Another Copyright Question

Superb question... Very interesting.. One for the Boston Legal team methinks.. Get captain Kirk on it... I reckon it would be one those rare losses though. The nasty photographer cruelly taking away your rights to have/use an image of your old home....your memories?...possibly your childhood? a sad episode:-( But then did he have the right to take the picture if you had designed and built the house? Then the subjects image rights could belong to you and...aw its getting messy..I'm done guessing:-)

It's complicated, dear Roger. Yes ? !

Back in the 70's that was the thing to do. Air shots and sell them to the owners

of the property. My papa paid for them both times. I currently have those two

images. Nice memories. Not sure what they cost but I am sure not cheep. Kind

of like they do at an amusement park. Take your imago then try to sell you one.

It is my (NOT legally binding) understanding that the photographer owns the copyright so you cannot reproduce it without his permission. However, since the photograph is of private property the photographer cannot publish it for commercial use without your permission. I'm pretty sure, though, that the photographer can publish it in a non-commercial documentary or editorial context because it was shot from public airspace. For example, it probably could be published in a book documenting the history of your town's development.

For legal reasons you should not rely on my understanding.

That is an excellent question. Please may I add to it.

I purchased a print off my house in the same way several years ago.

i was living in housing association housing... So I rented from someone

Was it actually legal for me to purchase it as it may have been an illegal photograph. It was I buying stolen property?

Who did the photo belong to

Abbie, what makes you think the photo was illegal? I don't know about the UK, but in the US anything you can see from a public place can be legally photographed.

I know of no law that would prevent this from being used commercially. However I never studied law. But I did stay at Holiday Inn Express.

This thread brings to mind the underlying source of what became known as the "Streisand Effect". Barbara Streisand citing privacy concerns sued an aerial photographer for making available images of her house. The publicity from the lawsuit brought more attention to her so-called "privacy" - more people clicked on the link to the image than otherwise would have had she left the issue alone.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/04/economist-explains-what-streisand-effect

As for the underlying issue and the topic of this thread - her case against the photographer was dismissed in court and she was also ordered to pay his legal bills

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/12/04/ple.streisand.reut/

Also federal law appears to be on the side of photographers when it comes to taking pictures of architecture (I am not a lawyer so this is not legal advice).

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/copyright-architectural-photos.html

Also see 17 U.S. Code § 120

(a) Pictorial Representations Permitted.— The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

If a picture of property can be taken from a public space the owner has very few rights to prevent its publication, commercial or otherwise. However if that building is trademarked there may be trademark protections

Very informative post Jim. I knew the photog' would win that episode. The Boston legal media folks are always pushing the free-press issues.

"But I did stay at Holiday Inn Express."....lol!

To me,

It's not a question of the photographer using an image of my property for his own personal gain.

To me it's a question of me using that photograph . without having to get permission from anyone.

If I ever decide to photoshop the writing out , I feel I have the perfect right to use the resulting image any way I want to.

I feel that right applies to any unauthorized photos of any of my work (sculptures in particular) or in that case, just plain photos of my adorable puss.

As far as I know the copyright belongs to the Photography.
It can be used as editorial without permission of the house owner.If he wanted to have othe commercial use he would need the permission of the owner.
As has been said you can take a picture of anything from a public place but it does not mean that the image can be used without permission.Most well known buildings are copyrighted but I don't know about the average house.
So technicaly you would have to get the photographers permission to use the image

Roger

You do not control the copyright to images of your property, therefore you cannot use the resulting image without permission from the photographer. I can take a picture of almost any building and sell it or use it any way I wish (unless it is trademarked). The owner of the property has no rights to the image just because his/her property is the subject of it.

Roy - I refer you to the post I made above with respect to copyrighted buildings. See 17 U.S. Code § 120

(a) Pictorial Representations Permitted.— The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

All that the copyright of a building means is that I cannot build a duplicate of the structure (assuming I had the money to do so). It does not prevent me from taking or even selling images of a copyrighted building.

(I am not a lawyer - this is not legal advice)

I find the synchronicity running throughout these threads astounding..and inspiring.
mental images...ideas originating in the mind..dreams..notions...memories.. un-touchable! then, becoming real solid images, things, buildings that you can touch. Creations!... a change of perspective and then were back to images you cannot touch... out of our hands!
Beautiful!

Here is another example - In the 1940's and again the 1980's the City of New York took pictures of every house for tax records. If you know the block and lot number you can order a picture of your own house or your friend's and neighbor's homes, etc. Since the images were photographed by the City of NY the city owns the copyright and can sell the images without permission of either the past or present owners. Commercial use of the images can also be licensed from the City. However the owner of the property does not get any additional rights to use the image, just because it is of his property.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/html/photos/photos.shtml

PS - I bought the 1940's picture of my house - was interesting to see how it looked when it was relatively new

Roger you are confusing different kinds of rights. Whatever rights you have or don't have of use of images of your property, you have no rights to use the photograph. An example of that is some work for I have done an artist. I have granted her all rights to use the photos in the promotion of her art and business and self. But she can not use those rights to promote another commercial business and I can't use the photos without her permission except even though I own the copyright.

I have an interesting infringement case where an artist uses my photos without permission. The photos are of a statue that no longer exists. Both the original sculptor and the person who commissioned it are deceased. A sculptor has gotten permission to recreate the sculpture, and is using my photo to raise money for that. He has created merchandise and given my photos out to the media and uses them on my his web site with my signature cloned off. He claims he owns the rights to my photo because he bought the rights from the sculptor's family. I am allowing the existing infringements to stand so as not to create negative publicity for myself as he is popular.

James, the fact that they had a photo of my belongings in my persona space (garden) Was that legal?

Abbie

Did the photographer have to climb a fence or peer over a wall to get a picture of your garden or was it plainly visible from a public sidewalk? Was that property a work of art or something that is copyrighted?

Aside from trespassing to get the picture or taking a picture of copyrighted art works, whatever the photographer can "capture" from a public vantage point is fair game - at least in the US

Roger..A gift for you!..(or a sackful of cats:-)

Fly's Eye Fly By


A "fly's eye fly by" view of Roger Swezey's old house.
(or is it a wasp?...or blood sucking mosquito?:-)

I have a proposal re: any copyright issues.. All proceeds from the sale of this image shall be shared equally among the four parties involved..namely Roger, the original photographer(?), myself and FAA..25% all the way! :-)
edit: but then maybe we should offer the pilot a royalty..and the tradesmen involved in building the house... and the guys at Canon who made the tog's camera... and the plant breeder who "designed" those fritillaries with the snake skin which are in the hand painted plant-pot (lets not forget the fine artist that painted this..a royalty for sure) on your patio!...?....hmmmmm!

Actually even if you are on private property it is fair game. If it is just open to the public whatever is in view of the visiting public is fair game. Even if they say no commercial photos you can still sell them yourself. In fact even if they don't allow photography, if you have broken no law to get the photos and there is public access you can sell them. At least according to what I have read online. Be sure to check this with your own lawyer. Their lawyer may differ in opinion.

Jim he flew over in a helicopter

Barry did you have permission to use that photo

Abbie - that is similar to the Streisand case that she lost. The "offending" picture in that case was taken from a helicopter.

This might answer your question

http://aviation.uslegal.com/ownership-of-airspace-over-property/

In the US at least the flight paths of airplanes and helicopters are the same as public highways. If the helicopter came down low to photograph your property that might be a different story though but if he took the picture from a few thousand feet in the air then there would be no law against it

Re:Unsolicited material

This print came to my house, unsolicited...I didn't ask for it...It was just placed in my mailbox, in an envelope. with my name and my address on it......I now own it...Why can't I do anything with it, I want ??.


Oh by the way, Barry, you'll be hearing from my lawyer.......No I'll let you off this time... Instead, I'll be illegally pulling your illegal version , of my illegally posted photo, taken by some "Fly by Day" photographer,..Printing it, Framing it and Hanging it on the wall, so I can continually enjoy it....And who knows, find a way to make a buck off of it..

Roger

You can post the print for sale on eBay if you wish. You can sell it on Craigslist... You can frame it and keep it or you can pay the photographer for more copies

What you cannot do is make copies of it yourself and sell those... The photographer owns the copyright regardless of what it is a picture of

Jim,

If they can take photos of my work , in this case my property and freely sell prints of the photo , can I make a painting of the photograph and freely profit from it.?

Edit:

Jim, You asked if my property was a work of art.

I say, as much of a work of art as that photo.

Abbie.. I think It's only an issue if I try to sell it..

Roger..you'll be hearing from MY lawyer AND his lawyer :-)

To produce my version I have heavily transformed the original image creating a whole new abstract pattern and thus rendering it an original work.As it is a visual representation of the discussion within this thread and the issues at hand, the piece of "art" which I have created as a personal GIFT for Roger, is by all means... an ORIGINAL piece of art! :-) and I hand It over to him...copyright and all.. as a gift. To do with as he pleases. But mainly to laugh at.

Of all the posts in this thread, Jim appears to have the most solid grasp of US copyright law.

Yes and that was very interesting. I will have to see if it's the same in the UK but it probably is.

Transformative works http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=852834

Thanks for the link Abbie.. :-) I was right about my version then... Taking a section from a documentary photo and completely changing it's use while also covering 4 out of 5 fair use categories is perfectly legal.. Cool.

So Roger... I'm 99.999% sure that any copyright claim from the original photographer on MY version is now null and void.. I'm confident you can do whatever you like with it now..including selling it. Even Denny and Alan would walk away from that one! (your version is really still his version but my version is now your version)