Commons talk:Freedom of panorama

Shortcut: CT:FOP

Marshall Islands

At the moment COM:FOP Marshall Islands is quite confusing: it says probably not OK if reproducted as audiovisual works, but then cites the only IP law in the country and concludes that FOP is not prohibited, so {{PD-Marshall Islands}} should be used. The presence of a citation needed tag makes me assume the first part was from Wikipedia, but I can't find the source, and the entire section was added at the same time. Should this be changed to simply say probably OK, as the only IP law doesn't mention any FOP restrictions, and only audio and audio-visual works are protected by their IP law (so architecture, statues, etc. do not seem to be)? ‑‑Yodin^T 10:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Internal contradictions for Sweden

The first image, a map of Europe, shows Sweden in red indicating "Not OK" (while Norway and Finland are yellow for "OK for buildings only"). Halfway down the page, a map of the world, shows Sweden in green for "Maybe OK, unclear."). The table below lists Sweden with green a checkmark under "Buildings", question marks for 2D/3D/Public interiors, and an X for text.

As well as figuring out how to colour Sweden on these maps, it would be nice if both maps used the same colour scheme. - 129.242.129.238 12:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

In Sweden we have a lot of confusion due to the decision Sverige v. Wikipedia Sverige from 2016, see COM:FOP Sweden and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FoP-Sweden. Current position is that the current state of freedom of panorama in Sweden in regard to publications on the Internet is unknown but we will not delete anything from Sweden on the assumption that we do not have FOP in Sweden. This might explain why the map does not match the corresponding guideline. Sweden should probably be marked in grey. This has been discussed at File talk:Freedom of Panorama in Europe.svg#Sweden and Sweden was greyed afterwards. However, this was afterwards turned back into red by Chubit, then to green by Chubit, and finally turned back to red by Brateevsky. This should be best discussed at File talk:Freedom of Panorama in Europe.svg. But please keep in mind that the map just serves to provide an overview, you should always read the corresponding section. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Overzealous people pre-emptively deleting photographs of South African buildings

Hello, there seems to be overzealous people pre-emptively deleting photographs of South African buildings. South African law doesn't explicitly forbid photographs of buildings, and doesn't pursue any person that has taken such photographs. These people are going beyond what the is necessary and are interpreting the law how they see fit.

To me, Wikimedia has crippled itself when deleting wholesale photographs in countries that doesn't explicitly have freedom of panorama laws; especially when anyone on any other site can attribute to even an "All rights reserved" and use that image. Thanks, Maqdisi (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Please provide examples of deleted files. --Túrelio (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Maqdisi images marked with "all rights reserved" are non-free: see Commons:Licensing. Wikimedia Commons does not accept licenses that do not meet with the Definition of Free Cultural Works. Same analogy applies to images that may show unfree objects, and among those objects are works of architecture and sculptures in public spaces. Look again at the law of South Africa: their freedom of panorama exception is too restricted only to free use of public art and architecture in audio-visual media (movies, TV broadcasts), not photos. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Belarus

Missing from the table. Altenmann (talk) Altenmann (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello? Altenmann (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Altenmann not so significant country. Only selected no-FOP countries are included in the main table. But you can see the list of all countries with no FOP at the bottom part. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

You did not address my concern. Antigua and Barbuda and Macau and Zimbabwe and Curaçao more significant than Belarus? If you dont care that maybe someone else will take pain. Altenmann (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Altenmann because they do have FOP. Belarus has no FOP. It is not worth to include all 200+ jurisdictions in a single table. Your concern is already addressed: just go to the list at the bottom. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

No, my concern is not addressed. I didnt find Belarus at the top of the list. How the hell a person can know to look for the second table? This is a "user-unfriendly" design, colleague. Altenmann (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)