Royalties to a building?

[Jackimalyn]

I'm doing a piece for our trade show that will highlight Milwaukee and I have to go take a photo of downtown. We have a beautiful art museum that is downtown and my boss wants it, and other buildings, in the photo I take. However, the art museum's website www.mam.org (http://www.mam.org) said this:

The Milwaukee Art Museum is a beautiful space for filming commercials and shooting print ads. Because of copyright issues, the Museum must always be contacted before its image is used in any way to promote another company. A usage fee will be charged.


How can they copyright a building? And do other buildings have the same royalties? It will not be focused on the museum, rather than all of Milwaukee. What are your thoughts?

[morea]

huh, that's tricky. If the building is really well known or easily distinguished, I guess they could say that using its image in your advertising should be compensated in some way, but that has to be tough to enforce.

Anyway... I googled a building here in Albany NY that is very easy to recognize, and it stands out in lots of photos/videos - like on the news, etc. I didn't see any similar restrictions on their website.

http://www.theegg.org/about

[Craig B]

I'm doing a piece for our trade show that will highlight Milwaukee and I have to go take a photo of downtown. We have a beautiful art museum that is downtown and my boss wants it, and other buildings, in the photo I take. However, the art museum's website www.mam.org (http://www.mam.org) said this:



How can they copyright a building? And do other buildings have the same royalties? It will not be focused on the museum, rather than all of Milwaukee. What are your thoughts?

Contact the museum. It may just be if your targeting the museum specifically in yoru photography. If it's just part of a larger landscaep I think you'd probably be safe. But I'm definitely no expert on this.

[Jackimalyn]

thanks morea, maybe ill check out the architecht's website. On the art museums site I didnt see any "official" © symbol so does that mean it's not official? man...i wonder how much they charge?

[Craig B]

I found this document (http://www.wipo.org/edocs/mdocs/sme/en/wipo_caps_ip_bei_05/wipo_caps_ip_bei_05_www_54903.doc) online and page 9 states:

Taking photos of buildings

Architectural works are protected by copyright to some degree, but in most countries you may photograph a building, if the building is located in a public place or is visible from a public place. You may also publish and distribute the photo without permission.

it also has a footnote that states: "If most of the substance of the copyright work is photographed, is it less likely to be considered fair use."

However, this also appears to be some sort of work in progress, so I don't know how legit it is. It's just something I found that helps explain some of those tricky issues surrounding copyright.

[Jackimalyn]

man. all this is so confusing. I wish I learned more about copyrights in school. anyone know of any good books besides the GAG?

[cornfed]

I can't remember what the deal was, but this topic was covered in the brush with the law section at http://arttalk.theispot.com/index.php

They have an attorney that regularly answers questions like this.

[Jackimalyn]

thanks everybody, i appreciate it :) Ive only been working here since May, wouldnt want to get them sued!!!

[PrintDriver]

If you are targeting a specific building, you should ask the owner of the building for permission (property release).

It gets really crazy when doing a building 'crowd shot'. Not only might the buildings be 'copyrighted' there is also the Propriety of Trademark should the signage on the building be trademarked.

Believe it or not, there is a National Building Museum too. Go figure.

Edit: But this site tends to say otherwise
http://www.artslaw.org/

CYA is all I can say.

[Drazan]

Usually if it is a "cityscape" the no you do not need permission of every single owner/tenent/architecture/ etc.

If it is a photo of a specific building like the museum with no other generalistic "cityscape" range, then you will need to obtain a usage ok from the owners or managers of the building. Mostly this is not to infringe on their own marketable presence.

For example if I were to photograph the Museum and put in a client brochure then I would need to obtain permission from the Museum to do so. In this instance the museum is considered private property and retains rights as such. Also the Museum may make money by selling postcards and memorbilia of its architecture. This would create a copyrightable iconic figure.

On the other hand if I photographed the entire street that the Museum is located where the museum is not the focal of the photograph and shows the building of which the client also leases then no I would not need to optain permission. As in this instance it would represent a public space and not focused on private property.

The biggest thing that brought archetecual rights to the attention of the media is the Eiffel tower in Paris. It is privately held and you cannot take any photos of it for replication or distribution without written permission.

If you were to set up a photoshoot or video shoot at a mall, a museum and any location you would need to obain permission to use their property as your background.

Another reason why I don't like some stock photography - you never really know if the photographer has the permission to use the image that they photographed.

=)
Jade

[Jackimalyn]

thanks everyone, this was all very helpful. Im still going to take the shot but Ill be a bit more careful how much of the museum I have in it and have focus on. If I get some good ones, Ill post em later today or tomorrow. Thanks again-

[PrintDriver]

Drazan makes a good point about stock photos. Even with the bigger image companies it's sometimes hard to establish property release. And they all have that little indemnity disclaimer on the license they give you...

[Jeff Fisher LogoMotives]

The biggest thing that brought archetecual rights to the attention of the media is the Eiffel tower in Paris. It is privately held and you cannot take any photos of it for replication or distribution without written permission.



Actually, it's not the image of the Eiffel Tower that is copyrighted. It's the lights on it at night. Here's a Fast Company magazine writer's blog entry about the issue (http://blog.fastcompany.com/archives/2005/02/02/eiffel_tower_repossessed.html).

Some building owners have successfully defended their copyright. Here's a piece about the issues surrounding the Flatiron Building in New York (http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/media/features/1463/).

It such cases it is most often an issue of "publishing" the image of the building or somehow using the image for commercial purposes.

- J.

[Jackimalyn]

Here's the photo I took that he wants to use, the art museum is on the right, d oyou think that this is running a risk? I think its cutting it close

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j139/jackimalyn/milwcopy.jpg

[morea]

know what? I would send a copy of the photo to the museum and ask them if that would be acceptable and if use of the photo would incur any royalty charges... that way you know for sure, and there is no "guessing" involved.

[Jackimalyn]

im pretty sure no matter what, theyll say I have to pay them, assuming im naiive and dont know the copyright laws

[BJMRGTIVR6]

there's nothing more to the left that could be included, making the museum less prominent?
It looks like a large area is taken up by the museum, with it extending to a flat area.
Looks like a nice day there...but photos can be tricky.

[Jackimalyn]

there is more to the left, in fact theres a very well known building to the left, but this was the widest angle I could get. argh.

[BJMRGTIVR6]

tripod or pivot and take a few and photomerge in Photoshop to make a panoramic?

[Jackimalyn]

i could... i think i might just crop it different. (put type in the water)

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j139/jackimalyn/milwcopy-1.jpg