Libertà di panorama in Europa in equilibrio tra diritti ed eccezioni. Freedom of panorama in Europe on balance between rights and exceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".