Libertà di panorama in Europa in equilibrio tra diritti ed eccezioni. Freedom of panorama in Europe on balance between rights and exceptions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Paper presented at the CNBA Day – CNBA/ARCLIB Conference, Venice 8-10 May 2019 Iuav University of Venice, Santa Croce 191 Tolentini – 30135 Venice CNBA – Venice 10 May 2019 – Iuav University of Venice. Publishing architecture: books, journals looking at the future. Freedom of panorama - not to be confused with the right of panorama which concerns the necessary distance between buildings to have sufficiently adequate light, space and freedom of vision - is the right to be able to take photographs or make video footage of buildings, palaces, monuments , artistic and architectural works present in a public place also for commercial purposes. Freedom of panorama - to be framed in the themes of Open Culture - is envisaged in those countries whose regulatory systems derogate from the protection of intellectual property rights or physical property, as in the case of the protection of cultural heritage. Its breadth therefore depends on the balance between the various and possible safeguards on the works and the exemptions granted in order to guarantee a reasonable freedom to photograph in public spaces. The works of architecture are an interesting field of application where the solution of complex problems is given by the application of various rules of national and international law: copyright, industrial property code, rules on the protection of cultural heritage and procurement regulations public and private. Legislation in the world varies from country to country with heterogeneous situations. The United States, Argentina, Russia and Japan have similar regulations that allow for reproductions of buildings located in public places. In Africa there are numerous areas where there is no information and others where freedom of panorama is totally absent. In South America, China and Canada the situation is quite good, while the countries with the best situation in terms of wide panoramic freedom are Australia, India and the United Kingdom. In contrast we find the Middle East with severe restrictions. In Europe the situation is not only heterogeneous, but it is divided in half between countries where there is no freedom of panorama and those with a fairly good situation, even if not optimal. In some countries you can only photograph buildings, in others only works of art, in others there are no restrictions. It seems curious how this restriction is present in half of Europe including Italy and France and in half of Africa as well as in most Middle Eastern countries, including Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc ... Unfortunately Italy does not enjoy the freedom of landscape . In our country, anyone intending to use images depicting works of artistic, cultural and landscape interest for profit must do so with prior authorization and by paying specific fees to the public body that manages the work or landscape. At the level of the European Community, unfortunately, the opportunity has been lost to have a European Directive with wide exceptions useful for a freedom of panorama at 360 degrees due to the lack of a broad vision which has not allowed to standardize this freedom of gaze on the panoramas and landscapes between European countries. Now, therefore, a national legal protection mechanism will be needed, with a serious political debate on the concept of freedom of panorama as a common good and juridically understood as positive freedom.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».