I'd say if you want to be squeeky clean, you will have to get permission first. Even if it's legal to do without permission (doubtful), it's still just common decency to ask before you publish someone's face.

There's plenty of stock resources out there, so you shouldn't have to leech people's personal snaps.

like oldvirgin said - plenty of free stock images out there. a favorite site of mine is www.sxc.hu

thanks.. here's my problem though. a lot lot of stuff I need is fairly site or geographically specific.. like picture of police officers wearing the uniform of the city in which the project is located, buses and trains with the actual logo of the municipality on it, signage and license plates for the correct geography/language.. also I need some ethnically-oriented stuff that's pretty hard to find from the stock sets we have at hand

I usually run my entourage through a few filters. Just enough to argue that it's mine, not enough to cover it up. Sometimes I just go with silouhettes. Flickr is definitely my main entourage bank. I also try to use people from other countries so that there's less of a chance of them ever catching me an taking legal action.

if people are photographed in a public place, the photographer can publish that image without the permission of any of the individuals in the photo. *i may be wrong, but this is how i understand this part of it.

if a photo is uploaded to flickr (or similar) with and given a creative commons license, you have to follow the mandate of that license.

for example, my pics on flickr all have:

attribution

non-commercial

no derivative works

There's a rule regarding film crews and people's privacy rights where the crew can zoom up to a certain point and use the footage without violating the subjects' privacy. Some tv news show demonstrated this by filming into an office building window. I would think something similar could be applied as a general rule of thumb. If the person is rendered unrecognizable (just enough to indicate gender and dress) then it should be ok? If I saw myself in some stranger's renderings, I would ask them to remove my image.

Misen, you could ask, but the spirit of the question is, do you have the right to require that it's removed...if the pic is taken in public i'm pretty sure you do not....and don't get me wrong, i feel the same way as you. I work near WTC and Wall Street and when i walk down the street to get lunch, i typically turn my head away from at least a few camera wielding tourists, in order to avoid having my mug end up in their vacation scrapbook...

regarding the topic of this thread... what about photoshop montages credited to the office/architect done by sometimes intern, and that had been published and/or exhibit even in plces like MoMA, i thinkis crap offices still dont make an effort to give credit or pay attention to be sure their collaborators are getting the credit they deserve...

anyways i was just remembering aa personal experience which made me back in the day, and made me mad now remembering, so i had to let it out...

bests...

anybody remember how worked up a lot of 'nectors got (including me, i think) when the news item came out that you weren't allowed to take pictures of the kapoor 'bean' at millenium park? like a tourist shot with the bean in the background > still not allowed.

if i were to copyright myself/my likeness and withhold rights and someone were to photograph me, i could go after them, i suppose. wouldn't really do much for me but it might for someone like cindy sherman whose likeness IS her art in a lot of ways. and, geez, think of how much easier celebrities' lives would be.

phuyaka,

Thanks. That's a hilarious thread.

on that note, I once rather discretely stuck in a few armored personnel carriers and riot troops hitting people with billy clubs and dragging them away into some exceptionally ugly urban design renderings.. very few people noticed

if anyone finds out....just say that they could be famous ...

I'd stay away from Flikr images, those will be the copyright of the photographer (unless specifically stated as otherwise).

As far as I know, same goes for the public. The comments above about proximity and being recognizable seem logical, but I've heard more to the contrary - that photos taken of people need specific permission to publish.

If a lot of people see the image, I'd think about copyrights. Just think if you used some photos and it made it to a billboard or TV (and renderings are making their way there more and more).

istockphoto is an inexpensive way to get unique images. There are tons of CDs out there that you can buy that give you permission to use as you like.


General rule about using anyone's work - if you can recognize the original, you are violating copyrights, if you can't you are ok.

I think we need to clear a few things up:

When you take a picture of a streetscape, for example, and there happens to be people in your photo, you are not in violation of any copyright as it pertains to the people. The logos, art, and corporate markers are another issue, but this discussion is about the people in our renderings.

Secondly, copyright happens upon creation. We've been over this before. That means that unless the photographer explicitly states to the contrary, any part of an image you use from flickr (etc) is copyrighted to that individual. In other words, if you didn't take the photo yourself, pay somebody else to take the photo, or obtain rights (paid or otherwise) to the rightful copyright owner, you are in violation of copyright.

And lastly, trace's last point is incorrect. In order to avoid infringement of copyright, your creation must only differ to a certain extent. Up here in Canada, for example, you must alter or modify an existing work at least 30% to not be liable for infringement. This can be argued in court, and that's where the trouble lies. In plain english, you can use the Mona Lisa to advertise your building, so long as it's monochramatic blue, for example. You've substantially altered the content so that now it's yours, and if anybody else uses a monochromatic blue Mona Lisa to advertise their product, they could be found in violation of YOUR copyright.

It's complicated, and your mileage may vary.

I have always heard that is a general rule here in the US.

It's a gray area, though. For example, if you have a Chanel magazine ad and you cut out the super model for your rendering. While not necessarily recognizable as the ad, the image is still has copyrights and you'd be violating them to use the super model in your rendering.

Do people care or pursue this stuff? Not really, but you never know.

You can read more here (although not all that helpful, imho):

http://www.aiga.org/resources/content/3/5/9/6/documents/aiga_8photography_07.pdf


As always, if someone wants to sue you, they will.




I am continually shocked how many well known architect's use photography that is obviously violating copyrights (like the super model example, or a celebrity). They are opening themselves up to all kinds of litigation.

in terms of people pursuing litigation, i think it mostly boils down to intent: by showing that super-model, are you implying that he/she is somehow tacitly endorsing your project? probably not, but if her agency felt like it was...

similarly, if you paste in a copy of disney concert hall into the background of a rendering, you're probably not going to be sued unless you're trying to claim you designed it.

for madianito - i don't know of any office that credits individuals for specific images that they've created while being a part of that office. somehow, in my opinion, it seems to emphasize the individual more than the team creating that project. and the reality is, it's the office that produced the image - you should certainly be recognized internally and can boast to your friends about your work, but that office gave you a salary (presumably), infrastructure, time, a project, etc. to do the work.

lastly, to employees of offices in general - be very careful about how you take images and use them in future portfolios and especially if you're going to start up a firm. the legal issues there are really complex and i would advise getting something in writing from your employer about which images you'll be allowed to use and in what capacity. especially if you're starting up and are potential competition to them.

MADianito: as has been mentioned, a rendering that is created within an office is the property of that office and there is no requirement that the office credit the individuals that worked on it.

However: you should not assume that if your name does not appear in the credits for something like that that it is because your employer doesn't want to credit you. My experience with this is that magazines, exhibition coordinators, etc. often do not include all of the information that is provided to them by the firms, in the interest of saving space or keeping credits shorter/cleaner. Our firm provides the names and roles of everyone involved in the projects but more often than not it is only the name of the firm and occasionally the project architect/manager that end up making it to print.

Thanks for all the great feedback. I went back and tracked down each of the images I used in Flickr and, by some miracle, found out that all of them are licensed to varying degrees under Creative Commons. Assuming that I am able to comply with all of the requirements of the license, including credit, am I then able to use these images without prior consent of the owners? Also, if I were to publish a collection of images which included figures in renderings covered under CC2.0 licenses, can I limit the CC restrictions to only those particular particular renderings/montages in which derivative elements of CC-licensed works were included, or would CC rights have to apply to my entire body of work?

Bloopox, on your point about getting work credited, you're right on the money here. I worked on a project in Spain a couple of years ago and my drawings still pop up in the media there every few months, often not credited at all. My employer has, however, been diligent in taking up these issues with the publishers as they occur, but there isn't a whole lot they can do about it other than to complain each time we catch uncredited publication. I figure we probably catch one out of every three or four instances. I've also had problems where production architects engaged after conceptual design, took images I prepared or help prepare during the DD phase and claimed them as their own... again, hard to fight over retroactively.. when detection may be delayed for months or years.

BLOOPOX i know that, and i know is the property of the "company" or whatever u wanna call it, and i also know that publications and stuff doesnt care, or is not functionaal for them to list all the credits or collaborators in everything.....i was just trying to say that, that...mmhhh is shitty :P

but yeah i knew all that, and i was just exorcizing my deons, but that was long ago, no prob ;)