OT: Are buildings, artwork, architecture, etc. "copyrightable"?

smhontz wrote on 1/7/2004, 1:01 PM

Since copyright law can best be summed up with "you can't do anything with anything without permission", I was wondering about some things that might be on the fringes. Can I shoot video/stills of public artwork, say, a sculpture in front of my city civic center, and sell it? What about a carnival where someone is holding ballons of Buzz Lightyear or PowerPuff girls? Can I shoot that and sell it? Can I drive around and shoot different buildings, say, different styles of churches, and sell that? What happens if I shoot a picture of people standing in line to see "Haunted Mansion", and the movie poster or the marquee shows in the picture? Can I create and sell a collection of photos of fast-food restaurants? How about government buildings?

Just wondering...

Back to post

Comments

musicvid10 wrote on 1/8/2004, 7:55 AM

I feel I should apologize to smhontz and the rest of the forum for my abruptness. I have since removed the original post. As you know it is not my usual style.

smhontz, I often refer to a book titled "How to Register a Copyright and Protect Your Creative Work" (Chickering, Hartman) published by Scribner. It has probably been revised since the 1987 version I have. There are several other titles at Amazon and elsewhere, and I have found this one to be straightforward and written in plain language. (I know that it does not specifically cover the architecture/public art questions you asked, but reading it or something similar will give you a good feel for copyright practices).

Regarding the videotaping of live performances, most License Agreements contain language similar to the following: "You shall not reproduce any portion of the (Work) by any means whatsoever including but not limited to photocopying, video and/or audio recordings, or storing any portion of the book, music, lyrics, or choreography in a retrieval system. You shall not broadcast or transmit any portion of the (Work) by any means whatsoever, including but not limited to television, radio, satellite, pay or cable television. You hereby acknowledge that the unauthorized creation of any video, film or other audio-visual, or sound recording, tape or transcription, including video tape, video cassette, video disc or any other reproduction of your performance is expressly prohibited by law and can result in prosecution." As a producer, having signed this contract and being asked if an audience member could video tape the performance, can you guess what my answer would be?

After decades in the live music business and some education experience, I should have known better than to spout off with a simplistic response. However, the best practical advice is still -- "Just ask. The worst they can do is say no."

mark2929 wrote on 1/8/2004, 10:20 AM

I cant understand the idea that the NY Skyline was built a specific way to sell the image. Absolutely no consideration was given to how it was going to look on Camera and therefore to sell film rights to it is just a way to make money and provide no service. In other words its a con on the part of the city. Where else would you pay for nothing recieved? So how about if I say Im copyright and you have to pay to look at me or my belongings. Ooops some stars already do or try too.

Oh by the way this post is copyright and I want royalties. Should be a millionare in no time now. This Post may be Flippant. But so is every daft copyright and daft law. {Not so daft for the people trying it on though) And courtroom where adherence to rules is more important than justice.. Rules are for guidance not for robotic enforcement. I want to live in a fair society with a free press. Tempered with legal action for THE press publicly lying or people that lie to the press. Not one where copyright makes everyone afraid. The internet transcends borders and boundaries. Is it fair to penalise American or any Countries citizens when the rest of the world can get away with doing it.

KEEP THE internet free its a meeting place for the world. Lets encourage that. I Wonder how much the internet would be worth if someone could control it. And we all had to pay them a wedge. Its really Galling to buy music Cds vids dvds ect and be a participant in making the stars famous. Whilst I am a nobody in the claim to fame. Then have them tell me Im breaking the law because I have Videoed taped /stolen there work. And taking the bread out of there mouths When I have nothing. And they have fame money respect. what else can we fans do lay down and be walked on.

I reckon that if artists want to criminalise kids or anyone for copying with recorders then they should keep there work to themselves and dont share it I will go back to singing songs round the piano in the pub Of course when someone is trying to make money from someone elses work then I totally agree that should be Rigidly controlled

JL wrote on 1/8/2004, 12:18 PM

"Shooting the LA cityscape or NYC skyline without a release is a lawsuit finished before you shut down the camera. They have copyrighted their images."

Does this apply strictly to commercial endeavors or to everyone alike? What if say, Dad gets some vacation video of Mom and the kids standing next to the Statue of Liberty with the NYC skyline in the background, does that mean that technically he is a law-breaker? Taking it a step further, what if Dad then makes a dozen DVD copies of the NYC footage and distributes them to the in-laws?

farss wrote on 1/8/2004, 2:06 PM

After my previous post I had a bit more of a think about how silly the idead that you can copyright the image of a building is.
Lets just take Vegas. It's copyright as is all the other elements that make it up, the manual, the box design etc. That doesn't extend to images of it. There are screenshots from it everywhere, in published books, on web sites and in magazines. Product catalogues include images of the box it comes in. None of this breached Sony's copyright.

I can make a movie with a Ford car in it. The design of that car is copyright, doesn't stop me making an entire movie with a Ford car as the central character. If the movie was derogatory then perhaps they could sue for damages but not for breach of copyright.