-
1. Re: Copyright and public landmarks in logo question
markerline Sep 28, 2010 11:45 AM (in response to badchess)There might be. I think I saw someone post about this last week telling that even if you take a picture of a building, landmark or otherwise you must di
scuss this with the realtor to get permission to use the image. I don't think postcards cost lots of money without there being an exchange of funds between the postcard artist who receives royalties for the sale and the landmarks that are photographed or illustrated.
-
2. Re: Copyright and public landmarks in logo question
markerline Sep 28, 2010 11:48 AM (in response to markerline)check JETalmage's post here on derivative works. I know that you must obtain copyright permission for creating derivative works because I have looked into the matter personally and there is a great deal of info at www.copyright.gov
Here's the post I was mentioning . . .
-
3. Re: Copyright and public landmarks in logo question
badchess Sep 28, 2010 12:06 PM (in response to markerline)http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
Says a drawing based on a photograph (my photograph) is an example of a derivative work, and is copyrighable if it differs sufficiently from the original. Thanks to my poor drawing skills I belive this to be the case.
Looking at the links, my gut feeling is it is legal if you don't get sued, other than that, who knows.
With further research, according to the government:
"Architectural works became subject to copyright protection on December 1, 1990. The copyright law defines “architectural work” as “the design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.” Copyright protection extends to any architectural work created on or after December 1, 1990. Also, any architectural works that were unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings on that date and were constructed by December 31, 2002, are eligible for protection. Architectural designs embodied in buildings constructed prior to December 1, 1990, are not eligible for copyright protection. See Circular 41, Copyright Claims in Architectural Works "
Since the space needle was built in the early 60's, I should be cool. I think.
-
4. Re: Copyright and public landmarks in logo question
Wade_Zimmerman Sep 28, 2010 12:29 PM (in response to markerline)This is not quite correct the only country in which this would apply is France and that is after the date that the law protecting architecture was put into place which I think is 1995.
The law there is that the design of the building is copyrighted by the architect by creating it. The publication or sale of photographs or likeness of it is protected and the architect has to grant permission to use it, however the photograph is the property and copyright of the photographer.
I do work in France and for one the prime movers who created this law, and they pay me for my photography and use of it.
How does that work, simple I own the photography they only own the rights to their building design if they want to use my photographs or have publications i contribute use the images they have to get my permission, but if I want to sell it to a commercial entity for advertising a product or service
I need their permission. They will probably insist on either a royalty or fee or more than likely use the commercial entities needs for future architectural service as a way of being looked upon as a possible source, they probably would exchange a commission for a fee. Which would be worth far more than a fee, if it is something sleazy the answer will simply be no. If it were used for a poster say for a concert the answer would probably be yes and no fee would be required.Now to the U.S. copyright laws which has since 1991 protection in the same way for architects, you need their permission in the form of a release, but if the image is taken from public property or from property you have permission to enter and you take a photo of the building or structure or place it is not copyright protected since it is deemed in the public domain and comes under the fair use law. So the building in the US would have to built after 1991 and you would have to be on the property owned by in this case the people who own the Skyneedle.
In other words you can use it. Like photographing the Empire State Building.
But, and it is a big but, you can not use the image or likeness to indicate that this is officially a Space Needle item, organization, event or sponsored anything unless you obtain a license from the the owners and operators of the structure building or place.
So you can use it but you cannot make it look like it is officially connected to the Space Needle, which I would think would be very had to do.
The Eiffel tower is protected for instance but only when light up at night and it is the lighting designer who owns the copyright.
BTW the laws are pretty much unenforcible when it comes to landmarks,it is only a question a particular circumstances where the money would make sense for enforcement.
Also in France if you are promoting architecture or design they do actually consider the law to apply.
-
5. Re: Copyright and public landmarks in logo question
Wade_Zimmerman Sep 28, 2010 12:40 PM (in response to badchess)Well yes they are protected essentially from 1991 on but again if the image is taken from the public domain they come under the fair use law and the law protecting architecture does not make specific or any reference to limit the fair use law on the photography of architecture. Also only the original architect actually has copyright protection and I believe once it has be altered it is no longer the same design and is no longer protected in the same way.
Again you have to be o the property where the structure is located. If you have been given permission to enter the property to photograph it for the purpose of using it for unspecified reasons you are also fine.
You are fine but it depends on what you do with the likeness, there are other areas of copyright law to consider, they might even have a trademark very similar to what you draw as a registered trademark for instance.
So I would look a their promotional work first and when you feel confident it does not conflict yes go ahead and use it.
But it is not as simple as you might think though more than likely well within your rights.
-
6. Re: Copyright and public landmarks in logo question
badchess Sep 28, 2010 12:44 PM (in response to Wade_Zimmerman)Oh, I never think copyright matters are simple.
Client wanted Mt. Rainier and the Space Needle so their logo would say "Washington State."
Thanks, as always.
-
7. Re: Copyright and public landmarks in logo question
Wade_Zimmerman Sep 28, 2010 12:49 PM (in response to badchess)The chances that any one would complain about this are probably non existing and I doubt they can prove any intent of copyright infringement.
If you think your work is appealing you might fly it by the people at the space needle and who knows they might offer you some work.


