When shooting for stock (or any commercial photography for that matter) do you ever run into trouble with the owner/architect/resident of a building claiming that the distinctive appearance of a building is their trademark/copyright and you cannot use it without permission? I'm just curious where some of these lines are drawn.
I'm wondering the same thing, I went the other day to public access park, with this beatiful bulding, but when I was getting ready to take the pictures, they told me that if I wanted to take any pictures, I need to pay a $100.00 fee, claiming that it was private property =(
I'm wondering the same thing, I went the other day to public access park, with this beatiful bulding, but when I was getting ready to take the pictures, they told me that if I wanted to take any pictures, I need to pay a $100.00 fee, claiming that it was private property =(
YOu should, "well, I'm just taking a picture of the skyline here, but I'll edit your building out of the photo, and maybe put a black rectangle in its place." ;-)
I'm wondering the same thing, I went the other day to public access park, with this beatiful bulding, but when I was getting ready to take the pictures, they told me that if I wanted to take any pictures, I need to pay a $100.00 fee, claiming that it was private property =(
If you were on public property (the sidewalk, park) they can take their $100 fee and ... well ... stick it where the sun don't shine.
If you are on private property, they can prohibit you from taking pictures. If you are on public property, they cannot, however they can prohibit you from using the images commercially (without permission). Use for a photography class would not be commercial use.
So, for example, lets say I wanted to submit this picture to someplace like Istockphoto:
Unique and identifiable buildings in the city where I live.
Or say this one, which is a fragment of Tandy corporation's headquarters campus:
Would they accept it? Is it ok as long as someone related to the property does not object, or do all images have to be neutral and non-distinctive? If the latter, I can see stock photography being very difficult for many kinds of photos.
Here is a Special Releases List of properties which you cannot use commercially (e.g. as stock, or for mass reproduction on things like cards or t-shirts or on a website) without a property release.
Note that places like malls are private property, even though open to the public, and the owners may place uniform restrictions on photography. However, if photography is prohibited, they must give you reasonable notice, and they can never require you to erase or hand over your photos.
You might want to familiarize yourself with (and carry a couple copies of) The Photographer's Right by attorney Bert Krages, or even buy his Legal Handbook for Photographers if you anticipate shooting professionally.
neither copyright or tm protection really apply here. (If you take the picture and then use it in some obviously wrong way, you could cause a problem though.)
If you aren't allowed to take a picture, it is for some other reason.
I was incorrect. Thank you GeneralIE for the links and info.
yospiff, it appears that if you took the pictures of something that is ordinarily visible from a public place, then you are in the clear. read below for an explanation.
""Section 120 further limits the scope of exclusive rights of the copyright holder. A holder of a copyright in an architectural work does not have the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of [pictorial representations] of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.25 Without this limitation, photographers, film makers, artists, and even tourists might be infringing every time they depicted a copyrighted building in their work.""
//tlc.usm.maine.edu/cli_admin/journal_pdf/vol_000_issue_000_article_005.pdf
I was incorrect. Thank you GeneralIE for the links and info.
yospiff, it appears that if you took the pictures of something that is ordinarily visible from a public place, then you are in the clear. read below for an explanation.
""Section 120 further limits the scope of exclusive rights of the copyright holder. A holder of a copyright in an architectural work does not have the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of [pictorial representations] of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.25 Without this limitation, photographers, film makers, artists, and even tourists might be infringing every time they depicted a copyrighted building in their work.""
//tlc.usm.maine.edu/cli_admin/journal_pdf/vol_000_issue_000_article_005.pdf
Looking at the quote you cite, there is no legal means to copyright a building in the US in a manner to prevent photographs of that building. There is no clarity regarding "for profit" or not.
