Re:Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty ...
by rplst8 on Saturday July 07, 2018 @12:56AM
(#17477095)
This is why copyright is so messed up. If I take an photograph of a building designed by someone else, can I sell my photo freely?
Re:Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty ...
by imbur on Saturday July 07, 2018 @02:42AM
(#17477400)
In the US buildings are covered under freedom of panorama and photographs of buildings taken from public areas are not copyright infringement. Sculptures are not covered under freedom of panorama in the US, and generally photographs of sculptures or other works of art are derivative works.
Second there is a major distinction between commercial use and fine art. Selling an image on a stock photo site to be used in an advertisement requires a release from any models, or from the sculptures copyright owner in this case. If they were selling a limited number of fine art prints they would not need a release.
Re:Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty ...
by AdamTReineke on Saturday July 07, 2018 @01:43AM
(#17477245)
Here's a list from Shutterstock of some items restricted: https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/contributor-resources/lega...
Re:Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty ...
by balls187 on Saturday July 07, 2018 @01:00AM
(#17477107)
If the building is a work of art, then depends who owns it's copyright, and what restrictions they have placed on commercial use.
But most likely it's not, so your image would almost meet the Fair Use standard. It's derivative.
Yes, it does, but doesn't necessarily grant copyright for the content of the photograph.
I can sell a photograph of that statue, and be protected from copyright claims IF my work meets the Fair Use standard. I can also give you permission to use my photograph commercially. However you may not use it yourself commercially without permission of the statues copyright owner. The copyright owner can restrict it's usage outside of those covered by the Fair Use doctrine.
Two examples:
If I take a picture of of a person, I own the copyright for that image. I can sell it to you, but what you can do with that image is limited. You can use it privately, but to publish it in say a magazine, you would need a model release form. You have the rights to use the image, but not to the subjects likeness. There are cases where no release is needed, such as the case for photojournalism, or when the figure's likeness is already in the public domain (i.e. a politician, or another type of celebrity).
The lightshow & fireworks show at the Eiffel Tower in Paris is a copyrighted work. Pictures of it can be used for personal use, but commercial use is prohibited. In order to use a picture of the light show commercially, you must obtain permission (aka a license) from the Eiffel Tower Society. They have explicitly restricted the use of lightshow pictures. [1]
As an aside, this is one of my beefs with Getty Images. It allows people to upload photographs to which they do not actually have all the rights to, and Getty then sells a license to use it.
1: https://alj.orangenius.com/night-photos-eiffel-tower-violate...