Printing and legal issues.. - DPChallenge Forums

04/03/2003 01:00:18 PM · #1

I have taken some photographs of a church in my area, with the knowledge of the church directors. The church is on the National Register of Historic places, which lists it as privately owned.

Am permitted to sell my photos of this church?? The director with whom I spoke did not know how to answer this question. I have read a number of articles on the internet, but have found no reasonably "clear-cut" answers.

04/03/2003 01:12:04 PM · #2

If it's with their knowledge, can you get a property release?

"We _____________ allow ___________ to create and own all rights to her/his photographs of ______________."

__________
signature

?

04/03/2003 01:15:58 PM · #3

I believe that if you took the photo from a public place, you can do whatever you want with it. It's not likely that there are any copyrights on the architecture...

04/03/2003 01:24:59 PM · #4

Actually that's not correct. The United States signed the Berne Convention in 1988 and Article 2 says that there does exist copyright in architectural works. Copyright exists at the moment of 'creation' so when the building is done being erected, it's copyright protected, as far as I can tell. Get the release if you can.

Message edited by author 2003-04-03 13:25:44.

04/03/2003 01:26:46 PM · #5

Originally posted by mavrik:

That's true, but the building in question would have to have copyrighted architecture for it to be an issue. Copyright doesn't exist unless someone claims it...

Chances are that the architect that designed the one in question is dead...

Message edited by author 2003-04-03 13:27:23.

04/03/2003 01:31:05 PM · #6

That's possible. Copyright is life of author + 50 years. His estate could have a claim..etc. It's all fact-based at that point. The point is, if they know about it, they probably won't sue anyways, at which point you could sell pictures of anything you wanted. If they know and are ok with it, get the release. If not, you are taking your chances about facts that are unknown to anyone here, including me. If it's a VERY old church, shoot away, I guess.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/03/2003 01:34:31 PM · #7

//www.creativepro.com/book/search/557.html

:)

M

drewmedia

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

04/03/2003 01:53:35 PM · #8

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Copyright doesn't exist unless someone claims it...

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure this is not true. I did a research paper or two on intellectual property, and if you make it, you own it. Just to double-check myself, I visited the World Intellectual Property Organization...

Originally posted by WIPO:

Do you need to register to be protected?

Copyright itself does not depend on official procedures. A created work is considered protected by copyright as soon as it exists. According to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, literary and artistic works are protected without any formalities in the countries party to that Convention. Thus, WIPO does not offer any kind of copyright registration system.

However, many countries have a national copyright office and some national laws allow for registration of works for the purposes of, for example, identifying and distinguishing titles of works. In certain countries, registration can also serve as prima facie evidence in a court of law with reference to disputes relating to copyright.â��

Now, whether architecture design is considered artwork may be a question...

-Drew

Message edited by author 2003-04-03 13:54:31.

04/03/2003 01:58:50 PM · #9

You are right... you DO own it whether you hold an official copyright or not, but unless you have filed a claim to the copyright with the US, you are unable to sue for financial loss over use of the 'whatever is in question'.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/03/2003 02:03:47 PM · #10

Why not approach the owner and offer them say 10% of the profits to the upkeep of the building ? They might even want to buy some / help you sell them. That way you not only get the legally right approach but you help them out too. (Being able to advertise it with 'some proceeds help the church' probably wouldn't hurt sales either...)

04/03/2003 02:07:15 PM · #11

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Close, but no cigar. You can sue for damages, but you must prove your actual damages. Registration entitles you to attorney fees and is a prima facie (on its face) evidence of copyright ownership at a specified date.

In this case, it's not hard to show that the owner of the building had copyright before the picture was taken. The church may not get attorney fees and it may not be worth it to sue, but they have some kind of case for damages. If you sell one dpc print for 15 bucks, nobody is going to sue you. If you become a bigshot artist or try to sell it at some stock photo shop, they may have issues.

04/03/2003 02:12:00 PM · #12

Originally posted by Gordon:

Double edged sword. If they think there's a significant market, they may want more before signing any release.

04/03/2003 02:12:33 PM · #13

Originally posted by mavrik:

As far as I can ascertain, this does not apply to buildings that were constructed pre-1900 in most cases.

Originally posted by Gordon:

This seems like a good idea to me. They have already indicated that they would like some of the photos to use on their website. Thanks Gordon!

Thanks for the replies. This seems a pretty sticky issue to me. Mavrik, the book you linked to looks interesting, I may just have to get that.

04/03/2003 02:20:26 PM · #14

My source of information must be wrong. There is an article in the March issue of Popular Photography that covers these issues... I'll have to dig it out and I'll post a couple quotes from it later...

04/03/2003 02:32:46 PM · #15

Originally posted by mavrik:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
You are right... you DO own it whether you hold an official copyright or not, but unless you have filed a claim to the copyright with the US, you are unable to sue for financial loss over use of the 'whatever is in question'.

...If you sell one dpc print for 15 bucks, nobody is going to sue you. If you become a bigshot artist or try to sell it at some stock photo shop, they may have issues.

No worries then!

Message edited by author 2003-04-03 14:33:06.

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D

04/03/2003 02:33:29 PM · #16

*Can a property owner prevent me from taking pictures of his building... from the outside?

"If you are taking pictures from a public place, the owner does not have the legal right to prevent you from taking photographs." (Pop Photog p. 73-74, March 2003)
------------
However, the owner does have a legal right to prevent you from selling them.

By the way, I would HIGHLY suggest this Pop Photog article for anyone who hasn't seen it.

M

mcrael

Nikon D300

04/03/2003 02:34:32 PM · #17

Originally posted by mavrik:

//www.creativepro.com/book/search/557.html

:)

M

I thank you also for posting the link to this book. Any comments as to whether this book is appropriate for Canadian photographers? Does this book cover International, or just US law?

Linda

04/03/2003 02:37:53 PM · #18

I think I misinterpreted what the magazine said:

Popular Photogrpahy - March 2003 - Page 73-74
Article: "It's The Law" by Victor Perlman, attorney for the American Society of Media Photographers

"Can a property owner prevent me from taking pictures of his building, car, ect., from the outside? What about from the inside?

If you are taking the picture from a public place, and the subject is visible from that place, the owner does not have a legal right to prevent you from taking photographs (although you could end up with damaged equipment and/or anatomy). The answer is different if you are taking the picture inside or on private property. There, the owner gets to make the rules, and if he/she/it says no photos, then you can't take photos."

********

"What is the advantage of copyrighting a photograph, and how do you do it?

You copyright a photograph the moment you click the shutter, assuming that the camera is loaded with film (or some digital image-capture medium). You do not have to do anything else. However, if you ever plan to do anything with any of your pictures beyond putting them in a photo album or up on your walls, you should register them at the U.S Copyright Office. If you ever have to sue someone for infringement, you MUST registger before the suit, and there are huge advantages to registering early. Registration generally costs $30 a time and may include more than one image. The Copyright Office has lots of informaiton available, both in print and on the web."

*******

Now, the original response I made to this thread was based on my interpretation of the first quote. But, i concede that the quote does not address a copyright issue... it just addresses your legal right to take a photograph. It doesn't address your right to sell it.

Based on what the second quote says, I don't know what the answer is to the lawsuit issue. I would assume that building architecture would fall under the same copyright laws as a photograph. If it's not registered with the copyright office, you can't sue for infringement. I could be wrong if the same laws don't apply to architecture and photography...

04/03/2003 02:52:15 PM · #19

From US Copyright Office:
Does copyright now protect architecture?
Yes. Architectural works became subject to copyright protection on December 1, 1990. The copyright law defines "architectural work" as "the design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings." Copyright protection extends to any architectural work created on or after December 1, 1990, and any architectural work that on December 1, 1990, was unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings. Architectural works embodied in buildings constructed prior to December 1, 1990, are not eligible for copyright protection. See, Circular 41.

I originally thought that buildings prior to 1900 were not eligible for copyright protection, but finally found the paragraph above stating that the year is actually 1990.

However, based on this thread, I feel that the best course of action, in my case, is to discuss this with the Rector of the church in question, especially in light of the fact that they want some of the photos.

Message edited by author 2003-04-03 14:52:38.

04/03/2003 03:04:21 PM · #20

I went to look so as not to be wrong, but the US has ratified the Berne Convention as of 1988 which says that all previously copyright protectable works under Berne (including buildings) are protected, so Berne gives protection for all works protectable as of 1971.

Still not a long time, but if the author died in 1955, he would have rights under Berne until 2005.

I like your solution best - I just want the most accurate info out there for everyone. If I'm wrong, I'd love someone to post how (truly). I know we have other legal professionals - would love to hear their comments, too. (or anyone lol)

goodtempo

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/03/2003 03:51:20 PM · #21

mavrik,
Does the Berne Convention mean the design of the building is copyrighted so someone else can't use that design to build their own similar building or so someone else can't take photographs of the design and sell the photographs, or both?

Originally posted by mavrik: