i'm sure this happens allot....subject wants to control image

[fallia]

in this case the "subject" is a landmark....i was photographing "Rowan Oak". A guy from inside (tour guide) saw me set up my tripod and camera and came out to speak with me wanted to know who i was (nobody) and what i was going to do with the image (nothing)...they like to protect or attempt to control the image of the place...i have seen several photos in galleries, magazines etc.

The tour guide told me the only reason he spoke to me was the tripod and bag of gear....they don't stop anyone from shooting but they want to put you on notice that they somehow consider themselves to have a say in images that are published (which i'm sure they do though i don't know how that plays out)...i'm sure this is not unique...i should write the executor of the estate and get a clarification/determination

i'm sure this will come up again, shooting somewhere where its forbidden or governed...how do you know....what do you do?

[NathanFranke]

Check their website, if they have one. Most of the botanical gardens where I live are really strict for professional photographers. If you're amateur, taking pictures for "personal use", then you're fine. But the moment you get up close with a macro lens on an SLR, then you have to pay a fee (see here for an example). If it's not on their website, continue shooting with impunity until someone points you to the right documents saying you can't do it.

[OsmosisStudios]

As long as youre on the sidewalk or street, they cant do a thing. They could, conceivably, block any sale of prints or other things if they can somehow show that the building/grounds are covered by some kind of copyright/trademark/intellectual property.

[dlambert]

Originally Posted by NathanFranke

Check their website, if they have one. Most of the botanical gardens where I live are really strict for professional photographers. If you're amateur, taking pictures for "personal use", then you're fine.

Interesting. I was just at a conservatory here in Columbus yesterday. They had a sign up about photos being for personal use only, and I can't find a blasted thing on their web site. I guess it would be nice to have the option to pay the one-time fee to be able to sell photos, though -- there were some pretty cool subjects there.

[jpnatale]

If it's any kind of private property (it's not a publicly owned park bench) you can't sell any kind of licensing or rights to the image without a property release (here where I live, anyway [Delaware]). If you're there legally/paid to get in/are allowed to take photos at all, you can use the photos in your personal portfolio, but not a business portfolio. It's (usually) the exact same as taking a picture of a person. You're allowed to, but you need their permission to use it for anything useful.

If I'm not mistaken, you would be allowed to sell 'artistic' prints of the image, like at a craft fair.

[RELum]

Originally Posted by jpnatale

If I'm not mistaken, you would be allowed to sell 'artistic' prints of the image, like at a craft fair.

Where does this come from. I have read A LOT of copyright law, and I've never seen this. People keep mentioning this little "loophole". Maybe I missed it in the copyright code, but regardless I can't find it. Anyone with the details, please do share.

Russ

[Skoropada]

A little off-topic (but not that much)

The Alot is better than you!!!

[DanaLane]

Copyright law can be tricky and confusing. You're better off going to experts than asking here.

Check out Carolyn Wright's blog, Photo Attorney for more information.

[GreggObst]

"Personal use" is so vague these days. What does it really mean in the end ? In this day and age when most photos are shared online, they can't really expect you to not put them in Flickr or 500px or share them on Facebook. Do they really expect you to sit all alone in a darkened room with your photos ? See, very vague. I wish they would just come out and say "not for commercial use" or "not for sale" and remove the ambiguity.

[andyw]

Originally Posted by RELum

Where does this come from. I have read A LOT of copyright law, and I've never seen this. People keep mentioning this little "loophole". Maybe I missed it in the copyright code, but regardless I can't find it. Anyone with the details, please do share.

Russ

That is NOT a part of copyright law - that is why you have never seen it in the "copyright code".

That applies more to people shots and as there is no copyright on a person then copyright cannot be infringed by making a photographing, painting, sculpture or whatever of that person.

In the US specifically, but also many other countries, there are "rights" that a person has over how that image (or whatever is used). Commonly called "personality rights" where an individual has a right to control the commercial usage of their image.
Although in the US again, that "right" is governed by state rather than federal law.
That is why everyone bangs on about getting model releases for any recognisable person.

However, and there has been legal precedent (Nussenzweig v. diCorcia by the NY supreme court), in the case of "artistic" works that permission is not necessary.
That is the reason people say that for "artistic" purposes it is ok.


The commercial use of images of objects or buildings taken on "private" or public land can come under copyright or trademark rules.
Officially copyright law applies on sculptures, buildings etc and thus taking a picture (which is effectively making a copy or derivative work) would be an infringement. It generally accepted though that taking a picture of a building is "ok".

Commercial use of those images though, especially when taken on private land is a different matter and the commercial usage can and often is restricted or at least something for which you have to pay a "license" for.

In the UK there has been massive complaints and campaigns against the National Trust who try and control any and all commercial use of any images taken on their land even including images of landscapes where they own the land.


Copyright exists on buildings, sculptures etc and the "rules" on photographing or including them in photographs for commercial use are confusing to say the least.
If they are in public and they are incidental in the work then fine, if they are on private or public land and the main focus of the work then both copyright and trademark laws can apply,

It is potentially a minefield

Plenty of stuff on the www about all this
Sculpture.org
Buildings Copyright and Trademarks | PhotoSecrets
Untitled Document
Photographer Sued Over Photo of Statue: Copyright Infringement? - Florida Patent Lawyer Blog
Photographing Copyrighted Work - Can you or not? | TZPlanet.com