You Can Legally Photograph The Petronas Towers. In France, The Eiffel Tower At Night Is A Different Story.

A building is an artistic work, and artistic works have copyright. So why is photographing the KL Tower and posting it on Instagram not an infringement?

Because of one clause.

Section 13(2)(d) of the Copyright Act 1987 excludes the copyright owner's right to control:

"the reproduction and distribution of copies of any artistic work permanently situated in a place where it can be viewed by the public"

Works of architecture are artistic works. So the express exclusion means travellers and residents can photograph and publish images of buildings visible from public places without infringing copyright.

This is known as a freedom of panorama clause — from the German Panoramafreiheit. Not every country has one.

The word doing all the work is "permanently"

This is the practical test, and it is a useful one to know.

A building is permanent. You cannot take it down one day like deleting a social media post — short of demolishing it.

An advertisement on a billboard is not. It is not permanently situated there; it can always be changed.

So the exclusion covers the building. Whether it covers what is temporarily displayed on or around it is a different question, and one this article does not resolve.

What the exclusion covers

Section 3 of the Copyright Act 1987 defines "artistic work" broadly, including graphic works and works of architecture.

The freedom of panorama concept generally permits taking photographs, video footage and other images — including paintings — of buildings, and sometimes sculptures and other artworks, permanently located in a public place, without infringing copyright, and publishing those images.

It is an exception to the normal rule that the copyright owner has the exclusive right to authorise creation and distribution of derivative works.

A related provision worth noting: copyright in a work of architecture does not include the right to control the reconstruction or rehabilitation in the same style as the original of a building to which the copyright relates.

The comparative point

France is the standard counter-example. It prohibited such acts in the 19th century for protection of privacy, and remains a jurisdiction without a general freedom of panorama.

International comparison shows the variation:

• India — Copyright Act 1957, s.52(s)–(u): making or publishing paintings, drawings, engravings, photographs or including in films any work of architecture, or any artistic work situated in a public place, does not constitute infringement
• Singapore — Copyright Act (Chapter 63), ss.63–63A
• New Zealand — Copyright Act 1994, s.73
• Philippines — Intellectual Property Code, s.184(d)
• Poland — Act on Copyright and Related Rights, Art 33

Roughly every country has some form of freedom of panorama, but interpretations differ in strictness.

A practical warning for travellers: the Malaysian rule protects you in Malaysia. Photographing and publishing images of buildings in a jurisdiction without freedom of panorama is governed by that country's law, not ours.

Where the legislation stands

The Copyright Act 1987 (Act 332) is Malaysia's main copyright legislation, listed as such by WIPO. It has been amended, including by the Copyright (Amendment) Act 2012 and subsequently — WIPO listed it as at Act A1645 in a 2024 reference.

Wikimedia Commons, which depends on getting this right for its own hosting rules, records the Malaysian position as: the right of control is excluded from "the reproduction and distribution of copies of any artistic work permanently situated in a place where it can be viewed by the public", citing s.13(2)(d).

What this does not cover

Being clear about the limits matters more than the freedom.

Copyright is not the only law in play. Freedom of panorama answers a copyright question. It does not answer:

Trespass. The exclusion is about works in a place where they can be viewed by the public. It does not entitle you to enter private property to get the shot.

Security and restricted areas. Photography restrictions at military installations, certain government buildings, airports and similar sites arise from other laws and rules entirely.

Private premises rules. A shopping mall or private building may impose conditions of entry restricting photography. That is contractual and proprietorial, not copyright.

People in the frame. If your building photograph includes identifiable people, the privacy analysis is separate — see (Malaysia Has No Standalone Privacy Tort. You Generally Cannot Stop Someone Photographing You In Public.).

Commercial use of a distinctive building as a brand element may raise trademark or passing off questions independent of copyright.

What to actually do

As a photographer or social media user in Malaysia:

• Photographing and publishing images of buildings visible from public places is not a copyright infringement, by virtue of s.13(2)(d).
• Shoot from a public vantage point. The exclusion depends on the work being viewable by the public, and does not license trespass.
• Check whether the site is restricted for security reasons — that is a separate question from copyright.
• Respect private premises rules where you have entered on conditions.

If you are publishing commercially: - The copyright position on the building itself is covered, but take advice if the building functions as a brand, or if the image will be used to suggest endorsement.

If you are travelling: - Do not assume other countries work the same way. France is the well-known example where they do not.