Photographer's rights to submit for critique and possibly sell at a later date in time (Page 3): You're forgetting the art of photography, enjoy your work to it fullest, everything...

dayranch Loc: Douglasville Georgia

You're forgetting the art of photography, enjoy your work to it fullest, everything else will take care of itself!

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Robby418 wrote:

Fellow hedgehogs 😎, first of all thanks for all t... (show quote)

If you want to publish and sell them as photographic art, you can do so, as long as you have not been informed that photos are prohibited.

You automatically have copyright, and could sue if anyone copies and sells your work. However, you can only sue for the amount of their profit. For punitive damages, you would have had to register a copyright with the U.S.

If people are recognizable, or even some name, you would need permission/release since you are not on public property.

These are items I’ve gleaned from research, and which I’ve used successfully for years. At least they give you some specifics to clear with knowledgeable copyright experts.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

artBob wrote:

If you want to publish and sell them as photograph... (show quote)

Buildings as well in many cases if the image is sold.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Architect1776 wrote:

Buildings as well in many cases if the image is sold.

Really? So Ansel Adams got signed permissions for using the buildings in his photographs?

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

artBob wrote:

Really? So Ansel Adams got signed permissions for using the buildings in his photographs?

I was not around.
But the likeness of a privately owned building used for your commercial gain can get you sued today.
For example my buildings are all copy righted and I only allow the person buying the building one use only they cannot even reproduce or build it again without my permission and paying me.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Architect1776 wrote:

I was not around.
But the likeness of a privately owned building used for your commercial gain can get you sued today.
For example my buildings are all copy righted and I only allow the person buying the building one use only they cannot even reproduce or build it again without my permission and paying me.

A photographer who is making photos for exhibition can take as any pix of your building and the surrounding area as they want. If it can be seen in public, it can be used. Please google "art photographs with buildings."

Photos of your building used for strictly commercial purposes such as real estate might have some restrictions, but not photography for personal pleasure or art/photography reasons.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

artBob wrote:

A photographer who is making photos for exhibition can take as any pix of your building and the surrounding area as they want. If it can be seen in public, it can be used. Please google "art photographs with buildings."

Photos of your building used for strictly commercial purposes such as real estate might have some restrictions, but not photography for personal pleasure or art/photography reasons.

For non-commercial use you are fine. Once you feature that building and sell photos of it....Well....

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Architect1776 wrote:

For non-commercial use you are fine. Once you feature that building and sell photos of it....Well....

You seem to make no distinction between intents. Stop scaring photographers. If a building or anything else appears in a shot you take in a PUBLIC place, no one will successfully sue. If I am wrong, give us the specific reference.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

artBob wrote:

You seem to make no distinction between intents. Stop scaring photographers. If a building or anything else appears in a shot you take in a PUBLIC place, no one will successfully sue. If I am wrong, give us the specific reference.

Buildings created on or after December 1, 1990 are protected by copyright. A copyright owner has the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted work, and photographing a copyrighted work is considered a way of reproducing it. ...

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

artBob wrote:

You seem to make no distinction between intents. Stop scaring photographers. If a building or anything else appears in a shot you take in a PUBLIC place, no one will successfully sue. If I am wrong, give us the specific reference.

Sydney (Australia) opera house.
As I understand it personal use of images is ok. Commerial use is not.

See the FAQ here:

https://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/media/filming-at-the-sydney-opera-house.html

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

If worried, research it. Architect1776 does not seem to distinguish between the kinds of commercial use. Making, exhibiting , and selling a photograph taken in a public space as art does not require anyone's permission.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

artBob wrote:

If worried, research it. Architect1776 does not seem to distinguish between the kinds of commercial use. Making, exhibiting , and selling a photograph taken in a public space as art does not require anyone's permission.

Did you cluelessly look at the post just above yours here just now?

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Architect1776 wrote:

Did you cluelessly look at the post just above yours here just now?

I think by now everyone interested had heard enough from you and me. You are simply wrong, and unnecessarily confusing the "fair use" that photographers and artists have, including, apparently unbelievably, your precious creation.

Go ahead and post a pic of it. I will use it in a composite, as my art often is, and post it here in the Post Processing section. If you sue, I will end up having you pay your and my attorney fees, plus a possible harassment judgment.

I have no more to say, but to repeat to photographers who have shot or will shoot buildings: If you are in a public and can see the building or part of the building, you can shoot, and your photo will be copyrighted. (To obtain punitive damages from someone who is using your photo, you have to register the copyright. Otherwise, you can collect only the profit made, and perhaps lawyer fees.)

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

artBob wrote:

I think by now everyone interested had heard enoug... (show quote)

You still do not comprehend you are violating MY copyright by taking a photo of my building then using that image for commercial gain. You have no copyright as the copyright is mine and is on every building I submit to the AHJ prior to construction. Yes you can take any photo you want but you cannot sell it without violating copyright laws. Every building is registered and copyrighted through a process with the AHJ.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Photographers: He's wrong. Or actually half right. The half that affects is, THAT is totally wrong.