Copyrighted statues in Helsinki?

Paul Boddie paul at
Sat Sep 5 22:55:49 UTC 2015

On Sunday 6. September 2015 00.27.54 Vitaly Repin wrote:
> Hello,
> I have strange problem with Wikipedia:
> to_Tapio_Rautavaara_in_%C3%85ggelby_%28Oulunkyl%C3%A4%29.jpg#File:Monument_
> to_Tapio_Rautavaara_in_.C3.85ggelby_.28Oulunkyl.C3.A4.29.jpg
> I have made a photo shot of the statue installed in the public place
> in Helsinki, Finland and uploaded it to Wikipedia. But I was told that
> this statue is copyrighted (?) and there was a link to the list of
> more copyrighted objects:
> t%C3%A4

I guess "Wiki Loves Monuments" isn't the whole truth after all. ;-)

> Is it a mistake or are the pieces of arts installed in Helsinki really
> copyrighted and it's not legal to make their photos and share them?
> Sounds really weird for me.
> I really want to read more about the case in Swedish or English.

This came up recently in the context of European harmonisation, and Wikipedia 
provides more information on the following page:

Of course, it is absurd that someone can not merely own the design of a piece 
of art - which is not in itself a troublesome thing - but can also exert 
control over representations and reinterpretations of that art, especially 
when the art in question has been placed in a public location and has often 
been paid for by the public. And architectural works being treated as 
copyrighted works - not even as trademarks - are obviously problematic given 
that most of them are unlikely to be hidden from casual public viewing.


More information about the Discussion mailing list