At 05:28 PM 8/15/2005, Bob W wrote:
I don't deny that buildings can be copyrighted. I do deny that a photograph
of a building is a copy of the building.
If you're sued for making commercial use of a photo of the building I
strongly doubt that it because of a copyright violation.
--
Cheers,
Bob
In the USA, making the photo might be considered a "derivative work" under
copyright law. You don't have to make copies of a copyrighted work in its
original medium to infringe upon the original copyright. If I create a
sculpture, and you come along and sell lots of photos of my sculpture
without my permission, I think that qualifies as a "derivative work" and
you would be infringing on my intellectual property. I know that people
have painted pictures, and later successfully sued photographers who
created very similar photographs. I also know that the reverse has
happened. Some painters have been successfully sued for selling paintings
which were too similar to an existing copyrighted photograph.
There is at least one more thing to consider. Buildings can also be
protected as a trademark, if the company uses a likeness of the building to
uniquely represent itself, or one of its product lines. So, even if you
didn't get sued for copyright infringement, you might get sued over a
trademark infringement, if the likeness of that building was registered as
a trademark.
I wonder what happens if a person takes an aerial photo of a city, or even
just a distant photo of a city skyline, which happens to incorporate one of
these buildings? What are the rules then? Would this be fair use?
Is it just me, or is this is all getting too complicated for mere mortals
to keep up with?
take care,
Glen
