|
|
Welcome, Anonymous (Profile, Private Messages)
Having trouble signing into the forums? Please [ logout ] and log back in.
 Log in
| Author |
Message |
kenny123
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 3635
Location: Masterton, New Zealand
|
Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:28 pm
|  |
Just found this on one of the RM sites:
Does copyright protect architecture?
In the USA, yes. Before 1990, no problem; after, it's murky. In the USA, architectural works became subject to copyright protection on December 1, 1990. The copyright law defines “architectural work” as “the design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.” 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 Also, any architectural works that were unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings on that date and were constructed by December 31, 2002, are eligible for protection.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. See Circular 41, Copyright Claims in Architectural Works.
The American Society of Media Photographers has written a useful article on Photos Of Public Buildings.
In brief, it says
“In addition to property-release issues, you also need to think about copyright concerns vis-à-vis buildings if they were built after December 1, 1990. Before that, buildings did not have copyright protection and were thus, by definition, in the public domain. Shoot away.
“In general, buildings erected after December 1, 1990 do not pose a big problem either. There is a ‘photographer’s exception’ to a building’s copyright owner’s rights that permits the photography of buildings.”
Regards, Ken |
|
karimala
Joined: 04 Sep 2005
Posts: 2116
Location: Sacramento, CA
|
|
PaulCowan
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 1524
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:39 am
| |
Importantly:
"As long as the building is in a public place, or visible — and photographable — from a public place, there is no infringement of the building’s copyright owner’s rights. This rule includes private as well as public buildings.
When art is involved in the photography of a building, however, there could be a problem...." (i.e. when there is a work of art visible).
This fits with what I've always thought, that the "copyright" on buildings ought to relate to the recreation of the same three-dimensional shape for people to use, not to the creation of a two-dimensional representation of something that is visible to all.
I suspect that the micros have swallowed a misconception in their interpretation of this aspect of the law (but that's just a photographer's opinion). |
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 10878
Location: Our stock and food photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:25 am
| |
| PaulCowan wrote: | Importantly:
"As long as the building is in a public place, or visible — and photographable — from a public place, there is no infringement of the building’s copyright owner’s rights. This rule includes private as well as public buildings.
When art is involved in the photography of a building, however, there could be a problem...." (i.e. when there is a work of art visible).
This fits with what I've always thought, that the "copyright" on buildings ought to relate to the recreation of the same three-dimensional shape for people to use, not to the creation of a two-dimensional representation of something that is visible to all.
I suspect that the micros have swallowed a misconception in their interpretation of this aspect of the law (but that's just a photographer's opinion). |
That is all well and fine but the rub comes in when someone uses the image to make money without the owner's permission. There is no problem at all photographing the building (within the guidelines) the problem comes in with the use of the image for monetary gain without permission. That is the issue that is always tested in court. |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 18977
Location: Books and Class Info, www.rindersmithphotography.com or, www.rinderart.com
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 12:16 pm
| |
| hhltdave5 wrote: | | PaulCowan wrote: | Importantly:
"As long as the building is in a public place, or visible — and photographable — from a public place, there is no infringement of the building’s copyright owner’s rights. This rule includes private as well as public buildings.
When art is involved in the photography of a building, however, there could be a problem...." (i.e. when there is a work of art visible).
This fits with what I've always thought, that the "copyright" on buildings ought to relate to the recreation of the same three-dimensional shape for people to use, not to the creation of a two-dimensional representation of something that is visible to all.
I suspect that the micros have swallowed a misconception in their interpretation of this aspect of the law (but that's just a photographer's opinion). |
That is all well and fine but the rub comes in when someone uses the image to make money without the owner's permission. There is no problem at all photographing the building (within the guidelines) the problem comes in with the use of the image for monetary gain without permission. That is the issue that is always tested in court. |
YEP, thats the rub. |
|
digigandalf
Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Posts: 2579
Location: Twinsburg, OH
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:10 pm
| |
And it's really starting to rub me the wrong way!
Not that they care.... |
|
| |
|
  |
Page 1 of 1
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
|
Shutterstock Forum for Submitters
|
