That quote only tells us that copyright applies to buildings, which I don't dispute. It doesn't say anything about whether a photo (or a sketch or a watercolour) of the building is a violation of the copyright.
Copyright determines who has the right to make copies of a thing. I fail to see how anybody could think a photograph was a copy of a building. -- Cheers, Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 15 August 2005 22:55 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights > > http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html > > "Does copyright protect architecture? > Yes. Architectural works became subject to copyright > protection on Dec. > 1, 1990. The copyright law defines "architectural work" as > "the design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of > expression, including a building, architectural plans, or > drawings." Copyright protection extends to any architectural > work created on or after Dec. 1, 1990. > Also, any architectural works that were unconstructed and > embodied in unpublished plans or drawings on that date and > were constructed by Dec. > 31, 2002, are eligible for protection. Architectural designs > embodied in buildings constructed prior to Dec. 1, 1990, are > not eligible for copyright protection." > > A photograph may not be a "copy" of a building, any more than > a photograph is a copy of a sculpture or painting, but if > sell a photo of it you're violating copyright. > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com > > > >
