Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

postcards copyright?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
March 11, 2005 2:39:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

General photo question: Are their legal considerations when making
postcards of holiday photos? I mean photos of statues, famous buildings,
bridges, religeous imagery on the external walls of cathedrals, that sort of
thing. In the EU.

More about : postcards copyright

Anonymous
March 11, 2005 4:21:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

jon writes:

> General photo question: Are their legal considerations when making
> postcards of holiday photos? I mean photos of statues, famous buildings,
> bridges, religeous imagery on the external walls of cathedrals, that sort of
> thing. In the EU.

For commercial use? Yes, in the EU especially. Many older buildings
are in the public domain, but some countries give architects very broad
rights to control the use of images of buildings they design. This is
the case in France, for example. (In the U.S., architects _cannot_
claim these rights--they are specifically excluded from doing so.)

In some cases, you may also need a property release, if you are using a
famous place in a commercial way. Some countries require permission for
all publication, commercial or not. The most draconian legislation is
in France; you can avoid it to some extent by simply not publishing in
France.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
March 11, 2005 10:34:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yes, it was for commercial reasons. The wording of any law involving a
building in a public place must be interesting to see, it would have to be
so precise as to what constituted a violation. Any idea where you might
start to find out what restrictions there may be? My photos are taken from
sites all over Europe, mainly small towns and villages. It seems that one
might have to write to hundreds of local authorities for clarification.
It's rather academic as any venture such as this, on my part would be more
for a laugh than for a profit and in the main most people would be flattered
that a foreigner had paid much attention to their local semi ruined chapel.



/,
"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:r0p131t1g834d2vtjhuohikj5tktb49riv@4ax.com...
> jon writes:
>
>> General photo question: Are their legal considerations when making
>> postcards of holiday photos? I mean photos of statues, famous
>> buildings,
>> bridges, religeous imagery on the external walls of cathedrals, that sort
>> of
>> thing. In the EU.
>
> For commercial use? Yes, in the EU especially. Many older buildings
> are in the public domain, but some countries give architects very broad
> rights to control the use of images of buildings they design. This is
> the case in France, for example. (In the U.S., architects _cannot_
> claim these rights--they are specifically excluded from doing so.)
>
> In some cases, you may also need a property release, if you are using a
> famous place in a commercial way. Some countries require permission for
> all publication, commercial or not. The most draconian legislation is
> in France; you can avoid it to some extent by simply not publishing in
> France.
>
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Related resources
March 11, 2005 1:12:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

jon wrote:
> Yes, it was for commercial reasons. The wording of any law involving a
> building in a public place must be interesting to see, it would have to be
> so precise as to what constituted a violation. Any idea where you might
> start to find out what restrictions there may be?

It's copyright law. Just imagine it's someone's painting you're
photographing instead of a building. Same principals apply.


> My photos are taken from
> sites all over Europe, mainly small towns and villages. It seems that one
> might have to write to hundreds of local authorities for clarification.

They're national laws, and you can probably find them all on-line.

> It's rather academic as any venture such as this, on my part would be more
> for a laugh than for a profit and in the main most people would be flattered
> that a foreigner had paid much attention to their local semi ruined chapel.

The copyright lasts for something like 90 years after the death of the
creator, so as long as your ruined chapel is 200 years old you probably
don't need to worry.

Bob
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 9:30:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob writes:

> It's copyright law. Just imagine it's someone's painting you're
> photographing instead of a building. Same principals apply.

Not necessarily. Sometimes it's copyright, sometimes it's simple
property law (image rights), sometimes it's both, sometimes it's
neither.

The trend for years has been towards ever more restrictive
interpretations and modifications of the law.

> They're national laws, and you can probably find them all on-line.

Sometimes they are local laws, also. And you might still have to write
to a long list of individuals to get permission for each photographed
site.

> The copyright lasts for something like 90 years after the death of the
> creator, so as long as your ruined chapel is 200 years old you probably
> don't need to worry.

Unless they extend copyright law to death plus 300 years, which wouldn't
surprise me, given the constant trend towards greater oppression.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 1:54:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <r0p131t1g834d2vtjhuohikj5tktb49riv@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
<mxsmanic@hotmail.com> writes
>jon writes:
>
>> General photo question: Are their legal considerations when making
>> postcards of holiday photos? I mean photos of statues, famous buildings,
>> bridges, religeous imagery on the external walls of cathedrals, that sort of
>> thing. In the EU.
>
>For commercial use? Yes, in the EU especially. Many older buildings
>are in the public domain, but some countries give architects very broad
>rights to control the use of images of buildings they design. This is
>the case in France, for example. (In the U.S., architects _cannot_
>claim these rights--they are specifically excluded from doing so.)

The position is the same in the UK - images of any work of art
(including architecture) which is on view from a public place may be
used without breach of copyright. If you need to access private property
to take a photograph, then the contractual terms of your licence to
enter can impose restrictions.

Copyright throughout the EU lasts for 70 years from the death of the
creator, or (IIRC) in the case of a corporate creator, just 70 years.
This was the result of an "upwards standardisation" a few years ago,
bludgeoned through by Germany. In the UK (previously 50 years) this
resulted in large numbers of out-of-copyright works going back into
copyright.
>
>In some cases, you may also need a property release, if you are using a
>famous place in a commercial way. Some countries require permission for
>all publication, commercial or not. The most draconian legislation is
>in France; you can avoid it to some extent by simply not publishing in
>France.
>

--
David Littlewood
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 12:24:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:30:10 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>> The copyright lasts for something like 90 years after the death of the
>> creator, so as long as your ruined chapel is 200 years old you probably
>> don't need to worry.
>
>Unless they extend copyright law to death plus 300 years, which wouldn't
>surprise me, given the constant trend towards greater oppression.

This brings up a questrion...
Let's suppose someone designs a building, and
copyrights/trademarks/otherwise protects images of that building.
Then that building is substantially altered (by fire, weather,
bombing, rebuilding, whatever), does that protection still apply? Does
the alteration of the protected building affect the protection? My
thinking is that any image (photograph) of the altered building
doesn't reflect the original protected building anymore, so the
protection might not still be valid?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 9:33:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 09:24:08 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:30:10 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> The copyright lasts for something like 90 years after the death of the
>>> creator, so as long as your ruined chapel is 200 years old you probably
>>> don't need to worry.
>>
>>Unless they extend copyright law to death plus 300 years, which wouldn't
>>surprise me, given the constant trend towards greater oppression.
>
>This brings up a questrion...
>Let's suppose someone designs a building, and
>copyrights/trademarks/otherwise protects images of that building.
>Then that building is substantially altered (by fire, weather,
>bombing, rebuilding, whatever), does that protection still apply?

If you take a copyrighted object and modify it, you are still in breach
of copyright. So if a copyrighted building has its appearance altered by
acts of God, then God is in breach of copyright. I'm sure there's a
lawyer somewhere who'd take up the case ...

--
Stephen Poley
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 9:57:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill writes:

> Then that building is substantially altered (by fire, weather,
> bombing, rebuilding, whatever), does that protection still apply?

In many countries, the building _cannot_ be altered without the
permission of the architect! Even the use to which the building is
being put is subject to the architect's approval.

> My thinking is that any image (photograph) of the altered building
> doesn't reflect the original protected building anymore, so the
> protection might not still be valid?

Since the creator's permission is required before any alteration, it
would still be protected. If it is damaged by an act of god, it would
still be protected as well ... at least in countries that are backward
enough to accord this type of protection to buildings.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 9:58:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stephen Poley writes:

> If you take a copyrighted object and modify it, you are still in breach
> of copyright. So if a copyrighted building has its appearance altered by
> acts of God, then God is in breach of copyright. I'm sure there's a
> lawyer somewhere who'd take up the case ...

And I'm sure there are judges somewhere who would issue court orders to
God as well (whom they consider subordinate to the mighty Court).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 1:35:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Most interesting places in Europe have architects that died several hundred
years ago, in some cases thousands. In many cases the buildings were built
by people that no longer live in the region where the buildings are, they
are not even made by the natives of the country that has an ownership claim.

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:r0p131t1g834d2vtjhuohikj5tktb49riv@4ax.com...
> jon writes:
>
>> General photo question: Are their legal considerations when making
>> postcards of holiday photos? I mean photos of statues, famous
>> buildings,
>> bridges, religeous imagery on the external walls of cathedrals, that sort
>> of
>> thing. In the EU.
>
> For commercial use? Yes, in the EU especially. Many older buildings
> are in the public domain, but some countries give architects very broad
> rights to control the use of images of buildings they design. This is
> the case in France, for example. (In the U.S., architects _cannot_
> claim these rights--they are specifically excluded from doing so.)
>
> In some cases, you may also need a property release, if you are using a
> famous place in a commercial way. Some countries require permission for
> all publication, commercial or not. The most draconian legislation is
> in France; you can avoid it to some extent by simply not publishing in
> France.
>
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 3:44:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

simeon writes:

> Most interesting places in Europe have architects that died several hundred
> years ago, in some cases thousands. In many cases the buildings were built
> by people that no longer live in the region where the buildings are, they
> are not even made by the natives of the country that has an ownership claim.

You've been in Europe _recently_? The buildings are not all five
hundred years old.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 4:51:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:57:20 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Big Bill writes:
>
>> Then that building is substantially altered (by fire, weather,
>> bombing, rebuilding, whatever), does that protection still apply?
>
>In many countries, the building _cannot_ be altered without the
>permission of the architect! Even the use to which the building is
>being put is subject to the architect's approval.

Well, not all of the examples I gave involved the permission of the
architect.
And after the architect dies, how does he give permission for
anything?
>
>> My thinking is that any image (photograph) of the altered building
>> doesn't reflect the original protected building anymore, so the
>> protection might not still be valid?
>
>Since the creator's permission is required before any alteration, it
>would still be protected. If it is damaged by an act of god, it would
>still be protected as well ... at least in countries that are backward
>enough to accord this type of protection to buildings.

I understand what you're saying.
I still wonder, since the building (if altered without the architect's
permission) isn't the same as before it was altered, why such
protection would be valid. But there's no telling sometimes when
lawyers get involved.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 4:22:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill writes:

> And after the architect dies, how does he give permission for
> anything?

His heirs inherit the rights.

> I understand what you're saying.
> I still wonder, since the building (if altered without the architect's
> permission) isn't the same as before it was altered, why such
> protection would be valid. But there's no telling sometimes when
> lawyers get involved.

I think any sort of rights like this for architects represent a massive
abuse of intellectual-property law. Architects are paid to design
buildings, not to create copyrighted "works of art." I suppose one can
grant them protection against someone else building an identical copy of
the building (within reason--a metal shed doesn't involve much
creativity), but giving them sweeping image rights and "moral rights"
(the right to forbid repurposing of the building or any remodeling or
modification or even demolition) is ridiculous.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
March 14, 2005 2:43:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill wrote:
>
> This brings up a questrion...
> Let's suppose someone designs a building, and
> copyrights/trademarks/otherwise protects images of that building.
> Then that building is substantially altered (by fire, weather,

It's a deravitive work; he still holds copyright.

Just like if you have one of my photos in your house and it's
fire-damaged. I still hold copyright on the image.

Bob
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 2:58:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:43:45 -0500, bob <not@not.not> wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>>
>> This brings up a questrion...
>> Let's suppose someone designs a building, and
>> copyrights/trademarks/otherwise protects images of that building.
>> Then that building is substantially altered (by fire, weather,
>
>It's a deravitive work; he still holds copyright.

So if a fire guts the building, drops the roof and two walls, who did
the work making it a derivitive? :-)
>
>Just like if you have one of my photos in your house and it's
>fire-damaged. I still hold copyright on the image.
>
>Bob

See, that's the thing: if the image is no longer substantially what
you made, is it still the image that was originally protected?
If so, IMO, there's a problem with the laws making it so.

Not that I'm going to go around trying to test the idea.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
March 14, 2005 5:02:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill wrote:

>
> See, that's the thing: if the image is no longer substantially what
> you made, is it still the image that was originally protected?
> If so, IMO, there's a problem with the laws making it so.
>
> Not that I'm going to go around trying to test the idea.
>

It's not the image that was originally protected, but it derives from
it, so it is still protected.

Now if it's so far removed from the original as to be unrecognizable,
then maybe not. I'm thinking of a photo-montage, for instance, or
samples in a hip-hop recording.

Bob
March 15, 2005 1:37:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"bob" <not@not.not> wrote in message
news:g7lZd.27509$6g7.4334@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> Now if it's so far removed from the original as to be unrecognizable,
> then maybe not. I'm thinking of a photo-montage, for instance, or
> samples in a hip-hop recording.
>
> Bob

My understanding is that any derivative image is prohibited under US
copyright law. The practical question remains: is the claim worth pursuing?
Usually it is not.
March 15, 2005 2:15:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jeremy wrote:
> "bob" <not@not.not> wrote in message
> news:g7lZd.27509$6g7.4334@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
>>Now if it's so far removed from the original as to be unrecognizable,
>>then maybe not. I'm thinking of a photo-montage, for instance, or
>>samples in a hip-hop recording.
>>
>>Bob
>
>
> My understanding is that any derivative image is prohibited under US
> copyright law. The practical question remains: is the claim worth pursuing?
> Usually it is not.

Not true. There have been several cases that went to the Supreme Court
regarding rap "artists" using samples of rock songs. The court has found
(in at least several cases) that these uses were "fair use."

Probably the most famous is the use of the Roy Orbison song, "Pretty Woman."

Bob
March 16, 2005 8:17:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob wrote:


> Not true. There have been several cases that went to the Supreme Court
> regarding rap "artists" using samples of rock songs. The court has found
> (in at least several cases) that these uses were "fair use."
>
> Probably the most famous is the use of the Roy Orbison song, "Pretty
> Woman."

The issue with "Pretty Woman" wasn't based on sampling. The fair use in that case was
because the 2 Live Crew version was a parody of the original and you cant do good
parody unless the source is obvious. If it hadn't been a parody they almost certainly
would have lost due to the amount of material copied. Plenty of rap songs are almost
entirely stolen from previous works, but it's because of repetition, not the portion
of the original that is copied. I'm surprised courts haven't consistently ruled that
sampling is copyright infringement, but at least it's usually limited to a short
snippet, that's usually in the background. Vanilla Ice's rip off of "Under Pressure"
is a good (and common) example of repetition of a short segment, though it's hardly
in the background.

--
Steve

The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
!