Rights Question

[Travis]

Just curious for Canada -

If I take a picture of a structure from a sidewalk I believe I can sell this photo without restriction?

BUT....

What happens if I'm on the property of the structure?

I have no particular example to offer... so let's say I walk on the property of a church and take pictures of it.... do I have the same rights to sell without restriction?

[tegan]

Just curious for Canada -

If I take a picture of a structure from a sidewalk I believe I can sell this photo without restriction?

BUT....

What happens if I'm on the property of the structure?

I have no particular example to offer... so let's say I walk on the property of a church and take pictures of it.... do I have the same rights to sell without restriction?

Yes, you do. The only exception would be an out-of-context use such as a photo of a Catholic Church on an Anglican booklet, etc.

Tegan

[Travis]

Yes, you do. The only exception would be an out-of-context use such as a photo of a Catholic Church on an Anglican booklet, etc.

Tegan

hmmm... okay... would the "out of context" thing still apply if I took the picture from the sidewalk?

[tegan]

hmmm... okay... would the "out of context" thing still apply if I took the picture from the sidewalk?

It would still apply but let me backtrack. The problem with "out of context" use is that it could be construed as libel. Using a photo of a Catholic Church in an Anglican booklet could be considered as suggesting that the Catholic congregation is in fact Anglican. If someone objects, it can lead to a law suit.

A tv station I worked for bought the "rushes" or outakes from another station of a crowd going into a building. The video segments were taken in a public place so they were legal and so was their purchase. The station however edited them into the beginning of a striptease show. One of the crowd that the camera person had centered on was a prominent socialite who was not happy. She sued the station for defamming her reputation in the community and won, despite the fact that shooting the footage or selling it was not illegal.

It should be noted that any problem may not be that of the photographer but rather the purchaser and user of the photo or video. It depends on the individual situation.

Tegan

[AcadieLibre]

It would have to be a blatant act and they would have to show damages. Not sure what the Damage would be if you called a Catholic Church an Anglican one, God may strike you down as a Heretic but besides that really nothing to worry about lol ( I am Just kidding so no one get all bent over it). All day yesterday people were getting the Cathedrals mixed up and sure many who took photos were telling their friends and others that is was a church that it wasn't and probably one or two photographers are going to sell them marked wrong. If you can see it you can photograph it and call it your own, some minor exceptions are Military, Prisons etc.

[tegan]

It would have to be a blatant act and they would have to show damages. Not sure what the Damage would be if you called a Catholic Church an Anglican one, God may strike you down as a Heretic but besides that really nothing to worry about lol ( I am Just kidding so no one get all bent over it). All day yesterday people were getting the Cathedrals mixed up and sure many who took photos were telling their friends and others that is was a church that it wasn't and probably one or two photographers are going to sell them marked wrong. If you can see it you can photograph it and call it your own, some minor exceptions are Military, Prisons etc.

You are wrong about a blatant act. Law suits tend to come from blatant stupidity. To use an example, an educator on a national television network told the interviewer that he used Walt Disney videos to entertain the kids while the teachers were on strike. The board settled out of court for $60,000.

Tegan

[AcadieLibre]

You are wrong about a blatant act. Law suits tend to come from blatant stupidity. To use an example, an educator on a national television network told the interviewer that he used Walt Disney videos to entertain the kids while the teachers were on strike. The board settled out of court for $60,000.

Tegan

American or Canadian? And Link to story (did a google search can't find it), would be interesting to see the case law on that one. Sounds like unauthourized public viewing of Copyrighted works. That would be more comparable to playing music in a bar and not paying to use the music in a public place. Two different topics, apples and oranges from a legal standpoint. To stop you from taking photos of a building and calling it something else would imply the the structure in whole or in part, and all variations of said structure are copyrighted. I recall attempts in the States about such lawsuits but never recall one ever even going to trial.

The Disney case is an easy one to see the Damages from a legal stand point, idiotic as it is, has a base for a lawsuit. Damages can be proved and they also has a confession publicly recorded. Sorry don't see the relevance. I can take a photo of an advertisement and call it whatever and it is fair use, same logic applies to structures, best analogy I can come up with at the moment.

[tegan]

American or Canadian? And Link to story (did a google search can't find it), would be interesting to see the case law on that one. Sounds like unauthourized public viewing of Copyrighted works. That would be more comparable to playing music in a bar and not paying to use the music in a public place. Two different topics, apples and oranges from a legal standpoint. To stop you from taking photos of a building and calling it something else would imply the the structure in whole or in part, and all variations of said structure are copyrighted. I recall attempts in the States about such lawsuits but never recall one ever even going to trial.

The Disney case is an easy one to see the Damages from a legal stand point, idiotic as it is, has a base for a lawsuit. Damages can be proved and they also has a confession publicly recorded. Sorry don't see the relevance. I can take a photo of an advertisement and call it whatever and it is fair use, same logic applies to structures, best analogy I can come up with at the moment.

Canadian. My experiences are with the individuals and businesses involved, not through Google. In law, schools can justify educational usage of copyrighted works but only the copyright holder has the right of use for entertainment purposes and the educator indicated that he used the movie to "entertain" the kids on national television, so there was no possible defence.

Back to the apples or oranges as the case may be, it needs to be realized that photography may involve laws related to copyright certainly but also defammation, libel, trademark, design, journalistic, and other laws. A legally taken photo for example can used in a libelous manner that results in a law suit.

Tegan

[AcadieLibre]

I only googled your story for the details and was unable to find it, I am curious about the case and the wording of the deal. What does google have to do with anything else. Defamation, libel, trademark, design, journalistic, and other laws are relevant to this how? He wants to take a photo of a church and asked what the difference was about on or off property ones. Now we are into defamation, libel, trademark, design, journalistic, and other laws? what other laws? the ones you refer too are like a huge stretch to the discussion at hand. Please give me Case Number I can look up at the UofT Law Library to see a photographer who has taken a photo of a building and has been prosecuted, sued, held libel in just one case. All I ask.

It may just as well have happened, I try to be up on rights of artists, photographers and mostly my rights. I can get anecdotal evidence from anyone online. So when you can refer a case that a Person has taken a photo of a building that is visible in public, it has been misrepresented by mistakingly or even purposefully calling it the wrong building/Church and a successful prosecution, lawsuit, and judgment has been made. I will go read it and then I can see if it is correct interpretation of the case as it pertains to this topic, Thanks will be awaiting a case number. I will look at an American one, but as always prefer a Canadian Legal Case.

Back to the original topic, go for it Travis, but once you are asked to leave the property if you its a good idea. From the Street Shoot away.

[tegan]

From a strictly copyright point of view you can take a photo of any building built before 1990 and use it for any commercial purpose.

In the case of "copyrighted" buildings there is a photographic exception in American law that allows taking a photo and use for any commercial purpose if it was taken from a public place. A "public place" is NOT public property by the way. A "public place" is defined as a place to which the general public has access, so it could be private property.

Photos are still subject to other laws as I indicated and although there is rarely a problem in Canada, there are locations in the U.S. that will institute a law suit for the commercial use of photos of particular buildings by "interpreting and stretching" other laws to cover the individual situation.

So, while generalizing somewhat since this brings up a rather broad topic, I also hope I have been crystal clear.

Tegan