the US, not outside. FoxLad (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
            • For information about freedom of panorama in different countries, see commons:COM:FOP. The section about the United States mainly deals with US buildings, so it is unclear if it also applies to the use of photos of non-US buildings within the US. Basically, we need to know if the United States ignores non-US copyrights of non-US works when copyright laws differ. This was certainly the case in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. and might be the case here too. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I was asked here about {{FoP-USonly}}. I created it on the basis that English Wikipedia is willing to house images that are free in the United States but not in the country of origin. Photos of buildings are not copyrightable in the US, so someone from Philippines could not sue in a US court could not sue based on US law (exempting perhaps judicial shenanigans like Twin Brooks v. Walt Disney - a decision so outrageous that no one gives it any heed). It is the same concept behind {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} and {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} (the latter which I also created). At least that is my reading of US law - IANAL, so if you'd like to get the foundations second opinion, go for it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I'd be extremely glad if you were right about this. However, it's been my impression that our general practice so far has been to exclude photos from foreign no-FoP situations, just like on Commons, and {{Non-free architectural work}} certainly reflects that practice (especially in its more restrictive wording before somebody made this apparently undiscussed change [1].) Apparently, none of these different positions have ever been based on a project-wide explicit consensus, have they? This is really in need of some clarification. As I said, I only hope you're right. Fut.Perf. 21:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree, we need a proper decision, I do know of several images that were deleted because of building FoP, if this template is OK then I can see a future for it. At present 11 files are covered by it. I have penned a short note to legal@wikimedia - maybe they will have a view (or not...)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment If it turns out that it is perfectly fine to host pictures of any buildings on a US server, the pictures in Category:Non-free architectural works would be eligible for a licence change. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - part of the reason we've observed foreign FOP rules is a misunderstanding from the fact that Commons requires an image to be free in the host country. I see it happen all the time. But longstanding en.wp policy is to allow images which are free in the US but not their home country. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • There are a few problems with the existing wording of this template. For example, the information that works constructed either before or after 1990 can be photographed is not needed.
    The big omission is that he template should reference Wikimedia and En-Wikipedia policy, not just US law. The label 'FoP-US only' is also misleading in that it implies that images so tagged may be freely shared only in the US.

What is needed is some information to the effect that: in the juristiction where the work is sited, the architect has a share in the copyright of any photographs taken of that work, and that this contrasts with legal situation in many other countries, including the United States where Wikipedia's servers are located.
There does seem to be overlap between the templates 'FoP-US only' and 'Non-free architectural work' so a wider discussion would be welcome. A label which more broadly expresses that the image has geographical limitations to its freedom would be preferable.
I'd also request that editors take the time to read the wording of template 'Non-free architectural work' and flag up any contradictions with the appropriate Wikimedia Foundation and En-Wikipedia policies. 9carney (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Additionally, the current wording of {{FoP-USonly}} entirely misrepresents the US law paragraph, 17 USC § 102(a). Having thought about it, I feel that the correct course of action is to consider its deletion, unless the need for it can be elucidated, and to improve the clarity of wording in the older template {{Non-free architectural work}} to better explain the policies it embodies. 9carney (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
    • The problem is that the other template states that images under that template are unfree. Photos of buildings are free in the United States, so a free template should be used instead and so {{Non-free architectural work}} is the template to be deleted. This template just combines {{FoP-US}} with {{Do not move to Commons}}; any problems should probably be sorted out in those templates instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, the above relates to US law but totally ignores Wikipedia policy. Freely licenced photos of buildings in the US are indeed free, but photos of recent buildings in so-called non-FoP countries, even if freely licenced by the photographer, are not 'free content' according to the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' used by the Wikimedia Foundation. Files are either free-content or not. 'Free in the US only' has no meaning under the policies currently in force.

The WMF's definition includes the wording:

There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied.

Images of recent buildings in non-FoP countries clearly do have a limit on where they can be copied, so they are not free-content.

The licensing policy of the Wikimedia Foundation includes the wording:

All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above.


In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project community may develop and adopt an EDP. Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.

EDP stands for Exemption Doctrine Policy, which for the English Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Non-free content

This explains its purpose as:

To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law.

The Wikipedia:Non-free content policy is angled towards fair use provisions for content which is globally in copyright as this makes up the overwhelming proportion non-free content. It would seem reasonable to propose relaxing the provisions for content which is non-free merely because of differences in copyright law between jurisdictions. That would be the correct way to try to achieve change rather than creating new templates which don't reflect Wikipedia and WMF policies and proposing the deletion of existing ones which do. 9carney (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It has been longstanding policy on English Wikipedia to allow works which are free in the US but not in their home country. I think you're mixing up Commons policy and Wikipedia policy. If your statement is that it's not free enough because it's not tradeable in the home country, then by your logic we shouldn't allow any works which aren't tradeable somewhere in some country, which would lead to the rule that most any building couldn't be photographed because there are countries in which one could sue for copyright infringement, even if they aren't the home country for the building or the US. Also, your interpretation of WMF policy is wooden enough that it ignores actual WMF precedent in the likes of policies like fair use. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Your arguing above would mean that we can't host fair use images (since this makes Wikipedia articles unfree in most countries: most countries don't have fair use) or {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} images. Would "free" in your interpretation mean that we can't host text or images which violate other laws than copyright laws, such as laws preventing you from criticising the Chinese government in China? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Magog the Ogre, it is longstanding policy on English Wikipedia to allow works which are free in the US but not in their home country. In the case of photos of buildings from non-FoP countries they are tagged with {{Non-free architectural work}}. This is entirely different from Commons where such images are not allowed at all. If you know of any relevant modifications to the policies as stated please supply a link to them. Stefan2, yes we can and do host fair use images here on Wikipedia, but not on Commons. They just have to be tagged with the correct tag and abide by terms of Wikipedia:Non-free content. The definition of free-content only concerns copyright and related issues. There have been discussions concerning Nazi symbols which are banned in Germany (if my memory serves me correctly) they are ok here and on Commons if they are freely licenced or have equivalent public domain status, making them free-content. 9carney (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I think that 9carney has a point here. The policy says that everyone should be able to use the files. They can't. But Magog is also right that if we take that to the extreme we would have to delete a lot. So why not ask the WMF to have a look at that dilemma and tell us what they think we should do. Personally I prefer that we at least delete the files that are unused. --MGA73 (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
No, it doesn't make any sense at all. Commons requires files be free in their home country and in the US and nowhere else. That comes straight from the WMF. English Wikipedia requires they are free in the US and nowhere else. This is a long-standing policy and has never been seriously challenged. It makes no sense to challenge this template but to leave ignored {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it makes no sens to challenge one template but not similar templates. And I also agree that it is a long-standing policy. But the WMF resolution is very clear. It makes no difference between en-wiki and Commons with one single exception: Commons are not allowed to have EDP. It would make things much easier if en-wiki and Commons had the same policy about "free files". --MGA73 (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Public domain states it about as clearly as it's stated anywhere: "The primary law relevant for Wikipedia is that of the United States." While it doesn't explicitly state that images which are free in the US but not abroad can be kept, it seems to be implied with the focus of the entire essay. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Isn't the decision to require that copyrights have expired in the source country a decision by the Commons community? The way I interpret wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, the only requirement is that files are free in the United States. Anything else would be up to the respective projects to decide. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
@ Magog I agree that en-wiki policy is that those files can be kept. But if policy does not follow the WMF resolution then policy should be changed. I asume that WMF knows about the policy on en-wiki and think that it is ok and in that case it should not be a problem to confirm that they agree that "free" means "free in the US". (also see below)
@ Stefan2 Now that you ask. I actually asumed that it was because of the WMF that files on Commons should be free in both the US and in the source country. If it is "just" a decision by the Commons community it could perhaps be changed. But that discussion belongs on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Foreigners understanding English?[edit]

What happens if someone from another country understands English and finds loopholes on laws of intellectual property between U.S. and home country? I'm confused as hell. --George Ho (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If you can find someone outside the United States who speaks English (for example someone who lives in the United Kingdom), it may be illegal for that person to read, download or copy Wikipedia articles, due to different copyright laws in the United States and the United Kingdom. For example, the United Kingdom applies a copyright term of max(70 years pma, 50 years pd) for US works, so any image tagged with {{PD-US-1989}} is unfree in the United Kingdom, due to no rule of the shorter term for US works in the UK. However, this is a much more complex matter and affects all templates on Wikipedia (not just this one): regardless of the licence template used, a file may be unfree in some country somewhere in the world. For example, since all unpublished material is copyrighted in the UK, lots of files tagged with {{PD-old-100}} may be unfree in the UK. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
"illegal for that person to read". In other words, person is not allowed to electronically surf through Wikipedia without copying or downloadin, right? In other words, person will not be able to read an overview online about one topic, right? --George Ho (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
It depends on the country. But the WMF's decision to allow use of the PD-art tag[2] certainly makes Wikipedia a copyright violator by some country's standards (notably, the UK). Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
If reading an article is illegal in one country, reading it is legal here, right? I'm seeing a loophole, as the internet is popular and accessible. Must I take this issue as a broader issue in WP:village pump (idea lab) instead? My head is spinning. --George Ho (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The Internet is accessible from many different countries. Accessing a website from one country may be a copyright violation even if it isn't a copyright violation to access the same website from any other country. Of course, it is highly unlikely that anyone ever will find out that you've visited that web site, so the legal risk is small. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, would this conflict with WP:Wikipedia is not censored? --George Ho (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright is a form of censorship. If you disallow certain images (for example because they are copyrighted), then some form of censorship is applied to Wikipedia. However, WP:NOTCENSORED is more focused on other types of censorship, such as depictions of nude individuals or depictions of deceased prophets. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

We need a policy[edit]

Currently, bickering across several talk pages and TfD pages is not leading to inconsistency. What we really need is a central policy page where we can determine what the English Wikipedia's policy is concerning these images, and then write it down. I can't imagine that freedom of panorama would require it's own policy page; a short section in the non-free content guideline would be enough. However, creating and deleting various templates, all the while leaving messes such as images tagged as non-free sitting in free content categories, is just going to lead to confusion and upset. That's not how to conduct a policy review. J Milburn (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Does US FoP apply to foreign works?[edit]

WP:AGF on King of Heart's and Spade's summary below:
    1. Yes, {{FoP-USonly}} is OK, because the English Wikipedia is responsible only to US law, and freedom of panorama is permitted under lex loci protectionis.
    2. Given lex loci protectionis, there is an issue of having photos of public artwork in countries such as Germany on Commons, as Commons must obey both the laws of both the US and the country of origin. However, this does not invalidate the US FoP claim on foreign works on the English Wikipedia; that matter is still to be resolved by Commons.
    3. {{Non-free architectural work}} is now obsolete. Since no one has objected to my proposal to notify uploaders with my template, I will proceed to do so shortly.
--v/r - TP 18:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we accept, on the English Wikipedia, photos of copyrighted buildings that are situated in countries with no suitable freedom of panorama provision but qualify under US FoP law, using the license {{FoP-USonly}}? King of ♠ 21:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

As stated above, I don't have any idea why this template alone has been singled out for criticism, whereas {{PD-USonly}} and other related templates have been accepted without controversy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Those concern a very different issue. It is not inconsistent to be happy with those (which have been accepted on Wikipedia by a long-standing consensus) but not happy with these (which seem to have been introduced in an attempt to get around Commons policy). J Milburn (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm seeing two pieces of logic in that statement, both of them fallacies: appeal to tradition and appeal to motive. Both pieces of logic fail for the reasons these fallacies fail: tradition for the sake of tradition is a way of supporting something without really giving a reason (stare decisis hardly applies in a Wikipedia context), and my "motive" for creating this template is irrelevant to whether it should stay. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't patronise me; it's particularly unbecoming when you're wrong. Firstly, the purpose of my post was not to challenge this template, it was to challenge your ridiculous claim that there is an inconsistency in challenging this template and not challenging the PD-US-only templates. The point is that there is a clear consensus for them, but not for this. If there is a longstanding consensus (be it "traditional" or otherwise), which is what I was appealing to, then we'll stick with that consensus until a new one comes along; equally, there's a longstanding consensus that we should cite content to reliable sources. As there is no longstanding consensus for this kind of template, you could not have been appealing to it; my purpose on speculating on motive was to illustrate clearly that the motive was not related to any kind of consensus. J Milburn (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Who is patronizing who, and who is belittling who? You are the one that assumed bad faith out of the batter's box by stating this template was created to "get around a Commons policy," which is just wrong (I should know: I was in my head when I created it, and my motivations were clear). Before throwing around wild accusations and becoming defensive when I try to calmly discuss the lgic with you, perhaps you should look in the mirror.
In any case, the reason that the two are exactly the same: the consensus was not that these templates are OK, but that the reason behind the templates: that we accept works free in the US and not abroad only on English Wikipedia - that this reasoning was OK. I have applied the same reasoning here. Why in the world would consensus decided to create an ad-hoc exception for certain US-only free works while ignoring the greater principle behind it? That makes absolutely no sense.
As far as I can tell, your position is perfectly OK with a wild disparity between our policies considering US-only free works for the only reason that consensus supposedly fit the individual situation, which (as I've just shown), it didn't. That is silly and inconsistent, and it stings of applying policy without ever understanding the meaning behind it. Please prove me wrong. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Right, you are here making a huge assumption. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that you are claiming that, if I take a picture of non-free building x in state A (which lacks a freedom of panorama), then we can pretend state A does have a freedom of panorama if we are sitting in the United States. I am not willing to accept this claim until a lawyer tells me that I should. However, even if we do accept this, then, presumably, pictures of statue y taken in state B (state B having an unrestricted freedom of panorama) would have to be treated as non-free if we are sitting in the United States. This is clearly not how the English Wikipedia operates, and I am yet to come across anyone who is willing to accept this consequence. You accuse me of inconsistency, but, as far as I can see... J Milburn (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Could you guys please stick to the issues instead of having a pissing contest? Kaldari (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
...I am sticking to the issue? J Milburn (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
"Pretending" is a poor word choice. It works more like this: you and I are sitting in New Jersey. Joe Smith took a picture of a building from France, and I republish it in my work. The French man who designed the building is outraged and sues me in the only place where he can get court access to my money: New Jersey. Whose laws will the court in New Jersey recognize? The answer is, just like PD-US-1923-abroad, that that court in New Jersey will not recognize foreign law in the US (poorly thought out activist rulings aside). Simply put, one cannot sue for copyright infringement in the US for taking a photograph of a public building.
As for the freedom of panorama for non-edifices in countries that allow such things (e.g., Germany): you are correct. Commons has been accepting these images even though one could plausibly sue for infringement in the US. I and at least two other users have recognized this contradiction, but frankly, at this point we're simply turning a blind eye to it because a) the amount of dramah would be obscene (it would make this discussion look tame), b) we don't have the time or desire to go through with the process, and c) the likelihood that a content creator will even be upset about the infringement, let alone go through with the effort to sue for it, is extremely low due to different circumstances regarding the medium of artwork (e.g., a painting is often created for the sole intent to sell copies, whereas publicly-displayed artwork is usually a one-and-done deal). It is not a perfect situation, and yes it involves ignoring a policy gap in infringement. However, I do not think Commons failure to recognize or enforce copyrights in any way should affect our ability to do so according to WMF policies. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

A project-specific policy, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), that recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status.

Based on the above, it seems that free images have to be free in the countrie(s) from which English Wikipedia is predominantly accessed and that any other images have to comply with fair use, fair dealing and whatever. If applied strictly, it would mean that we would have to throw out lots of "PD-US-lack of one or more formalities" files, since neither Canada nor the United Kingdom apply the rule of the shorter term on such items. Instead, those items are copyrighted for life+50 years and life+70 years in the respective countries. It would also mean that we would have to throw out lots of fair use images, since I seem to understand that fair dealing is much more restrictive than fair use. However, the long-standing consensus is that English Wikipedia only needs to comply with the copyright law of the United States.
In either case, most English-speaking countries have freedom of panorama of buildings. The only exception I'm aware of is South Africa, which is quite odd for a former British colony. Thus, I don't see why there would be an issue with this template. I would assume that English Wikipedia only is "predominantly accessed" from English-speaking countries.
Another thing is United States copyright law which states that buildings completed before 1 December 1990 are in the public domain in the United States (see s:Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act). Photos of statues in non-FOP countries are accepted on English Wikipedia as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} if the statues were installed (i.e. published) before 1923. In the same way, buildings completed before 1 December 1990 don't have to comply with United States FOP provisions since the buildings are in the public domain in the United States and could be accepted under a "PD-US-1990-abroad" template. That said, I don't see any reason to reject this template. 17 USC 120(a) doesn't require the buildings to be located in any specific country, so I would assume that it applies to buildings in any country. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, we accept content that is free in the United States, even if not free elsewhere. Commons policy is more restrictive, it is entirely consistent with past practice to allow images on Wikipedia that comply with US law and not commons policy. Monty845 13:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's what the abovementioned guideline says: "While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries." That should answer the question, unless the idea is to change the guideline, which doesn't seem to be proposed.  Sandstein  10:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Serious question for those of you who seem to have already made up their minds: If we're keeping photographs of things that would have been free were they taken in the US (so, for instance, photographs of non-free buildings) can we rely on you to be the ones who rush out to delete the photographs that would have been non-free were they taken in the US? For instance, I can only assume that every image of the Angel of the North will simply have to be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The {{FoP-USonly}} template is entirely consistent with en.wiki policy, specifically Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. However, I think J Milburn makes a valid point that we have been widely ignoring the opposite case: Images of foreign artworks that are FoP in the source country, but not public domain in the U.S. Kaldari (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • No, "Freedom of Panorama" is not a global concept. Under Section 32.2 (1)(b) of the Canadian Copyright Act 1985, it is not an infringement of copyright for any person "to reproduce, in a painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or cinematographic work … (i) an architectural work (defined as any building or structure or any model of a building or structure); or (ii) a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship, that is permanently situated in a public place or building". Any 2D reproduction of a 3D original work visible to the public is therefore permissible, without invoking "Freedom of Panorama". Rather than invoking a US example of fair use, it would be better to presume permission in the absence of known legislation to the contrary, and suitably restrict the use of prohibited photographs of copyrighted works based on their country of origin. G. C. Hood (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Absolutely appropriate, just as we happily keep File:Marcel Duchamp Mona Lisa LHOOQ.jpg. The sculptures in other countries are irrelevant here; those images aren't copyrighted to begin with (except for the photographers' copyrights, of course), so how can they attract any US copyright? Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    • It depends entirely on the copyright law of the United States. Someone (maybe User:Clindberg?) once mentioned a German case where a German court ruled that photos taken in Austria have to comply with German FOP if used in Germany. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Nyttend, under US copyright laws, and under the copyright laws of many other states, if a person takes a picture of a copyrighted statue, they cannot freely use that picture (in much the same way that I cannot freely use a screenshot of a copyrighted television programme, even if I made the screenshot). See Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama. J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I suggest to continue permitting {{FoP-USonly}} on base of the lex loci protectionis. Given that buildings fall under the freedom of panorama in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Commonwealth countries, i.e. those countries where most of the readers reside, this law can be safely applied for these cases. The German language wikipedia handles this similarly as the countries that cover most of the German language readership (Germany, Austria, and Switzerland) all have freedom of panorama as well. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    Just to be clear, they really shouldn't be doing that because wikipedia.org is based out of Florida and has to comply with Florida's laws. But if it were housed out of say, Frankfurt (i.e., the same country as the laws we're speaking of, like in this case), that would be an entirely defensible position. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    Of course, you need to consider US copyright law as well. But imagine a photograph of the pyramid in front of the Louvre or the Eiffel tower at night. Both is not permitted according to French law but covered by the freedom of panorama according to US and German law. Secondly, there is still the option to see some cases as free according to German law but as fair use according to US law. But we must not forget that we have always at de-wp to consider the copyright laws of Germany, Austria, and Switzerland as well as the intended audience is in focus. That means if the intended audience includes Germany, German law applies according to the lex loci protectionis even if the servers are located somewhere in the United States (see German federal court, 13 October 2004, Az. I ZR 163/02 and, more recently and related to copyright and Wikipedia, the famous Loriot case, p. 7–8, section I). --AFBorchert (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Lex loci protectionis has some serious limitations under the Berne Convention. In order to globalize Wikipedia in a way consistent with WP:WORLDVIEW, some rationale other than {{FoP-USonly}} sould be used for countries with dissimilar provisions. G. C. Hood (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • J Milburn raises a very important issue. We have some things (e.g. photos of French buildings) that are FoP in the US but not in the foreign country. We also have some things (e.g. photos of German sculptures) that are FoP in the foreign country, but not in the US. What should we do here? -- King of ♠ 20:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It has always been my interpretation of the Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights policy that only US FOP matters on the English Wikipedia as only US copyright law ultimately applies here, even if following that of other countries is desirable, and that such an approach is consistent with Template:PD-US and others - although I recognize that actual practice has been all over the place. The difference between this approach and the one on Commons results in "limbo" images which are free but cannot be on Commons - practices would be simplified greatly if the English Wikipedia synchronized its definition of free content (non-free content would not be affected) with that of Commons, although I've also been open minded about doing the reverse (i.e. making Commons US only).
  • I noted on my Wikimania 2011 presentation on FoP the rather large anomaly in current practice in that both on the English Wikipedia on Commons we accept free uploads of sculpture depictions which are non-free in the US. There is the bite-the-bullet solution of deleting all such uploads on Commons and only accepting non-free uploads on them here, although I cannot realistically seeing that getting consensus. My view on the issue is that a more fundamental re-think of Wikimedia's approch to FoP is needed, to try and reduce the tangle both projects are currently in on the issue. CT Cooper · talk 22:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, we should, for the same reason that we accept Fair Use images, which also often wouldn't be accepted under the laws of other countries. For the same reason, those pictures would not be acceptable on the Wikimedia Commons. --GRuban (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Point of order. Surprisingly, no one in this discussion has mentioned the {{Non-free architectural work}} template. As that template is essentially contradictory of {{FoP-USonly}}, if we decide that FoP-USonly is a valid template (as the consensus seems to be heading towards), that means that {{Non-free architectural work}} is invalid and should be deleted. And before J Milburn goes ballistic on me, I would like to state that I do not believe we can "have our cake and eat it to". Please see this discussion I have started on Commons. We either need to revise our policies or act on them consistently. Kaldari (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Well the {{Non-free architectural work}} template seems to claim that the Foundation's definition of free content contains the requirement for such content to be free in the country of origin, although in fact it doesn't mention countries at all - a factual inaccuracy in my view. The template in general does also seem to conflict with Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights, and therefore deletion is justified in my view. There would be a question on what to do with images that use this template currently though. CT Cooper · talk 18:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
      • In practical terms, there are really only 2 cases that we are dealing with:
        1. {{FoP-Architecture}} - The photograph was taken in a country that applies FoP to buildings (you can move it to Commons)
        2. {{No-FoP-Architecture}} - The photograph was taken in a country that doesn't apply FoP to buildings (you cannot move it to Commons)
      • In both cases, such images meet the Foundation's definition of free content within the U.S. and are thus hostable on en.wiki at full resolution per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. What would people think about migrating to the 2 hypothetical templates above? {{FoP-US}} would be redirected to {{FoP-Architecture}}, and {{FoP-USonly}} and {{Non-free architectural work}} would be redirected to {{No-FoP-Architecture}}. Kaldari (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes, many people have different views on this, but I think part of the problem here has been a failure in discussions to separate determining what policy says and what editors would like it to say. Templates should accurately represent current policy - whatever that happens to be. Having two separate templates, one to provide information and state that this image could be hosted on Commons, the other to do the same thing except disallow moving to Commons, would clear up confusion and is something that I would support. There is one problem though, {{Non-free architectural work}} is a non-free template - so all files uploaded under it are non-free with fair use rationales. If the template was changed to allow such files to be hosted under a free license locally, then either the copyright holders would have to release the existing uploads under a free license, or the files would have to be deleted in all or almost all cases as replaceable non-free content under the WP:NFCC. Fortunately, only 61 images currently use {{Non-free architectural work}}, so a transition wouldn't be too difficult. CT Cooper · talk 21:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I've been following this discussion for a long time, without commenting until now, because I see it as a very difficult question, especially for editors like me, who are not trained in copyright law. As best I can piece things together, I think that images taken in the US, that satisfy US law, but that would not satisfy laws in some other nations, should be acceptable locally here, even though they would not be at Commons. About the other side of the coin, images taken in other countries, that would not be free in those other countries, but satisfy US law, my preference would be to defer to our desire to provide only free material, and therefore I'd prefer to be more strict than what we are required to do by US law, and disallow those files if they would be disallowed in the place where they were created. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has pretty much given the green light to US FoP on foreign buildings, so we need to decide what to do with {{non-free architectural work}} now that they are considered replaceable fair use (since the uploaders did not release the photos under a free license). I've created a template to notify uploaders of this. Comments/suggestions? -- King of ♠ 00:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    I've done some slight re-wording. CT Cooper · talk 21:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Summary: This RfC is pretty much over, so I'll provide what I think is a reasonable interpretation of the results:
    1. Yes, {{FoP-USonly}} is OK, because the English Wikipedia is responsible only to US law, and freedom of panorama is permitted under lex loci protectionis.
    2. Given lex loci protectionis, there is an issue of having photos of public artwork in countries such as Germany on Commons, as Commons must obey both the laws of both the US and the country of origin. However, this does not invalidate the US FoP claim on foreign works on the English Wikipedia; that matter is still to be resolved by Commons.
    3. {{Non-free architectural work}} is now obsolete. Since no one has objected to my proposal to notify uploaders with my template, I will proceed to do so shortly. King of ♠ 07:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that is a fair assessment. This would have been a lot easier if this was explicitly stated in the Wikipedia definition of free.--Jorfer (talk) 02:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.