Taking photos of buildins legal or illegal?

[aleman]

Hello guys,

I need your opinion on this: I took some photos of buildings for a publishing company.
They need the photos as art work for their boOKs, is it ok for me to just sell the photos to them?
I* had read a legal document from a lawyer saying that is OK as long no address or name shows on the photo.
I would like to now your opinion on this subject.

Thank you.

[jfrancho]

In the USA, if they were taken from public property, then no property release is required. If taken from private property, then a release is required. As with anything legal, consult a lawyer. They'll probably tell you, "it depends."

[Mithras]

The photographing of privately owned buildings may require a property release depending on when it was built. I seem to recall that any building built after sometime in the 90s would fall into this category. You also need to be careful about copyright issues of any brand names or other company symbol that is visible.

As an example - if you can see the McDonald's emblem in the photo then you also need permission from McDonald's. If there is any recognizable (meaning it is discernable what it is, other then just a blurry background) art work in the photo then you may also need the permission of the artist of that art as well.

This is a copyright issue and you should be able to find more information at the Copyright web site or office for your respective country.

[JohnC]

A place to start some research is http://www.krages.com/bpkphoto.htm

But consult an intellectual rights attorney directly insted of relying on web-based information.

[aleman]

Thank you guys,

The photos were taken in LA, I got a legal form from a lawyer and it is says pretty much what you are saying.
I just needed to be know if I'm in the right track.

Thank you again.

[bevilaquafoto]

I am certainly no lawyer, but I know that there is a big difference between shooting pictures of buildings for editorial use i.e. news stories, etc. and deriving profit from the sale of pictures of private property. A property release needs to be obtained before selling pictures on a for-profit/stock basis. A good source for further information on this is to visit the website of the American Society of Media Photographers at http://www.asmp.org

I also found this page that has a quick overview of releases both for property and models:

http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/releases/

[bevilaquafoto]

Here is another ASMP article on property releases:

http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/r...ropertyRel.php

[karaya]

U.S. Copyright Law in fact does allow for photography of buildings that are in public view. Buildings are covered under Architectural Works of U.S. Copyright. The part as to photography of such works reads as follows:

"(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."

Now this means the building must be in view from a public place such as a city street or park, but you need to be careful as to what is on the building or property which may be a violation of copyright. For instance works of art that may decorate the building or sculptures on the lawn are likely to be provided copyright protection. So check out what is on and around the building that may be in your image first.

Ray

[Jim Sykes]

Originally Posted by karaya

U.S. Copyright Law in fact does allow for photography of buildings that are in public view. Buildings are covered under Architectural Works of U.S. Copyright. The part as to photography of such works reads as follows:

"(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."

Now this means the building must be in view from a public place such as a city street or park, but you need to be careful as to what is on the building or property which may be a violation of copyright. For instance works of art that may decorate the building or sculptures on the lawn are likely to be provided copyright protection. So check out what is on and around the building that may be in your image first.

Ray

Yes, but what I have highlighted in bold does NOT include being able to sell the works created, it just says displaying.

If you are going to use something in a commercial application, you still likely need to get permission to do so.

Just as you walking down the street does not keep me from being able to take a photo with you in it and display, say in an exhibit. However, I still do not have the right to use your face on the front of a can of coffee in an advertisement to sell that coffee that would suggest you drink or endorse it.

Using a photo and using it commercially are two entirely different things and therefore have two different requirements for their use.

[karaya]

Copyright Law only deals with reproducition of works and not the legalities of sales. I agree with your example of the coffee can since that is clearly used to promote trade or commerce.

Permission for commerical use would apply in the case of using the building to promote trade or commerce (advertising). If I took a nice image of the building and wanted to sell it say in limited quantities then that would be considered art and generally speaking a release would not be required. How many images of the New York skyline have you seen on calanders, wall hangings, web sites, etc.? There is no way a release for every building in the skyline and that includes the Empire State Building.

Famous photographer, Charles Gentile took some beautiful night time images of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and sold them as posters for $40 to $50 each. Knowing they (Rock and Roll Hall of Fame) could not nail him for copyright since that is legal they filed suit on the grounds of trademark violation. Basically in the end the United States Court of Appealss ruled in favor of Gentile since the image on the poster was not being used to "distinguish any goods" that Gentile was marketing or manufacturing that may cause confusion as to the true trademark owner.

Many photographers are confused and mistakenly assume that the exchange of money means "commercial use". Money or not, commercial use applies to using the image to promote trade or commerce, in other words, advertising. This would be using a person's likeness (which includes property) to promote or endorse trade and that requires a release.

A great site to check some of this out in more detail is PhotoAttorney

Ray

[karaya]

I just looked again at the first thread and realized he wanted the building photos for a publishing company for art work in a book. This is considered editorial and therefore no release would be required. However even with editorial content, copyright laws must be observed.

Ray

[badpickev]

karaya, is that the case where the court said if you didnt want people looking at your building, you should not have built it?

[karaya]

Originally Posted by badpickev

karaya, is that the case where the court said if you didnt want people looking at your building, you should not have built it?

Yeah, it goes along with looking at your face while walking down a public street.