Hypothetical: Art, Architecture and Copyright - Who has it?

Umbran · Jan 14, 2019

dragoner said:
Nonsense.

Logic or citation, please.

Copyright does not allow for reproduction of text - that is not nonsense. So, you need to give a reason why the building and sculpture are not similarly protected.

I note - you have to license the right to commercially produce an image of the Empire State Building. They even have an easy web page to apply: http://www.esbnyc.com/business-esb/licensing

So, how is this substantially different?

Rabulias · Jan 18, 2019

The text contents of books are not on display 24-7 for anyone to see (and read) walking by, like a building is.

I could take a photo of the Empire State Building and give it to someone without any trouble, by my reading of their form. Doing so with the (entire, or even significant portion of) contents of a book is a no-no.

I would say that the photo would belong to the photographer. It is a unique work that cannot be exactly duplicated by another photographer. Even from the same location with the same equipment and film, and at the same time of day, it can never truly capture that one moment in time.

Dannyalcatraz · Jan 18, 2019

Here you go:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/copyright-architectural-photos.html

TL;DR answer: barring the triggering of certain specific exceptions, the photo belongs to the photographer.

Jhaelen · Jan 18, 2019

Dannyalcatraz said:
Here you go:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/copyright-architectural-photos.html

TL;DR answer: barring the triggering of certain specific exceptions, the photo belongs to the photographer.

Well, this wasn't about architecture, but I quite clearly recall a court decision, that someone wasn't allowed to post a _rendering_ of a trademarked perfume flask, citing the laws about taking photographs since a (photo-realistic) rendering was basically identical to a photograph (something I strongly disagree with, which is why I recall it).

I'd also like to point out that the site you linked describes US laws. In Europe laws may be different. E.g. I also recall a conversation where a friend mentioned you weren't allowed to post photos of the Eiffel-Tower while it's lit, because the lighting is copyrighted (or something...). I didn't verify if he was correct about that, but this also struck me as a rather stupid ruling, since what makes the Eiffel-Tower's lighting special is the 'animation', i.e. the different patterns, which isn't something you couldn't see on a photograph.

Dannyalcatraz · Jan 18, 2019

I'd also like to point out that the site you linked describes US laws. In Europe laws may be different.]

Of course I did, I’m an American attorney. And yes, the rules may differ in other jurisdictions.

I will point out, though, that due to international treaties, there’s more gross similarities between intellectual property laws of Western nations than differences.

As I recall, @S’mon is a lecturer in IP law in the UK. Perhaps he’ll volunteer some info.

dragoner · Jan 19, 2019

Jhaelen said:
Well, this wasn't about architecture, but I quite clearly recall a court decision, that someone wasn't allowed to post a _rendering_ of a trademarked perfume flask, citing the laws about taking photographs since a (photo-realistic) rendering was basically identical to a photograph (something I strongly disagree with, which is why I recall it).

This is strange, as fine arts photographs are usually protected similar to paintings, see Robert Maplethorpe's work, and I thought that the OP probably would not have asked the question if it were a painting being sold in a gallery.

Ryujin · Jan 19, 2019

Umbran said:
If it were that simple, you could take readable photos of pages of a book, collect them, and sell them as your own. That clearly fails.

If, however, you were to take those pages and make a collage out of them, or make the open book a centre piece of a display, that would be transformative and fair use. It doesn't need to be a small segment of the work, as you previously stated, for it to be transformative. Entire works have been lifted for "art displays", with minor alterations if any, and have been ruled to not infringe copyright. It's abhorrent, but true.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/may/27/suicide-girls-richard-prince-copying-instagram

Ryujin · Jan 19, 2019

Jhaelen said:
Well, this wasn't about architecture, but I quite clearly recall a court decision, that someone wasn't allowed to post a _rendering_ of a trademarked perfume flask, citing the laws about taking photographs since a (photo-realistic) rendering was basically identical to a photograph (something I strongly disagree with, which is why I recall it).

I'd also like to point out that the site you linked describes US laws. In Europe laws may be different. E.g. I also recall a conversation where a friend mentioned you weren't allowed to post photos of the Eiffel-Tower while it's lit, because the lighting is copyrighted (or something...). I didn't verify if he was correct about that, but this also struck me as a rather stupid ruling, since what makes the Eiffel-Tower's lighting special is the 'animation', i.e. the different patterns, which isn't something you couldn't see on a photograph.

Yes, I hinted at this earlier. The Eiffel Tower, lit and shot at night, is under copyright in several European nations (obviously France being one).