photographic legalities question

andy1249

Im no lawyer , but that thing is huge , it forms part of the scenery/landscape , and can be seen for miles.

As such , I would have no doubt whatsoever that no copyright exists , you cannot copyright part of the landscape , if that were the case then any artificial part of the landscape would be copyrightable and no pictures could be sold of any part of Ireland as all of it is artificial in some way.

Also , while the scale of that work is very impressive indeed , that celtic knot has been around for centuries , you wouldnt get copyright on that in any case , its far too common.

bingus666

andy1249 wrote: »

Im no lawyer , but that thing is huge , it forms part of the scenery/landscape , and can be seen for miles.

As such , I would have no doubt whatsoever that no copyright exists , you cannot copyright part of the landscape , if that were the case then any artificial part of the landscape would be copyrightable and no pictures could be sold of any part of Ireland as all of it is artificial in some way.

Also , while the scale of that work is very impressive indeed , that celtic knot has been around for centuries , you wouldnt get copyright on that in any case , its far too common.

sound, however the question was not about copyright & the trinity knot design has been around for millenia! I'm not looking to copyright anything, am curious about the rights photographers have or have not when photographing private property for commercial useage.

Paulw

bingus666 wrote: »

am curious about the rights photographers have or have not when photographing private property for commercial useage.

You would really need professional legal advice, and not that from people on boards. We all have our own view on things, and as much as we pay attention to the law and how it effects us, you really need professional legal advice from a solicitor who knows copyright.

My view - if it's on public view, and people don't need to trespass to photograph it, then they are entitled to take photos and use as they please. There are always exceptions to this, but they are few.

windingo

Well I am an photographer and I have sold images of public places to friends and stuff I didn't think anything was wrong with that. But i have a watermark on all my work.

andy1249

sound, however the question was not about copyright & the trinity knot design has been around for millenia! I'm not looking to copyright anything, am curious about the rights photographers have or have not when photographing private property for commercial useage.

Thats exactly what I thought I commented on ! Look anywhere in this country and every acre is owned by somebody , does that mean the tourist industry here cannot sell postcards ?

Of course not , scenery is not copyrightable ... how could it possibly be ! As big as your work is , private property sort of doesnt come into it does it ?

Its huge , its visible from way beyond your property , that makes it scenery , and in the future quite likely to be very well known , its fair game for postcards and tourists , nothing you can do about that I would imagine !

DaireQuinlan

Copyright isn't neccesarily an issue here. Commercial use of the image however might be, and is distinct from an copyright concerns. I.E. I can take as many photographs as I wish of the eiffel tower at night, and the copyright on those images quite correctly belongs to me. However I can't use those images commercially.
Look also at the (in my opinion crazy) issues surrounding the national trust in the UK and properties and sites, even natural ones, that it controls.

EyeBlinks

There is maybe a point of reference here in IMMA.

There is one piece in Imma in the grounds, made up solely of flowers, snowdrops, so it's only viewable a couple of months (if even) a year.

Donald Urquhart
Recurring Line: North/South is the title and was purchased by IMMA at some stage.

I actually think it's one of the best pieces there, not just unique, but merges seamlessly with the background in the far distance including the Wellington Monument, on public grounds obviously.

I have taken photos of it for myself, though IMMA don't like photography. I would imagine, IMMA would go mad if I produced postcards for sale.

Maybe contact them as to how they "protect" the work from such abuse?

Only difference is I would need to be on IMMA property to get a decent shot of it.

humberklog

EyeBlinks wrote: »

Only difference is I would need to be on IMMA property to get a decent shot of it.

That past might be important to the OP Tommy.

His point is about selling pics the have private property in the pic, which is more than a little bizarre. Trinity College from Dame St. comes to mind as does any pic with any building in it, or aeroplanes or cars or a bike or cup, skirt, turnip stall, items of clothing, people wearing said items, BigWheels in fun fairs, elephants knocking down traffic cones or fancy red brake pads on a Porche.