# Building/architecture copyright



## skieur (Nov 19, 2008)

How do you deal with a security cop who comes up to you and says that you cannot take a photo of a particular famous building or structure because it is copyrighted?

skieur


----------



## Yahoozy (Nov 19, 2008)

calmly accept his statement, appear to leave, and come back when he goes away =P


----------



## Phranquey (Nov 19, 2008)

I don't know about Canada but in the US:

No one can restrict you from photographing a copyrighted structure, _if you are on public land while taking the photo_. If you are on private land, even if it is open to the public, the owner has every right to restrict your photography actions, up to and including kicking your butt out.

As far as the photo itself, only the owner of the copyright (or their representative....i.e. lawyer) can come after you *IF* you attempt to use the photo of the copyrighted structure in a commercial manner, like selling it for an ad. Otherwise you are well within your right to take all of the pictures you want of it as long as it is for your personal collection.


----------



## skieur (Nov 19, 2008)

Yahoozy said:


> calmly accept his statement, appear to leave, and come back when he goes away =P


 
Mmmm...the very practical approach.  Some logic there, but I think it would be useful to know whether he was right or wrong. 

skieur


----------



## skieur (Nov 19, 2008)

Phranquey said:


> I don't know about Canada but in the US:
> 
> No one can restrict you from photographing a copyrighted structure, _if you are on public land while taking the photo_. If you are on private land, even if it is open to the public, the owner has every right to restrict your photography actions, up to and including kicking your butt out.
> 
> As far as the photo itself, only the owner of the copyright (or their representative....i.e. lawyer) can come after you *IF* you attempt to use the photo of the copyrighted structure in a commercial manner, like selling it for an ad. Otherwise you are well within your right to take all of the pictures you want of it as long as it is for your personal collection.


 
In law public place is defined in terms of accessibility to, by the general public in the United States, Canada, Europe and elsewhere. It has NOTHING to do with public property or public land. A public place may be private property in law.

By the way, the owner of the copyright of the photo is the photographer.

skieur


----------



## Phranquey (Nov 19, 2008)

> By the way, the owner of the copyright of the photo is the photographer.


 
Yes, the copyright to the specific photo that you took. 
But, some structure owners and architects copyright the structure itself, meaning that any depiction of it may not be utilized without said copyright owners permission. 
There are many sports stadiums in the US that are copyrighted. You may take all the pictures of them that you want, but if you attempt to sell these pictures for commercial or advertisement purposes without permission, you will get sued very quickly.



> A public place may be private property in law.


 
In this case I was speaking of taking a picture from a public sidewalk of a structure.

If you were in the parking lot of a shopping mall, taking a picture of the mall, then you would be correct. The parking lot property, open to the public, is owned by the mall, and you can be asked to leave. If you step out of the owners parking lot onto a public sidewalk and take the same picture of the mall, the owner has absolutely zero recourse.


----------



## SpeedTrap (Nov 19, 2008)

Does copyright protect architecture?
Yes. Architectural works became subject to copyright protection on December 1, 1990. The copyright law defines &#8220;architectural work&#8221; as &#8220;the design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.&#8221; Copyright protection extends to any architectural work created on or after December 1, 1990. Also, any architectural works that were unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings on that date and were constructed by December 31, 2002, are eligible for protection. Architectural designs embodied in buildings constructed prior to December 1, 1990, are not eligible for copyright protection.

Now try to remember, taking a picture of a building that has a copyright on it is not a violation of copyright law.  It is only if you reproduce it (build another one from the photo) that you would be breaking a copyright.  If it is visible from public land and public is allowed access you can take a picture of it.  If the picture is taken from publlic space, I belive you can even sell the photo.


----------



## skieur (Nov 20, 2008)

SpeedTrap said:


> Does copyright protect architecture?
> Yes. Architectural works became subject to copyright protection on December 1, 1990. The copyright law defines &#8220;architectural work&#8221; as &#8220;the design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.&#8221; Copyright protection extends to any architectural work created on or after December 1, 1990. Also, any architectural works that were unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings on that date and were constructed by December 31, 2002, are eligible for protection. Architectural designs embodied in buildings constructed prior to December 1, 1990, are not eligible for copyright protection.
> 
> Now try to remember, taking a picture of a building that has a copyright on it is not a violation of copyright law.
> ...


 
You are correct. Taking a picture of a building that is copyrighted does NOT violate copyright law. It follows however that if you have not violated copyright law then YOU own the copyright to the photo and can do ANYTHING you want with the photo, even sell it. What also needs to be clear is that whether the photo was taken on public or private land is irrelevant. In general terms, the owner has no recourse related to the photo or its use or sale.  There are a few common sense exceptions such as a case where a real estate agent who put a photo of a building on his web site, implying that it was for sale or that he had sold it. (Neither of which was true.)  I am sure that there are probably some other bizarre exceptions.

skieur


----------



## Helen B (Nov 20, 2008)

An excellent summary by skieur.

In a similar vein, but not as clear, there's the famous, controversial case of the commercial use of images of the Eiffel Tower's lighting design.

As an example of clarity in copyright law, the Irish Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 specifically excludes photographs of buildings as an infringement of copyright:

_*93.*&#8212;(1) This section applies to the copyright in&#8212;_
_(__a) buildings, and_
_(__b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, where permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public._
_(2) The copyright in a work to which this section applies is not infringed by&#8212;_
_(__a) making a painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart, plan, engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut, print or similar thing representing it,_
_(__b) making a photograph or film of it, or_
_(__c) broadcasting or including in a cable programme service, an image of it._
_(3) The copyright in a work to which this section applies is not infringed by the making available to the public of copies of anything the making of which is not, by virtue of this section, an infringement of the copyright in the work._

Best,
Helen


----------



## skieur (Nov 20, 2008)

Helen B said:


> An excellent summary by skieur.
> 
> In a similar vein, but not as clear, there's the famous, controversial case of the commercial use of images of the Eiffel Tower's lighting design.
> 
> Helen


 
My impression is that the location of the lights on the tower may be copyrightable but like buildings, unless you physically replicated the design, you would not be violating that copyright and that would make photos NOT a violation.

The display created by the lights does not meet the copyright requirement of being of "fixed and permanent nature". Just the simple fact that they are not always turned on means that the display is not permanent. Even when turned on, it is not fixed in that it changes with weather, time, age of bulbs and several other factors.

The French justice system and laws have developed very differently from those of the English however and judgements tend to often have a political rather than judicial "flavour".

skieur


----------



## Phranquey (Nov 20, 2008)

I had a little discussion with my brother-in-law last night (attorney, yes the "in-law" is a lawyer....), and he explained it to me this way:

Say you were walking down the street in Beverly Hills, spotted Alyssa Milano, and took a picture of her. You absolutely _do_ own the copyright to that particular picture, but she still owns the copyright to her likeness. Even though that photo is yours, if you go out and print her picture on T-shirts and sell them, you are likely liable for civil damages if she decides to take action.

The exact same appies to a copyrighted structure. You fully own that photograph, but cannot utilize it in a commercial manner without the likeness owner's consent. 

None of this applies in a photojournalism sense, however.

As to the OP, a security guard CANNOT stop you from taking that photograph, the only one who can enforce the copyright is the owner, and that is only if you mis-use it.


----------



## skieur (Nov 20, 2008)

Phranquey said:


> I had a little discussion with my brother-in-law last night (attorney), and he explained it to me this way:
> 
> Say you were walking down the street in Beverly Hills, spotted Alyssa Milano, and took a picture of her. You absolutely _do_ own the copyright to that particular picture, but she still owns the copyright to her likeness. Even though that photo is yours, if you go out and print her picture on T-shirts and sell them, you are likely liable for civil damages if she decides to take action.
> 
> ...


 

You can take a photo of anyone in a public place for that matter but t shirts amount to "advertising purposes" refered to as commercial in the copyright act and that requires a model release. You can however use the photo for editorial or artistic purposes for sale, money etc. So you could, as has been done, put street photos of people in a gallery and sell them without any model release. It was tested in american court and the photographer won. A particular photo was sold for $20,000 without a model release. A person does not have a copyright to their likeness except for advertising purposes in most countries in the western world including the US.  There are probably a few bizarre exceptional uses which might be viewed differently by a judge but that is the general law.

You also have not read the American copyright law regarding architecture which reads similar to Helen's example. It explicitly states that taking photos of a copyrighted building does not violate the building copyright. As photographer you OWN the copyright of your photo, not just the photo as you stated. The ONLY legal case where a photographer is NOT the first owner of copyright of his photo is when he is employed by someone else to take the photo and there is no contract to the contrary.  Only the architectural design is copyrightable and copying means building another structure with the same design.  It does NOT mean taking a photo of the building.

Since you own the copyright to the photo of the building, if follows that you CAN use it like any other photo that you have taken, sell it, display it, publish it, etc. in an editorial or artistic context  and the owner cannot do anything about it.  Advertising purposes however may require a release depending on the nature of the photograph and the manner of its use in the ad.

skieur


----------



## Helen B (Nov 20, 2008)

Despite what your brother-in-law says, here is what the Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008 says:

_"§  120 
 · 
 Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works 
(a)  Pictorial  Representations  Permitted.&#8212;The  copyright  in  an  architectural  work  that  has  been  constructed  does  not  include  the  right  to  prevent the  making, distributing, or  public  display  of  pictures, paintings, photographs, or  other  pictorial  representations  of  the  work, if  the  building  in  which  the  work is  embodied  is  located  in  or  ordinarily  visible  from  a  public  place. "_

As skieur has already pointed out, you still have to avoid any use or association that could be construed as defamation, but that isn't really a copyright issue.

Best,
Helen


----------



## craig (Nov 20, 2008)

Not sure why you would want to dance around copyright laws and such. Why not just contact the owners of the building and ask permission to photograph it?

Love & Bass


----------



## skieur (Nov 20, 2008)

craig said:


> Not sure why you would want to dance around copyright laws and such. Why not just contact the owners of the building and ask permission to photograph it?
> 
> Love & Bass


 
The term: "Use it or lose it!" is most appropriate when it comes to your legal rights.  Practice becomes enshrined in law, so if you and others  ask permission without needing to, then you will eventually lose the right to take photos without asking permission. 

skieur


----------



## craig (Nov 20, 2008)

That is one way of thinking for sure. Personally I always ask. Never felt I had the right to take a photo without permission. 

)'(


----------



## Helen B (Nov 20, 2008)

craig said:


> That is one way of thinking for sure. Personally I always ask. Never felt I had the right to take a photo without permission.
> 
> )'(



That's a very commendable attitude. I guess that you don't do cityscapes. I just make a decision for the particular occasion - sometimes it seems like the right thing to do, sometimes it doesn't seem necessary or even practical, sometimes I get a signed property release. Whatever you do, it does seem to be worthwhile knowing what the law says, and I wouldn't call knowing the law 'dancing round' it. Every now and then I come across something that I think is perfectly moral and acceptable, but which turns out to be illegal. The opposite often occurs as well.

Best,
Helen


----------



## craig (Nov 20, 2008)

That is correct. I do not shoot city scapes. I like your attitude. And yes yours is the correct approach. Have to say that the law bores me to death. I try and keep my nose out of it. It has worked for this long...

Please do not get me wrong. I fully respect your and skieurs view. I am just not that kind of photographer. I shoot a lot of studio work. When on location everything is predetermined and permission is sought from farmers or local business owners. Interesting side note: trying to line up some beach and desert shoots. I think I am going to have to cough up 60 dollars for the beach shot. The desert... I am not sure about. 

Love & Bass


----------



## skieur (Nov 21, 2008)

craig said:


> I think I am going to have to cough up 60 dollars for the beach shot. The desert... I am not sure about.
> 
> Love & Bass


 
I would hope that the $60 is not for any fee that is NOT required legally. I am putting photos of a private beach into a book I am working on, for example, with no fee or release.

skieur


----------



## craig (Nov 21, 2008)

If the shot has already been taken you are fine. Also I believe this fee only applies to southern cali beaches. The fee I am talking about is a location fee for shooting with larger production teams. I.E assistants, stylists and what have you. Of course I have not looked into yet, but the word on the street is if you get busted it is a $350.00 fine.

Love & Bass


----------



## skieur (Nov 22, 2008)

craig said:


> If the shot has already been taken you are fine. Also I believe this fee only applies to southern cali beaches. The fee I am talking about is a location fee for shooting with larger production teams. I.E assistants, stylists and what have you. Of course I have not looked into yet, but the word on the street is if you get busted it is a $350.00 fine.
> 
> Love & Bass


 
You are correct.  It is for large production teams.  I researched that law and the rationale for it, quite a while ago through reading speeches by those proposing it.

It was due to large production teams that in some cases were interfering with others enjoying the beach or leaving garbage, minor damage or other problems that needed to be cleaned up after they left.

It was not and is not meant to apply to all photographers.

skieur


----------



## roadkill (Nov 23, 2008)

Buildings and structures cannot be copywritten can they?


----------



## craig (Nov 23, 2008)

There was a recent case were a photographer was asked to stop selling his photos with the Churchill Downs Steeple (horse track in the Carolinas) in it. Apparently the famous steeple is copyrighted.

Love & Bass


----------



## skieur (Nov 23, 2008)

craig said:


> There was a recent case were a photographer was asked to stop selling his photos with the Churchill Downs Steeple (horse track in the Carolinas) in it. Apparently the famous steeple is copyrighted.
> 
> Love & Bass


 
Legally, the steeple may be copyrighted against duplication but NOT against photography because of the way the law is written.  The photographer would be stupid to comply.

skieur


----------



## spamtrap (May 10, 2009)

Here's a quick summary helpful to USA based photographers:

COPYRIGHT ACT, CHAPT. 1, Sects. 106-120

USC Title 17 Section 120 is the law which specifies photographs do not violate architectural copyright.

*Sect. 120. Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works*

_  (a) Pictorial representations permitted._ 
_ The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place. _


Rock & Roll Hall of Fame v. Gentile Productions is case law which supports photographers even further, by asserting that photographs don't violate trademark.

Pictures of buildings do not violate trademark - Rock & Roll Hall of Fame & Museum v. Gentile Prods., 134 F.3d 749 (6th Cir. Ohio 1998)


 This is a) the language of the law and b) case law. Don't let comments in online forums and on personal web sites spook you. There is a lot of misinformation on the Internet.

Slightly less reliable than the law is this professional photographer's summary of copyright and trademark law:

Photos of Trademarked and Copyrighted Works

It seems to be accurate except he neglects to discuss USC 17 Section 120; perhaps he wrote this material before 1990 or has a global rather than USA audience in mind. It's interesting to see how contract law (in addition to copyright and trademark) can be an issue with commercial photography.

In any event, the Churchill Downs steeples are 110 years old and therefore not eligible for any kind of copyright protection, as architecture or art. The issue would either be trademark (if the steeple design is a registered trademark of Churchill Downs) and/or contract law (if photography is prohibited as a condition of entry to the property.)


----------

