[Advocacy Advisors] Freedom of Panorama case law - which law applies?

Wed Feb 4 16:49:43 UTC 2015

 Thanks John for the clarification. From this angle it makes much more
sense then. 

Even though I still find it a bit weird that "public space" is so
narrowly defined in Germany. What about someone building a sky scraper
next to a protected monument, including a rooftop café? What about
pictures taken from a regular airplane? To decide which views exactly
would be protected seems very hard and it might still be well possible
to tell decisionmakers that such a law works like a trap for citizens
who just want to take photographs. :)

Best,
Jan

Am 04.02.2015 00:38 schrieb John Weitzmann: 

> Am 03.02.2015 um 23:45 schrieb Jan Weisensee:
> 
>> (2) This is in my view exacerbated by the lack of logic in the German law. I think some people could understand if German FoP excluded pictures taken from the (private) ground of the protected monument itself, because it would protect those views on the monument which are potentially private (for instance if a building was explicitly built behind a wall or covering trees). But excluding a photograph taken from my own living room (if it happens to be on the opposite side of the street) doesn't seem to make much sense.
> 
> well, it turns on the notion of publication. The only outer appearance
> of works of architecture and monuments that is "published" is the one
> the public sees. Public means anybody. Ground level is in most
> situations the only area actually open to the public. Your living room
> is just as private as the private ground of the monument itself.
> 
> So there is some logic to it, and even aerial photography using drones
> doesn't change that, even if there are no restrictions on where to fly.
> The logic says, published means what the public can see, and what that
> means see with their own eyes, not through technical means. So the quite
> old case law on FoP in Germany already deals with ladders and stuff that
> photographers used on public ground to peek over walls and such. What is
> behind the wall is not published in that sense and so - according to the
> idea - FoP cannot apply.
> 
> Greetz
> John

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20150204/0bbb4582/attachment.html>