Commons talk:Freedom of panorama

Shortcut: CT:FOP

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

Sticky table header

It appears that we should have the ability to make the table header row fixed as one scrolls, per phab:T283505. Any idea why that's not happening or how to make it happen? Sdkb ^talk 23:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Bump. Sdkb ^talk 15:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sdkb: If you mean the summary table, it does stay fixed when scrolling for me (Chrome browser). If this isn't working in some case, I'm not sure that this is the right place to find a solution. — Julian H.^✈ 18:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Hyperallergic article re: Commons & FoP

An interesting discussion that may be relevant to folks here. This was published last week in Hyperallergic, discussing Freedom of Panorama and its applications in occupied Artsakh as interpreted by Commons users. --19h00s (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Has anyone approached Baghdasaryan's estate for permission to use photos of the monument? - Jmabel ! talk 04:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll also ping @Nemoralis: who messaged me about this. Essentially, nothing is changed. Artsakh appeared to have its own copyright law patterned after the pre-2013 copyright law of Armenia, and this was still in effect until Azerbaijan ultimately took the region in 2023. There is no evidence that Artsakh adopted the liberal Freedom of Panorama right (no restrictions to commercial uses of public landmarks) which Armenia implemented in 2013. I reinstated the FoP section at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Artsakh which Aymatth2 removed, with some modifications including a link to the Hyperallergic article. FoP section should stay, as it is not so simple to simplify it by removing it entirely. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed correction for Serbia

The summary table provides the 'OK' status in all columns for Serbia. This contradicts the map where Serbia is in light green (OK, excluding public interiors). I think we should change the fourth parameter to NO. See additional info on Wikimedia, the applicable law says that the freedom is limited to works displayed on streets, squares and other open public places. Not sure about the columns 2 to 4 tho. Ur frnd (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I changed it to No myself, for there were no objections. Ur frnd (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to abolish acceptance

The currently operational Commons:Freedom of panorama was created when Commons permitted works covered by the URAA. In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the URAA was constitutional, and Commons then stopped accepting foreign works protected by US copyright. In the United States, FOP is not recognized for artworks and sculptures, and the same applies to foreign works. However, no new agreement was reached on this matter and FOP continued to be used as it was when it was created. Even works that are in the public domain in their source countries are removed by US copyright, so there is no good reason why inferior FOP should not be affected by US copyright. This is a clear double standard. To correct this double standard, I propose to stop accepting FOP works protected by US copyright. I am looking forward to receiving various opinions on this matter. Y.haruo (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

 Comment does seem connected with Commons:Deletion requests/File:4 Kioichō, Chiyoda-ku, Tōkyō-to 102-0094, Japan - panoramio - MAKIKO OMOKAWA (4).jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Added  Comment: Ciell talked to me on my user talk page before that it is incorrect to claim that U.S. FoP restrictions apply to FoP countries. According to Ciell, "as mentioned in the thought document by WMF Legal I shared with you previously, the physical location of the servers has nothing to do with the determination of legal jurisdiction. We have 6 or 7 servers around the world; they switch often. This really is not of influence on the kind of content we can host." (Reference: User talk:JWilz12345/Archive 3#Freedom of Panaroma 2; the WMF Legal document is meta:Wikilegal/A changing legal world for free knowledge) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I've had a couple of conversations related to this (and other matters about copyright) with people from WMF Legal. The off-the-record consensus there seems to be that Commons is almost always over-conservative about copyright policies, opting for a level of caution that almost no lawyer would advise. Note that that was said of current policies. There is certainly no reason to tighten these policies further. - Jmabel ! talk 19:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

+1. Yann (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

+1 Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel it is evident that the current people at WMF Legal are taking exception to Commons' overly-conservative copyright rules (which I think are heavily influenced by US law [Copyright Act 1976 as amended and codified under Title 17] and French law [Code de la propriété intellectuelle]). In addition, Ciell (who is also one of the leading Wikimedian organizers of the annual Wiki Loves Monuments) already told me that the physical location of the servers is not a correct determinant; in fact, there are caching servers in yes-FoP countries like Singapore. Perhaps COM:PCP has been over-stretched to the point of irrationality.

Therefore, I may suggest we take rational and realistic approaches in two areas that are subject to frequent debate:

• FoP objects, specifically 3D works like sculptures, in no-FoP countries that are already PD in their jurisdictions: we rather take a lenient approach by treating these works as acceptable here (the images are uploaders'/Flickr photographers'/Panoramio photographers' own-work images any way). URAA policy should only apply to non-FoP works like paintings, old photographs, stamps, films/videos, music/audio files, newspaper scans, toys, license plates, models/taxidermies, coins/banknotes, and other similar items. We should only remove the images of PD no-FoP monuments down if there is actual complaint from the side of the sculptors' heirs, toning down the excesses of COM:PCP.
• Millau Viaduct: this needs final discussion, as some users like IronGargoyle are not convinced on the copyright claims of the bridge management (CEVM) who self-declared themselves as the beneficiary of Arch. Norman Foster's economic rights. We may need strong evidence (like document/s, contract/s, news article/s not connected to the 2015 EU FoP debates, court opinion/s or casefile/s, et cetera, but not including the management's own website) that the bridge is indeed copyrighted and cannot be freely used by our readers/reusers.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: honestly, the particular (practically unique) case of the Millau Viaduct seems rather far off of relating to the proposal here, and this seems like a completely inappropriate place to discuss it.

If I understand correctly, the rest of what you say comes down to "not only am I against this, but I want to make a proposal that goes exactly the opposite direction." Perhaps you should frame that proposal. - Jmabel ! talk 05:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm of two minds on this. The yes-FOP countries and Wikimedia communities from those countries won't like that we're basically saying "we're applying US-only FOP standards but with more restrictions" so I'm inclined to agree with Jmabel's point that we shouldn't tighten policies. On the other hand, it does make things more consistent since we do reject URAA-affected files files in the no-FOP countries even those are technically more free than the ones in yes-FOP countries. WMF has made itself clear by its actions on the Claes Oldenburg DCMA DMCA requests though (that ultimately US law is the only one that matters). Abzeronow (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Failure to fight a DCMADMCA takedown notice doesn't "make anything clear". A decision not to fight is not necessarily agreement with the claim in question. - Jmabel ! talk 04:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words IMO. But I do agree with you that we shouldn't be tightening restrictions. If WMF feels differently about that, they can always tell us. Abzeronow (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I assume you mean "DMCA" --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Noticed the typo a week later too but I figured I'd leave it. Edited my comment. Abzeronow (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

We must not forget that this discussion should have been held in 2012. This is a correction of an excessive policy and does not amount to new regulation. And I don't think WMF would approve of double standards.--Y.haruo (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

If WMF felt our policy was too lenient, we would have long since heard from them. I believe that for all of us who have heard anything from them about this, it is that they think our policies are generally stricter than need be. I'd be very interested in hearing from anyone who has in any way heard someone from WMF Legal remark that any Commons copyright policy is too lax. - Jmabel ! talk 07:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

If you're right, WMF would have relaxed its acceptance of foreign works protected by US copyright a long time ago. WMF doesn't feel it's being too strict. Y.haruo (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The FoP policy existed long before we seriously questioned the URAA. I think it was the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the Golan v. Holder case which made the URAA a question for a while (as the lower courts had all ruled that it was legal). FoP in foreign countries is an area where there are precious few court precedents, so the de facto standard is to hope that foreign law may have some effect in the US in these situations. It has nothing to do with the URAA, at all. It is also applied to works which are still under copyright without the URAA. So, the URAA stance changed nothing. There is some argument that if the US FoP policy is OK, meaning that foreign law allowing such photos may have a US effect, then a statue now PD in the country of origin where it was photographed may also have a similar effect. A little less likely maybe. I think we have had DRs closed both ways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Y.haruo: "WMF would have relaxed its acceptance of foreign works protected by US copyright": other wikis than Commons, of course, can deal with this by an exemption doctrine policy. For example, de-wiki allows images that are PD in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, but not the U.S., and it is exactly as much under the aegis of WMF as en-wiki or Commons. Commons is in a slightly odd position because, unlike any of the other wikis, we are explicitly prohibited from having an exemption doctrine policy. I suspect that when the WMF laid out their resolution on licensing policy in 2007, they did not even consider that cases this complicated would arise. I think that, in practice, they have dealt with the matter by tolerant "benign neglect." Yes, I think it would be better if they would allow Commons to make an explicit statement that something like this is an exception to strict adherence to the policy. This is a situation where we need to look at WMF as functioning under a sort of "common law" (metaphorically speaking): we need to look at how they've handled cases, not just at their "statutes." I see no reason for us to stick to the letter of a rule that was drafted without much thought to cases like this, when the people who might enforce the rule have given no indication that they wish us to do so. - Jmabel ! talk 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, to keep it short, I concur with Jmabel. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I describe the difference between public domain works and FOP works.

Works that are in the public domain in the source country can be freely photographed and published. However, in the United States, there is no “Rule of the shorter term,” so works are protected by copyright for 95 years after publication.

On the other hand Works with FOP in the country of origin are protected by copyright but can be photographed freely. However, in the United States, FOP is only allowed for buildings, so they cannot be made public for a fee. Works are protected by copyright for 95 years after their release.

As you can see, the two regulations are almost the same (in fact, public domain works are more free than FOP works), which is why I pointed out this double standard and proposed a correction.　There are two possible choices for correcting this double standard. What we can do is either allow FOP for works that are in the public domain in the source country, or eliminate acceptance of FOP works.　Excluding one side but not the other creates the double standard. I was initially hoping for the former. too. But seeing public works being deleted almost daily, I gave up. That is why I am proposing to eliminate the acceptance of FOP works. Y.haruo (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I keep asking about the double standards. But, you guys didn't even touch on the subject. Why is that? Or should we not discuss double standards in Commons?--Y.haruo (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Because I think in this case "consistency" is low on the list of concerns. - Jmabel ! talk 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Also because consistency in this case means either disregarding US law or moving toward a US-only FoP policy, neither of which is ideal for an international project that is based on the US. Abzeronow (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: ,@Abzeronow: That’s very strange. As stated in Commons:Project scope, "Any file hosted here must normally be freely licensed or public domain according to both the law of the United States and according to the law of the source country." Accordingly, many photos of statues that are in the public domain in the source countries have been deleted. Images that are more freedom than FOP are consistently deleted. I'm certain you were aware of that. because you're the administrators.--Y.haruo (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the paradox that EU public domain works are deleted while copyrighted works are kept (except for the Claes Oldenburg photos that were deleted by WMF). Freedom of Panorama allows for copyrighted works to be hosted here. I don't see any good reason to delete or explicitly not allow works we are allowed by our community to host because of the inconsistency that URAA has brought. We have a status quo that only allows for works uploaded before March 2012 that URAA would apply to. There have been attempts over the years to discuss changing this, but all attempts to change policy have failed. I think an EDP here for public domain works (but not in the US) would be good, but that's a heavy lift, and our community would have to take the steps towards implementing one. Abzeronow (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Project scope is an official policy and everyone must follow it. However, even though the official policy was changed in 2012, the Freedom of Panorama EDP was left alone. That is why it is necessary to create a new EDP for FOP that adapts to the acceptance amendments. Since 2012, no new FOP EDP have been made or authorized. Y.haruo (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Because a lot of times in life, "leaving well enough alone" is more important than consistency. There's constant fights over deleting works out of copyright in the EU and not in the US, and I can't see the value in opening up a whole group of more works to argue about deleting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Will this include files such as this where the copyrighted aspects are not the main focus? AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia is a no-FOP country so this proposal doesn't affect it. De Minimis is a separate matter so that file is fine. Abzeronow (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok so assuming any file like this where the copyrighted aspects are likely de minimis will be fine, I am on the bridge between  Neutral and  Weak support under the condition that all files like the one I showed will be fine provided that the acceptance of de minimis files doesn't also get abolished. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral canvassing post was made on Village pump/Copyright. Nothing wrong with that, but should have been mentioned here. - Jmabel ! talk 18:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I've been waiting for a while but I can't see any validity to any opinions that go against the official policy. I will wait another week or so, and if there are no further comments, I will propose to decide by vote.--Y.haruo (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Your proposal had a very lukewarm response, I guess, because most people don't agree with your very strict interpretation of policy and aren't really considering such a fundamental change of the approach on Commons as something to discuss in earnest (to quote Prosfilaes, "I can't see the value in opening up a whole group of more works to argue about deleting"), and so I would also guess that a vote wouldn't have a much different outcome, but of course you can propose that as well. Gestumblindi (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

If your comment means that we must not follow the official policies, you are mistaken. We didn't say anything like that. Y.haruo (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Vote

I think we have clearly identified the current issues, so we will move on to the vote.

Vote subject - Eliminate accepting FOP works protected by US copyright

Polling Location - here

Discussion prior to the vote - as above

Voter Eligibility - Active logged-in users

Voting period - 2 weeks from Monday, March 3, 2025 at 9:00 (UTC) to Monday, March 17, 2025 at 9:00 (UTC)

Voting Rules - Adopt the one with the most votes

Sincerely yours, --Y.haruo (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose: in fact there was so little support for this idea I cannot see why we are bothering with a vote. - Jmabel ! talk 21:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose per reasons previously discussed. There is no benefit to the project in doing so. I suggest we instead develop an EDP (de facto if necessary) for PD public artworks in non-FOP countries. Abzeronow (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose, maintain the status quo which resulted to the creation of {{Not-free-US-FOP}} tag for US reusers. Agreed to Jmabel that some Wikimedia Foundation peeps are taking exception to Wikimedia Commons' over-strictness of applying copyright policy. There is no need to be stricter just because of US law obligation (being the location og the first servers of Wikimedia). Additionally, I would like to reiterate again what Ciell said in my talk page (now at User talk:JWilz12345/Archive 3#Freedom of Panaroma 2): "as mentioned in the thought document by WMF Legal I shared with you previously, the physical location of the servers has nothing to do with the determination of legal jurisdiction. We have 6 or 7 servers around the world; they switch often. This really is not of influence on the kind of content we can host." I'm open to Abzeronow's suggestion, but it may be discussed in another thread. Also, it may be feasible to apply that suggestion to images of 3D works for the meantime, using a tag like, {{Not-PD-US-3D art}}, in a similar pattern as Not-free-US-FOP, with a notice tag that content with this tag may need to be discussed sometime in the future if new case law arises. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Just as a side note, "Wikimedia Commons' over-strictness of applying copyright policy" (if perceived as such) is, on the other hand, also to the WMF's benefit in significantly reducing their workload - I remember some people from the WMF legal team, back at Wikimania 2016 in Esino Lario, remarking that they get exceedingly few takedown notices for such a platform, as the community is doing so well keeping obvious (and many less obvious) copyright violations out of it. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

But even if "the physical location of the servers has nothing to do with the determination of legal jurisdiction", all Wikimedia projects would still be subject to US law. In meta:Wikimedia Foundation/Legal/URAA Statement, the WMF says that "Accordingly, even if all Wikimedia servers were moved outside of the US, and controlled by non-US organizations, the projects would still be subject to US law because of the Wikimedia Foundation’s legal and physical presence [in the US]". prospectprospekt (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Strong oppose--Fornax (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per discussion above and Jmabel's first comment in this section. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose per the reasons above (already strict regulations), works of no-FOP-countries are already rejected anyway, we should not trim ourselves when certain countries explicitly allow the regulations by FoP laws. If we obey (potential unnecessary) anticipatory obedience, it would be a lot of work to manage files covered by FoP (files of (new) users, borderline cases (especially for buildings and architecture), etc.). --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
•  Support per this comment by D. Benjamin Miller. IMO it would be better to allow photos of architecture regardless of the source country of the building. prospectprospekt (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

  Not a good idea. As I reiterate from my previous comments, Wikimedia Commons would only invite further indignation from architects of countries that long opposed Wikimedia FoP advocacy, notably France. In addition to this, I'm going to add that US architectural FoP is not an ironclad exception (in my context, critic-proof), as there are critics to it (although they are in the minority), such as Ginsberg (1990) who does not agree to the Congressional statement that US architectural FoP complies with Berne Convention, Arch. Thiel (1996) who suggested its abolition, Epke (2024) who suggested restricting US FoP to non-commercial just to prevent big corporations in using the exception to derail muralists' lawsuits against them, and Barrett (2018) who included US architectural FoP as among the FoP models that do not restrict commercial uses and disregard the rights of indigenous cultures of the region (aside from the British model and the Chinese/Malaysian model). Retain the current status quo (but with some lenient treatment to sculptural works already in PD in their source countries with shorter terms). We can't be sure if US architectural FoP will remain untouched despite these (minority) criticisms 10 years from now, 50 years from now, or even a century from now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

  Ginsburg does not take the position that US architectural FoP is invalid because of a conflict with the Berne Convention. In pp 494-496, she says that such a "question arises" but also that "if one acknowledges that the proposal expresses a generally held interpretation of the scope of Berne Convention coverage of architectural works, then the new U.S. law is not inconsistent with treaty guarantees."

  Even if she did, we could still disregard her position, because we sometimes choose to ignore minority legal views. For example, we do not follow w:en:Twin Books Corp. v. Walt Disney Co. or Robin J. Allan's view that Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. was wrongly decided. prospectprospekt (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  How about ADAGP's fiery criticisms vs. Wikipedia way back 2015 (during the FoP debate in the European Parliament), as well as other anti-FoP French peeps like legislator Patrick Bloche who once labelled FoP as a "Wikipedia amendment"? Are they also in the minority too? (Note that they treat both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation as a single camp, since essentially both are run and/or maintained by the same people, same contributors, and same users, as evidenced by unified logins of all of us users, no matter how enwiki distinguishes itself from its parent org WMF, Commons distinguishing itself from enwiki, etc.). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose Strongly against the proposal and against the way it would be supposed to be approved. A vote on a major change in an important Commons policy needs a lot more visibility and input from the community, not just a vote in a too obscure talk page.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
  • I also agree that a vote like this should be more visible but I doubt it would change the result. Abzeronow (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose regrettably. I understand the purpose of the proposal but sadly Commons has a strict copyright rules to avoid any potential copyvio. Putting WMF at a vulnerable position of copyvio is not a good idea. I also concurred with Pere prlpz that such major changed on Commons' copyright policy requires a more in-depth discussion and participation. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose Absolutely not going to support this. Bidgee (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

 Support.

1. The argument seems to make sense. I'd like to see the case of "photo taken in yes-fop country being sued in usa for copyright infringement of the depicted copyrighted work" tested in court. Before that, if no one points out how the foreign fop would extend to those photos published/reproduced in usa, it makes sense that such photos are not free in usa.
2. i'm happy to see lots of photos deleted as a result, so a new project/website following the most lenient law/jurisdiction can be born, and users dont get punished by deletionist harassers and abusive sysops anymore.

RoyZuo (talk) 09:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@RoyZuo: this may lead to reduced Wikimedia activities in around 80 countries with sufficient FoP rights. I bet some Asian Wikimedians (like those in Malaysia, Singapore, and Timor-Leste) will oppose blanket application of US FoP only because of lexi loci protectionis. Singaporean and Malaysian Wikimedians will surely protest the deletions of images of Merlion and National Monument of Malaysia or Tugu Negara. Unless, you may want to suggest that Wiki Loves Monuments should be abolished in its entirety, since (based on the logic of yours and some users) Wikimedians from the Netherlands, Belgium, Armenia, Poland, Israel, Singapore, Malaysia, Canada, Switzerland, Portugal, Hungary, and Austria are bringing in their images of modern monuments that are allegedly unfree in the United States. The advocacies on modern cultural heritage (especially on public art and monuments), undertaken by Wikimedians in those countries, will be derailed if Commons follows the enwiki footsteps.

And no, US FoP is not ironclad (in my context, foul-proof or critic-proof). There are critics of US FoP (although they are in the minority), including Ginsberg, whose 1990 paper is mentioned in my earlier reply here. In addition to that, the French architects' criticism on Wikipedia's hosting of architectural works (as per ADAGP's criticism from 2015).

Wikimedia Commons is aimed for the benefit of the global reusers and content creators, as part of the broader international scope of Wikimedia movements (not just within US alone). The current version of FoP policy fulfills that. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm happy to enrage all those users, so that they can become aware of certain deletionists and how these people manipulate the "current commons conventions w.r.t. fop" to harass and block other users and delete other users' hard work.

After all, this issue entirely depends on usa law, which seems to have no exception other than buildings. RoyZuo (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

This seems awfully close to COM:POINT. - Jmabel ! talk 15:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on no-FoP buildings

Re: lex loci protectionis (US) rule, as stated by Ciell's response on my talk page here, Wikimedia has 6-7 servers around the world that switch often, so all Wikimedia contents are going to be subjected to laws in those countries, not just in the US. By the way, I just thought of this last night (Philippine time): at least one copyright authority has stated that commercial use of an image of a building in an international platform is a potential violation of the Philippine copyright law. According to Atty. Valerio (2021) of the IPOPHL's Bureau of Copyright and Related Rights (the online article), it is an infringement to architect's copyright if an image of a famous building is filmed and the user agrees to Netflix buying the streaming rights, all without consent from the architect. I searched about Netflix's location of servers, and voilà: here it is by Böttger et. al. (2016). The map on page 5 shows that US, UK, and the Netherlands hold the most amount of Netflix-operated CDN servers at IXP (more than 100 each dot within those three countries). There are 50-100 more in both Brazil and Sweden. These three countries have adequate FoP for buildings, though still, for Philippine copyright authorities here, hosting of Philippine buildings in foreign-hosted websites can be infringements to architectural copyrights. For sure, French authorities will give the same response (considering that many of their legislators and architects/artists frown upon Wikipedia community's desire for French buildings and public space FoP rights). _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)