Liability concerns about photographing buildings

[michael_kravit]

Brian Ellis wrote

 

<p>

 

"A house as such can't, as far as I know, be copyrighted "

Objection - Form

 

<p>

 

Brian,

 

<p>

 

Yes, a "house" can be copyrighted by an architect with respect to

it's design and the architect's drawings. That is to protect the

designer from someone else reproducing or copying the work for hire.

 

<p>

 

And yes, as far as I know as well, photographing a building in the

public domain is NOT a violation of copyright.

 

<p>

 

BTW, an architects copyright extends to his death + 70 years after

the date of publication. I think someone mentioned something to the

contrary or at lease another number of years.

 

<p>

 

Mike

[bert_krages1]

Hello Sandy.

 

<p>

 

Yes I will pitch in on the various issues since you asked for my input. In no particular order and with the usual disclaimers that this is not legal advice . . .

 

<p>

 

1. Buildings do not have privacy rights and do not legally require releases. Furthermore, the editorial/commercial distinction is not really the true form of the legal analysis. Instead, the issue is whether you are appropriating the likeness of another in a way that implies some sort of sponsorship. A dentist who uses a photograph of an actress to advertise his or her services his misappropriating her likeness. The National Enquirer would not be if they used it to illustrate an article about aliens who go around disarranging the teeth of actresses.

 

<p>

 

2. Photographing a building does not infringe a copyright since photographs of buildings are exempt from copyright protection by federal statute. Photocopying an architects drawings and including them in a book of houseplans without the architect's permission would be an infringement.

 

<p>

 

3. Some cases have been brought alleging that photographs of buildings can infringe an owner's trademark. These cases have been rejected by the courts although one court did hold that it is possible to trademark a building. However, the factual circumstances needed to prove this are almost impossible to meet. With private residences, trademarks are not a problem legally.

 

<p>

 

4. Publishers always insist on indemnities from authors since this is their best means of avoiding claims (authors are a lot more careful when they are on the hook). Ask if you can be added as an insured on the publishers libel policy. This usually costs the publisher nothing and the worst they can say is no.

 

<p>

 

Issues such as the different forms of privacy rights, copyright and trademark protection, why simple releases are better, and how to handle jerks are covered in my forthcoming book that I am shamelessly plugging as Legal Handbook for Photographers : The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/158428059X/qid=991688126/sr=1-2/ref=sc_b_2/102-8971438-9216965>

 

<p>

 

My goal is to improve on its rating as Amazon's 1.6 millionth most popular book.

 

<p>

 

Hope this helps.

[sandy_sorlien]

Thanks so much, Bert! I have just ordered a copy of your book.

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

Sandy

[michael_kravit]

Perhaps a bit late, but I finally found the section in the US

Copyright Law that pertains to your situation.....

 

<p>

 

Mike

 

<p>

 

------------------------------------------------------------

120. Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works65

 

<p>

 

(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.

[sandy_sorlien]

Thanks Mike, and Bert, I just received your book from Amazon and have

been reading it --- most useful. In case you want to know how my

negotiations concluded with the publisher-who-shall-remain-nameless, I

did have to sign the indemnity clause, but I got them to add a phrase

stating that if there is a lawsuit, and I am found NOT to have

violated my warranties, the publisher will split the legal costs with

me. I'm reasonably satisfied with that compromise, and no longer

terribly worried about my vulnerability to any legitimate claims.

Now, we just have to work out serial rights.....

 

<p>

 

Thanks for all your input!

Cheers,

Sandy