Who has the right to sign the copyright form for photographies of buildings: the photographer, the owner or the architect

Dear all,

 

a months ago, a colleague, based in Canada, wrote a call for photos

for reinforced concrete buildings around the world (in construction or

readily built).

 

As I have travelled a lot, I had many photos of such buildings, in

both situations, from various countries in Europe. So I let some of my

slides to be scanned at a local photo shop and sent them.

 

First she asked if I made all the photos, otherwise I don't hold the

copyright. So far was fine, I made the photos.

 

But today she said she cannot use any of the photos I made in

Switzerland, because there the owner holds the copyright, not the

photographer (I had photos of a railway station, both from inside and

outside).

 

And she said I shall ask my colleagues or professors if the same

situation does not apply maybe for Germany also. I asked a colleague,

and he said that he heard of photographer(s) being sued, when they

photographed an especially artistically relevant building, because the

copyright would belong to the architect. But of it belonging to the

owner he never heard.

 

Now from the copyright law, which I read, I recall that what is

publicly displayed may be photographed, even if it is a sculpture, and

the artistic architecture work was probably falling in that category.

For ordinary building sites there is no such mention.

 

I browsed the photo.net forums and found numerous thread on this

topic, but they did not go behind the three ideas I have outlined above.

 

One of the buildings in question in Germany is the one I inhabit. The

architect of others is my diploma professor - I could ask him, but I

guess then he would want to have in the book photos made by a better

photographer than myself ... And finally there is the building site of

the library of the university I am enroled in.

 

I am giving away the photos for free, and with non-exclusiv copyright.

 

The question I wanted to put is already in the subject actually.

Shall I go ask the professor (the architect) for copyright (he can be

found on Wednesdays, usually)? But if it is the owner who holds the

copyright it is more complicated, as the buildings I photographed have

different owners. Shall I also ask the owners of the house where I

stay in? And eventually try to find out with whom to speak for the

images of the university library? And I have an image of the Einstein

tower in Potsdam, the architect is dead since long; the tower is on

the property of the GFZ where I actually know somebody I could ask,

but she is in vacation and will not be back before the CD my Canadian

colleague is preparing will be sent to the publisher.

 

Strangely, she did not ask how is the copyright law in Romania,

although I sent her an amount of images from there also ...

 

thanks for any ideas

Maria

 

PS: to be honest I got scared reading the whole threads on copyright

of architectural work. Until now I've put without further thoughts

photos of buildings in any scientific articles I wrote ...

It probably differs from country to country. And I'd guess that the end-usage of the image comes into play. If it's for editorial purposes, I'd imagine that there wouldn't be any copyright issues, but for advertising purposes there would.

 

Your best bet would be to contact a copyright lawyer in each of the countries and simply ask. Don't rely on what I or anyone else here tells you. Especially me, because I'm just stating what would be logical to me, it may (and probably does) have no basis in truth.

 

I do know that, for example, the Chrysler Building in NYC is a copywrighted building, however there are many others in NYC that aren't.

You are asking some very broad legal questions which are better answered by a lawyer

versed in the intellectual property laws of the particular countries yo uhave a question

about. In general, in the USA, a photographer holds the copyright to the images he or she

creates until the prographer transfers that copyright to another person or entity.<P><I>I

asked a colleague, and he said that he heard of photographer(s) being sued, when they

photographed an especially artistically relevant building, because the copyright would

belong to the architect. But of it belonging to the owner he never heard.</I>

<P>Copyrights are like any other piece of intellectual or real property -- the owner of

the property can do with it what they wish, including selling it or transfering it to someone

else.<P.Use i na textbook is usually considered "fair use" and is allowed by clauses in

intellectual property laws. <P>In general none of the people you have asked for opinions

--including your colleague --know what they hell they are talking about.

Thanks for the answers.

 

The call was for photos for a CD which accompanies a book to teach students design principles.

Actually one of the authors of the book said me to ask a colleague or professor ...

 

I assume that to ask a lawyer is an expensive matter - ie I will be paying to have my (in this case photographic) work published :( [i was used to pay to have scientific articles published: either the journals have a service fee, or there is a conference fee and publication in the proceedings is if you attend the conference and pay this] unfortunately I can afford this less and less, since I don't have an income since a year and my next contract is approved, but not sent yet.

 

I am somehow unhappy that I get to know this after spending 2 weeks mainly with sorting slides searching for reinforced concrete buildings around the world and then for another slides to fill up until 80, which is the number the photo shop puts on a CD :( :(

You could contact the relevant govermental agency in the different countries for an answer

as opposed to hiring a set of attornies. If there is a large national organization of

architects in those countries , similar to the American Institute of Architects (AIA), you

canask them to research the matter There may even be an organization like "Lawyers for

the Arts" in each of those countires who may be able to answer your question as well.

I don't understand why you're offering all these images for free. This book (and the CD) is a for profit publication, is it not?

Hi Carl,

 

thanks for the answer.

Well, the copyright form quasi (3rd row) starts with:

 

Estimated selling price: $84.95 Print Run: 9000

 

so I guess it is for profit.

 

But, I never published photos. I only published scientific articles. And for scientific articles in conference proceedings I paid the conference fee, and for those in an open journal (no subscription necessary) I paid services, except when I applied for a bonus. Some were surprised about this as well.

 

On the other hand, in Germany there is VG Wort (= valorification society word) which pais the authors of scientific (and other) articles, for granting them with the right of getting some money from libraries and similar who are putting the work of the author available to make photocopies etc.

 

There is also a VG Bild (valorification society image), about which I know a little, but I supposed the VG Bild pais for such photos, not the scientific publication. Maybe I am wrong

 

I know some more about the VG for sound, as I organised fashing parties etc on large scale and we needed their approval so a band sang 2 hours publicly.

 

 

 

@ Ellis

 

I wrote also in the Baunetz forum, which is the internet platform for architects in Germany, maybe they will answer tomorrow (evening here now). And will try to reach my diploma prof. (I graduated in architecture) on Wednesday, when he uses to be available (most photos from Germany are from his buildings).

 

kindest regards

Maria

You seem to have something that has commercial value. Don't give it away. The more this happens, the more people think that all photos have no value, and so they take what they want, including images off the Internet.

 

The stock photo industry has serious problems. Be part of the solution, not the problem.

I would hope the colleague has contacts with the end publisher and that the publisher has a competent legal department - and they should be doing most of the heavy work. In any event, laws do vary from country to country. I would certainly take any agreement that they offer to you that indemnifies them to your own counsel before signing. And not take any responsibility for other's pictures.

 

What you might want to have available for discussing with the attorneys is the sourcing of your pictures (you took them, the countries, etc.), the nature of the book (textbook, coffee table book, professional organization), the publisher, etc.

european law: you have the copyright of your photos in each case but you need to ask permission to the architect to use your photos for commercial use but for educationnal purpose it's not necessary to ask for.<p>

 

note Swiss is not part of the european union<br>

laws are made unclear to allow lawers to do a living from trial<br>

it is better to ask either to a lawer or to your photographer union (they offer often free advice).

<I>laws are made unclear to allow lawers to do a living from trial

</I><P>A statement which just demonstrates how little you know about the practice of

law.

Dear all,

 

thanks again for all the answers.

 

So far I found out that there is an "object release" similar to the "model release" in case somebody photographs people, just that in case of the model one knows better whom to ask, and in case of an object there are more actors.

 

In any case, the more I know, the more I get scared - I hope one does not need an "object release" for all the holiday photos included in an internet gallery ...

 

@Craig

It is a textbook. This stays in the copyright text I've got. However, I don't have the slightest idea what a textbook, a coffee table book etc are and what is the significance of this.

I think the author of the book has good contacts to the publisher - after all, the letter she sent has the logo of the publisher on the top.

 

@Mondiani

Thanks for mentioning "european law". I have a very good friend who is a lawyer and specialised in European Law. She is not in Germany and thus I haven't asked her yet, but good idea, thanks. The lawyer of the university where I am have not replied yet.

 

thanks again

Maria

A textbook is a book used for educational purposes, the reference material for a class and used in a school setting. A "coffee table" book is a an art book, usually large, with an emphasis on the pictures, generally used for enjoyment and often left out for casual use on a "coffee table" which is a low table and used in a sitting room or a living room, parlor, etc. It's often used to hold coffee services in a social or casual environment and is low enough to allow easy reach from those sitting near it while carrying on conversations, watching television but without interfering with the visual activities or conversations.

 

The copyright laws in the United States can allow for use of materials copyrighted by others in some ways but the end use of the material may affect how much can be used without direct permission.

In France it's illegal to photograph somebodys building without their permission.

Andrew, I think that's a bit of a broad sweeping statement. It can be applied anywhere in the world.

 

One needs to discern between private and public property. Most commercial buildings fall into the realm of the latter. Cannot image that the photographers of all those picture postcards featuring the Eifel Tower, the Louvre, etc. sort permission to either photograph those structures let alone in getting them published.

 

Photographing people's houses are an entirely different matter. Likewise with some hotels and resorts and other structures that may offer public access but are still considered private or off limits. Hospitals, some civic buildings and military establishments may fall into this category. Again, circumstances and legislation may vary from country to country. HTH

Dear all,<br>

<br>

thank you very much again for all the answers!

Special thanks to Craig for the explanation on the kinds of books.<br>

<br>

I finally understand why there aren't so many architectural photographers.<br>

<br>

For the record (case anybody will read the archives later on, for example), I read the "Rights of the author" law in Romania:

<br>

<a href="http://www.osim.ro/web/editura/legea_8_96/capitolul_6.htm">Law 8/1996, chapter 6: "Limits of enforcing the author's rights" (aprox. translation)</a>

<br>

(link is directly to the corresponding article).

<br>

Article 33, (1) h) states that the reproduction or publication of the image of an architecture work, or other art works, permanently set into public places is permitted, except for commercial purposes or if the image is the main subject.<br>

<br>

So actually the Romanian law is much more severe than the German one, where there is the so-called street or panorama freedom, including for commercial purposes ...

<br>

But even in case of the more free German law, unfortunately my photos did not fall into the street freedom - some were taken during organised excursions on private property or looking out from private property (permitted photography, no doubt, but usage is another question), or they were even temporary (exhibition items or building sites).<br>

<br>

It would be interesting to know what is the case visitor's photos within some cultural places (ex. gardens of ...) - it seems from something I found yesterday that English Heritage considers putting a photo of Stonehenge on a web site is similar to commercial use, when completing their forms ...<br>

<br>

@Carl The author of the book who contacted me now sais that I deserve a very special copy of the book after so much effort ... Well, in the meantime not even I think that a copy of a book which I actually can get bought for the actually not an exorbitant price, is really worth running to get all other permissions to see my photos, let alone it isn't print, but on accompanying CD [the German VGs for example only register print, not electronical ...] :(<br>

<br>

Maybe the whole work I've put into this "photos of a certain kind of buildings" issue will still lead to a result, not in the book of my Canadian colleague, but in the book I plan for the second year of my upcoming project instead, and printed :) ...<br>

<br>

thanks again<br>

Maria

No problem. I think sometimes we forget just how interestingly international these forums are and just how odd slang and idioms can be when someone tries to translate them.