Selling Prints of Historic Buildings/Sites

[codyford]

I see other photographers selling images/prints of historic sites and buildings. Is there a simple legal view on this?

I've seen threads on this topic on other sites, but there was never a clear legal opinion. The only viewpoint I could get was that if the photo was taken from public access then it is fair game to sell.

There are many examples, but I'll give one: The Alamo. Prints and images galore for sale. Hard to believe they purchased rights to sell those prints, but I could be wrong. (Or they could be selling them illegally.)

Thoughts?

[darrenwilson]

I don't have an answer for this, but chimed in because I want to know too.

I was at the Taos Pueblo a few days ago and shot this pano (click here) that I thought turned out great. Unfortunately, I paid the "amateur" shooter's fee to get in and shoot, and don't think I have any legal standing to use it commercially.

In my case, I think I am out of luck. But what if I (or codyford) were in a public space?

[ggeen]

this is a good question and just jumping in here so that if there is a good answer I can see it. The thought crossed my mind because several years ago I stopped and photographed the old Thurber Station. It was torn down this year (2010) so all that remains is the old smoke stack.

I thought that some ol' timers might like to have some pics of the old Thurber Station. They look especially nice in B&W.

[Steelsun]

Usually it is OK to shoot and sell prints of older buildings.

The big exceptions are newer buildings or trademarked buildings (of which there are actually very few). Suits have gone both ways on this.
Some "buildings" that are "protected" include the Eiffel Tower (but actually only it's light display at night), The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, the Hollywood sign, etc.

Check out photoattorney.com and this: NewsletterArticlesTop 10 Misconceptions about Photography and the Law: A Conversation with Attorney Carolyn E. Wright

[ggeen]

Thanks for the link Brian.

[codyford]

Thanks Brian!

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by Steelsun

Usually it is OK to shoot and sell prints of older buildings.

The big exceptions are newer buildings or trademarked buildings (of which there are actually very few). Suits have gone both ways on this.

The copyright on newer buildings does not apply to photography, there's an explicit exclusion in the law. As for trademarks, I'm not aware of any cases where a photographer has lost such as case, can you cite one? It's my understanding The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame lost their case. Trademark protection is different from copyright protection, the fact that a trademark happens to appear in a photo incidentally doesn't automatically mean infringement, it would have to be shown that the photo dilutes the trademark's meaning or causes confusion.

Some "buildings" that are "protected" include the Eiffel Tower (but actually only it's light display at night), The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, the Hollywood sign, etc.

France is screwy. :) As you mentioned, it's the light display that's copyrighted as a work of art and cannot be reproduced. Daytime shots are fine. I'm not sure about the Hollywood sign, but that's not really a building, either.

Check out photoattorney.com and this: NewsletterArticlesTop 10 Misconceptions about Photography and the Law: A Conversation with Attorney Carolyn E. Wright

She points out there's never been a successful case of going after a photographer for photographing a building from a public viewpoint. The only case I recall hearing about was one where the photographer trespassed to get the picture.