can I sell prints of famous buildings?

[tdcarroll3]

I'm just starting out in photography and i love taking pictures focusing on abstract elements in modern/contemporary architecture. My question is, if I take photos of parts of like the Shard, Gherkin, "City Hall," etc, can i sell them as fine art prints? I've poked around several sites and such but the answer isn't really clear.

 

[GeeJay57]

Your Rights As A Photographer - Institute of Photography

HOW TO STAY ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE LAW *Disclaimer* : This article should not be considered legal advice. Please do your own research

www.institute-of-photography.com

 

[lindsay]

However - bottom line - if you are just starting out in photography, you are probably getting ahead of yourself in thinking of selling Fine Art prints; is your photography good enough? and what are your intentions as regards printing to the required quality?
Not to put a downer on you, but I'd suggest you need some objective appraisal of your work before putting it out there. It's good to have ambition and focus though.

BTW welcome to the site, there's a lot here to engage in and learn from, see how others approach ideas, etc.

 

[4wd]

Some buildings are essentially 'copyrighted' or at least there are examples the best known being the eiffel tower in particular showing light displays on it.
You might be on shaky ground with studies of famous buildings here but if part of a more general scene it would be fine.
Depends on the eventual use if you are doing a few prints on ebay or car boot sale hard to see any issue but if it eventually ended up on a billboard the owners might have some thing to say.
In short don't worry about it as amateur - in the UK anyway.

 

[Musicman]

As someone with a degree in architecture, who has made many sales of images of buildings, I have some interest in this topic.

In English law the basic principle established by Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is that photographs of a building do not infringe any copyright that exists in the building

62 Representation of certain artistic works on public display.

(1) This section applies to—

(a) buildings, and​

(b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.​

(2) The copyright in such a work is not infringed by—

(a) making a graphic work representing it,​

(b) making a photograph or film of it, or​

(c) [F1 making a broadcast of] a visual image of it.​

(3) Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the [F2 communication to the public], of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.

However, this approach may not apply in other countries. The Eiffel Tower has already been mentioned, where the lighting design is considered an artistic work in its own right and night time views may infringe copyright.

Even in the UK, certain buildings have also been registered as trade marks by their owners. 30 St Mary Axe AKA 'The Gherkin' is one such example, so you would have to be careful that you do not infringe their trade mark, especially if the photographs are being used in a commercial context. You may also have to consider and/or acknowledge logos or other trade marked items appearing in any image in this context, and any in title or description that you apply - 'The Gherkin' itself is a trade mark term.

Broadly, in the UK at least, you're less likely to encounter any issues if the photo is a general view that just happens to include the building or item. Conversely, where it is the principal subject, then it more likely to present problems.

You should also consider whether you are permitted to take photographs - under GLA byelaws, commercial8 photography in Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square Gardens require a licence issued by the Mayor's office.

* defined as "for the purpose of or in connection with a business, trade, profession or employment or any activity carried on by a person or body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate"

There's a fairly extensive discussion of the legal points here - the source is the company of lawyers that registered the copyrights and trade marks for The Gherkin.

The London Skyline - an IP view

Bribery Newsflash MW Kellogg Ltd to pay £7 million in SFO deal

www.fieldfisher.com

Getty have a wiki which notes about IP issues pertinent to significant buildings round the world. While it is by no means exhaustive nor necessarily authoritative, it may provide a useful guide.

Architecture | Intellectual Property Wiki

 

[tijuana taxi]

Not relevant here, but isn't there something about photographing the Eifel Tower at night or at least when its illuminated.

 

[lindsay]

I think the OP was referring to photos of parts of buildings, eg elements of the construction rather than images of whole buildings. I can imagine for example photos of just parts of the ironwork of the Eiffel Tower, or certain elements of the glass and steel of the Shard. Hence quite different to what's been referred to above, so I wonder if the IP argument obtains there but not the copyright/trademarking issues?

 

[Musicman]

Not relevant here, but isn't there something about photographing the Eifel Tower at night or at least when its illuminated.

Indeed, yes, there is something about it

Some buildings are essentially 'copyrighted' or at least there are examples the best known being the eiffel tower in particular showing light displays on it.

However, this approach may not apply in other countries. The Eiffel Tower has already been mentioned, where the lighting design is considered an artistic work in its own right and night time views may infringe copyright.

and that specific example is discussed by a lawyer in the article I linked to here

There's a fairly extensive discussion of the legal points here - the source is the company of lawyers that registered the copyrights and trade marks for The Gherkin.

The London Skyline - an IP view

Bribery Newsflash MW Kellogg Ltd to pay £7 million in SFO deal

www.fieldfisher.com

 

[Musicman]

BTW the GLA building is quite dirty since the GLA moved out to the Royal Victoria Dock; the building is not being regularly cleaned by its owners, More London Estates.

In my own experience, you may be challenged by More London security staff and asked to leave if you look too 'professional'. Same goes around the Millennium Wheel (which is trade marked).

If you're at The Shard (and I sold a lot of photos of The Shard while it was being constructed through my relationship with the architects) you may get away with things, but inside the station you may find yourself required to seek a commercial photography permit - which is around £1000 per day IIRC.