22 Mar

Commons talk:Freedom of panorama

‎challenge the Slovenian interpretation: reply
← Older revision
Revision as of 09:15, 22 March 2013
Line 192:
Line 192:

(3) In cases stated in paragraph (1) of this Article, the source and authorship of the work must be indicated, if the latter is indicated on the work used. }}

(3) In cases stated in paragraph (1) of this Article, the source and authorship of the work must be indicated, if the latter is indicated on the work used. }}

To me that clearly indicates that FoP is allowable in 2-D representation of 3-D, ie. you can take photographs, when you are doing such in a public space. I believe that we should be changing our interpretation unless there is case law to the contrary. — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]'' 03:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

To me that clearly indicates that FoP is allowable in 2-D representation of 3-D, ie. you can take photographs, when you are doing such in a public space. I believe that we should be changing our interpretation unless there is case law to the contrary. — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]'' 03:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

+

+
:The article allows only for free non-commercial use, no matter whether the reproduction is 2D or 3D. This has also been stated e.g. [http://www.fa.uni-lj.si/filelib/9_ar/2010/ar2010_2_08.pdf here] (pg. 67), where the author clearly states that commercial reproduction (e.g. for postcards [which of course are 2D]) is not allowed. --[[User:Eleassar|Eleassar]] ^{[[User talk:Eleassar|(t/p)]]} 09:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

== Where in the Belgium legislation does it restrict photographs of buildings ==

== Where in the Belgium legislation does it restrict photographs of buildings ==

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama&diff=93075739&oldid=93068634