[woffa151]

Maybe a dumb beginner's question, but someone told me that a lot of buildings around the world are copyright - ie you need the building owner's permission to publish shots of them. Is this correct? If so, how do you know which buildings are "copyright"?

[fionaB]

yep unfortunately its true, however there are limits, its not just a case of not being able to use any shots with a particular building in it, its more if the building is the main subject matter.
things like the gherkin in london and the London eye are both copyrighted but u see pics of them all the time............ and as to how to find out. sorry, i havent a clue, I would shoot them anyway! lol

Fi

[stepheno]

Taken from this site.

Question

Can you copyright/trademark buildings? What if the architect is not dead - can you photograph the buildings? Can you design another building to look like another building?

Answer

Architects drawings are copyright. The building itself is not, so you can photograph it. If you used the architect's own drawings and amended them, then that is infringement. If you started from scratch but deliberately chose to mimic a design, then you are probably okay. It would be advisable to consult a copyright lawyer at this point in time!

[PeteT]

We need to be a bit careful here - woffa51 is based in New Zealand, the web site extract is from a UK site - the law may be different in New Zealand.

I understand that in the US for example, if you take a picture in which the building is the main subject, you need to obtain a release form from the buildings owner to commercially exploit that photo - in the UK you do not.

In the UK, you cannot be prevented (except in very limited circumstances related to national security etc) from taking a picture of a building and exploiting it, provided that the picture was taken from a public place. If you have to enter onto private property to take the picture, the owner of that property is entitled to place whatever restrictions on photography he likes, including the payment of fees, requiring his written permission etc.

[stepheno]

Originally Posted by PeteT

We need to be a bit careful here - woffa51 is based in New Zealand, the web site extract is from a UK site - the law may be different in New Zealand.

Fair point, Pete

[LJR69]

Need to be very careful. The laws are convoluted and varied between different regions (even within the same region). For example, in the US all buildings built after 1999 are copyrighted! In India you are not allowed to photograph bridges (as these are considered military defenses).

In the UK the law permits a photographer to take a photo of buildings, people, etc from a public place - in other words you can take a photo of what you would see with your naked eye while in a public place. There are of course exceptions to the rule such as military basis and buildings (and railway stations in times of war). However if you climb a fence or wall, or sit on a gate or something which forms part of that property in order to take the shot then you would be considered trespassing. Furthermore if you enter onto private property legally (e.g. when visiting a museum, or a stately home) and take photo's when this has been forbidden in the terms and conditions of gaining entry then the second you use your camera you are trespassing.

The only way to know whether or not you are permitted to take photos and use them of property is to understand the laws of the country/region where you want to take the photos and where possible request permission from the owners.

[VinnyP]

It's also important to remember that although you don't breach copyright you may still need a property release to use the pictures for a commercial reason and most agencies will expect to see one for commercial use.

[Charlotte]

In UK (and probably, mostly universal ) :

If you are standing on public ground (e.g.the high street) :
You can photograph any building you like. It's not the taking of the photograph but the usage of the photograph which is under restriction. Put simply, you may not make money from a photograph of any privately owned building without the permission of the owner. Beware, such buildings can include museums, churches, and other buildings which you might think are public buildings! Think of it this way, just about everything in this world is owned by someone.

If you are standing on private property :
Get permission to take photographs. It is just simpler to do this, to avoid any questions or arguments later. No hassle, just ask the nearest official if it's ok or not. Most tourist-related places will display a notice in this regard in any event. I never understand the fuss people make about asking permission, honestly what's the hassle in asking; it's courtesy as well as saving a whole lot of hassle later.

[VinnyP]

Originally Posted by Charlotte

Put simply, you may not make money from a photograph of any privately owned building without the permission of the owner.

AFAIK you CAN make money but the usage is restricted to editorial use. I don't think all those postcards of London landmarks got a property release or indeed the "London from the air" books. If they had a choice I imagine Tramps would not let Newspapers publish photos of the it girls falling out of there in the early hours either.

It is a criminal offence to take pictures "Within the precincts" of a court most Newspaper togs would fall foul of this if it were strictly enforced as per the case law.

[Larne]

What do you mean when you say "editorial" use?

[fionaB]

hmmm good dicussion.......... as far as I am aware as long as the image was taken from public ground then you can do what you want with the image. doesnt matter if the image is a private building or not ( i was sure the gherkin thingy was copyrighted but not to worry).............. and i think its not only foreign countries that there are differences in.............there are no trespass laws in Scotland, and we also have the right to roam which includes for the purposes of recreational and some commercial activities which would arguably include photography.

[Charlotte]

This thread is bringing on a "de ja vu" of an in-depth discussion coupla months ago along these same lines ... This is where I bow out 'cos I already said quite a lot on the subject here and don't fancy getting into it all again ... hope you find that discussion useful woffa151

[Majik Imaje]

first of all, anything in what is considered a public place OUTSIDE,, can be photographed with no permission needed.

Now for selling those same photos, no matter what they are, has certain restrictions, but if it is being used for educational purposes, no model release, nothing is needed.

you can do what ever you want !!

[LJR69]

Anybody remember the british tourists being arrested in Greece and charged with espionage because they shot photos which had parts of a greek military air base in them?

Be wary of blanket rules such as that stated above and understand the limitations and restriction of the country you are photographing in.

That would be my advice.

[Majik Imaje]

military bases and public buildings are two entirely different aspects !!

Please do not turn this into some argument !

Public buildings !! outside views... Miliatry installations always have a sign !!!