> Houses are not under copyright AT ALL
> but if you take a picture of my house and publish it in a book you will
> probably loose in court when I sue you unless you obtained a property
> release.

You probably wouldn't fare so well. Most photographers don't get a property release for a house (or an office building or a museum etc etc) photographed from a public place unless they are working on the house as a whole, interiors and exteriors etc. And when I've worked with publishers, they have never required one for a simple exterior shot of a public building or house.

If you pick up any book of photographs of, say, urban and suburban N. America by Lee Friedlander or Geoffrey James or Todd Hido or Lewis Baltz or Robert Adams or Paul Graham or Frank Gohlke or Bob Thall and many others - non of those have releases as a rule. You can even photograph somewhere like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and sell your own postcards and posters of it. 

There are some circumstances where trademark may apply to a building - but that too is somewhat limited. There are also some limited copyright issues around unique architectural detail - but again, quite limited. But as a general rule, photographs of any building visible from a public place can be (and regularly are) published in a book, magazine, newspaper or used in most commercial applications

What court cases there have been in these circumstances have pretty much all generally favoured the photographer in these circumstances.

tim atherton

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).