This is in response to a question posed privately and it’s a question that is asked often. Copyright protection arises automatically when an “original work of authorship” is “fixed in a tangible medium of expression”. A work is “original” in the copyright sense if it owes its origin to the author. So a photograph of the World Trade Center is original so long as it was created by the photographer. There are no doubt millions of photos taken of the WTC not including those taken on 9/11. Minimal creativity is required to meet the originality requirement. No degree of alleged artistic or technical merit or skill is required. An amateur has as much right to file a registration as any professional photographer. Buildings created on or after December 1, 1990 are protected by copyright. A copyright owner has the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted work, and photographing a copyrighted work is considered a way of reproducing it. You might need permission to photograph a building as frequently commented on by us when we deal with the ever popular property release issue (see below).
Generally speaking, only buildings created after December 1, 1990 are protected by copyright. The copyright in an architectural work does not include the right to prevent others from making and distributing photos of the constructed building, if the building is located in a public place or is visible from a public place. Generally you don’t need permission to be in a public place and photograph a public building. There may however, be trademark issues at play. For example use of the Empire State Building in an ad for “Empire State Fashions” without a release, contract or consent from the building owners may lead to legal disputes likely resulting in a trademark action.
You don’t need permission to stand on a public street and photograph an office building, sports stadium or mansion. This so-called “photographer’s exception” to the copyright-owner’s rights applies only to buildings. Works of art, sculputres, monuments, painting and so on have their own protection. You ought not assume you can photograph such works, and publish and distribute them especially for any commercial purpose.
Take a look at our article entitled “A Day at the Zoo” for Photoshop User Magazine for a more expansive commentary on shooting in public.
Jack & Ed
#1 by Dan Schumacher on September 23, 2010 - 4:21 pm
If an artist has a series of paintings of historical landmarks and buildings (many listed on the Registry of historic places), and you where to photograph some of the same locations from the same general prespective (and perhaps enhance them with Photoshop – but not attempting in any way to reproduce the look of the painting), is there any form of enfringement? Either copyright, derivative work or protected expression?
#2 by Eddie on July 15, 2011 - 5:50 am
I have a question. I know a person that likes to think of themselves as a professional photographer by selling their work online. The problem is that they sometimes sell photos that contain other peoples artwork. And in the link supplied above the photo is explicitly of someones artwork. Could you please help me tell here in a nice legal way that this is a no-no.
Thanks
#3 by Jack and Ed on July 18, 2011 - 11:45 pm
I’m not sure I understand the question when the subject cemetery image is viewed. So as simply put as I can make it: if your buddy’s photographs embody or represent another person’s work in an other than incidental manner, he/she might be subject to a lawsuit for copyright infringement. Incidental use such as using a registered photo comprising the poster for a Broadway show which is not the focal point of the shot but remains visible in the background a photo of a street scene of Times Square, would likely qualify as an incidental and non- actionable use. A photo of the same poster which is now the focal point of and encompasses the majority of the “new” image (from say, “Phantom of the Opera”) used to sell theatrical or Halloween costumes in Pennsylvania and on the net, would very likely be copyright infringement. In the second instance the offender is clearly employing, copying, appropriating, trading on and/or as I like to call it -stealing the creative work of another person. Think of it this way – just don’t use other people’s creative work period. That way you can avoid lawyers period.
Ed
#4 by Jessica on August 23, 2011 - 8:24 pm
You said people are allowed to photograph public buildings in public places, but what about art in an art gallery or museum?
I always assumed museums said “no flash photography” because it damages the life of the art. Is it actually because the art is copy righted?
#5 by Murray on January 25, 2013 - 8:14 am
Hi,
My question is:
Does a drawing of a famous landmark infringe on a copyright law or trademark law?
I recently drew a building based on the Empire State Building I included decorative motifs, dishes and aerials found in similar locations on the real building but did not include the all important spire.
The drawing serves as a platform for a giant animated girl (King Kong like).The drawing was used in an animated piece and the animation was paid for by the client and is now being shown publicly.
By drawing this building, have I not created my own artwork regardless of what it represents?
thanks
Murray
#6 by Jack and Ed on January 25, 2013 - 9:10 am
Good question, unfortunately you wouldn’t like the answer. I might even say you could be in deep King Kong fecal matter. Your rendering is known as a derivative and yes, from what you describe, it would infringe on a copyright or trademark. Changing media doesn’t change anything. There is no percentage change either. None. You didn’t create an new piece, which you could have, rather you based it on an existing structure. The fact you copied most, but not the spire, doesn’t give you a get out of jail card. Copying a little rather than a lot doesn’t negate that it’s still copying. The final test in court is looking at the two side by side. If an “average person” (Ed needs to explain that term more because there’s more to it) can look at both and see that one was derived from the other, then that’s the qualifier.But the building may not be your biggest issue. Who owns King Kong? That’s intellectual property that someone (or some company more likely) might own.
Jack
#7 by Murray on January 25, 2013 - 12:01 pm
Thanks Jack for your swift reply.
Would there be any difference to creating the artwork in the UK? and then being challenged from the USA?
What I mean is, is this a worldwide copyright? Im guessing I would be liable where ever I am.
I also welcome the court to enlarge my drawing to the size of the Empire State Building to see if it was similar, that would be worth every penny!
Ill see if I can find a large umbrella and keep away from all fans.
many thanks
Murray
#8 by Edward C. Greenberg on January 25, 2013 - 12:08 pm
Murray: I would need many more relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the creation of your work before making any comments other than – there are considerations in trademark law concerning certain buildings and/or in some instances copyright issues as well.
It is never a good idea to go on a public post and be too specific about anything you may have already done and about which you are uncertain. Such posts can be used against you. Jack and I have commented many times and the importance of using hypothetical situations when asking questions. You can contact me directly at [email protected] for some off line help.
#9 by Ed Greenberg on January 26, 2013 - 7:32 pm
For other readers who have contacted me on this point…
We will deal with it at length again but suffice to know for now; The Empire State Building has trademark protection in its building and even silohoutte. It sells souveniers, runs tourist attractions and otherwise makes money based on the appearance of the building. Other buildings do likewise.
#10 by BPR on February 4, 2013 - 4:21 pm
Hello,
Been reading your website, watched the Kelby videos and am reading the Photog’s Survival Manual. Thanks! My very specific scenario I am wondering about:
I have been hired by a local cover band to do their publicity photos. My idea is to show the band downtown (I know, original), either actually on location or a composite of them shot in a studio in front of a green screen and superimposed over a backdrop of said downtown/cityscape. Furthermore, the singer in the band, a girl, is to be featured separately on a billboard or wall mural among one of the buildings overlooking the rest of the band (photoshopped in). So my question is, would I need property releases of all the buildings in the background? Would I need a property release of the billboard/building whose wall the singer would be on? The photos are to be used on their website, business card, press kit, their Facebook and other social media pages, and for their clients advertising (posters of events/festivals/etc). I’ve read that if it’s a cityscape shot where a specific building isn’t the focus and any logos/trademarks are removed it’s okay, but can’t determine a clear answer from what I’ve been able to find online. Hopefully I’ve explained clearly the scenario…Thanks.
Brian
#11 by Jack and Ed on February 4, 2013 - 10:36 pm
I could say from what you described that you don’t need a property release. But I wouldn’t say that without seeing the images. And then I still couldn’t say. You really need to talk to a local IP lawyer as as release issues can be state specific. And a lawyer can see the images and exactly what you need.
Jack
#12 by Sean on June 29, 2015 - 11:54 pm
I had a question about the Empire State Building. A stock photography site said that the picture of the NYC skyline with the Empire State Building in it may violate copyrights and thus was rejected. They said the Chrysler building was on the list, but that was completed in 1930. Are these exceptions to the 1990 copyright rule?
It was completed in 1931, so it (they) should be exempt. The Empire State Building is a highly visible public building, my picture was taken from another state. Also does that mean all the new buildings in the Skyline that are going up now are off limits?
Does the Empire State Building have an exemption for the 1990 “rule?”
Pingback: Should I take the photograph? | F Stop Lounge
#13 by JDKoerner on January 1, 2016 - 5:29 pm
Three noteworthy buildings — the Empire State Building, the Chrysler Building and Rockefeller Center — have been listed as needing a release unless the building is “not the primary focus” of the shot on envatomarket.com. Yet all were buit prior to 1990. Your thoughts?
#14 by Donald Turner on May 30, 2016 - 1:30 pm
Well,the Empire State Building,Chrysler Building,and Rockefeller Center are registered trademarks. This is a different term than copyright. While these buildings are in the public domain,trademark rights may come into play.
#15 by Rebecca on July 20, 2017 - 8:23 pm
I would like to know , if someone asked me to paint a stadium or some publicly known place, for them, not for public distribution, woudl that be copyright offense?
Pingback: Public domain image pitfalls and ways to avoid them
#16 by Jodie Moore on September 26, 2017 - 12:12 pm
I am a freelance photographer who travels around the State of South Carolina taking pictures of Historical Buildings as a hobby. Do I need a permit to sell those photographs If I chose to do so?
Jodie
#17 by Jack and Ed on September 26, 2017 - 7:47 pm
Hi Jodie, Can’t give you a definitive answer. Part would depend on the publicity laws of South Carolina, which we’re not familiar with. These types of rights are first governed by state laws. Two, not knowing what you mean by “selling”, such as are they a limited edition fine art sale, or are they unlimited reproductions? Are you licensing it for a travel book, editorial use, or an ad? And what specific building are you photographing? Is it a public or private building? Historical building can be either. And if I give it more thought, I’d probably have a few more questions. But either way, I think you can photograph all you want (as long as you’re not trespassing or breaking any other laws). Go forth and enjoy!
Jack
#18 by Ben Sanders on June 17, 2018 - 11:48 pm
Hi, Im wondering about selling pictures as personal artwork taken of the NYC area bridges ie. Tapan Zee or Verrazano from public scenic overlooks or parks. Would I need property releases to do so?
-Ben
#19 by Charles Fletcher on September 19, 2018 - 7:12 pm
Can a government logo, attached to the side of a government building that is then used as the backdrop for a photo be considered copyright infringement? Or would it be covered under any the clauses pertaining to fair use and public use. The photograph is being used for nonprofit reasons and has no financial impacts.
#20 by Jack and Ed on September 23, 2018 - 11:23 pm
Hey Charles,
A lot depends on the specifics. I asked Ed to work on a generic answer, but there are several questions to be asked. His answer may or may not help you. It would depend on seeing exactly how it’s used and what the “logo” is. Some government logos have rules attached to their use, like the FBI logo that you see used in the beginning of movies DVDs.
#21 by Jack and Ed on September 24, 2018 - 4:18 pm
Charles: The key to answering your question lies in the specifics of the intended use. Use of a logo of a local, state or federal authority in connection with say an advertisement is typically prohibited by one or more state and/or federal statutes. The FBI logo may be used under very defined circumstances not only for movies but for “still images” as well but very rarely is.
I would not recommend the use of a photograph of a public building which displays a logo or title of a government agency ie IRS, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in connection with the sale or promotion of any entity, goods or services. Such use could constitute false advertising under any number of laws and regulations especially those issued by the FTC.
Changing gears for a moment – use of a government building with or without a logo or identifying language, for editorial purposes is generally fine. So a photo of the J. Edgar Hoover building in DC with or without any FBI logo in the picture to portray the scene where say an agent was shot by a terrorist could be used by newspapers, magazines and media outlets covering the story without the need to obtain any permissions. (Such a photo should be registered the day it was taken).
Overly simplistic and “safe answer” is to avoid using such images in connection with the sale or promotion of brands, entities, goods or services.
Ed
#22 by Kristin on February 1, 2019 - 7:31 pm
Hello! I would love some advice, please. I am drawing a cartoon style map of Manhattan. It features all the popular tourist spots. Empire State, Statue of Liberty, Rockefeller Center, Imagine mosaic, NYPL lion statue, grand central clock, Strand bookstore, mta metro card…etc …all my favorite spots. Some I have written the name under its drawing. It is a fun, busy, hand drawn, cartoon map. I am a professional illustrator and would like to sell the image as a print or on a tote bag. What is the legal risk of me drawing and selling an illustrated map? I see others doing it – am I protected as an illustrator – as if it is a collage? Thank you for your advice! Sincerely, Kristin
#23 by Jeff on September 20, 2019 - 9:11 am
Hi, In a very unfortunate incident the satirical newspaper The Onion acquired a photograph of our local high school, constructed in 1999 for use on their website. The photo was named was used in a fake news story stating there was a school shooting and edited to include a police tape. As you can imagine, this created confusion and fear among students and the community. I located this photo with image search on a stock website listed as “modern brick building.” My question is, what options does the school have to best prevent this from happening again, as it is a very identifiable building? Also, is it possible to find out if the photographers needs and has a property release? thank you.
#24 by Jack and Ed on September 26, 2019 - 7:00 pm
This case should not be discussed in an open forum. The School should consult its attorneys and find out how the image was obtained, from whom and who copyright registered the photo – if anyone – and take it from there.
Generally speaking, without seeing the usage itself, “parody” constitutes a fair use. The Onion would likely be considered “parody”.
#25 by Joe on January 24, 2020 - 9:34 am
We are a brick and stone distributor and want to use photos, we took ourselves, of projects we have sold in our area to display on our website. Some are private homes, viewable from public roads, and some are commercial or retail projects such as hospitals and shopping centers. Do we need permission to take these photos or to post them? Should we take care to avoid signs and names of regional and national chains such as restaurants, hotels and retail stores?
#26 by Jack and Ed on January 24, 2020 - 6:16 pm
The safest answer to your questions is to obtain written permission(s) for the use of certain identified images for certain identified uses. For example – “on (our) company’s website only”. Stores and franchisees may or may not want their signage/locations included in your promotional and marketing materials. Many will definitely want the “free advertising”. Get the release/permission in writing. The same goes for homeowners and building owners as well as architects/builders on new construction. Just because you can see it from the street does not mean they give up their rights, especially for commercial use. A written permission which specifically sets forth the permitted uses, media and length of use is always preferable. On many occasions such releases are NOT legally required BUT why risk a dispute, pay a lawyer and have a fight with a client when a simple written property release lets everyone sleep at night. When people are asked, many times they are flattered and happy to help. But if the same people are blindsided and find out after, they are usually very upset. This comes under the time honored cliche’ of “better safe than sorry”.
#27 by Jen on February 16, 2020 - 9:04 pm
I was wondering if there are any restrictions on publishing photos taken from observation decks, such as the Empire State Building. The building itself would not be in the photo, just photos of the city beyond. The photos would serve as a reference point in a book and would not be sold on their own. I’ve been trying to find any reference to this, but most of what I’ve found talks about what equipment is allowed or not. Thank you for any insight!
#28 by Jack and Ed on February 16, 2020 - 9:37 pm
A building does not own the view from it’s building. No one can own a view. Their rights are just in the physical building itself and their trademark. If you marketed the photos as “Empire State Building Views” then there is a tiny chance there could potentially an issue because you are trading on their mark, their trademark by saying Empire State Building Views. If you just said in the copy, the photos are taken from the Empire State Building, you wouldn’t have a problem, it’s just marketing on their name that becomes an issue. But photos taken from their observation deck or any other building’s deck, you have no problem. Similarly if you took a photo out of a plane window, the airline has no rights to your photo.
Jack
#29 by Thomas Mueller on May 24, 2020 - 8:08 pm
Hello Jack and Ed,
do you need a permission for using a Manhatten Skyline photograph (e.g. the Empire State Bulding) as a blueprint for creating a painting or a digital art piece? The buildings will be significally altered, even though there can be seen some resemblance of the original buildings. When will the modifications allow for a new original work or are you always prohibted to depict the Empire State Building? So does this “trademark” registration only applies to photographs and there like? A second question: Could I exhibit pictures of, for example the Empire State Building, if I only showed them in a country (e.g. Spain) that has full “freedom of panoroma” thus making the sight of the Empire State Building public domain in this country. I’ve read that pictures taken in France do not fall under “freedom of panorama” and can’t be uses commercially unless you exhibit them in a country with “freedom of panoroma” only. Thank you in advance!
#30 by Matthew on June 8, 2020 - 2:26 am
Hello Jack and Ed, one of my bucket list life goals is to see the 1894, 1915, and 1939-40 World’s Fairs of San Francisco digitally reconstructed, so one could explore these bygone historical spaces virtually. Ideally, these digital models would become public domain resources, so anyone could use, and perhaps even sell them, in video games, documentaries, fiction films, even 3D printings. Would this involve any copyright/trademark claims from the World’s Fair organization, even for the buildings that are no longer a century old? Thanks in advance! 🙂
#31 by Jack and Ed on June 8, 2020 - 11:35 pm
Hey Matthew, I’m going to need Ed to help on this one, and it might take a day or two right now. I do know that any copyright pre-1924 has expired and is most likely in public domain, but I don’t know about the trademarks. Let’s see what Ed says.
#32 by Matthew on June 11, 2020 - 7:35 pm
^ Thanks again in advance! 🙂
#33 by Jack and Ed on June 11, 2020 - 10:10 pm
Hey Matthew, Ed is actually checking with another trademark attorney to check on part of his reply. Should have an answer by the weekend, if not sooner. 🙂
Jack
#34 by Jack and Ed on June 12, 2020 - 6:06 pm
Matthew, OK, turns out we got a very involved answer from a trademark attorney. So much so that Ed is editing it down to be an easier read and rather than a long reply in comments, it’s going to be a blog article on it’s own. We have one followup piece that should go up this weekend and hopefully, you’ll finally get an informed answer to your question in a new blog piece at the beginning of this coming week.
#35 by John on June 21, 2020 - 7:21 pm
Hello – I have taken a number of photographs in the Milwaukee Museum of Art. None show the collection; rather, they are photographs of the interesting aspects of the building itself (including the garage). Do I need permission of the museum to sell prints of those images?
Thanks, John
#36 by Jack and Ed on June 24, 2020 - 10:42 pm
Matthew, Haven’t forgotten. Ed’s been jammed. He just got a big case on top of being hectic. He has something from his trademark guy, but just trying to find the time to write the piece. Hang in there. Jack
#37 by Jack and Ed on June 24, 2020 - 11:19 pm
Hi John,
Ed’s tied up with cases for the next few weeks, but here’s my non lawyer, non legal answer. “It depends.”
There are so many questions to answer before you can get an answer better than that. When was the building built? Who was the architect? (There are copyright issues depending when the building was built). Exactly how may prints are you making? Will any be a poster? Where and how do you plan on selling them? Do you have a previous track record as a fine art photographer (shows in galleries or books or collected in museums?). Do you know if the museum has been litigious in any actions for other reasons? I’m sure Ed would have more questions to ask, but those are mine off the top of my head.
That’s not to say you can’t, but without knowing the scope of what you mean by “selling prints”, not knowing more about the museum, not knowing your history, it’s impossible to give an answer beyond “It depends” because of all the facts that can affect the answer.
– Jack
#38 by John Wylie on June 30, 2020 - 8:06 pm
Jack – Thanks for your response.
I contacted the museum and heard that they consider that they have a trademark on the museum building due to its having been designed by Santiago Calatrava, and is quite well known. I have not heard back, however, as to the museum’s license fee; I suspect it will be beyond what I am willing to pay.
As to your questions, the museum building was constructed in 2001, so it falls within the dates covered by copyright law (as I understand it). I do have a track record as a fine arts photographer, although it is a second career (more of an avocation I guess), with some sales and 4 solo exhibitions as well as participation in group shows. I anticipate selling on saatchiart.com, and through my own website. I do anticipate a poster; and the prints would be editioned, likely 25 prints.
John
#39 by Jack and Ed on July 10, 2020 - 4:00 pm
Hi Matthew,
We finally got an answer from a trademark specialist. The reply was so long we decided to run it as it’s own blog piece with your question at the top. Check it out at https://thecopyrightzone.com/?p=2047
Jack
#40 by Lindsay on September 8, 2020 - 9:04 pm
Are headstones in public cemeteries under copyright? If so do they fall under rules for architecture, sculptures or other art?
Some context: I am creating a digital library for a class project of grave markers and tombstones in Vermont (if that matters). I just need to know if I need a sort of copyright note such as those provided in rightsstatements.org.
Thank you
#41 by John on November 14, 2020 - 12:41 am
Is there any problem with publishing my original drawings of buildings with brief descriptions of each? Do I need building owner permission?
#42 by Jack and Ed on November 14, 2020 - 1:41 pm
Sorry, but with a very broad general question like this, you get a broad, general answer: It depends.
It depends on the building. Some buildings may be copyrighted themselves (the architecture plans) and some are not. It also depends if the building is so iconic it has a trademark.
It also depends on what you mean by publish. Is it editorial content in a book? Is it posters or artwork? How many are being produced? Are the buildings the featured object or are they just background.
#43 by Leon Ault on March 12, 2021 - 11:29 am
I have a client standing in front of Radio City Music Hall, he wants to use it on an album cover. Would that be copyrighted, and can changes be made to the chase that runs beneath the Neon logo?
#44 by Jack and Ed on March 12, 2021 - 4:01 pm
Radio City Music Hall is a trademark owned by Rockefeller Center, which owns RCM. It’s also private property, so you most likely should contact them to get permission.
#45 by Giovanna on April 9, 2021 - 9:38 pm
Hi! I’m glad I found this thread. I am working on city illustrations and I am drawing landmarks (eg in New York the Statue of Liberty, Chrysler building, flatiron, etc…all the famous landmarks. They are my own illustrations. They are not the main subject, I am drawing them all together to make an illustration of New York City. Kind of like those skyline illustrations that a lot of artist do. I have read lots of articles, including all the answers above…and still it’s not clear for me if I can offer my illustration (as prints) for sale. Would I be infringing any copyright? These are my own illustrations -of famous buildings, but still my own interpretations. Gio.
#46 by Jack and Ed on April 25, 2021 - 10:17 pm
We’ve answered this so many times, seems to be one of our most asked questions. Our answer is not one you want to really hear, as the answer is “it depends”. A lot depends on what you mean by which building and how you show them. Some buildings designs can be copyrighted by the architect or the building could be trademarked. How you’re selling your prints also matter. Limited edition or thousands. And even more depends on seeing what you’re talking about. We could be thinking it looks one way, and what you do is completely different.
It could be perfectly fine to sell your prints or it could attract a very expensive lawsuit. It depends.
To be really safe, you’re better off getting answers on your specific set of issues and your specific illustrations, with a lawyer. There are Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts if you can’t afford an attorney. But any IP attorney shouldn’t cost much to give you counsel on this.
#47 by Saraia on February 9, 2022 - 3:46 pm
If someone is running a website with ads only (or even affiliate links), I presume this counts as commercial use.
If the web owner wants to do a review of a hotel they stayed at and used photos from the interior of the building and their room, do they need permission from the business since it’s private?
Likewise, would this be the same at a museum, amusement park, or really any other private company / building?
If the answer is yes (which I assume to be the case), why aren’t all the travel bloggers constantly getting sued for sharing photos of these types of businesses (assuming they didn’t obtain permission). Or maybe they are.