Freedom of Panorama

Freedom of panorama is a derived from German word Panoramafreiheit. It is the right of individual to publish photographs of the public buildings and the public structures which are attached to the public places permanently and is one of the exception of the Copyright law. “French-Italian model” and the “German-English model” are the two modular frameworks on which the freedom of panorama is based. On one hand, where the French-Italian model does not lay down the restrictions on the copyright law, the German-English model, on the other hand, states freedom of panorama as an exception to the copyright law. Indian Copyright Act has incorporated the German-English model with certain modifications to suit the Indian scenario.

Article 5 of the Berne Convention,1886 has laid down the “principle of assimilation” which means that countries who are the members of the convention enjoy the rights as laid down in the convention along with the national law of the State. Article 17 of the Convention has permitted the States to enact necessary legislation to prevent the infringement of any work thereby following one of the essential principles of the International Law. Article 9 of the Berne Convention mentions that audio and visual reproduction of copyrighted work amounts to the copyright infringement. Article 9 of the Berne Convention is contradictory to the Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957 as it follows the principle of assimilation and the basic principles of the International Law.Italian Copyright law follows the French-Italian model by recognizing the freedom of panorama and states that the photographs and video recording of sculptures, artistic work and architectural structures having public access, will not amount to copyright infringement if such a reproduction is used only for personal purpose but, if it such photographs or video recordings are used commercially, it will amount to the copyright infringement.

For example: – Photography of the Eiffel Tower at night amounts to copyright violation. However, photography during the daytime is rights-free and does not amount to infringement. The interesting explanation to such a law in France is that the in 1923 the creator and the owner of the copyright of the Eiffel Tower died and the Eiffel Tower entered public domain in the year 1993. Thus, in 1999 Las Vegas had its own Eiffel Tower. Although, the copyright expired in 1993 the lights in the Tower were installed in the year 1985, adding to the aesthetic beauty of the pre-existing structure and classifying the tower’s light display as an “art work” within the purview of Copyright Laws. Hence, the night-time photography of Eiffel Tower will amount to the copyright infringement, as it does not fall within the public domain till date.[1]

Looking into the Indian scenario, even though there is no provision explicitly defining the Freedom of Panorama, the Copyright Act, 1957 under Section 52 sub-clause (t) and sub-clause (u) has provided for the provision related to the Freedom of Panorama. Section 52(t) states that the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture, or any other work of artistic craftsmanship, permanently situated in a public place or any premises to which the public has access, will not amount to copyright infringement. Section 52(u) has included the cinematographic films within the ambit of the freedom of panorama.According to sub-clause (u)the following inclusions in the cinematographic films does not amount to the copyright infringement:-

  • Any artistic work which is situated permanently in a place which can be accessed by the public.
  • Any other artistic work, if such inclusion is only by way of background or is otherwise incidental to the principal matters represented in the film.
  • Use of the author’s artistic work where the author is not the copyright owner or it was the author’s commissioned
  • Reconstruction of any structure or building in accordance with the architectural plans by which the building was constructed.

All in all, Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957 has resolved a potential conflict which could have arisen, if any architectural structure or any sculpture displayed in the public is photographed or used in a cinematographic film without the prior permission of the artist.In practice, Section 52 does conflict with certain aspects of the copyright law yet, it has been seen that Section 52 prevails over the other provisions.

Neelkant Darshan was a short feature film shot in the Akshardham Temple where photography and videography is prohibited. Section 14(c)(i)(A) of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides the architects and the author of an architectural work have the right to protect their work from being stored in any medium by electronic means. A tourist if photographs the Akshardham Temple by virtue of Section 14(c)(i)(A) will be deemed to infringe the copyright. However, by virtue of Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, such photography and videography will not amount to infringement of copyright as the temple is situated permanently in an area easily assessable to the public.Therefore, it is quite evident that Copyright law is clear about the concept of Freedom of Panorama; however, conflict may arise if a building is trademarked and recorded in a video!

About the Author: Trishala Sanyal, intern AKK New Law Academy Intern at Khurana and Khurana Advocates and IP Attorneys and can be reached at  info@khuranaandkhurana.com

 

Reference:

[1] https://petapixel.com/2017/10/14/photos-eiffel-tower-night-illegal/

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010