Freedom of panorama
[22] The rightsholders of Atomium, however, continue to assert that commercial uses of any depictions of the landmark are still subject to prior permission and royalty fees, notwithstanding the introduction of the legal right in the country.
"[26][27] Berlingske was sued again after exploiting the statue in 2019 as an illustration in a cartoon concerning debate culture in the country, as well as using an image of the sculpture in 2020 "to represent a link between the far right and people fearing COVID-19."
Two separate court decisions in 1990 ruled that unauthorized postcards depicting Grande Arche and La Géode as principal subjects constitute infringements.
[38] In 2023, a French appeals court awarded €40,000 to a graffiti artist whose depiction of an Asian Marianne (in response to the violent arrest of Théo Luhaka) was used in LFI campaign videos in 2017 and 2020.
Despite many official protests[49] and a national initiative[50] led by the lawyer Guido Scorza and the journalist Luca Spinelli (who highlighted the issue),[48] the publishing of photographic reproductions of public places is still prohibited, in accordance with the old Italian copyright laws.
[61] The copyright law of Spain provides a freedom of panorama provision at Article 35(2), which states that "works permanently located in parks, streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by means of paintings, drawings, photographs and audiovisual procedures.
"[67]: 6 The case was returned to a lower court to determine damages that Wikimedia Sweden owes to the collective rights management agency Bildkonst Upphovsrätt i Sverige (BUS), which initiated the lawsuit on behalf of artists they represent.
[81] Section 78 of the Copyright Act of Belize explicitly permits representing works of architecture, sculpture, and artistic craftsmanship in paintings, photographs, films, or broadcasts, as long as these are permanently seen in public spaces or publicly-accessible premises.
They add that Section 65 is disadvantageous to Indigenous peoples of the country by discouraging them from permanently showcasing their works in public spaces, as any free use leads to "irreparable cultural harm".
The Madras High Court rejected the argument of the Daily Calendar Supplying in their 1964 appeal, that their act falls under Section 52(t), since the original painting was still under the artist's private custody even if free copies were already being distributed to several temples in the south.
"[99] The Delhi High Court is expected to hear a recent case from February 2023, concerning Acko General Insurance's exploitation of Humanity mural painted on a Mumbai building, in their advertising campaign, that prompted St+Art India Foundation and the mural author Paola Delfin Gaytan to send a legal notice urging the firm to take down both the billboard material and the social media posts of their campaign.
[103] It is important to note the 2003 ruling of the Osaka District Court, which states that "architectural works" protected under this law only includes buildings with distinct aesthetic and creative properties.
Section 18(1)(b) only permits the presentation of artistic works "permanently situated in a street, square or a similar public place" in cinematograph films or in television broadcasts.
However, this restriction is largely ignored, as evidenced by tourists' continued sharing of such images on social media and marketing companies' utilizations of copyrighted graphic works as background elements in advertisements.
A very limited provision does exists at Section 184(d) which states "the reproduction and communication to the public of literary, scientific or artistic works as part of reports of current events by means of photography, cinematography or broadcasting to the extent necessary for the purpose.
2672 to place freedom of panorama under Sub-section m, Section 184, of the Intellectual Property Code had been filed by Representative Christopher de Venecia of Pangasinan as of July 28, 2022[update].
An exception is provided at Section 15(3) for artistic works permanently situated in public places, but only limits to "reproduction or inclusion in a cinematograph film or a television broadcast or transmission in a diffusion service."
Pomato Co., Ltd. used architect Min Gyu-am's "UV House", located in Paju, by their inclusion of the building as the background element of a 2005 television and Internet advertisement for the Kookmin Bank.
52 of 1979, which had a limited freedom of panorama provision at Section 13(d) that granted filmmakers and television broadcasters the right to reproduce works of art and architecture "permanently located in a place where they can be viewed by the public.
Article 58 of the Copyright Act of Taiwan provides for a freedom of panorama exception, wherein architectural and artistic works "displayed on a long-term basis" in outdoor places open to the public may be exploited for any purposes.
Due to Wikimedia's stringent licensing rules, submitted images showing modern architecture without proper permissions were taken down at the end of the first edition of the Wiki Loves Emirates campaign in 2018.
In that case, some examples were given of typical articles that might be considered works of artistic craftsmanship, including hand-painted tiles, stained glass, wrought iron gates, and the products of high-class printing, bookbinding, cutlery, needlework and cabinet-making.
[158] USPS also faced legal action over their use of a Getty Images-sourced photo of the Las Vegas replica of the Statue of Liberty at New York-New York Hotel & Casino in their stamps.
[167] Raymond Kaskey, author of Portlandia (the country's second-largest "hammered copper" statue), fiercely protects his copyright over it, having threatened anyone who has attempted to use images of it in postcards, T-shirts, and other commercial media or objects with lawsuits.
[169] The artist filed a lawsuit against National Rifle Association of America (NRA) in 2018 for their inclusion of the public art in their 2017 video advertisement, demanding "$150,000 per infringement" with the number "to be determined according to proof presented in the court.
[173] Swiss graffiti artist Adrian Falkner, also known as Smash 137, sued General Motors in January 2018 over a 2016 Cadillac advertising campaign which used a freelance photographer's images of his Detroit graffito.
The firm, in turn, filed a counter lawsuit against the artists, insisting that their use of the murals did not violate any laws, citing the panorama exception provided by AWCPA as the basis.
After a backlash against H&M in which the street art community called for a boycott of H&M products, the firm withdrew its legal threat against the graffiti artist and deleted its campaign on its website.
AIA themselves argued "that architects sell a service, not a product", with the copyright being an instrument to give an incentive to the author to stimulate greater creativity for the good of the general public.
[183] On the other hand, Columbia Law School's Jane C. Ginsburg expressed her concern to the architectural panorama exception, asserting it denies the architects' right to control reproductions in unauthorized commercial objects as unlicensed posters, T-shirts, and lunch box designs; she also claimed it may not be compatible with the Berne Convention.
