Building/architecture copyright

[craig]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Buildings and structures cannot be copywritten can they?

 

[craig]

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]

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]

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.)