Going from memory. In the US If it is a public building there is little or no restrictions or infringement. Private homes are protected. Search the web for architectural copyright there are a few law firms who put some enlightening info up on the net.

be punk rock... F**K THE COPYWRITE

=D

mdler --
it was my understanding that if you were the one to take the photo, then that image belonged to you and you could then copyright the image if you were so inclined to, as well as use it on any product or in any matter you wished to (short of passing it off as your own work). however, i thought there was a hubbub about this a couple years or so ago and that the u.s copyright laws were going to change to require the photographer to get permission, prior to photographing the building and using it for financial gain, from the copyright holder of the building, if one existed. if you haven't already found it here's a nice little bit on the matter from about.com hope this helps.

i believe there is also a distinction between the outside of a building, ie. what is the public realm, and the inside, what is generally consider private.

I have been researching copyrigh quite extensively lately, and you pose an interesting question.

The law says:

An original design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings, is subject to copyright protection as an “architectural work” under Section 102 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C., as amended on December 1, 1990. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design but does not include individual standard features or design elements that are functionally required.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.html

This would imply that you cannot physically reproduce the "work" or the actual building. You could also arue that you can't reproduce the drawings of the building, etc. because they themselves would be under copyright as artwork.

However, creating an image of the building, either by photography, painting, or sculpture, would be creating an entirely new work, and would not be violating copyright.

I suppose one could (and has) argue(ed) that a photograph of a building is a derivitive work, but I find this argument very thin, but you can read on derivitive work here:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html


One thing you might check on is if the building is actually Trade Marked. For example, the Space Needle in Seattle is actually a trademark of the city(I'm not positive who owns the trademark), thererfore any images of the space needle must accompany written permission or licensing for reproduction.

However, people take pictures of the Space Needle all the time, which brings up the relevancy of Copyright or Trademark, which is money.

copyryight is rarely questioned or enforced unless there is something significant to gain or lose, so if whatever you are doing isn't going to make make much money, I wouldn't be terribly concerned.

If you think you will be making a lot of money ($100,000 or more), or if you are concerned I would recommend seeing a lawyer. You might try looking for lawyers that volunteer to help artists in your community with legal advice.

As a gesture of good faith, it might be a good idea to contact the owner and/or the designer of the building anyway...

Are the buildings famous?