A photograph of public property is copyrightable of course, but, at least in Canada, taking a picture of an permanently placed building or outdoor statue is not a breach of copyright, even if you intend to publish the photograph.
Oh really! That's very interesting. Even if the statue is still new enough to be under copyright in its own right?
(This is helpful given the topic of the site I was collecting the photos I originally asked about for.)
Matt
A photograph of public property is copyrightable of course, but, at least in Canada, taking a picture of an permanently placed building or outdoor statue is not a breach of copyright, even if you intend to publish the photograph.
Oh really! That's very interesting. Even if the statue is still new enough to be under copyright in its own right?
(This is helpful given the topic of the site I was collecting the photos I originally asked about for.)
Matt
You can imagine a number of different fact situations with images of creative works, a statue still in the artist's workshop, in a private home, but on public display the situation is pretty clear, not a problem; a copy of a statue is a whole other matter, perhaps a hologram would be a significant fact change.
Fred
From: "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@ctelco.net
A photograph of public property is copyrightable of course, but, at least in Canada, taking a picture of an permanently placed building or outdoor statue is not a breach of copyright, even if you intend to publish the photograph.
Oh really! That's very interesting. Even if the statue is still new
enough
to be under copyright in its own right?
(This is helpful given the topic of the site I was collecting the photos
I
originally asked about for.)
Matt
You can imagine a number of different fact situations with images of creative works, a statue still in the artist's workshop, in a private
home,
but on public display the situation is pretty clear, not a problem; a copy of a statue is a whole other matter, perhaps a hologram would be a significant fact change.
Fred
If the it was necessary to get copyright clearance of everything displayed in public then no one could ever satisfy such a burden and it would be impossible to create images of public places. Of course there are privacy rights issues when dealing with people not engaged in newsworthy activities, but otherwise documenting something in public is not a problem (though using an image of something that is owned even in public for some promotional or commercial purpose might be a problem in some fact patterns).
Once again, doesn't this discussion belong on Wikilegal-L? I am cross posting my reply there.
Alex756