Photoraphing the Catholic Church

[windrider86]

I just had a rather unsettling phone call from a member of the Catholic church that upset me.
You see I had done some pretty amazing photos of the inside of the church. Not during any ceremonies of course and have sold them.
I was told that doing this was illegal and that the Father is a very influential man and I need to be aware of this.
Isn't it legal to photograph and sell scenery such as this? I read thru the photographers laws and didn't see anything that pertained to a situation such as mine.
Comments???

[Eastree]

Photographs from within?

Did you get permission?

I can easily assume you weren't told to stop xD

As far as I can see in the situation, there's really nothing they can do if you're not using the photographs for marketing purposes, and just selling prints. Basically, it's a too-bad-for-them situation.

I could easily be wrong, but as I'm already running a little late for something, I won't go into details about why I think this way.

[kuvahmagh]

Private property is generally off limits but at the same time the church supposed to be open. Were there any signs or expectation of privacy involved, I doubt it but those are the cases that come to mind.

I have shot the outside of our local diocese and actually been invited inside to shoot it.

[TheDarkReaver]

They could be on to something if I've interpreted this correctly: The Law for Photographers / Travel Photography Law / Legal Issues of Taking Photos

This “Photographer’s exception” to the copyright-owner’s rights applies only to buildings, a category which includes houses, office buildings, churches, gazebos, and garden pavilions. The exception does not apply to monuments (protectable as “sculptural works”) or other copyrighted works, such as statues and paintings.

If I remember correctly then catholic churches are normally full of paintings and statues, so it could all depend on stuff like that I suppose. Plus the inside is technically private property

[windrider86]

No, i was not asked to leave and in fact was asked by Brother Harry for a print.
Inside private property? Guess that's all int he interpretation.

no signs, no nothing.

[Jim Poor]

Actually, there is no law against photographing private property in the US.

Ask the person who wrote you to cite her references.

[candleman]

as far as i understand, it is private property, and you cant sell them without a property release from the owner.

its sortof like selling pics of a person without a model release.
you can take pictures of anybody on the street.. doesnt mean they can be sold though.

Originally Posted by Jim Poor

Actually, there is no law against photographing private property in the US.

Ask the person who wrote you to cite her references.

i think its different when you sell the images afterwards... could be wrong.

[windrider86]

so, how do you sell photos of a barn or a flower in someones garden?
How is it ok then to sell photographs of a wedding? Or the many thousands of church photos you see for sale all over the world?

[TheDarkReaver]

David Shirks at Goliath's Threat – Photos of Property | Photo Attorney

This one also seems to suggests that statues may be a problem.

An increasing number of organizations are complaining about photographs of their property. A list can be found on the Picture Archive Council of America’s website. They make all kinds of claims – trademark violations, trespassing, property ownership/control – but none of them are supported by law except for protection of other copyrighted works (statues, but not buildings) and in a very few cases, trademark infringement/dilution.

Of course all this depends on what your pictures are of and if there's anything in them that may constitute something like as mentioned above, and if so how old they are etc.

edit: After researching the church it seems that it's about 125 years old...you might not have a problem with copyrighted statues after all.

So I'm guessing you don't have a problem, especially since there was no objection from the staff there at the time.

[Jim Poor]

Originally Posted by candleman

as far as i understand, it is private property, and you cant sell them without a property release from the owner.

its sortof like selling pics of a person without a model release.
you can take pictures of anybody on the street.. doesnt mean they can be sold though.


i think its different when you sell the images afterwards... could be wrong.

In the case of people, you absolutely CAN sell them without a model release. "Commercial use" doesn't mean image sales, it means use as advertising or endorsement.

You can sell prints, books etc all day long with no model release.

I'll admit to being a little fuzzier on property releases, but it's easy enough to find out - ask your lawyer. I'll do that next time I talk to her.