Talk:FoP Philippines Discussion Group

Possible suggestion for FoP in the Philippines

Contributed by JWilz12345, PPC regular member

FoP clause currently being proposed in several legislative bills.

"The copyright in a work that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of the work, or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast."

From:

18th Congress, House Bill 8620 (Rep. Gatchalian)
19th Congress, House Bill 799 (Rep. Salceda)
19th Congress, House Bill 2672 (Rep. De Venecia)
19th Congress, House Bill 3838 (Rep. Colada)
19th Congress, Senate Bill 2326 (Sen. Legarda)

A good start and is adequate for the needs of the general public (content creators, netizens, and photographers), especially users who upload images of architecture and public art of the Philippines on Wikimedia Commons. Also, works of art not meant for permanent or long-term installation or situation are not covered (e.g. billboards and temporary sculptural exhibits), so it is respectful to the artists. However, it may be too broad that may be contentious to some artists. Therefore, here are some suggestions to maintain the adequate scope of FoP for the needs of the users while at the same time ensuring respect to the artists.

Adding a condition mandating the users to attribute the artist of the work (for example, architect, sculptor, or muralist), if he/she is known or can be immediately identified. Similar to the FoP clause of the Czech Republic.
(Opt.) adding a condition preventing users to alter the depicted work in such a way that harms the artists' moral rights. Wikimedia Commons implicitly allows FoP legal rights containing non-alteration conditions, such as those of Belgium, Brazil, Germany, and the Netherlands. As long as the commercial use is not restricted. The additional condition is inspired from Belgian FoP. The Belgian FoP, in turn, is inspired from Dutch FOP.
Adding a condition that specifies images of public art found inside museums and art galleries cannot be freely used commercially. Adding FoP restriction to works inside museums and art galleries won't impact the future undeletion of about 99% of deleted image files at c:Category:Philippine FOP cases/deleted.
Exclude models, which are crucial assets of the artists. Models include dioramas and miniatures of houses inside shopping malls.

Applying the Dutch method in reference of works

If applying the similar approach to the Dutch FoP with reference to allowed works to be included.

Target works to be included are those under (g) of subsection 172.1 (but excluding models or designs for works of art).

SEC. 172. Literary and Artistic Works. - 172.1 Literary and artistic works, hereinafter referred to as "works", are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the moment of their creation and shall include in particular...(g) Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithography or other works of art; models or designs for works of art.

The suggested FoP clause for the Philippines

The copyright in a work, as meant in Subsection 172.1, under (g) but excluding models or designs for works of art, that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of the work, or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast; Provided, that the author of the work to be used is attributed, if known; Provided, further, That if the work is situated inside museums or art galleries, the representation of the work should not be used for direct or indirect commercial purposes.

The suggested FoP clause for the Philippines, if the optional suggestion is included

The copyright in a work, as meant in Subsection 172.1, under (g) but excluding models or designs for works of art, that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of the work, or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast; Provided, that the author of the work to be used is attributed, if known, and that the work is shown as it is found there; Provided, further, That if the work is situated inside museums or art galleries, the representation of the work should not be used for direct or indirect commercial purposes.

Underlined words/clauses: additions to the currently-proposed FoP clause

Last resort suggestion, if including indoor artworks and interior architecture is controversial

Inferring from Teofilo's insights on why FoP failed to be passed in France in November 2011, here and here.

The copyright in a work, as meant in Subsection 172.1, under (g) but excluding models or designs for works of art, that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public outdoor place, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of the work, or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast; Provided, that the author of the work to be used is attributed, if known.

For the upcoming Implementing Rules and Regulations

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Per IPOPHL (in February 2021), once the amendments are passed into law and become part of the copyright law, an accompanying Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) for the Philippine freedom of panorama will be formulated to further define, streamline, and clarify it.
Priority target types of works as covered by the legal right:

all architecture (the IRR should state that all buildings should be covered as such works are originally constructed with a non-temporary purpose in mind)
all monuments outdoors and public indoors meant to be permanently placed (should also cover those that were meant to be permanent but suddenly destroyed, like the Bust of Ferdinand Marcos and Kalinga Anti-Chico River Dam Monument)
all 3D decorative/aesthetic works meant to be permanent in public like Jones Bridge lamp poles, and
land arts like the Relief Map at Rizal Park.

If church frescoes and murals are to be included, then the IRR must state that only photography, cinematography, and TV broadcasting are the allowed methods of representing the said works visually, since the wording of future Philippine FOP is generalized.

Uploaded by Buszmail (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Respect to public work and art authors' rights

While the Philippine FoP as proposed will be broad enough for the benefit of Wikimedians, content creators, and netizens, the provision as it stands will still not cause undue harm to economic rights of architects, sculptors, and muralists, because:

"Otherwise than temporarily situated" – the aim of the Philippine FoP will only cover works that are not meant to be permanently seen or installed in public. Hence, works not covered include, but not limited to: sculptures meant for auctions or temporary exhibitions in malls or galleries, models of buildings found inside malls (like Camella house models), artists' paintings, children's works on paper or illustration boards, billboard advertisements, advertisements painted on trains or vehicles, campaign material used in elections or rallies/demonstrations, posters, banners, tarpaulins, and photographs sticked on the likes of municipal or church information boards.
For buildings: only actual buildings will be covered by freedom of panorama. Building plans and blueprints are normally not for long-term exhibition in public spaces and therefore not covered, still respecting the important asset of architects and not affecting their livelihood or occupation.
For buildings and sculptures: FoP concerns representing these works in media stated by the proposed clause, such as photography, TV broadcasting, and cinematography. Three-dimensional representations like miniatures of Eduardo Castrillo's Kartilya ng Katipunan and Bonifacio Monument are not covered. Or exact reproduction like building a house in the style of Mañosa's Coconut Palace. These acts are reserved for authors' or their heirs (like heirs of Mañosa and Castrillo). Yet it may be subject to debate the 3D-style representations in computer technology, like Minecraft. This type of 3D representation needs further consultations.
For murals and frescoes: if there is an upcoming "Implementing rules and regulations", it should be clear that only photography, cinematography, and television broadcasting are allowed forms of representing these works through freedom of panorama.

Respect to owners of the same works

Freedom of Panorama only removes the burden need of Wikimedians, photographers, netizens, and content creators to ask for license from work architects, sculptors, or muralists for uses, publications, and distributions of their photos of the said authors' works permanently placed or installed in public spaces. The legal right does not in any way remove the owners' rights to privacy and/or security. Wikimedians, photographers, netizens, and content creators are still encouraged to respect privacy and security rules of every establishment, even those owned by the Philippine government, when conducting photography of the said works. Museum house rules still apply too: avoid using flash if the museums prohibit using flash in photography.

This is illustrated in the British FoP situation. Their legal right is broad enough to cover also interiors of publicly-accessible museums, irrespective of entrance fee and opening hours. British FoP does not cover murals and frescoes (2D flat works), however. But as per the UK section of this English Wikipedia article, they have one of the strictest anti-terror laws in the world, and photography of sensitive sites is prohibited or regulated. Among those caught by their law were a BBC photojouralist and a representative of their Parliament. This is a security law that is not in any way related to copyright.

Position paper

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The introduction of Freedom of Panorama, a crucial exception/limitation to copyright, is earnestly sought by Wikimedians here in the Philippines, most especially those part of a Wikimedian thematic organization called Pilipinas Panorama Community (PPC). Freedom of Panorama (hereafter referred to as FoP) refers to the shooting and use of photographs of works of architecture and public art like sculptural monuments that are meant to be permanently fixed or situated in places accessible and/or visible to public, without the need of seeking licensing authorizations from authors of the said works – usually architects or sculptors, or their heirs/estate. FoP exists in copyright laws of several countries, like Canada, Mexico, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria, Croatia, Albania, Algeria, Tunisia, Uganda, Israel, India, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Australia, and New Zealand.

Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization behind Wikipedia and its sister media repository site, Wikimedia Commons, relies on the existence of sufficient FoP rights to be able to legally host images of contemporary landmarks and monuments still under the architectural or artistic copyright. Such images are always licensed under any of the following free-culture licensing: Creative Commons-Attribution (CC-BY), Creative Commons-Attribution and Share-Alike (CC-BY-SA), and Creative Commons Zero (CC-zero, in which the Wikimedian/Flickr photographer has dedicated their image in public domain).

Critics of FoP, like ADAGP from France (a noted country with no complete FoP), claim it disrespects copyrights of architects, sculptors, and muralists of public landmarks and monuments by allowing the general public and netizens to use those landmarks for commercial purposes. Some critics also point out the tendency of users to not attribute or cite the names of the architects, sculptors, or muralists who authored the public monuments in the commercial media or materials, whether post cards and stamps or travel websites and mobile apps.

The Filipino Wikimedians, including those part of Pilipinas Panorama Community, still emphasize the importance of introducing FoP to the Republic Act 8293 (the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines) as an important provision of the limitations to copyright. FoP helps in promoting the architectural and monumental heritage of the country, thereby improving both tourism and awareness in the country's cultural heritage. Netizens can freely share their images on various online platforms under the licenses they desire, without the worry of having to restrict their distributed outputs to non-commercial licensing only. With FoP, Wikimedia Commons can host images of contemporary monuments and landmarks of the Philippines, and the Wikipedia articles on Philippine architecture and visual arts can be improved by adding more illustrations. Advances in new media and information technology, like the proliferation of tourism websites and mobile/web apps, meant FoP is an urgent exception/limitation to the copyright.

The criticisms are immediately addressed in these two conditions: FoP only involves images (in two-dimensional representations) of architecture and monuments, not exact (three-dimensional) reproductions. To address attribution concerns, Pilipinas Panorama Community supports adding an attribution condition to the current FoP clause found in pending House Bills 799, 2672, and 3838 and Senate Bill 2326, to be read as:

The copyright in a work that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of the work, or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast; Provided, that the author of the work to be used is attributed, if known.

Some critics may claim works found inside museums and art galleries should not be freely exploited by the general public and netizens. Others may insist some works like plaques (literary works) and models should not be distributed under free CC licenses on the Internet. These concerns can be addressed by adding a restrictive condition for museum/art gallery works to the pending FoP clause, plus a condition in which only works under the category "g" of Section 172.1 are covered by the FoP (with an addition to exclude models):

The copyright in a work, as meant in Subsection 172.1, under (g) but excluding models or designs for works of art, that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of the work, or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast; Provided, That the author of the work to be used is attributed, if known; Provided, further, That if the work is situated inside museums or art galleries, the pictorial representation, cinematograph film, or television broadcast of the said work should not be used for direct or indirect commercial purposes.

FoP (Freedom of Panorama) still remains an important limitation to copyright that should be added to the IP Code. With several critics' concerns addressed in two possible options above, the FoP to be introduced in the Philippines seeks to be adequate for free uses of copyrighted public monuments and landmarks by the general public and netizens. It is also adequate for the needs of Wikimedians in legally hosting images of Philippine architecture and monuments under the aforementioned free-culture Creative Commons licenses. But the FoP to be introduced will not excessively undermine the normal rights of the architects, sculptors, or muralists, like the right for the public to attribute them and the right to restrict commercialization of some critical works (literary works and models, for example) and/or works inside museums and art galleries.

The FoP to be introduced will perhaps be one of the most ideal types of FoP in the world, respecting both the rights of the users (general public/content creators/netizens/Wikimedians) and the authors (architects/sculptors/muralists). Thus, the introduction of FoP is earnestly sought by the Filipino Wikimedians, most especially members of the Wikimedia thematic organization Pilipinas Panorama Community.

Posted by: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Some historical discussions concerning Philippine Freedom of Panorama

Uploaded by Buszmail

Valenzuela400's claim

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Valenzuela400 (talk · contribs) claimed in this FoP discussion request (from a "former friend") that Congress may pass FoP provision "in 2029 or later". Are there any reputable sources, printed/online, to back up this enwiki user's claim? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Proposed message to the legislators as per Exec8

Latest comment: 16 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here is a possible message to the legislators and/or authorities to insert FoP provision in the copyright law (as formulated by Exec8).

The proposed message: see here. Posted here for reference and convenience of access. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Add topic