[LargeFormat] Re: Tips on Architecture photographs

[markb]

The basic law in England and Wales is that anyone can photograph anything,
so long as they don't:
1. trespass
2. take pictures of Crown Property (Military, Police Stations, Courts etc)

So you can take a photo so long as you are on a public road, footpath etc.

To this end, there has been an on-going dispute between English Heritage and
owners of listed buildings*. There was a campaign to photo every listed
building (by volunteers) and publish them on a web site. Some owners
complained on the basis that it would invite burglars to visit. A compromise
was reached.

However, the 'right' to take a photo is NOT the same as the 'right' to use
that photo in a publication, leaving aside the issue of Libel, there are
rules concernng use of images for commercial basis. If anyone is interested,
I'll see if I can dig out some further info.

* Listed building - buildings (and indeed any structure such as phone boxes,
tomb stones, walls etc) can be given listed status to protect them against
alteration, demolition etc. This is usually based on the objects
artistic/architectual merit, age etc. (under age, there is 'Scheduled
Monument' status, such as Stonehenge. There is also various other
protections for battlefields, war graves etc)

----- Original Message -----
From: "philip lambert" <philip.lambert@ntlworld.com>
To: <largeformat@f32.net>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: [LargeFormat] Re: Tips on Architecture photographs


> And would the law be more permissive of photographers in England?
Certainly,
> for buildings or trees, I guess, but people would be another matter.
> Photographs of celebrities is a more sensitive area: ask a lawyer.
> I just took dozens of pictures of views and palaces etc in Portugal. If I
> sell a picture to a publisher for a calendar would the owner of the
> view/building be entitled to sue? How many people photograph St Marks
Square
> in Venice?  Answer - they all do. PL
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stan McQueen" <stan@smcqueen.com>
> To: <largeformat@f32.net>
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 7:38 PM
> Subject: RE: [LargeFormat] Re: Tips on Architecture photographs
>
>
> > At 12:27 PM 7/14/2003, Vince Dobson wrote:
> > >There is a tree on a cliff in California that (I think) has been
> > >successfully trademarked - this is the only successful trademark of
this
> > >type that comes to mind.
> >
> > Yes, I was trying to remember that one. Point Loma, I think. My
> > recollection is that the court threw it out--you can use an image of a
> tree
> > as a trademark, but how can you use the tree itself? The same went for
the
> > Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, as I recall--they could trademark an image
of
> > the building and use it as their trademark, but how would you use the
> > building itself as a trademark? My recollection is that the court found
> > that neither organization had actually used the tree or building as
their
> > trademark, but only images of them, and thus ruled that the objects
> > themselves were not the trademark. But I really need to go back and
check
> > it in Bert Krages' book.
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LargeFormat mailing list
> LargeFormat@f32.net
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/largeformat