Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Copyright law and the freedom of panorama: The right to commercialise photographs of protected works
View through CrossRef
<p>Making an unauthorised copy of a copyright-protected work is a copyright infringement, as is making an adaptation or a derivative work without gaining prior consent from the author or authors of the copyright-protected work. It was once questioned at one of the Berne Convention amendment meetings whether to take photographs of copyright-protected literary works was to make copies of them. The meeting concluded that taking photographs of literary works meant making copies of them, and, therefore, photographs should not be taken without gaining the prior consent of the author or authors. However, there was no discussion about photographs of other type of works, such as buildings and sculptures. Taking photographs of architectural and sculptural works permanently situated in public places is protected under “freedom of panorama”, a provision of copyright laws that permits the taking of photographs of those works, which is applied differently in some countries. This paper discusses copyright protection for those photographs, though there are not many cases available in this issue as the terminology of “freedom of panorama” was only recently coined. The discussion is based on the Berne Convention, and copyright law in the United States, New Zealand, and Indonesia. Freedom of panorama may seem to limit the exclusive rights for architects and sculptors to authorise any acts to be done over their works. However, photographers also have the need to be sure that their photographs are protected, including photographs that are taken under the freedom of panorama. Therefore, this paper argues that the photographers who take photographs under the freedom of panorama should be able to exercise exclusive and moral rights over their photographs. Although the three countries mentioned provide protection for the “freedom of panorama”, it is protected differently and, therefore, there is a need to include the freedom of panorama in an international copyright treaty to avoid a possible conflict of laws.</p>
Title: Copyright law and the freedom of panorama: The right to commercialise photographs of protected works
Description:
<p>Making an unauthorised copy of a copyright-protected work is a copyright infringement, as is making an adaptation or a derivative work without gaining prior consent from the author or authors of the copyright-protected work.
It was once questioned at one of the Berne Convention amendment meetings whether to take photographs of copyright-protected literary works was to make copies of them.
The meeting concluded that taking photographs of literary works meant making copies of them, and, therefore, photographs should not be taken without gaining the prior consent of the author or authors.
However, there was no discussion about photographs of other type of works, such as buildings and sculptures.
Taking photographs of architectural and sculptural works permanently situated in public places is protected under “freedom of panorama”, a provision of copyright laws that permits the taking of photographs of those works, which is applied differently in some countries.
This paper discusses copyright protection for those photographs, though there are not many cases available in this issue as the terminology of “freedom of panorama” was only recently coined.
The discussion is based on the Berne Convention, and copyright law in the United States, New Zealand, and Indonesia.
Freedom of panorama may seem to limit the exclusive rights for architects and sculptors to authorise any acts to be done over their works.
However, photographers also have the need to be sure that their photographs are protected, including photographs that are taken under the freedom of panorama.
Therefore, this paper argues that the photographers who take photographs under the freedom of panorama should be able to exercise exclusive and moral rights over their photographs.
Although the three countries mentioned provide protection for the “freedom of panorama”, it is protected differently and, therefore, there is a need to include the freedom of panorama in an international copyright treaty to avoid a possible conflict of laws.
</p>.
Related Results
The Freedomscape of Freedom Camping
The Freedomscape of Freedom Camping
<p><strong>Freedom camping is a popular choice for campers who enjoy flexibility and a sense of freedom, often in a natural landscape. However, the nature of 'freedom' ...
<i>MGM v. Grokster</i> – Amicus Brief of Professors Peter S. Menell, David Nimmer, Robert P. Merges, and Justin Hughes
<i>MGM v. Grokster</i> – Amicus Brief of Professors Peter S. Menell, David Nimmer, Robert P. Merges, and Justin Hughes
This case turns on whether the Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in <i>Sony</i> conclusively resolves at the summary judgment stage the present dispute – involving striking...
Authorship in Croatian copyright legislation from 1846 to 2007
Authorship in Croatian copyright legislation from 1846 to 2007
The aim of this paper is to investigate and present concepts of the author and his/her copyright work in copyright legislation that entered into force in Croatia from 1846 to 2007....
Copyright Backlash
Copyright Backlash
In the past decade the entertainment industry has waged a legally very successful campaign against online copyright infringements. In a series of high profile decisions, content in...
From Constitutional Comparison to Life in the Biosphere
From Constitutional Comparison to Life in the Biosphere
From Constitutional Comparison to Life in the Biosphere is a monograph that argues for a fundamental reorientation of constitutional law around the realities of biospheric interdep...
Normative Copyright: A Conceptual Framework for Copyright Philosophy
Normative Copyright: A Conceptual Framework for Copyright Philosophy
As copyright issues have moved towards the forefront of popular culture, trade, and the Supreme Court docket, we have lost sight of the first principles framed copyright’s developm...
The Ghost of Millar v. Taylor
The Ghost of Millar v. Taylor
The Ghost of Millar v. Taylor walks abroad once more, relishing the prospect of “the next great copyright act” and tempting us to ask again whether the origins of copyright are to ...
Copyright, Heritage and Australian Aboriginal Art
Copyright, Heritage and Australian Aboriginal Art
How Australian copyright law deals with Aboriginal painting has changed since the late 1980s. Prominent cases have moved the law towards greater protection and offered some recogni...

