Is it legal?

[cpc1225]

I see a lot of people attach copyright notice to their works. Images, software etc.
I guess a lot of these are not properly copyrighted, is it legal?

[thomascanty]

An image is copyrighted the second you trip the shutter. It doesn't have to be filed with the government to be valid. In other words, of course it's legal.

Here's a quote from the horse's mouth (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html):

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time.

[cpc1225]

I have asked this before but there was no answer.
We usually shoot on buildings without asking for permission.
Can the owner of the building claim the right of the photo if we shoot on their building without permission ?

[IndyJeff]

The owner of the building may not own the copyright to the building, more likely the designer does. You can take a picture of the building but you can't do anything with it, unless it is an editorial use.
However, the owner may still have the right to say, don't take a picture of my building. It is private property.

[scotgasch]

However, the owner may still have the right to say, don't take a picture of my building. It is private property.

Although this is true you can, however, stand on public property (ie. the street) and take all the pictures you want.

I ran into this with Texas A&M. I shot a panorama of the campus from a city owned water tower, they (Texas A&M) tried to sue me and stop me from selling the panorama....they of course did not succeed. I was told by my lawyer that because I took the photos from property that was not owned by the University, they had no right to the pictures. They were advised of this fact from my lawyer and I heard nothing more from them.

[Penguin_101_1]

What about a picture of the St. Louis arch?

[IndyJeff]

scotgasch, who owns Texas A&M university? Is it a public or private entity?

Ask your lawyer if you are standing on public property can you take a shot of any building you want and then sell that image commercially? I am betting if you do your lawyer is going to make some money and you are going to lose a lot of it.

I would be interested in knowing why the lawyer said you could take the shot and be allowed to sell it without compensating the university. This basically goes against everything I have read on the subject.

[richpix]

What about a picture of the St. Louis arch?

Owned by the National Park Service, therefore no copyright--photograph away.

Note that the Park Service does have restrictions on commercial photography done on Park Service maintained property and sometimes written permission is required--always best to check first. This usually applies to larger operations like film companies and extensive photo shoots with models/assistants, etc, to minimize damage and disruption to operations and wildlife.

[richpix]

I have asked this before but there was no answer.
We usually shoot on buildings without asking for permission.
Can the owner of the building claim the right of the photo if we shoot on their building without permission ?

Yes, and no. Read more and find a property release form here:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter12/12-d.html

[FocalSpeed]

So if you stand on public property and take a picture of a private property you could sell the picture without getting permission?

[richpix]

So if you stand on public property and take a picture of a private property you could sell the picture without getting permission?

Yes, unless the private propery is trademarked or copyrighted, and even then you might get away with it. Despite the great amount of words written in copyright and trademark law there are a lot of 18% grey areas--it often comes down to how the judge is feeling that morning. Turd in Wheaties = bad news. Happy tryst with mistress = good news.

[IndyJeff]

So if you stand on public property and take a picture of a private property you could sell the picture without getting permission?

I don't think that is right tho. I was surprised at the finding involving the Rock & Roll HoF and the postcard. I would really like to read the opinions of the court decision on that one.

I still think that if you take a picture of private property, no matter where your standing, once you begin to reproduce and make that image for sale to the public it becomes a violation of the law.

However, if you can see it from the street you should have a right to take a shot for personal use of any building.

If you take a picture of Brittney Spears walking down the sidewalk, can you sell that image to the general public?
If you take a picture of the General Lee (car from the Dukes of Hazzard TV show) can you market that image and not worry about a lawsuit?
If you take a picture of the NCAA Headquarters here in Indianapolis,can you market that image without fear of a lawsuit?

[stopbath]

I think if an image is available to the public view (celebrity walking on the sidewalk, car driven on the road, building visable from the road) any capture of that image is sellable without restraint by the public. (ignoring issues of "national security')

Any photo shoot image is bound to the contract between the subject or the owner of the subject (person, car, building...) and the photographer.

Any image obtained on private property without permission is subject to lawers getting messy with it.

So if I purchased a car, I could take pictures of it and sell the pictures of it. But if I borrowed a car from a friend, it would be up to my friend if I could sell the image. If I saw my friends car parked at the curb, it would be fair game. If the dealer owned it, the dealer or the car maker would decide how I could sell the image of their car...

This is just my opinion and is not based on experience with the law.

[IndyJeff]

I think if an image is available to the public view (celebrity walking on the sidewalk, car driven on the road, building visable from the road) any capture of that image is sellable without restraint by the public. (ignoring issues of "national security')

That all depends on your meaning of sellable. If you are selling it for editorial use you are ok. Any other sale is probably not legal.

Any photo shoot image is bound to the contract between the subject or the owner of the subject (person, car, building...) and the photographer.

Correct

Any image obtained on private property without permission is subject to lawers getting messy with it.

Most definately.

So if I purchased a car, I could take pictures of it and sell the pictures of it.

Depends on how you sell it. A car has a copyright or possibly a trademark and you couldn't market that image without permission of the manufacturer.

But if I borrowed a car from a friend, it would be up to my friend if I could sell the image. If I saw my friends car parked at the curb, it would be fair game. If the dealer owned it, the dealer or the car maker would decide how I could sell the image of their car...

Your friend or dealer neither one are probably the owner to the rights of the car so they would have no say so. The manufacturer, well now there is someone who would have a say so.

This is just my opinion and is not based on experience with the law.

[PhotosGuy]

The sad fact is that anyone can sue you anytime for anything. Doesn't mean that they'll win, but you'll have to pay a lawyer to represent you. So, you lose either way.
Use a release if you stand to make money on a pic.

And, $1 is legal payment in the USA.

[IndyJeff]

The sad fact is that anyone can sue you anytime for anything. Doesn't mean that they'll win, but you'll have to pay a lawyer to represent you. So, you lose either way.
Use a release if you stand to make money on a pic.

And, $1 is legal payment in the USA.

Yes anytime you sell a photo, regardless of money or barter amount, it becomes a commercial sale at that point. So get a release and you know your in the clear.

Until we change to a 'loser pays expenses' system in the court room, we will have a bunch of people who try to sue anyone and everyone for anything they can. Now if they know going in that if they lose, they may have to pony up and pay the other guys attorney fees, people will give a second thought about frivilous lawsuits.