Talk:Panoramafreiheit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is within the scope of WikiProject History of photography, a project to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the history of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been assessed as low-importance on the assessment scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 12 September 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Which jurisdiction?

We read that Panorama freedom allows for taking pictures in public places. Where? (Albania? Belize? Cuba? Dahomey? Eritrea? France? Guatemala? [etc]) Common sense tells me: "Any civilized nation", but I've learned that common sense is only peripherally related to the law. -- Hoary 00:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Please follow the link to Wikimedia Commons and read the article there. Definitely not the USA though so not "any civilized nation". -N 00:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected this article to the essay Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama. It's content was unreferenced WP:OR. Freedom of panorama is not a legal term of art, but was a principle made up in the Wikimedia Commons to describe a set of ideas about what people are free to photograph and either assert copyright or free-license as they choose. ... Kenosis 18:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, while the article was unsourced and failed to clarify in which jurisdictions it applies, the concept described exists in law. It was not made up on Commons. The name possibly was made up; it is a translation of the common German term Panoramafreiheit. Lupo 19:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Besides, no cross-namespace redirects from article space into "Wikipedia:" space, please. If you think this article should not be in the encyclopedia, AfD it. Lupo 19:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the reminder about cross-namespace redirects. I've nominated it for deletion. Possibly someone in the future will create an article on Panoramafreiheit and this name may perhaps be resurrected as a legitimate redirect to such an article. And thank you for calling "Panoramafreiheit" to my attention. ... Kenosis 20:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOR and WP:VER concerns

Thank you for the references today (provided by Lupo I believe). Unfortunately, the references appear to be in German. and this is English Wikipedia. English references will be necessary so the content of this article can be collectively analyzed and discussed for its validitiy. Until English references are provided, the English reader needs to be informed that the referencing is under question. Therefore, I'm replacing the "unreferenced" tag until references are provided that can be properly scrutinized in English. I look forward to having those, because if the information in this article is accuratew.r.t. other nations, it's important information to the international creative community and to the international legal community and interested observers as well. ... Kenosis 14:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A further review of the references in this version of 20 September 2007 indicates that none of the English references provided use the word "panorama" or "freedom of panorama". Therefore this article appears to be an original synthesis or WP:OR. This will need to be fixed. I look forward to seeing this article, which presently is brought over from the WP Commons and from German Wikipedia, brought into reasonable respect for the two basic Wikipedia priniciples of WP:VER and WP:NOR. ... Kenosis 14:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You're really hung up about the name. The article states it was a translation from German, so that's fine. Using foreign-language references is fine, too. We have millions of them. Other people who can read German can verify this. If you like, you could search for English-language references yourself. But your repeated tagging this as {{OR}} begins to look like a personal crusade against this article. Can you propose a better name? Lupo 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and BTW, there's now a number of English-language external links. So people who cannot read German can at least verify that indeed such a concept does exist in law. Lupo 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, here it is. See WP:RSUE, especially the italicized part. Find me English-language references that are as good as the German ones, and that also back the statements for which German-language references are used now, and I won't object to using such new English references instead of the currently used German ones. Lupo 14:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Lupo, you already know my position about this article. However, now that it's been decided to keep the article, it requires further editing and compliance with the basic principles at WP, principles that did not apply at the Commons where this article was originally formed. There's more work to do here. None of the English references appear to use the word "panorama". In other owrds, it's your interpretation (and maybe that of other users). And, we're going to need at least some English references that comply with WP:Reliable sources, otherwise the information is not in keeping with WP:VER. Let's get it done please, and I look forward to seeing a high quality presentation in keeping with WP:NOR, WP:VER. Believe it or not, there are WP:NPOV issues here too, but I haven't raised those, and hope the article will not encounter them from a "strong copyright" advocate. If we take care of the WP:VER and WP:OR concerns, the WP:NPOV issues should be reasily defensible. ... Kenosis 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
"Let's get it done..." (with respect to English references): well, then do it! Don't just keep tagging a well-referenced article as {{OR}}, but {{sofixit}}. I'm not going to do all the work. Hell, this clumsy translation into English isn't even my creation! I don't know what to call it in English, but clearly the concept needs a name. Lupo 15:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't put the German references in. Rather, they were largely brought over from the Commons, where WP:VER and WP:OR do not apply. Who's going to pay for the professional translation? -- Are you asserting that I should? ... Kenosis 16:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm telling to start looking for English sources, and to stop claiming sources were not verifiable or reliable just because they're in a language you can't read. Others can. I have the same problem with, for instance, Icelandic references. But nevertheless, if I see that the user who put them in an article does speak Icelandic, I assume he knows what he's doing. Only if the claims made in the article are utterly unbelievable I would start looking for other Wikipedians who speak Icelandic to confirm that the given sources actually say what the original editor claimed they said. That might also be a route available to you... Lupo 16:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. If the English verifications, or reliable translations thereof, are not provided by the editor who asserts the material, they are subject to legitimate question. If they are not provided within 48 hours, I'm retagging the article accordingly. For now, have it your way. Good day. ... Kenosis 16:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Question them. But don't claim they were not reliable if you don't understand them at all. Find someone who does understand them, and ask that person to check. Lupo 16:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The placement of the OR and VER tags were not "drive-by shootings" as is common on the wiki. I already have over three hours into this one article, reading it, tracing its origins, searching for alternative sources, etc. My research failed to turn up even one reliable English-language source that supports the claims in this article about "Freedom of panorama" applied to any nation other than Germany. Rather, my research indicates that the origin of this article is from a project piece entitled Freedom of panorama in Wikimedia Commons. I can't prove a negative, but rather, the onus is on the editor asserting the material in the article to provide the needed sources. Alternately, according to WP:VER it is subject to deletion of the unverified portions of the article unless verification is provided. The current sources do not support the claims made in the article.

The assertions in the article that "Freedom of panorama" applies in other countries are neither consistent with the German language sources nor consistent with the English language sources. That, unfortunately, is WP:Original research. ... Kenosis 16:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As to the insistence on, essentially "go translate the damn things yourself, Kenosis", I've begun the process of having someone do that. I'll get back to you after the translations come in. Right off the beginning, I see several that are not reasonably considered reliable sources. Talk later. ... Kenosis 16:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


I do wonder about your alleged NPOV problems. Care to explain what you mean? Lupo 15:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
There are two sides to this, of course. Advocates of strong copyright laws are the other side of the NPOV coin here, as distinguished from the free-content movement on the web. What I was asserting is that if the verification and original research concerns are properly attended to, the NPOV issues become very easy to deal with. I'd like to suggest that perhaps a timeline of, maybe a month or so?, would be adequate to bring this article into better alignment with WP principles. ... Kenosis 16:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
And what exactly are your NPOV concerns here? Lupo 16:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I just gave the concern. This article is a direct descendant of the article from the Freedom of panorama article in Wikimedia Commons, which advocates free-license material worldwide. The copyright advocates are the other, unrepresented side of this coin. Like I said, though, if the WP:NOR, WP:VER and WP:RS concerns are properly addressed, the potential WP:NPOV issues become relatively very easy to handle. ... Kenosis 16:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, {{sofixit}}. I don't understand what you mean. The article is not advocacy, it states and explains a concept well-known in the laws of many countries. If you claim it advocated something, point out exactly where and what. Lupo 16:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Without reliable sources supporting the assertions that either "panoramafreiheit" or "freedom of panorama" applies to jurisdictions outside Germany, "sofixit" will unfortunately mean removal of all assertions in the article that constitute original research, or are unverifiable, or are not derived from a reliable source. As I said above, I already wasted too much time trying to find English-language sources applying either "panoramafreiheit" or "freedom of panorama" worldwide, or even beyond Germany, and they do not appear to exist. Rather, the evidence I found is that this article, as well as the phrase "freedom of panorama", both originated at Freedom of panorama in Wikimedia Commons. I am, however, open to evidence to the contrary, and indeed welcome such evidence to the contrary. ... Kenosis 17:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello... fact check... Without reliable sources supporting the assertions that either "panoramafreiheit" or "freedom of panorama" applies to jurisdictions outside Germany — why don't you just read those resources (references and extlinks) that you can read? Australia, UK are covered, as well as the U.S. (for buildings only, but not sculptures etc.) You could also get Elst's book from a library to check Russia. The concept exists there, too. You could ask other knowledgeable people instead of, in effect, just repeating "I don't believe it." Lupo 18:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's deal with it one step at a time. The primary resource for this article thus far is German attorney David Seiler's brief online summaries and comments at www.fotorecht.de here and here, accounting for six or seven of the current references. Seiler's brief pieces describe a divided European Union from the perspective of German copyright law, and he says at the end of the first piece, roughly translated: "It is thus shown that substantial differences in rights exist which can be settled only with great difficulty, and which indeed obstruct the domestic market." He also says the situation in the European Union "remains exciting". In other words, he is advocating a harmonization of European Union nations with this principle of German copyright law-- a harmonization that does not presently exist. ... Kenosis 19:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
No-one ever said it applied everywhere. But it does apply in some countries other than Germany and Austria - even if the same term isn't used. Haukur 20:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Understood. I think we're making progress on the content and the sourcing. But Seiler's summary refers to the international situation as "splintered". He mentions differences, in his view, between Germany and several other nations, specifically Austria, France, and Cyprus. But beyond the brief analysis of Austria (he states that Austrian law is different from Germany's) and brief references to France and Cyprus, he neither specifies nor describes any specific equivalences in other nations. So, what are we to make of this? IMO, we need additional sources other than Seiler's brief commenraries to make the claims presently made in the article. Otherwise it's the WP editors who are doing the legal research and analysis, and that is what's known in WP as WP:Original research. ... Kenosis 21:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis, I'm really struggling to understand your concerns here. Setting aside the issue of what the title should be, what we have is an article which explains the German legal concept of "panoramafreiheit", gives references, and then essentially says that very similar laws can be found in other countries, again with references. What on earth is OR or NPOV about that, particularly as the article also makes it clear that some countries such as the US do not have such laws? It may well be that the genesis of this article was the corresponding Commons page, but aside from referring to "the free-content movement" you aren't it seems to me making specific allegations which are capable of being fixed. Could you perhaps point out a particular phrase, context or reference that you believe is inappropriate? --MichaelMaggs 19:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of them have already been addressed in the past couple days. The brief notes from one German attorney, David Seiler, on a German photography website, written in German, are slim pickings in terms of WP:Reliable sources, but they will apparently need to suffice for the basic concept of panoramafreiheit as it is written into German law. My remaining concerns have to to with what is called WP:Original research. After a thorough search, I could not find any independent sources equating this concept with laws in other nations, other than Seiler's commentary about Austria, with only passinng reference to France and Cyprus without any substantive analysis by Seiler w.r.t. those nations. The only analysis put forward by Seiler regards the conflict of law between Germany and Austria in a legal case that hasn't been finished yet. It is not our function in WP articles to be doing independent legal comparisons of laws of nations on our own, unless they're drawn from the analyses already published. It may well be acceptable and adequate for the opinion essay on the Commons, but it isn't consistent with Wikipedia articles. Thus, the statements of equivalence or lack thereof that are presently made in this article are "original research" drawn from primary sources in other nations such as the U.S. Code and other such sources. So, there's more to do here. But for now, I'm gratified by the forward progress. Thanks for checking in. ... Kenosis 20:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

A large segment of the editors who took part in the deletion discussion suggested renaming this article. I think the German name is appropriate, since we use lots of German words in English (angst, verbotten, gezundheit etc) What is being done about renaming it?--Filll 15:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. For the time being, we don't have any suggestion for a better name for the concept. As I wrote above, the terms "panorama freedom" or "freedom of panorama" are not my creations. I don't know how to call this concept in law in English. Lupo 15:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Panoramafreiheit would be the obvious, since that's what it's called, and since all the sources that mention the German legal term appear to be in German. "Freedom of panorama" is not the only way of translating it to begin with. I could not find one reliable source which verifies even this translation, let along the original legal analysis that this article presently represents. Again, the references that appear to be possibly reliablle sources are all in German, and even some of those appear to have no clear attribution, they're just online writing in German with no visible indications of reliable origin (e.g. this site). And, none of the three or four English references even mention the word "panorama"... Kenosis 16:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The site you claim was not reliable is written by
David Seiler, Rechtsanwalt,
Mainz den 19.10.2005
betreut inhaltlich die Webseiten
http://www.fotorecht.de
und ist Mitautor des Beck-Rechtsberater im dtv „Internet-Recht im Unternehmen“
veröffentlicht in Photopresse 1/2, 2006, S. 16
All that is mentioned at the source link. He's an attorney specialized on IP issues concerning photography and it has been published. But if that's not reliable enough for you, I could also add the following hyper-reliable German off-line sources (it's the two leading commentaries on the Urheberrecht in Germany):
  • Vogel. In: Gerhard Schricker (Hrsg.): Urheberrecht. Kommentar. 2. Auflage. Beck, Munich 1999, ISBN 3-406-37004-7.
  • Dreier. In: Thomas Dreier/Gernot Schulze: Urheberrechtsgesetz. 2. Auflage. Beck, Munich 2006, ISBN 340654195X
The Rehbinder reference is one of the leading Swiss commentaries on the Swiss Urheberrechtsgesetz.
To repeat: just because you cannot read German, these sources are nonetheless reliable. There are enough other people here who can read German. Lupo 16:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
But I agree that a better name would be needed. Using the German term is an option, but will make it look as if this concept of law applied only in Germany (or in German-speaking countries), which is clearly not true. Compare the external links given for the UK and Australia, for instance. Hence, moving it to the German term would be misleading. Lupo 16:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent> The problem here is, this is English Wikipedia. The sources in German do not help much, whether they are reliable or not. If you can find an equivalent name in English that is widely used and cited by WP:RS sources, then we can use it. Otherwise, I propose to use the German word for the title. In English, there is no shame in using the German or French or Italian or Japanese words if English is found lacking, as it often is.--Filll 16:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As a suggestion, "Photographing in public places" might be a simple way of conveying the scope of the article, which would then treat the position in various countries under the name used in that country. The Australian example uses the heading "Do I need permission to photograph artworks displayed in public places?", the UK article makes various reference to taking photographs from public places. .. dave souza, talk 20:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Good suggestion... but note that this concept is not just about photography. It also applies to films and even covers painting. Under this permission, one may paint an image of a sculpture without having to worry about the copyright of the sculpture (if the sculpture is permanently installed at a public place). Lupo 21:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We could use a long-winded description like Copyright of artwork permanently installed in public places or something... Haukur 22:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Panoramafreiheit. See Zeitgeist, Schadenfreude, Kristallnacht, Kindergarten, Angst, Ansatz, Wanderlust, Autobahn, Realpolitik, etc. Have I made my point? Stop trying to translate the untranslatable: Freedom of Panorama has no more meaning than does isdkfikdsi. •Jim62sch• 22:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The renaming discussion seems to be more a Wikipolicy argument than a legal one. So far as I am aware, the English expression 'Freedom of Panorama' is not generally used in Common Law countries to describe the concepts which correspond to the German "Panoramafreiheit". The phrase does not appear in the index of any of the copyright textbooks I have access to, nor so far as I can see is it used within the text. I don't actually think there is any commonly-used English legal expression which covers the concept. "Freedom of panorama" works well, and most users on Commons seem to accept that term, but I've no opinion on whether that makes it appropriate to use as the title of this page. --MichaelMaggs 09:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Think about it, what does "Freedom of Panorama" mean? Let's say you ran across the term, knowing nothing of Panoramafreiheit, would you even have the remotest clue as to what it referred? No, but neither would anyone else. It's a meaningless phrase that serves no purpose. •Jim62sch• 13:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems so far as I can see to be a reasonable consensus to rename the article "Panoramafreiheit". What's stopping anyone doing it? (Note, though, that this is independent of the OR arguments. I will address those in the section above. --MichaelMaggs 19:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, nothing. •Jim62sch• 21:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm

The discussions on this page appear to be getting very heated, with accusations of misconduct and dismissing of arguments as "Nonsense". Unfortunately, none of this appears to be moving towards a tenable solution. The AfD discussion, was, of course a sort of "request for comment", but perhaps we could get a few more comments from other venues? Like, perhaps, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Or maybe at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability? Or both? I'll leave notes if that seems okay. --Iamunknown 16:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest reading the comments carefully before jumping to conclusions. Read the statements before and after the word "Nonsense". Nor do I see any accusations of misconduct. What exactly is the assertion here? ... Kenosis 18:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no assertion or, at least, any assertion is secondary and unintended. I posed a question, asking whether or not the involved editors (i.e. you and Lupo) would appreciate a request for comment regarding WP:VER and WP:RS from the two talk pages I mentioned. --Iamunknown 22:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and btw, before you dismiss my comments as, "It is clear here that Iamunknown has not read the above discussion," as you have elsewhere, I have read the above discussion, realise that their are multiple alleged issues (regarding WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:V, etc.), and am merely trying to help out by asking if you and Lupo would like comments from uninvolved editors, even if for only a subset of those issues. --Iamunknown 22:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's see how it goes. I saw no problem with the discussion that seemed to indicate it couldn't be argued here, despite it getting a bit testy on several issues. If we're unable to get clear on whether this article's commentary on "freedom of panorama" in other nations such as the US amounts to WP:OR, we can consider the option later. The thought is appreciated nonetheless. ... Kenosis 23:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure, asking at other places is fine with me. Hopefully someone can come up with a good name for this thing. Lupo 18:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, the Australian Copyright Council pdf p. 6 refers to photographing buildings or artworks displayed in public places. And, by the way, makes no reference I could see to "freedom of panorama". Please take care to ensure that references are accurately cited. "Photographing in public places" might be the nearest English language equivalent to the German legal term, but a search of English language sources could prove fruitful:.. dave souza, talk 20:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, the extlink was correctly cited. "freedom of panorama" was just a moniker used to name the concept. The Australian extlink had the text see p. 6 for freedom of panorama, not see p. 6 for "freedom of panorama". It was not intended to be used as proof that the term exists, but to show that the concept exists in Australia. But your rewriting it is fine, too. Lupo 21:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
If the article's about the concept, the title should be a common English phrase or term for the concept. If it's about a German legal concept referring to Panoramas that doesn't translate well into English, then it should be confined to that legal concept and a separate article should cover the broader context of similar concepts. ... dave souza, talk 22:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't translate at all, nor should we try to translate it. For decades, people have tried to translate Zeitgeist as "spirit of the times", but that "translation" misses the nuanced meaning of the word and is a very poor substitute, hence we use Zeitgeist. Besides, "representating the trends of thought, belief and feeling of a specific period in a specific place (generally a nation)" is too long to be a useful translation (although it is accurate). Same is true of Panoramafreiheit. •Jim62sch• 10:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent>It does not sound to me that there legal rules for this sort of thing that exist in other countries and cultures that are identical to those in Germany. Therefore, maybe this article should be split into two; one on the German concept, under the German name. The other on the more general legal area, and its application in different countries noted, including the German application under Panoramafreiheit. Trying to shove all this under a bastardized botched translation of the German phrase is maybe not optimal. And I do not understand the resistance to using Panoramafreiheit; please peruse the dozens of examples in List of German expressions in English.--Filll 16:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The arguments are getting mixed up. Suggest keeping the renaming and OR/NPOV arguments within their respective sections above. --MichaelMaggs 19:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is an improvement?

Typically, the copyright in a recently-constructed building will vest in the architect, while the copyright in a sculpture normally vests in the sculptor. Panoramafreiheit acts to limit the right of the copyright owner to take action for breach of copyright against the photographer or anyone distributing the resultant image. It is an exception to the normal rule that the copyright owner has the exclusive right to authorize the making and distribution of derivative works. This is far worse. What does "recently-constructed " mean, and even if it had meaning, where is the ref that it only applies to "recent" (a subjective word if I ever saw one) construction? Vests is simply the wrong word. Basically, this edit clarified nothing, and reads like a very bad attempt at legalese. Sorry, but that's how I see it. •Jim62sch• 18:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Also, "normally" is just a bit waffly, and there's nothing indicating when such copyright is not granted to the sculptor.•Jim62sch• 18:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You may never have come across the verb 'to vest' as in 'copyrights vests in ..' , but I can assure you it is an expression commonly used by copyright specialists. Try any standard work on copyright law in English. All of the terms to which you object can easily be made legally exact, but I'm not sure that's really needed or desirable here, as we're not writing a general legal text. To make things exact will mean adding a significant of background law which would put the whole article out of balance. Do we really, for example, need a full analysis of the copyright period for architectural works in Germany and elsewhere in order to explain what "Panoramafreiheit" means? If you want exact clarity on what 'recently-built' means, that's what you'd have to do. Or, alternately, you could delete 'recently-built', in which case the article will incorrectly suggest that the described concept covers old buildings. Please feel free to improve if you can. --MichaelMaggs 21:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite aware of the term "vest", thank you. But as Iamunknown points out below, there are better ways to say the same thing. As for recent or normally see WP:WEASEL •Jim62sch• 22:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a construction involving "held" would be better than one involving "vest"? I agree that vest is common, but to me, "the copyright in a recently-constructed work of architecture/scultpure is held by the architect/sculptor" sounds more natural. --Iamunknown 21:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
(e/c) Well it gets rather complicated, and a full explication would bloat the first paragraph, but perhaps a detailed footnote can accompany the unclear phrases. I can't find an up-to-date translation of the German copyright law (Urheberrechtsgesetz, UrhG), which I think was amended in 2004. Section 2, however, does indicate that "Protected literary, scientific and artistic works shall include, in particular ... works of fine art, including works of architecture and of applied art and plans for such works" (UrhG §2), while section 64 indicates that "Copyright shall expire 70 years after the author's death" (UrhG §64).
So, at least in Germany, which the lead paragraph is dealing with (as the "Many countries have similar provisions..." is not introduced until the next paragraph), the copyright in a recently-constructed building is held by the architect and in a recently-constructed sculpture by the sculptor; "recently-constructed" means any work of architecture or sculpture for which the architect or sculptor has been dead for less than 70 years; and, as far as I know, Germany does not have the concept of "work for hire", so copyright is always held by the architect or sculptor, unless otherwise assigned or licensed to other parties (but I don't have any refs for that).
I should also point out that I agree with Michael above that a full analysis of the copyright period is a bit much for the paragraph. More clear language, with a footnote touching the details, might, however, be appropriate. --Iamunknown 21:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
A footnote would be fine, and Michael's edit is right on target. •Jim62sch• 14:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)