Hypothetical: Art, Architecture and Copyright - Who has it? - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11
    Mod Squad
    Pit Fiend (Lvl 26)

    Umbran's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    34,493
    Quote Originally Posted by dragoner View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Umbran; Monday, 14th January, 2019 at 06:05 PM.

  2. #12
    Member SILVER DEFENDER
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)

    Rabulias's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Fairfax VA
    Posts
    519
    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.
    Rab the Incomparably Shrewd and Clever

  3. #13

  4. #14
    Member
    Grandmaster of Flowers (Lvl 18)



    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz View Post
    Here you go:
    https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...al-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.

  5. #15
    Member
    Titan (Lvl 27)

    Dannyalcatraz's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Planet Alcatraz & D/FW
    Posts
    39,388
    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.

  6. #16
    Member
    Defender (Lvl 8)



    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    424
    Quote Originally Posted by Jhaelen View Post
    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.

  7. #17
    Member
    Superhero (Lvl 15)



    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Brampton, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Umbran View Post
    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/artandde...ying-instagram
    Last edited by Ryujin; Saturday, 19th January, 2019 at 01:30 AM.

  8. #18
    Member
    Superhero (Lvl 15)



    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Brampton, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Jhaelen View Post
    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).

Similar Threads

  1. Drow Architecture
    By The Mad Kaiser in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: Sunday, 15th July, 2007, 10:42 PM
  2. Fantasy Architecture
    By Poisoner in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: Thursday, 29th January, 2004, 04:19 PM
  3. Clip art of architecture
    By Jürgen Hubert in forum *Varied Geek Talk & Media Lounge
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Wednesday, 17th September, 2003, 03:34 AM
  4. racial architecture
    By alsih2o in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Saturday, 29th June, 2002, 08:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •