Copyright on Statue of Liberty?

dimitri_wijesinghe · April 25, 2009

Hi,

I'm an assistant to a NYC based photographer. We have a project coming up that involves photographing the Statue of Liberty for commercial use. Does anyone know if the Statue of Liberty is protected by copyright. Are there any royalties to take commercial pictures of it?

Thanks

-D

nsfbr · April 25, 2009

http://www.loc.gov/wiseguide/oct04/statue.html

I don't think the copyright is still in effect though.

Charles_Webster · April 25, 2009

Permits and/or insurance may be required. See this

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/29/131824/788

A quick google search found this and many other references to commercial photography permits in NYC.

<Chas>

peterblaise · April 26, 2009

.

I would think that the proprietors of the Statue of Liberty would answer your questions best.

But, seeing representations and reproductions of the statue of liberty everywhere on everything, including used car commercials and insulting parodies, I get the message that it's in the public domain -- have at it.

They are your pictures and therefore your copyright after all.

Let us know what you find from people who think they are responsible for the Statue of Liberty and for protecting it's interests.

.

william_supko · April 26, 2009

The Statue of Liberty is part of the National Parks Service (<a href="http://www.nps.gov">www.nps.gov</a>) and I believe that is considered to be public land so there would be no need to get a release from the government for it's use. Not 100% sure though. As for getting permits to shoot in NYC I don't believe you need them anymore (you may need one from NPS). From what I understand some out of country visitors were shooting in NYC and the cops arrested them for doing so without a permit, the city was sued and the law was changed. It's hard to tell for sure though because you can still go to the city's website and apply for a permit.

peterblaise · April 27, 2009

.

Permits are for possession and control and responsibility of public property, such as when wanting to cordon off public area for shooting a movie or film. If we do not seek sole and controlled access, no permit is needed. It is not a permit to photograph, as there can never be such a thing since prohibiting photography is, well, prohibited (First Amendment thing, and so on). The permit is for exclusive access , and cannot be denied, but is there to (a) coordinate with others who might want access, and (b) provide an avenue of responsibility for caretaking and damages (liability).

Again a permit has nothing to do with photography ; a permit is only to coordinate controlled or limited or exclusive access.

If we are not trying to cordon off an area for our exclusive use, then any "cop" telling us we need a "permit" is from Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, or the like, and should be send home to one of those places. If that cop protests that they truly are American, then have them go home anyway and take some time to read their own Constitution, Bill of Rights, and so on.

.

craig_gillette · April 27, 2009

What the NPS and other agencies do is control the activities connected with the "expression," even if not the content. However, the NPS and other agencies can and do deny access and permits. Incidentally, we all know that photography can be prohibited, just like speech can be prohibited.

http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DOrder53.html

The statue itself is public property and not protected by copyright as such. It's even used in some commercial trademarks. However, the best people to contact are the local representatives (at the site Superintendent level) with specifics of your project, the types of uses or special access, etc., that may be needed. If dealing with other than NPS units, the agencies involved should be contacted as well.

Keep in mind that while the Statue of Liberty is associated closely with New York, some of the NPS facilities are in New Jersey. New York City permit processes can be found at the (New York City) Mayor's Film Office site but would not apply in either New Jersey nor federal properties, etc. Also, while the statue is not copyrighted, public agencies can and do control the amount of accomodation or assistance they may provide based on the value of cooperation to the agency, etc. Implying federal or other agency support or use of agency logos, gear, badges, etc., may be controlled and goverment endorsement should also not be suggested or implied without permission.

steve m smith · April 28, 2009

Even if it was still within its copyright period and assuming it is treated as a work of art, taking a photograph of it would not constitute a breach of copyright.

peterblaise · April 28, 2009

.

No, public photography cannot be prohibited by any law, only by proscription of the owner of private property while on their property, and even then eviction and suit are the only remedies.

Actually, there are 3 statutory proscriptions or prohibitions on photography in Title 18 (?) -- can anyone help me re-find them (stable web links would be GREAT!)? I know that none of them apply here.

... and let's not fall into the perennial confusion between taking a picture and publishing a picture -- two totally separate areas of law. Yet, we have no censorship or prior restraint, so even publication is not prohibited until after successful suit against something that has already been published, then subsequent publication is actionable directly by the judge, though still not "against the law", just against a judge (which can be worse than breaking a law, prosecution and penalty wise!).

.

peterblaise · April 28, 2009

.

Aside from this link being to EXPIRED policies (policies, NOT LAW) of the US National Park Service:

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DOrder53.html">http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DOrder53.html</a> </li>

</ul>

... I take note of absolutely NO prohibitions on PHOTOGRAPHY. I can't believe they quote the Bill of Rights, but I suppose it's instructional for their own staff !

"... The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

<ul>

<li>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. </li>

</ul>

8.1 General. Freedom of speech , the press, religion, and assembly are rights, not privileges . However, the courts have recognized that activities associated with the exercise of these rights may be reasonably regulated to protect legitimate government interests. Therefore, in order to protect park resources, the NPS may regulate certain aspects of First Amendment activities, such as the time when, the place where, and the manner in which they are conducted. NOTE: It is the conduct associated with the exercise of these rights that is regulated, and never the content of the message.

--- continues ---

permit is required for any filming or photography that:

<ul>

<li>involves the use of a model, set, or prop; or </li>

<li>requires entry into a closed area; or </li>

<li>requires access to the park before or after normal working hours. </li>

</ul>

<ul>

</ul>

--- continues ---

permit is not required for:

<ul>

<li>A visitor using a camera and/or a recording device for his/her own personal use and within normal visitation areas and hours; or </li>

<li>A commercial photographer not using a prop, model, or set, and staying within normal visitation areas and hours; or </li>

<li>Press coverage of breaking news. This never requires a permit, but is subject to the imposition of restrictions and conditions necessary to protect park resources and public health and safety, and to prevent impairment or derogation of park resources or values..." </li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

----------

No, we don't "... all know that photography can be prohibited, just like speech can be prohibited ..." -- in fact the opposite is true in my experience and reading of US history.

Funny, this thread is about the Statue of Liberty ! =8^o

.

craig_gillette · April 28, 2009

Peter is rushing farther off into the weeds and away from the topic. Peter suggests he doesn't know of legal restrictions on speech and expression. OK, everyone but Peter knows. The Fist amendment is not blanket permission for all speech or expression nor does it protect one from the consequences of illegal or foolish acts or expressions. I'm sure he actually knows that photography can be and often is restricted or prohibited in a wide variety of places, public and private. Like courts and military installations. The production or possession of child pornography is illegal. One can not stand up and shout from the viewing galleries of the Capitol nor can you take pictures in a number of areas in the building. His original generalization was wrong. Discussion of it is off topic and pointless.

http://home.nps.gov/applications/npspolicy/DOrders.cfm

Incidentally, as he searches about for Title 18 references, here's one that shows that D.O. 53 remains current as it hasn't been superceded:

"Sunset Date: December 31, 2006 (or when superseded)"

peterblaise · April 28, 2009

.

Agreed, Craig, we may be responding to each other and not to the opening poster, somewhat.

Dimitri, is any of this informative on your understanding on what the US Government cannot do regarding your photography free speech rights, especially regarding your opening questions? Note that copyright is a publishing question, not a photography question.

----------

And there are never royalties required to take pictures of anything -- royalties are a licensing question on the use of someone else's copyright, and again, a publishing question.

----------

Dimitri, do you have three opinions from local, experienced, successfully practicing IP Intellectual Property photography and publishing lawyers? What do they say when you ask them? Please share their responses with us to help complete this thread and make it referential for others. Thanks.

----------

Note, "Sunset Date: December 31, 2006 (or when superseded)" means it's retired by now, 2009, regardless ... and it could have been retired earlier if it were superseded earlier, who knows if it was? Either way, retired or superseded, it's neither extant now, nor law ever (and never was law, but was merely internal processes and rules of the National Parks Services). It does not say, "Forever or when superseded" , which would make it current. It says, translating, "This expires at least by the end of 2006 unless it is expired earlier by being replaced by something newer, and this expiration policy is an incentive for the head of the agency to keep the rules contemporaneous or die." It's 2009. It's dead. But, it does't matter -- it was an excellent example of NOT restricting photography, only controlling access, as I said; and not law, only policy.

----------

Craig, in an effort to help Dimitri and "... everyone but Peter [who somehow just] knows ... ", please find an authoritative statute that countermands the Bill of Rights -- thanks. There's no law forbidding photography in courts -- that's up to individual judges. Same with military installations, where I photograph all the time, as does anyone living there taking family pictures of their kids in the back yards, preparing stores for renovation, documenting construction contract fulfillment, documenting accident scenes, and so on.

----------

BUT, together, we may be onto something -- Title 18 (?) -- and the act of photographing (not possession of photographs) certain things taken in private (NOT public) without permission or of under-age people regardless, and certain (but which , specifically, by statute?) military installations, and perhaps one other photographic prohibition, probably CAN be found if you or others join in the search.

I'm trying to help define the difference between "can be restricted" and "law". I have it here somewhere, under Ansel Adams and Bruce Fraser and Andrzej Dragan and so on ... argh!

.

peterblaise · April 28, 2009

.

Earlier: "... The Fist amendment is not blanket permission for all speech or expression nor does it protect one from the consequences of illegal or foolish acts or expressions.... "

</blockquote>

RIGHT! The first amendment, and the entire Constitution is NOT permission given to citizens by a government, but is permission given to government by citizens, and we didn't give our government permission to restrict free speech! Let's not get "we the people, of the people, by the people, for the people " backwards. We don't get nothin' from the government -- have already have everything, We give the government any powers it has, and the Constitution et cetera delimits what we give, not what we get. Not vice versa !

Dimitri, shoot away, and publish away!

(It's really very, very funny that this is about the Statue of Liberty ! Really!)

.

christopher_m · April 28, 2009

I hope you aren't planning a low level flyover of the Statue. It didn't go over very well when Obama tried it.

peterblaise · April 29, 2009

.

Craig,

I think you and I are just assessing different approaches authorities take, and arguing semantics. Let's put this in real-world terms:

Conditions: Dimitri goes to photograph the Statue of Liberty ,

<ul>

<li>- maybe brings a tripod (or not), </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>- maybe shows up early or stays late (or not), </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>- maybe gets off the beaten path (or not), </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>- maybe brings a large case of spare lenses (or not), </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>- maybe brings an assistant (or not), </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>- maybe brings someone to pose (or not),</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>- maybe stays in a boat in public waters and never gets near National Park Service land (or not). </li>

</ul>

Then, some self-identified (or not) local authority tries to stop him, and says, either:

<ul>

<li>(a) You can't photograph here, now, with that (whatever).</li>

</ul>

... or:

<ul>

<li>(b) You need a permit to be there, now, with that (whatever).</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

In case (a), there is no authority to prohibit photography, a free speech right, and so the self-identified (or not) local authority has no authority to arrest Dimitri's behavior based on a presumption that Dimitri intends to photograph .

In case (b) there is authority to manage access , especially access to usually non-public areas, during non-public hours, with equipment, and (for some unimaginable reason) with a model -- all regardless of what Dimitri actually does with that access. Perhaps Dimitri forgets film or memory cards and just uses an access permit to enjoy the view of the Statue of Liberty from off the beaten path with no crowds and has a box lunch with his assistant/model -- no photography involved. After all, a permit does not require that Dimitri be efficient and productive with his time when using the permit, so he can use the permit to scout how the monument looks at different hours from different angles, and so on, all without taking any photos if that's what Dimitri wants to do with the permit.

The access permit and photography are unrelated.

I imagine that you, Craig, see (a) and (b) above as a distinction without a significant difference, since in either case, the "authority" is effectively prohibiting Dimitri's photography.

I see the difference between (a) and (b) as a world of difference, the nuances of which direct Dimitri and the self-identified (or not) local authority to their appropriate goals -- photography is none of the self-identified (or not) local authority's business, but access outside the normal public access is a reason for further dialog, negotiations, and perhaps a reason for Dimitri to register with the National Parks Service (secure a permit).

----------

I hope I have accurately identified the specifics of our disagreement, Craig. If anyone sees additional reasons for Dimitri to be concerned or prepared, please pitch in. For instance, prohibitive actions by the self-identified (or not) local authority could be seen as restraint of trade if they prohibit one photographer (or any photographer) and not others, or prohibit photography at all. I'm amazed at the photographers who, in a publicly accessible arena, shyly put their cameras away when told "no pictures" by some self-identified (or not) local authority, where a journalist would be up in arms against someone like that telling them to put away their notebook, "No writing in public here". BS -- photographers need to stand up waay more for our Constitutionally protected free speech rights.

Dimitri, please follow up and let us know how your Statue of Liberty photography project progresses.

.

craig_gillette · April 29, 2009

No, you are arguing and I am ignoring you.

The statue is not under copyright protection. It was, however, copyrighted.

http://www.loc.gov/wiseguide/oct04/statue.html

There is no charge to take and use the picture. What one can't do is imply the government endorses the product, etc. The statue or derivatives are obviously and often used commercially (like Liberty Mutual and those tax guys with the green robes and foam crowns).

The government, city or cities, both states, and the Feds, like any property owners, have the right (and duty) to manage their assets, control access, manage multiple uses, and prevent damage to the property. So the various agencies have the right to control access, times and uses and charge if necessary to accomodate special uses. The Statue can be shot from freely accessible airspace, the nearby land or water. Some of these areas are government or private property or under security controls. If he has to enter the properties to shoot from or support his project, he needs to coordinate with the owners.

So, if they can't shoot from freely accessible space, they need to coordinate with the owners to use their property. The best place to start is with the NPS and describe to them the special uses they might need.

Since one can readily contact the agencies involved to get direct and hopefully accurate information, that's the place to start. Or they can land on the monument at night in wetsuits from a black inflatable raft and procede on an exciting and educational journey through the legal system.

peterblaise · April 29, 2009

.

Thanks for your insight, Craig. You're correct in noting that we are not arguing -- in fact we are agreeing, finally, mostly.

The only "caution" or "caveat" I add to your previous post is that (a) the "local authorities" may not know their own rules nor the real law, and (b) their own rules may be inappropriate and not legal.

That's what we have courts for -- to submit ourselves and our legal arguments to a third party for a decision. If you can't get what you want from the NPS and you feel they are acting inappropriate, sue. Nothing wrong with that. But, hardly the case yet in this thread, as Dimitri has yet to report on what is their plan and expectation.

Have fun, Dimitri! Let us know what your soot will be all about.

.

Sign In

Copyright on Statue of Liberty?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in