@JWilz12345、A1Cafel：Sorry to disturb you. Reke wants to suspend the deletion nomination of Taiwanese FOP photos. Reke is preparing to consult the official and get new explanation on Taiwan FOP provision, meanwhile to get authorization from some public offices, the copyright holder of some artistic works in FOP photos.
@Teetrition： noted on my part. Still other users may disagree or not heed to this request, since c:COM:Project scope/Precautionary principle dictates that all files there should be 100% free from copyright restrictions, and that includes restrictions imposed by the laws, the artists, and (in countries with no total FOP) architects. Anyway, proper communication with relevant stakeholders like TIPO, the Taiwanese legislature, and artists' community is encouraged.--JWilz12345（留言） 2023年2月18日 (六) 08:00 (UTC)[回复]
@Reke： (feel free to translate this to Chinese) my apologies too if I made nominations after the archival of the relevant Commons forum. It has been my persepctive that a government body's opinion, if it exactly matches the essence of the freedom of panorama clause of the copyright law, is an authority in the definition of FOP.
Fast forward to present day, I admit TIPO's recent change of tone is somehow frustrating, as it will make Taiwan an architectural FOP-only country just like Japan, as well as Denmark, Finland, Norway, Russia, and the United States. But with that 4th condition in Article 58 that is very identical to the 4th condition in Japanese FOP, there is a greater chance of some artists using that non-commercial restriction to sue reusers in Taiwan, or even beyond. A change in Article 58 of the copyright law is the best permanent solution, even if it may take years due to discussions with relevant stakeholders like TIPO, legislature, and representatives from artists' community. For the meantime, local uploading is the best temporal solution. Never mind other Wikipedias: other Wikipedias have more restrictive rules. English Wikipedia contended by only allowing fair use (low quality/low resolution) photos of copyrighted public art from countries that do not allow FOP for non-architecture, like the profile photo of w:en:Cloud Gate. Some wikis do not care, as they are more concerned on respecting artists' copyrights than showcasing their public art. It seems Japanese Wikipedians contended to showcase their public art only in their home wiki, and do not care if these are not well-represented in other wikis, like English Wikipedia where a low-quality photo of Osaka Prefecture's w:en:Tower of the Sun exists as the profile picture of its article.--JWilz12345（留言） 2023年2月17日 (五) 19:35 (UTC)[回复]
Translation of reply: Works of art or architecture exhibited on streets, parks, exterior walls of buildings, or other outdoor places open to the public for a long time may be used in any way except in the following circumstances:
1. Reproducting the building in an architectural way.
2. Reproducting sculptures in the form of sculptures.
3. Reproduction for the purpose of long-term display at the places specified in this article.
4. Reproductions specifically for the purpose of selling reproductions of art works.
I still do not get it. I took a picture of Jimmy's sculpture at the entrance of Jingpin City Shopping Plaza in Hsinchu City, uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, and signed it as Jimmy's work. Which one of the above four exceptions does this behavior meet? I neither sold the photographs to newspapers or magazines for profit, nor printed them for profit as postcards or posters.
I think the community of Wikimedia Commons is over-expanding Article 58 of the "Copyright Law" and the reply letter from the Intellectual Property Bureau of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Anything that can be sold for money goes for sale.
@克勞棣： (feel free to translate my reply in Chinese), the fourth exception. Yes, you did not distribute them in commercial media like post cards or magazines, but the free licensing used in the photos (like CC-BY/CC-BY-SA/CC-0/PD-user) are all commercial licenses that allow reusers and end-users to use those photos of yours as well as of other Taiwanese Wikipedians in commercial media. This is where the desire of sharing images of public art of Taiwan conflicts with Article 58 of the copyright law of Taiwan.--JWilz12345（留言） 2023年2月18日 (六) 02:02 (UTC)[回复]
Translation: I seem to understand a little bit what you mean. I don't make any money from these photos myself, but once I upload them to Wikimedia Commons, I give permission for anyone else in the world to make money from them (if they want to), but I am not the original author of the artwork , I am just the photographer, I actually do not have the right to consent. May I ask if this is the case? Feel sorry! Because my English is not good (but I can still try my best to understand your English reply), so I still reply in Chinese, so as not to tie my hands and feet, and damage my original intention.
@克勞棣： It is ok, I can translate Chinese replies thanks to Google Translate. Regarding your question, to some extent, yes. Since you took a photo of a copyrighted public art (that is, the artist is not yet dead for more than 50 years), you created a "derivative work" (衍生作品) of a copyrighted work. Thanks to freedom of panorama (FOP) in several countries like Belgium/比利时, Netherlands荷兰, Germany/德国, Switzerland/瑞士, Hungary/匈牙利, and Malaysia/马来西亚, it is permissible to shoot copyrighted works permanently found in public places and to share or distribute those photos or even videos freely, without the need to get licensing permits from artists or architects. The FOP of United Kingdom/英国, Canada/加拿大, Australia/澳大利亚, and Singapore/新加坡 are also broad but does not include 2D arts like murals. The FOP of the United States/美国, Japan/日本, and Russia/俄罗斯 are limited to architecture only.
To follow the very strict meaning of Taiwanese FOP, it may appear that it is identical to Japanese FOP, as confirmed in the latest Taiwan Intellectual Property Office reply from December 2022, but several Taiwanese Wikipedians seem to disagree this new reply, and some may want to contact TIPO again.--JWilz12345（留言） 2023年2月18日 (六) 03:59 (UTC)[回复]
我同意共享資源對檔案之著作權具有高度嚴謹之要求。但是，看過相關郵件回覆，我個人亦認為提問人（不知道是不是Teetrition您）向政府機關諮詢意見時可能有「誘答」或「選擇性提問」的嫌疑，過度強調商業應用，造成政府機關回覆時事實上過度狹隘地解讀法律，並不可取。總之，還是希望臺灣維基媒體協會能夠出面直接向政府機關尋求最全面的法律解釋，甚至推動修法。—— Eric Liu 創造は生命（留言・留名・學生會）2023年2月21日 (二) 06:44 (UTC)[回复]
According to IP information tool, the IP comes from Taiwan. Suspected Internet use is from residential. They seem to have carried part two of deletion requests, this time through a different but similar IP address. Someone must categorize these requests for tracking purposes, through the addition of <noinclude>[[Category:Taiwanese FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude>. Noinclude is a must to prevent the transcluded daily listing from being collaterally categorized in that category too.--JWilz12345（留言） 2023年2月21日 (二) 16:19 (UTC)[回复]
@Teetrition： (sorry to reply in English) thanks for your reply on my talkpage at Commons but I felt best to respond here. TIPO's reply seems unrealistic: the allowed licenses mandated on Commons platform are inherently commercial. Perhaps TIPO seems to suggest photos be licensed as CC under NC (non-commercial) licenses, but Commons never accepts non-commercial content. In fact, all CC-BY-NC templates on Commons redirect to a speedy deletion template (see the links here), that means photos of Taiwan public art authored by living or recently-deceased sculptors and muralists tagged with CC-NC templates will almost certainly be deleted within a week. Wikimedia Commons adheres to the universal definition of free cultural works, and that is the main reason it cannot accept non-commercial freedom of panorama rights.
My take on Taiwanese FOP is that it is indeed pro-artists and anti-content creators. But there is nothing to do, if the law itself does not allow free culture sharing and distributions of their public works over Wikimedia universe.
The most feasible suggestion is for Mandarin Wikipedia to allow Taiwanese law to apply in photos of Taiwanese public art, using NC versions of licenses. Do not mind other Wikipedias: they can deal such things themselves. English Wikipedia for example applies fair use tags to photos of unfree sculptures from countries with no acceptable FOP. German Wikipedia can use German law (German FOP) for Taiwanese murals. On the other hand, Danish and Kyrgyz Wikipedias will never showcase copyrighted Taiwanese public art, as their local licensing policies prohibit fair use content.--JWilz12345（留言） 2023年3月3日 (五) 10:46 (UTC)[回复]
@JWilz12345：Thanks. I also think the TIPO's opinion on extra restrictions on CC-BY-SA is unrealistic. In fact, I proposed that Taiwan FOP photos should be allowed to be uploaded to Chinese Wikipedia by adopting a new policy like what Japanese Wikipedia does in January. I will restart the discussion on the proposal soon.--Teetrition（留言） 2023年3月3日 (五) 11:00 (UTC)[回复]
@Teetrition： (in English) if some scholars claimed that photography is not reproduction, wouldn't the fourth condition be redundant to the second condition in terms of sculptural works? Second condition already forbids reproductions of sculptures. If Taiwanese legislature meant that fourth condition is on flat arts like murals and paintings, the wording must have been "4. Reproduction of a work of flat art by production of another flat art." This would have encompassed prohibition of exact reproductions of murals, mosaics, and other flat-type artistic works. But instead, the fourth condition seems to be a legacy of Japanese FOP (we all know Taiwan was once a Japanese imperial colony in the past, together with South Korea, and most likely their copyright laws were inherited from Japan, as suspected by Stefan2 on Wikimedia Commons before).
Also the claim that photography is not reproduction directly conflicts with another clause in the law that states photography is one form of reproduction; taking pictures is no different from copying things by drawing, drawings of sculptures in the 19th century is comparable to photos of sculptures in the 21st century. Photography and drawing which are forms of visually representing things are considered mechanical reproductions in the European law. If Taiwanese law would treat photography as not a form of reproduction, it will perhaps be the first territory in the world to define that (copyright laws of all other countries treat photography as a form of reproduction).
Anyway, I think the best solution (long-term solution if not permanent) is to convince the Taiwanese legislature to revise that FOP clause. Change the wording of the fourth condition from "4. Reproduction of artistic works solely for the purpose of selling copies." to "4. Reproduction of a work of flat art by production of another flat art." That will finally settle Taiwanese FOP, at least for sculptural works. Relying on different interpretations leads to endless wheelwars and debates here, on Commons, or even in the real world (off-wiki). This may mean Taiwanese FOP will depart from Japanese FOP system, but it will be more friendly to free culture media like Wikimedia Commons.--JWilz12345（留言） 2023年3月19日 (日) 05:36 (UTC)[回复]
Your reasoning makes sense. The scholar mentioned above claimed again this year that the term "reproduction" in the Article 58 means "faithful reproduction" but it seems that he never explained why. In Japan, a court case agreed that 3D-to-2D reproduction is the reproduction that Item 4 of Article 46 of Japanese Copyright Law refers to.--Teetrition（留言） 2023年3月19日 (日) 05:50 (UTC)[回复]
@Wpcpey： (my apology if I can only write in English). Regarding your first reply (on Hong Kong and Macao), those two are liberal in terms of freedom of panorama. See c:COM:FOP Hong Kong and c:COM:FOP Macau. Both allow depictions of sculptures with no copyright restrictions on any commercial exploitations. Macanese FOP is freer, allowing also murals but as long as the artworks are at public outdoors.--JWilz12345（留言） 2023年4月10日 (一) 01:25 (UTC)[回复]
@Wpcpey： (my apology if I will reply again in English) I think you confused FOP with photographer's right to be remunerated. Freedom of panorama is all about bypassing the need to ask licensing permits from the architects and artists for commercial uses of their permanently-situated works in public spaces. Perhaps FOP is not so important for Hongkongers at first, but that FOP that I think Hongkongers tend to overlook also helps in ensuring that photographers get fully paid for every commercial use of their photos. There is no need for a portion of the photographers' revenues to be sent to architects of famous Hong Kong skyscrapers, or a portion of the same photographers' revenues to be given to the heirs of deceased sculptors of many modern Hong Kong monuments. Even in situations where traditional (unfree) licensing is expected, FOP still gives numerous benefits for photographers. FOP benefits both free culture world (like Wikimedia) as well as all photographers and content creators in general, who do not want to have a portion of their hard-earned revenues sent to the artists and architects of public space works, or their artists' societies or collectivities.--JWilz12345（留言） 2023年4月12日 (三) 05:53 (UTC)[回复]
(！)意見：個人再看了看《維基媒體基金會法律部門/2023年使用條款更新/更新提議》的「七、內容授權」裡有提及:「Re-use: Re-use of content that we host is welcome, though exceptions exist for content contributed under "fair use" or similar exemptions under applicable copyright law. Any re-use must comply with the underlying license(s).」中文版本估狗翻譯為：「重複使用：歡迎重複使用我們託管的內容，但根據“合理使用”或適用版權法的類似豁免提供的內容存在例外情況。任何重複使用都必須遵守相關許可。」開宗明義指明，所有檔案內容即便可供他人重製使用，最後仍需以內容上傳時的各種授權為準。重製的使用者應該遵守並保留當初的授權相關說明，亦即已在此規範用戶重製使用時的「合理使用義務」。換言之，就算有人真拿去重製販售，如果當初拍攝的用戶上傳時已明確聲明限制使用方式，比如「禁止商業用途」，卻有人硬是違背檔案或者內容授權聲明，那麼責任就不在拍攝者身上；而若是拍攝上傳的用戶自己未經版權擁有者授權、卻彷彿獲得授權一樣，重製後販售或者開放販售，若經追究，自然就是該用戶自己有責任了。基金會已言明全域的多媒體檔案都應依據個別授權狀況使用，那麼說到底若條件許可，可考慮如此做法：
1.檢視現行上傳檔案的使用授權聲明是否恰當；
2.現行的《維基媒體基金會法律部門/2023年使用條款更新/更新提議》的「七、內容授權」：「......Re-use: .....For any non-text media, you agree to comply with.....When re-using any content that we host, you agree to comply with the relevant attribution requirements as they pertain to the underlying license or licenses.」，建議考慮增加一個類似「帝王條款」的例外豁免規範，否則有價值的藝術人文或美術系列攝影作品一律刪下去，或者以後各計劃又頭痛醫頭、腳痛醫腳，應該也不是各種計畫項目的本意：「若可合理推知或預期相關素材內容的展示和授權使用，有益於歷史、科學、藝術、文化、資訊、教育等公共利益，則可在不侵犯或損害各法定權利所有者所擁有權利，或排除商業等非合理使用目的重製的前提下，根據內容上傳用戶的聲明使用。若符合前述用途和使用方式的現有上傳內容或素材，與本會轄下任一平台或計劃的內容或素材收錄使用規範有所衝突，則可以在上傳使用者聲明排除顯然有害法定權利所有人的權利或者未獲授權的使用方式後，根據授權使用聲明保留。」。
@Kriz Ju： (apology if I can only write in English) regarding the question that Wikimedia Commons mission will be eroded due to compliance of FOP laws.
Also ping @Teetrition、Liuxinyu970226：, two of more approachable Chinese-speaking users as per my experience, to read my overall opinions.
In my opinion, my personal thoughts are mixed. On one hand "deletions" are not removal of content from the site in their entirety: deleted content become hidden from non-admins and can be "undeleted" or restored at some future date (either the artists' copyrights expire or the countries reform their copyright laws). Users in the past have argued deletions do not save Wikimedia's disk space. For one part in my opinion those deletions become very unnecessary in long-term.
On the other hand though, Wikimedia Commons has to comply laws of all countries. In FOP perspective, the work must be free in at least the country of origin of the work, following the Berne Convention definition of the "country of origin". Being free in the U.S. is not enough; buildings from France and South Korea are free by virtue of US copyright law (since U.S. has FOP for buildings), but not in their national copyright laws (French and SoKor laws do not allow commercial FOP). Wikimedia Commons tries its best to become a freely-accessible shared media that everyone can benefit. But one part of the mission consists of having freely-usable files. Files that can also be exploited for commercial media, like post cards, commercial vlogs, and T-shirt prints to be sold to tourists. Therefore Commons should comply with restrictive laws of Taiwan, France, South Korea, U.S. (US is like Taiwan, no FOP for sculptures), and other 100+ countries with partial or no complete FOP.
Just like several other users on the platform, I do not like those copyright laws with restrictive or no FOP. I hate Commons not being able to host Burj Khalifa (UAE), Lotte World Tower (SoKor), Bayterek Tower (Kazakhstan), World Trade Center of Manama (Bahrain), The Motherland Calls (Russia), Verkhovna Rada Building (Ukraine), Wisma 46 (Indonesia), and Tower of the Sun (Japan). Therefore, I am happy that I can read or know some steps taken by several Wikipedians in some countries to introduce liberal FOP rules. South Africa, Georgia, Ghana, and Kazakhstan are some of those countries. More so, in our country steps are being taken (with three of the copyright amendment bills bearing FOP clauses), as documented at meta:Pilipinas Panorama Community/Freedom of Panorama. I hope there are steps being made by Taiwanese Wikipedians in convincing their legislature to change that one part of copyright law (fourth paragraph of Section 58), to align with free culture movement of free sharing and distributions of works without copyright restrictions like all forms of commercial reuses. By relying on scholarly opinions inconsistent with the opinion of experts in the government body (TIPO), this debate (already heated as I feel) will never end. The endless wheelwars originating from this one single paragraph of the law. The very single paragraph that read "Reproduction of artistic works solely for the purpose of selling copies."--JWilz12345（留言） 2023年4月10日 (一) 01:55 (UTC)[回复]
Thanks for your long comment. I agree with your opinions. If Reke and other Wikipedian successfully convinced legislature to change their Copyright Act, it will be a great thing for all Wikipedians.--Teetrition（留言） 2023年4月10日 (一) 02:31 (UTC)[回复]
