At 03:27 PM 9/10/98 -0700, you wrote:

>I have a question about copyright and reproduction of photographs of
buildings.
>
>What are the copyright restrictions, if any?  Who holds the copyright to a
>photograph of a museum?  Does it matter if the museum commissioned the
>photograph?
>
>I ask because one author is intending to use photographs of buildings which
>she took herself.  Any problem with that?
>
>Oh, and what about postcards and posters?  What should I pay attention to
>in regards to reproducing these, especially if they are widely distributed
>images.

As I see it, the answer to this question is both simple and complex.

If copyright only is to be considered, the following provision of the law
would seem to apply:

SECT120. Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works

          SECT120(a) Pictorial representations permitted. The copyright in
     an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the
     right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of
     pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations
     of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located
     in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

In other words, photographs of architecture, museums included, are
permitted and can be reproduced and distributed without permission of the
copyright holder of the building.  However, in court, the owner of a
building that has been reproduced may wish to challenge what a public place
means and whether the provision concerns images taken from a public place
or not.  At first glance the language does not seem to control the position
of the photographer.  If the building is in a public place, does the
photograph of it have to be taken from a public place. In other words, if
the photographer is standing on the private property of a museum, does his
picture meet the test offered in the statute?  What if there is sculpture
in the photograph, such as exterior sculpture one often finds around
museums. The statute says nothing about the reproduction of sculpture in
photographs of architecture.

Photographs of buildings already taken (as in the museum photo cited above)
do hold copyright, and reproducing them without permission, unless
reproduced under fair use or some other excluding provision may be an
infringement.

The difficult part pertains when other qualifications outside of copyright
are brought in. Can a museum, especially a museum situated on a private
campus, as a qualification of entry, prohibit all photography or all
commercial use of photography?  My guess is yes, and museums frequently
sell the rights to film in their interiors.

Then there is the example of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. In short, they
sued a photographer who was selling posters of the museum made from his own
photograph of it, claiming not that his picture was a copyright
infringement, but rather a violation of their trademark in the building
itself. They won the first round, but may not be successful in the appeal,
which, as I understand it, is still pending.


Individuals with copyright questions such as the above are requested to
copy them to me for consideration in the College Art Association's Q&A
booklet on copyright and scholarship.  Simply place a CIPQA in the header.

Robert A. Baron
[log in to unmask]