Projekt:Europeana Awareness 2012/Wiki Loves Public Art/Legal unclarities

Wiki loves public art is a contest that is planned to be held all over Europe. But we know that different countries have different legel situations. In some countries you are not allowed to upload pictures of public artwork, and in other countries you are. This is called the Freedom of panorama question. But there are many other legal uncertainties and questions around copyright and public art.

If you have had any legal questions regarding Freedom of Panorama that you think could effect the Wiki Loves Public Art competition and that you can't find the answer for on the Freedom of panorama guide, please write them down here and we will look into it with help from the legislative expertise at Europeana.

Person asking	Country	Question
Your name or user name	What country your question is regarding	Your question
Hannibal	Sweden	In Sweden, we are allowed to upload images of public art that is placed outside permanently, but what about reglious buildings?
LPfi	Sweden	Bildkonst upphovsrätt i Sverige (BUS) claims FoP does not include right to publish photos of public art on Internet, reasoning a difference between "framställa exemplar" (make copies) and "tillgängliggöra" (make available). Publishing by print would not be making available, but publishing on Internet would. I cannot believe a law made before Internet (I think there has been no amendments on this point) would put Internet in a special position, but as BUS is regarded as an authority it would be very good to have a non-partisan authoritative answer.
Boberger	Sweden	The claim by BUS is nothing to take seriously, it´s a homegrown interpretation. I disagree with the view that BUS should be - or is - regarded as an authority in this matter. BUS is an interest organization, which has a legitimate aim of supporting the interests of their members. Thus, of course it´s in the interest of BUS to be partisan in an interpretation of a law. In this case, BUS has claimed an opinion, but not presented any positive legal argument for its claim. I see no reason for WMSE to engage outsiders in this issue. Of course, there may be more tricky issues of interpretation. One is: how permanent should "permanent" (stadigvarande) be? Swedish "stadigvarande" is not exactly translated into English "permanent", but is more vague timewise. On one extreme, a piece of art being outdoor under transport or in another situation, where is is not "anchored" is not "stadigvarande". But what about a sculpture that in principle is for sale, but is situated in a sculpture park for one year or two? I would interpret it as "stadigvarande", but it´s more tricky if a piece of art is exposed at a temporary summer outdour exhibition for three months. It would definitely not be classified as "permanent", but hardly even as "stadigvarande". The problem: you will not get an authoritative answer by an authority in these cases. Only by a court in a legal case.
LPfi	Finland	I suppose you are free to take photos of public places with people and publish them freely, unless used for promotion (of whatever), individual persons are the main subject of the photo or the photo might ridicule well visible persons, in which cases you might need permission. Is this correct? Are children in a special position (e.g. playing grounds with children)?
LPfi	Finland	FoP in Finland includes buildings without restrictions (while other kinds of public art may be used only in some contexts). Does this include all art, such as sculptures and murals, connected with the building (when the main subject of a photo)? What about altar pieces and similar, which are made for the building but not part of the building itself?