# Is architecture copyrighted? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 18, 2005, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-architecture-copyrighted/295076 "2005-03-18T01:02:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Rusalka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecd19e/32.png) [@Rusalka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rusalka)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2005, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-architecture-copyrighted/295076/21 "2005-03-19T04:25:12Z")
I forgot to mention, that I was only addressing the topic of the architecture itself, and not ads or other separately identifiable artwork on the buildings. I do know that if Mickey Mouse appears anywhere in your picture, there’s a likelihood that Disney will sue you. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2005, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-architecture-copyrighted/295076/22 "2005-03-19T13:33:49Z")
> [@commasense](#): > > And even if it isn’t legally required, having permission is better than not having it. Those release forms **postcards** found weren’t drawn up for no reason at all. That is a false assumption. You can find umpteen “copyright notices” on sites with slavish copied and unaltered scans of Public Domain artwork saying “all scans copyright ME ME ME” and threatening dire consequences - and, in the US, they’re all false notices at best and fraudulent notices at worst (see _Bridgeman v. Corel_). Everyone, NEVER assume that some dingus on a random website knows anything about the law. The Net is filled with the sites of people and even companies which print horrendously faulty legal information on them, and because they look pretty and official some people assume they are. Look at this thread, for example, on a Board “fighting ignorance” - how many posts did it take before someone actually linked to the law? And it’s not like the law was hard to find - it was the first God damn Google hit, I checked. ~ In any event, **Rusalka** has the correct link and interpretation, ( [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#120](http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#120) ). See this note as well, regarding the artwork on buildings exemption: [http://www.simkins.co.uk/ebulletins/archive/CTSuscopylimit.aspx](http://www.simkins.co.uk/ebulletins/archive/CTSuscopylimit.aspx) > [@](#): > > Photographers and photo libraries will welcome the decision last week by the US Court of Appeals that artworks forming part of buildings are covered by the same copyright exemption as the buildings themselves. > > Andrew Leicester, an artist known for large scale public art, created four streetwall towers and other artistic works for the 801 Tower in downtown Los Angeles. In 1994 the 801 Tower became the Second Bank of Gotham in the movie Batman Forever. Leicester sued Warner Bros, claiming that pictorial representations of his streetwall towers along with the 801 Tower infringed his copyright in the towers as sculptural works. > > American law on building photography is roughly similar to UK law. Buildings are protected by copyright, but the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990 limits the rights of copyright owners. ‘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.’ ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2005, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-architecture-copyrighted/295076/23 "2005-03-19T19:39:40Z")
IANAL, but doesn’t copyright have something to do with context and publication? There’s a difference between an artist making a painting of a building and selling it versus publishing photographs of buildings in which the buildings themselves are the selling points. From the quote above it sounds like the building is merely part of the work, not its major content. I know that as an artist I can do a painting of copyrighted material (such as a Coke bottle) and sell it - but there are strict limits on the number of prints I could legally make and sell. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2005, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-architecture-copyrighted/295076/24 "2005-03-19T23:51:10Z")
> [@Una Persson](#): > > > [@commasense](#): > > > > And even if it isn’t legally required, having permission is better than not having it. Those release forms postcards found weren’t drawn up for no reason at all. > > That is a false assumption. You can find umpteen “copyright notices” on sites with slavish copied and unaltered scans of Public Domain artwork saying “all scans copyright ME ME ME” and threatening dire consequences - and, in the US, they’re all false notices at best and fraudulent notices at worst (see Bridgeman v. Corel). I think you missed my point. I was only saying that if someone with the authority to give permission to use a photo of the building in a book does so, and signs a release form saying that he’s giving permission, he probably won’t sue once the book comes out. Yes, it can be a pain to find the person with authority, and he may say no, or take months or years to get around to it, and if there’s no legal requirement to get permission, you may be able to avoid all that trouble. But if you just went ahead without permission, a big corporation whose lawyers don’t have enough to do this week could file a (possibly baseless) lawsuit, just to bully you. Whereas if you could show them the release, they would probably drop it right there. > [@fessie](#): > > I know that as an artist I can do a painting of copyrighted material (such as a Coke bottle) and sell it - but there are strict limits on the number of prints I could legally make and sell. WTF??? I’m calling bullshit on this. Provide a cite or clarify what you mean. ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2005, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-architecture-copyrighted/295076/25 "2005-03-20T00:18:55Z")
> [@commasense](#): > > WTF??? I’m calling bullshit on this. Provide a cite or clarify what you mean. Well, I’m not deliberately bullshitting you. I’ll try to find a cite. This is something I researched 5 years ago when I was working for Coca-Cola and (perhaps from being surrounded by their marketing materials all day) did a number of paintings of Coke bottles. I brought one of them in to hang behind my desk & it got so much positive attention, I started wondering about making prints, only I didn’t want to be sued. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2005, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-architecture-copyrighted/295076/26 "2005-03-20T00:43:15Z")
As to the OP there was a case in Federal court in Cleveland in 1999 where the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum sued a guy, Charles Gentile, for copyright infringement who took a bunch of photos of their fancy building to put in his book. Here’s a link to an article about it [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/bridge/Philosophy/murray.txt.htm](http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/bridge/Philosophy/murray.txt.htm) The case,\* Rock and Roll HOF and Museum vs. Gentile, et al\*, U.S. District Court, N.D. Ohio, Case No. 1:96-CV-000899, was decided in favor of Gentile on summary judgment. I don’t know the basis of the decision. I briefly searched if it was appealed but didn’t find anything, but I make no promises that it wasn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2005, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-architecture-copyrighted/295076/27 "2005-03-20T03:04:19Z")
> [@commasense](#): > > I think you missed my point. I was only saying that if someone with the authority to give permission to use a photo of the building in a book does so, and signs a release form saying that he’s giving permission, he probably won’t sue once the book comes out. > > Yes, it can be a pain to find the person with authority, and he may say no, or take months or years to get around to it, and if there’s no legal requirement to get permission, you may be able to avoid all that trouble. But if you just went ahead without permission, a big corporation whose lawyers don’t have enough to do this week could file a (possibly baseless) lawsuit, just to bully you. Whereas if you could show them the release, they would probably drop it right there. OK, you’re arguing practicalities versus the letter of the law. I can accept that - I think we were answering the question from different angles. I do however feel that in this case the Case Law is very clear and that no lawyer would really try to sue unless they were indeed not behaving as honourable officers of the court. Which might very well be the case with some; every profession has bad apples… ---
**Author:** ![obfusciatrist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4af34b/32.png) [@obfusciatrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/obfusciatrist)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2005, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-architecture-copyrighted/295076/28 "2005-03-20T11:07:58Z")
If there is copyright protection, is it safe to assume it lapses like other copyrights? So buildings older than 75 (or however many years) would be in the public domain? You might also need to be careful of anything else in the picture that might have commercial-use limitation. For example, to reaffirm a copyright on the Eiffel Tower they recently added a unique lighting display and copyrighted that. So, since it is impossible to take a picture of the Tower at night without also photographing the copyrighted lighting display, is is essentially impossible to use a night-photo fo the Tower for commercial purposes. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2005, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-architecture-copyrighted/295076/29 "2005-03-20T15:14:51Z")
> [@Una Persson](#): > > I do however feel that in this case the Case Law is very clear and that no lawyer would really try to sue unless they were indeed not behaving as honourable officers of the court. Which might very well be the case with some; every profession has bad apples… You know what they say: Ninety percent of lawyers give the other ten percent a bad name. ---
**Author:** ![anson2995](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2005, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-architecture-copyrighted/295076/30 "2005-03-20T17:50:54Z")
Anyone who has been around the financial district in New York City can attest that there are signs outside buildings (the NY Stock Exchange, for example) that say taking photographs is prohibited. I’ve seen similar signs inside the various buildings of the World Financial Center. This is obviously for security purposes in the post 9/11 environment, but I presume there is some legal basis for asserting this claim. ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-architecture-copyrighted/295076/31 "2005-03-20T19:32:00Z")
I’ve searched around, as I said I would, and of course cannot find the exact information I was drawing upon. I think it had something to do with freedom of speech versus diluting a trademark, with the idea being a single artistic work was not the same as employing a trademark for other purposes. In fact, Mickey Mouse was used extensively in one art exhibit challenging the issue. Of course things may well have changed since I came to my previous conclusions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-architecture-copyrighted/295076.md?page=1)