hmmm, I was looking at new sites to upload to but between this and their ratings, I dont think they are going to be around long enough to be worth the effort??

This whole business of not being able to use images of property is becoming a nonsense.

As I see it, if you take a photo of the Atomium (or any other structure) from a point on public land  then copyright cannot apply.

It's the same with iStock's running-scared policy of pulling pictures that show cars.

Copyright is intended to protect the intellectual rights of the creator of an object or a work of art.

So, if someone tries to build an exact replica of the Atomium, or make a car the same as another, or even try to sell a photograph of a logo or a painting ... yes, go after them with the full force of the law. Even if someone takes a photograph from private land, showing a view that is only visible if you've paid/been given permission.

But pictures of these things from public property? That's fair game. As leszek said ... it's just capturing the light that's bounced off them and ended up in a public place. How can you copyright that?

As a photographer I agree that it is stupid and anything visible from a public place should be fair game, but...

What would you think if your house or your customised car (please see the "customised") was photographed and then used as a repellent in an advertisement saying "if you don't want to be like the ridiculous owner of such a pitiful piece of -whatever- come and buy at so and so" ?

Just to try to understand the other side of the coin.

Meanwhile, it is a fact that you can't take picture or publish pictures of anything. And as the photographer you will be on the front line when the law is called. In Paris for example, you can take a picture of the Eiffel tower but not at night as the lights are copyrighted. I suppose the next time the painting is done, the painter will copyright his job and you won't be able to use the picture done by day either. You should hurry.

Still in Paris, you can't shot (when I say "shot", please understand "publish the result of your shot") most buildings in La D�fense ; you can't shot the pyramid in the Louvre (unfortunately, this pyramid is in the way, so you can't have a good general shot of the inside of the Louvre anymore) ; you can't shot the Buren's column in Palais Royal (I don't know why anybody would want to do that, but here also unfortunately they are in the way if you want to photograph these magnificent buildings) ; by the way, Buren lost when he tried to copyright a square where there is one of his sculptures. A fisher also lost in a famous judgement where he asked for compensation because someone had taken and published a picture of his boat in front of the tower in Collioure (a small harbor on Mediterranean sea). Also lost, the owners (or pretending so, which was not the case) of three small dogs who asked for a compensation for moral damage to their dogs when these poor beast so their portraits in magazines...

So, everything is not dark, there is hope at the end of the tunnel. But, for the time being, some things are copyrighted and you take a huge risk when you publish their pictures without authorization.

Well - I can't say how it looks elsewhere, but here (NSW, Australia) taking and publication of a person's photograph without their consent is perfectly legal. There is no Bill of Rights here. Although, it is highly advisable to obtain release for any COMMERCIAL purposes.

Also - you CAN'T photograph on private land without consent. One should also know  the distinction between public land  and publicly accessible private land.

Here comes the interesting point: in Australia there is no concept of ownership over the appearance of architectural spaces. Which means that ALL buildings - private and public - are fair game for NON-COMMERCIAL purposes.

The interesting bit  - commercial use does NOT mean the sale of a picture, but rather the use of likeness (person or object) to endorse product or service.

In addition - the Copyright Act does not prohibit any kind of photography.

"In Australia still-photographs of 3D objects such as performances, buildings, statues or interior spaces (and the people in them), generally cannot infringe copyright, as one-off images cannot reproduce a substantial enough portion of the original work. The only way to infringe copyright in these cases is to create a sufficiently similar 3D copy, or with respect to dramatic works, lengthy video recording " (quote from "NSW Photographer's Rights by Andrew Nemeth BSc (Hons) LLB).

Complicated enough ? I guess it is. At any case - I have lived long enough to know that justice is a commodity like everything else: you may get it if your pockets are deep enough. Which means that in all likelihood you are bound to loose the case if confronted by people or organization big and powerful enough - simply because they can ruin you while you fight for your rights.

Well - I can't say how it looks elsewhere, but here (NSW, Australia) taking and publication of a person's photograph without their consent is perfectly legal. There is no Bill of Rights here. Although, it is highly advisable to obtain release for any COMMERCIAL purposes.

In Europe things are different too. You can take a shot of a person in public and unless he/she objects on the spot, his portrait right is gone. In other words, he/she can't sue you any more for whatever. And if he/she does, he/she has the burden of proof of damages.

The atomium has been refurbished with public money 2 years ago, and built 50 years ago on public land by a non-profit organization that got most of its money from the state, and some from sponsors as a gesture of goodwill. It was never built to make any money. At the contrary, the city of Brussels poured heaps of money in it since the exploitation balance sheet was negative. Yet, the private organization that copyrighted the atomium (with government agencies holding 100% of its shares) decided you can't put shots online of the structure unless you pay them a license.

It might be stupid, unfair and ridiculous but it's totally legal.

But that wasn't my point. I hope you read Dan Heller's post. The law in the US is different from Norway, Belgium, Australia. The buyer or the agency can be sued, and the nature of the American legal system is such that suers can obtain ridiculously high compensations.

Whatever we think about it (it's crazy of course) is irrelevant. If MP wants to sell in the US, they should give the question consideration and at least make sure the MRF is there and OK.

"About every micro site now knows that the Brussels' atomium is copyrighted."

If it is copyrighted - why don't they remove it from public view ? I understand that copying the design for the purpose of building something that looks very similiar could get someone in trouble (although the concept of Atomium is hardly original as such).  But - why all of a sudden people claim the ownership of light reflected from an object ?

In such case I should copyright my eyes - and claim damages from the owner(s) of every copyrighted building or object - since I have no duty to view what they cared to put in public view.

Some may say this is idiotic - but no more idiotic than copyrighting the reflected light.

Copying a car design for the purpose of building a car - yes, a clear cut court case.
Taling a picture of a car - c'mon...

I have no argument with the need to obtain a release for a picture of a person or interior of a private property. But the exterior of any building, public or private, as long as it is visible to general public - should be a fair game.

I Agree

I don't know what the international copyright laws are or Belgian laws are, but in the U.S. there was a case of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame vs. Gentile.  As the case ruling was explained to me, any picture taken of a building from a public place is fair use as long as trademarks such as logos are not visible. 

I believe there are restrictions about this.  If the building is the main subject, I don't think it can be used for commercial purposes. 

Regards,
Adelaide

Do shots from space count?

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Google-follows-Yahoo-lead-into-geo-search/0,130061733,339288997,00.htm


I could make a piece of art in my backyard (because it's on Google), and know that in one year or so, i could see it from space on google earth. then go after the images providers. eureka!

Another copyrighted subject on sell: http://www.mostphotos.com/254165 

Even if Space Needle is copyrighted (any links?), why do you think this photo can be treated as infringement? Is it about the title?

The Space Needle can be used as part of a skyline shot. In this one, you can see Mt Ranier off to the right. This is a very common postcard shot for Seattle.

I do see though some potential problems with some other architectural images in his portfolio should someone decide to use them commercially.  I don't know if MP allows editorial designation or not. Didn't look that far.

In SP, all Harley Davidson photos were removed, even if set as editorial.  It seems there is some risk of HD prosecuting the site or the photographers.

It seems logical to me that I could photograph any building from the outside and sell it for editorial use.  Suwanneeredhead's post sees to say that (although it makes no comment on the editorial vs commercial issue).

Regards,
Adelaide

They have all the options for editorial/Rf etc, and the upload process is much more controlled since the last months. I�m not sure if that protects them in case of lawsuit.   And getting sued in Sweden doesn�t mean 100 Milion$. It�s more like 2000$. But how it works if they get sued by an American company I�m not sure of ?  Anyway, I agree with that needs to be taking care of!