Most important points

• Freedom of panorama allows you to photograph or film things in public spaces (buildings, works of art) and to use these images freely, even if the objects are protected by copyright.

• In Germany, freedom of panorama is regulated in Section 59 UrhG: “Works on public paths, streets or squares” may be depicted. This applies in particular to architecture (buildings) and plastic art (sculptures) in public spaces.

• Important restrictions: The work must be permanently in this public place (a temporary exhibition on the market square is not covered). And the photograph must be taken from a public place – i.e. you are not allowed to climb onto private property to photograph an otherwise hidden work.

• Freedom of panorama means, for example, that tourist photos of skylines or selfies in front of famous buildings can be legally published without having to ask architects or artists for permission. Commercial use is also permitted (e.g. postcards, calendars with city motifs).

• This does not include interiors or non-public areas: A painting in a museum is not subject to freedom of panorama as it is not “permanently located on a public way”. Graffiti on a factory site that is not visible from the public way is also not allowed to be freely depicted.

• Height and aids: It was disputed whether drone photos or recordings from an elevated position still fall under “public way”. In principle, yes, as long as it is still within the usual scope (a drone flying directly over a public road could still apply, but if you are filming over fences, it becomes critical).

• Freedom of panorama is not a given in all countries – in some (e.g. France) you are not allowed to publish illuminated buildings at night or works of art without further ado. For globally active start-ups, this means that what is legal in Germany can be problematic elsewhere if you publish there.

What does freedom of panorama mean?

The term freedom of panorama sounds like a picturesque landscape, but it has to do with law: it is about the freedom of the street scene. More precisely: the freedom to use the panorama – i.e. what you see in public – artistically or photographically without infringing copyright.

Normally, buildings and works of art are protected by copyright as long as their creator is still alive and until 70 years after his death. If we were to take this strictly, we would not be allowed to photograph a modern building (e.g. the Elbphilharmonie concert hall in Hamburg) and then use this photo on a commercial website, for example, because the building is a copyrighted work of architecture and the architect would actually have to agree to this. This would be nonsensical in practice and would make almost every city photograph illegal. This is why there is the exception rule of freedom of panorama.

The legal requirements

In Germany, Section 59 of the Copyright Act states quite succinctly: It is permissible to reproduce, distribute and publicly reproduce works that are permanently located on public paths, streets or squares by means of painting or photography.

Translated, this means that anything that can be seen from publicly accessible places – and that is permanently installed there – may be depicted and the images may also be distributed, whether on the Internet, in print or on film.

“Permanent” usually means: not just there for a short time. A permanently erected monument, a building, a fountain, etc. are considered permanent. However, if an artist only exhibits a sculpture on the town hall square for two weeks, the sculpture still enjoys full protection – freedom of panorama does not apply because the exhibition is not permanent.

“Public paths, streets or squares” means that the location from which the photo is taken must be publicly accessible. Publicly accessible is, for example, a sidewalk, a park or a public square. A private garden or the inside of a building, for example, where you can only enter with permission, would not be public.

Consequence: If you are standing outside and can see a work of art, you may photograph it. However, if the artwork is indoors (even if it is visible through a window), it is not considered to be “in a public place” – in which case you have no automatic right to photograph it.

Examples from practice

• Architecture: A start-up wants to use a photo of the Frankfurt skyline for its website, showing various modern skyscrapers. Thanks to freedom of panorama, this is unproblematic. The architects cannot demand that you make their buildings unrecognizable or pay license fees. Similarly, an influencer can film themselves in front of the Brandenburg Gate and monetize the video – allowed.

• Street art/graffiti: This is where it gets more interesting. In principle, graffiti on the wall of a building is a copyrighted work of the sprayer. If it is on a house wall that is visible from the street, one could argue that it is permanent (graffiti is usually not “officially permanent”, but in fact it often remains) in a public place (well, on the street side of a building). In many cases, it will be assumed that such works are also covered by freedom of panorama as long as they are photographed from a public space. But beware: there are cases of street art in particular where artists have taken legal action against the commercial use of their graffiti in photos. The case law is not entirely uniform here, but usually tends to favor freedom of panorama, provided that the graffiti is depicted as part of the cityscape and not in isolation as the main motif for commercial purposes (in which case it could again be considered unauthorized use if it is photographed and marketed “true to the work”).

• Art in the park: A sculpture stands in a public park. A publisher produces an art travel guide and prints photos of this sculpture – okay, freedom of panorama. But if the same sculpture was only there temporarily as part of an exhibition, it would not be allowed without permission.

• Interior views: A startup runs a blog and wants to show photos of the interior of famous buildings (e.g. church naves, museum halls). Freedom of panorama does not help here because interiors are not public in the sense of the street. You need permission, usually from the operator or author. Museums, for example, often have photography bans or restrictions for precisely this reason.

Limits and pitfalls

Freedom of panorama – as the name “freedom” suggests – has a generous character, but some limits must be observed:

• No aid madness: You are allowed to photograph what you see, but you are not allowed to use technical means to see more than a normal passer-by, so to speak. Specifically: If a work of art can only be seen from above (e.g. by ladder or drone), it could be argued that this is no longer the “public way”. A well-known example: There was a dispute in Belgium (where freedom of panorama is restricted) about drone shots of gardens protected by copyright. In Germany, for example, you might only be able to see a backyard mural if you fly a drone over the fence – that would probably not be covered. A photo taken from a normal vantage point on the street, on the other hand, is fine. With the common use of drones, there is a gray area. As long as you fly in public airspace (up to 100m high, for example) over public areas, you could argue that it is still freedom of panorama – but there are still few clear rulings on this. One thing is certain: using telephoto lenses to zoom in on something that the normal passer-by cannot see can be critical if, for example, insights into private property are created (however, this then affects personality and data protection rights rather than copyright).

• Trademarks and protected designs: Freedom of panorama refers to copyright. If you have a street photo on which you can see a lot of brand logos (billboards, neon signs), trademark law could theoretically be affected. In practice, however, the mere inclusion of trademarks in the street scene as a so-called “dependent component” is okay – you are not using the trademark itself as a trademark, but merely depicting reality. So don’t worry if you see a Coca-Cola logo somewhere in the cityscape.

• Personal rights: Some of the panorama shots are of people. The freedom of panorama does not apply here, but rather the right to one’s own image (Art Copyright Act). In other words: recognizable persons in photos may only be depicted without consent under certain circumstances (e.g. accessories on the edge or gatherings of people). This must be checked separately. The photo of the market square may show the buildings and statues due to freedom of panorama, but if a single person is clearly recognizable in the foreground, you would need their consent or have to rely on an exception (contemporary history, accessories, etc.). Two areas of law are therefore interwoven here.

• No 3D scan: An interesting question is whether freedom of panorama also applies to 3D models. For example, you could use a laser scan to create a 3D model of a public statue and distribute it digitally. Is this a “reproduction by photographic means”? Probably not, it would probably go beyond a mere reproduction because you would in fact be reproducing the work itself in digital form. You would probably need permission for this. The courts have not yet finally decided on such constellations, but there are indications that photographic images are privileged, but true-to-scale 3D reproductions are not without further ado.

• Night shots with light art: In some countries (France, Belgium), the lighting design of buildings is protected. In Germany, for example, there were discussions about the illuminated Brandenburg Gate. Here, freedom of panorama has been invoked – a photographer may also take pictures of the illuminated gate in the evening. The authors of light installations (if it is considered a work of art) could theoretically make claims, but so far freedom of panorama has been understood generously: Day and night. The situation is different in Paris: the Eiffel Tower can be photographed by day (no longer protected by copyright, as it was built more than 70 years ago), but at night the special lighting is protected – official postcards of it would have to have a license. The average German user is hardly aware of such curious differences, which is why care must be taken with international content.

International differences

For a startup that distributes content worldwide, it should be noted that freedom of panorama is not regulated uniformly. It exists in many countries, but with variations. In some, it is completely absent for architecture (Italy has strict rules for cultural monuments). It is therefore possible that a photo that you are allowed to use freely here may be seen as a copyright infringement abroad if it is published there. In practice, of course, German bloggers are rarely warned by a French rights exploiter, but larger companies should at least be aware of this. Wikimedia, for example, had problems when they had images of protected buildings in countries without freedom of panorama on their servers.

Conclusion

Freedom of panorama is a very citizen-friendly regulation: it ensures that what anyone can see anyway can also be photographed and shown by anyone. For start-ups and creatives, this means considerable legal certainty when it comes to city photography, travel reports, real estate photos from the outside, etc. You don’t have to get permission from every architect. Nevertheless, you should keep an eye on the limits – interiors and non-public spheres in particular are still taboo without permission. Overall, freedom of panorama is a good example of how copyright law recognizes pragmatic exceptions so as not to unnecessarily complicate everyday life (and the taking of souvenir photos or advertising images with an urban backdrop).