Freedom of Panorama in Copyright Law
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Freedom of panorama is a principle developed as a copyright infringement exception, allowing individuals to reproduce images of copyrighted buildings, sculptures, or other artistic works permanently situated in public spaces without obtaining permission from the copyright holder. This principle aims to strike a balance between the rights of authors of works located in public spaces and the public interest as well as the artistic value inherent in the surrounding scenery. Although freedom of panorama has been recognized and codified as a copyright exception in the legislation of numerous countries worldwide, there remains no universally accepted or clearly defined scope and definition. A broad formulation of this freedom would limit the rights of copyright holders, whereas an overly narrow scope would restrict individuals’ freedom and undermine the public interest. This research article examines the origins and theoretical foundations of freedom of panorama, conducting a comparative analysis of copyright infringement exceptions relating to this principle under the laws of 20 foreign jurisdictions and Thailand. It offers a critical assessment regarding the determination of scope, application, and interpretation of such provisions to ensure consistency with both the underlying rationale of freedom of panorama and the general principles governing copyright exceptions. The analysis emphasizes the need for an appropriate balance between the rights of copyright owners and the societal value of freedom of panorama, focusing on five key aspects: (1) the categories of copyrighted works covered under the exception; (2) the manner in which such works are situated; (3) the types of acts permitted with respect to those works; (4) the extent of permissible commercial use; and (5) the inclusion of any additional requirements.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The copyright in this website and the material on this website (including without limitation the text, computer code, artwork, photographs, images, music, audio material, video material and audio-visual material on this website) is owned by Chulalongkorn University Law Journal and its licensors.
1. Chulalongkorn University Law Journal grants to you a worldwide non-exclusive royalty-free revocable license to:
- view this website and the material on this website on a computer or mobile device via a web browser;
- copy and store this website and the material on this website in your web browser cache memory; and
- print pages from this website for your use.
- All articles published by Chulalongkorn University Law Journal are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. This permits anyone to copy, redistribute, remix, transmit and adapt the work provided the original work and source is appropriately cited.
2. Chulalongkorn University Law Journal does not grant you any other rights in relation to this website or the material on this website. In other words, all other rights are reserved. For the avoidance of doubt, you must not adapt, edit, change, transform, publish, republish, distribute, redistribute, broadcast, rebroadcast or show or play in public this website or the material on this website (in any form or media) without appropriately and conspicuously citing the original work and source or Chulalongkorn University Law Journal prior written permission.
3. You may request permission to use the copyright materials on this website by writing to journal@law.chula.ac.th.
4. Chulalongkorn University Law Journal takes the protection of its copyright very seriously. If Chulalongkorn University Law Journal discovers that you have used its copyright materials in contravention of the license above, Chulalongkorn University Law Journal may bring legal proceedings against you seeking monetary damages and an injunction to stop you using those materials. You could also be ordered to pay legal costs.
If you become aware of any use of Chulalongkorn University Law Journal's copyright materials that contravenes or may contravene the license above or any material on the website that you believe infringes your or any other person's copyright, please report this by email to journal@law.chula.ac.th.
References
หนังสือภาษาต่างประเทศ
Laddie, H. Prescott P and Victoria M. The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs. 3rd edn Butterworths, 2000.
บทในหนังสือภาษาต่างประเทศ
Benoit Michaux. “International Report.” Antitrust Analysis of Online Sales Platforms & Copyright Limitations and Exceptions. ed. Bruce Kilpatrick, Pierre Kobel, and Pranvera Këllezi. Springer, 2018.
Martina Isola and Guillaume Couet. “France.” Antitrust Analysis of Online Sales Platforms & Copyright Limitations and Exceptions. ed. Bruce Kilpatrick, Pierre Kobel, and Pranvera Këllezi. Springer, 2018.
Marco Francetti. “Italy.” Antitrust Analysis of Online Sales Platforms & Copyright Limitations and Exceptions. ed. Bruce Kilpatrick, Pierre Kobel, and Pranvera Këllezi. Springer, 2018.
Thomas Hoeren. “Germany.” Antitrust Analysis of Online Sales Platforms & Copyright Limitations and Exceptions. ed. Bruce Kilpatrick, Pierre Kobel, and Pranvera Këllezi. Springer, 2018.
Valerie Eder. “Austria.” Antitrust Analysis of Online Sales Platforms & Copyright Limitations and Exceptions, ed. Bruce Kilpatrick, Pierre Kobel, and Pranvera Këllezi. Springer, 2018.
บทความในวารสารภาษาต่างประเทศ
Alifia Qonita Sudharto. “Freedom of Expression and Right to Privacy in the European Union: The Right to Photographs Private Properties.” Indonesian Journal of International Law 11, no. 4 (2014): 511-536.
Andrew Inesi. “Images of Public Places: Extending the Copyright Exemption for Pictorial Representations of Architectural Works to Other Copyrighted Works.” Journal of Intellectual Property Law 13, no. 1 (2005): 61-101.
Anna Stefan. “Freedom of Panorama in the EU: Main Features and Hidden Sides.” European Journal of Legal Studies 16, no. 1 (2024): 31-60.
Aura Bertoni and Maria Lillà Montagnani. “Public Art and Copyright Law: How the Public Nature of Architecture Changes Copyright Protection.” Future Anterior: Journal of Historic Preservation History, Theory, and Criticism 12, no. 1 (2015): 46-55.
Barron Oda. “Mobile Devices, Public Spaces, and Freedom of Panorama: Reconciling the Copyright Act with Technological Advances and Social Norms Regarding Content Creation and Online Sharing.” SciTech Lawyer 14, no. 2 (2018): 12–15.
Bryce Clayton Newell. “Freedom of Panorama: a Comparative Look at International Restrictions on Public Photography.” Creighton Law Review 44, no. 2 (2011): 405-428.
Eleonora Rosati. “Non-Commercial Quotation and Freedom of Panorama: Useful and Lawful?.” JIPITEC 8 (2017): 311-321.
Enrico Bonadio. “Copyright Protection of Street Art and Graffiti under UK Law.” Intellectual Property Quarterly 2 (2017): 1-39.
Francesca Barra. “The Relationship between Street Art and Freedom of Panorama under UK Law.” Art Antiquity and Law 26, no. 3 (2021): 243-259.
Jane C. Ginsburg. “Copyright in the 101st Congress: Commentary on the Visual Artists Rights Act and the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990.” Columbia-VLA Journal or Law & the Arts 14 (1990): 477-506.
Jonathan Barrett. “Time to Look Again? Copyright and Freedom of Panorama.” Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 48, no. 2 (2017): 261–282.
Joshua Lobert, et.al. “The EU Public Interest Clinic and Wikimedia Present: Extending Freedom of Panorama in Europe.” HEC Paris Research Paper No. LAW-2015-1092 (April 2015): 1-26.
Mary LaFrance. “Public Art, Public Space, and the Panorama Right.” Wake Forest Law Review 55 (2020): 597-647.
Mélanie Dulong de Rosnay and Pierre-Carl Langlais. “Public artworks and the freedom of panorama controversy: a case of Wikimedia influence.” Internet Policy Review 6, no. 1 (2017): 1-27.
Pauline Combe. “Copyright Protection of Work Displayed in Public Places: Challenges over the Freedom of Panorama Exception.” Art Antiquity and Law 13, no. 4 (2018): 349–371.
รายงานภาษาต่างประเทศ
Architectural Design Protection: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Administration of Justice of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 101st Congress, Second Session, on H.R. 3990 and H.R. 3991, (1990).
Julia Reda, Draft report on the implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (2014/2256( INI)), 15 January 2015.
คำพิพากษาของศาลต่างประเทศ
Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), I ZR 102/99, 24 January 2002, Verhüllter Reichstag.
Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), I ZR 192/00, 5 June 2003, Hundertwasser-Haus.
Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), I ZR 247/15, 27 April 2017, AIDA Kussmund.
Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), I ZR 67/23, 23 October 2024, Über alle Berge.
Cour de Cassation, Chambre civile 1, 15 March 2005, 03-14.820.
Davidson v. United States, 2017 U.S. Claims LEXIS 841.
Davidson v. United States, 138 Fed. Cl. 159 (2018).
Gaylord v. United States, 595 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Gaylord v. United States, 85 Fed. Cl. 59 (2008)
Högsta Domstolen (Supreme Court of Sweden), 4 April 2016, Case no. Ö 849-15, BUS v Wikimedia Sverige.
Landgericht Frankfurt am Main, Urteil vom 25.11.2020 - 2-06 O 136/20, Lahntalbrücke Limburg.
Leicester v. Warner Brothers, 232 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2000).
Mercedes Benz USA LLC v. Lewis, Case No. 19-10948 (E.D. Mich. 2019).
Radford v Hallenstein Bros Ltd, (High Court of New Zealand) Auckland CIV 006-404-004881, [2007] BCL 363.
Radford v Hallensteins Bros Ltd, (District Court) Auckland CIV 2005-004-3008, 17 July 2006.
กฎหมายภาษาต่างประเทศ
CFR § 202.11(b)(1)
CFR § 202.11(d)(1).
Australian Copyright Act 1968, Sections 65-66.
Austria, Federal Law on Copyright in Works of Literature and Art and on Related Rights (BGBl. No. 111/1936, as last amended [BGBl. I No. 25/1998]), Section 54 (1) para 5.
Belgium, Code de droit économique (Code of Economic Law), Article XI.190 2/1°.
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works 1886 (Berne Convention), Article 9.
Canada Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42), Section 32.2.
Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape, Legislative Decree no. 42 of January 22, 2004.
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), Section 4.
Denmark, Consolidated Act on Copyright (Bekendtgørelse af lov om ophavsret), Section 24.
Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (InfoSoc Directive), Article 5.
ECHR, Article 10.
Estonia, Copyright Act (Autoriõiguse seadus), §20¹.
Finland, Act No. 404/1961, amended up to Act No. 1216/2023 (Tekijänoikeuslaki), Section 25a (821/2005).
Frence, Code de la propriété intellectuelle (Intellectual Property Code), Article L122-5, 11°.
Germany, Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Urheberrechtsgesetz (UrhG)), Section 57.
Germany, Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Urheberrechtsgesetz (UrhG)), Section 59.
Germany, Urheberrechtsgesetz (UrhG), Section 59.
Gesetzblatt für das Königreich Bayern 1840, No. 4, Art. II, Nr. 1.
Greece, Law on Copyright, Related Rights and Cultural Matters, No. 2121/1993, Article 26.
Hungary, Act No. LXXVI of 1999 on Copyright, Section 68.
Law No. 2016-1321 of 7 October 2016.
Law relating to Copyright in Works of Fine Art, 1876 (Gesetz, betreffend das Urheberrecht an Werken der bildenden Künste, 1876), § 6 Nr. 3.
Lithuania, Law No. VIII-1185 of 18 May 1999, on Copyright and Related Rights, Article 28.
Loi du 27 juin 2016 modifiant le Code de droit économique en vue de l'introduction de la liberté de panorama.
Luxembourg, Law of April 18, 2001, on Copyright and Related Rights and Databases, Section 10(7).
New Zealand, Copyright Act 1994, Section 73.
Norway, Act No. 40 of 15 June 2018, on Copyright for Intellectual Property (Lov om opphavsrett til åndsverk m.v. (åndsverkloven)), Section 31.
Ot.prp. nr. 46 (2004-2005) Om lov om endringer i åndsverkloven m.m., at 3.4.10.4.8.
Prop. 104 L (2016 –2017) Lov om opphavsrett til åndsverk mv. (åndsverkloven), at 5.8.5.
Spain, Consolidated Text of the Law on Intellectual Property, Regularizing, Clarifying and Harmonizing the Applicable Statutory Provisions (Texto refundido de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual, regularizando, aclarando y armonizando las disposiciones legales vigentes), approved by Royal Legislative Decree No. 1/1996 of April 12, 1996, and amended up to Royal Decree-Law No. 6/2022 of March 29, 2022), Article 35(2).
Sweden, Act (1960:729) on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works (Lag (1960:729) om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk), Section 24.
UDHR, Article 19.
United Kingdom, Copyright Act 1911, Section 2(1)(iii).
United Kingdom, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), Section 31.
United Kingdom, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), Section 62.
United States, 17 U.S. Code § 120(a).
United States, 17 U.S. Code §101.
ออนไลน์ภาษาต่างประเทศ
Dieter Nennen. “Wie frei ist die Panoramafreiheit?.” accessed 14 August 2025. https://nennen.de/news/artikel/panoramafreiheit.
Jean-Marie Cavada. Proposal for a directive Article 5 a (new), A8-0245/162, Report A8-0245/2018, (5 September 2018). accessed 14 August 2025. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0245-AM-162-165_EN.pdf.
Katey Goodwin. “Lists of London: Fourth Plinth.” accessed 14 August 2025. https://artuk.org/discover/curations/lists-of-london-fourth-plinth
Landesbildungsserver, Baden-Württemberg. “GMT_LPE13_02_Panoramafreiheit_HE.pdf.” accessed 14 August 2025. https://www.schule-bw.de/faecher-und-schularten/berufliche-schularten/berufliches-gymnasium-oberstufe/bg_tg/gestaltung-und-medientechnik/tg_gmt/GMT.
Sebastian Follmer. “Panoramafreiheit - Was ist das? Einfach erklärt.” accessed 14 August 2025. https://praxistipps.chip.de/panoramafreiheit-was-ist-das-einfach-erklaert_41915.
Terhaag & Partner Rechtsanwälte. “Panoramafreiheit gilt auch für von Drohnen angefertigte Fotos, LG Frankfurt a.M., Urt. v. 25.11.2020, Az.: 2-06 O 136/20.” accessed 14 August 2025. https://www.aufrecht.de/urteile/urheberrecht/panoramafreiheit-gilt-auch-fuer-von-drohnen-angefertigte-fotos-lg-frankfurt-am-urt-v-25112020-az-2-06-o-13620.
