This discussion is revolting to begin with.
Freedom of panorama (FOP) is a provision in the copyright laws of various jurisdictions that permits taking photographs and video footage and creating other images (such as paintings), of buildings and sometimes sculptures and other art works which are permanently located in a public place, without infringing on any copyright that may otherwise subsist in such works, and to publishing such images. [source]
In June 2015, Jean-Marie Cavada, a French politician and Member of the European Parliament, introduced a proposal to restrict the freedom of panorama in all EU countries indicating that this would limit the impact of "American monopolies such as Facebook and also Wikimedia" and serve to protect "a sector of European culture and creativity". [source]
Wikipedia responded with a page dedicated to this issue, standing that "Images of modern buildings must remain on Wikipedia";
Yes of course it should remain legal.
What a waste of time passing a ridiculous law like this! Outrageous. If people are not trying to make a profit out of it, where's the problem.
Are there not better things to do like laws to pass in the actual interest of everyday people.
Yo. According to the users who voted: Yes buildings, no Art... what's the logic behind that opinion? What quality does Art possess that Architecture does not?
To play the Devil's advocate, I can see why such a copyright law would surface (cancelling out motives of governmental greed - although I don't see how it would financially benefit anyone; seems more like a moral decision with fascistic undertones). The discrepancy between the possible origin/purpose of the building (and the sometimes careless ways its taken images are used for - cheap flyers and such) have changed a bit, now that there is a lower threshold of taking and sharing visual copies of whatever ancient landmarks are left to behold - despite wars and failing budgets meant for restauration.
It raises the question who these buildings belong to and what we are to do with it (not sure if this is the point Jean-Marie Cavada is trying to make).
I just don't understand why they didn't come up with this when photography was invented in the first place. I've always hated how the possession of an automatic mobile camera (originally, being a photographer was a trade which called for knowledge of lighting, filters, films and development - but most all: delicacy) invites people to act all stupid around ancient/historic landmarks, just to get the highest possible amount of praise on whatever social platform.
Wikipedia is a big exception. Prohibiting Wikipedia to place two or three explanatory images of 'le Tour Eiffel' to support the text describing this landmark would be like prohibiting me to make a hand-drawn copy of it whilst seated in its vicinity.
Long story short: I can see the problem (when I squint), but I'm not convinced of the solution.