I'm doing research on the copyright, licensing and legal issues
associated with creating products and artwork based on 3rd party
architectural designs.
At this point I'd like to know if various famous buildings (or
building designs) are copyrighted and can require licensing for
creating related products. Let's assume that those buildings are still
used by the original owners for commercial purposes.
For example les's take any of Donald Trump's high-rises, any famous
hotels, Las Vegas casinos, etc.
The initial questions are:
1. Is it legal to produce photos, postcards and posters featuring
exclusively one such building, without obtaining licensing from the
owners?
2. Is it legal to produce photos, postcards and posters featuring a
city where several such buldings are prominently featured, without
obtaining licensing from the owners?
3. Is it legal to produce miniature replicas (made of wood, resin,
plastic, etc.) exclusively of one such building, without obtaining
licensing from the owners?
4. Is it legal to produce miniature replicas (made of wood, resin,
plastic, etc.) of several such buildings together, without obtaining
licensing from the owners?
5. Is it legal to copy and build the same or similar building by
someone else, without obtaining permission from the original building
owners?

If any of the above scenarios is not legal but others are, then what
determines the legality of one scenario but not another?

Finally, I'd like the answer to take into account both the buildings
created prior to December 1, 1990, and after December 1, 1990 - based
on the change in copyright laws described at
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.html

The main purpose of these questions is to determine if photographers,
toy manufacturers, and even hobbyists, Website owners, etc. would be
required to contact each building's legal department and obtain
licensing agreement before featuring such building in any artwork. And
if there are ways to avoid this burden.
Question #5 is designed only to tackle the topic from a different perspective.

I realize that this might be a legal question and I might even consult
an attorney, but first I'd like to determine if indeed obtaining a
licensing is required in most cases.

Thank you.

---

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 13 Oct 2005 10:15 PDT

wladcaswiata-ga,

You've gotten some good information in the comment, below, from
ipfan-ga, who is a generally reliable source of information, though
he/she is not a Google Answers Researcher.

If you'd like a researcher to work further on your question, please
reconsider your pricing.

You've presented five distinct scenarios, and have asked for a fairly
sophisticated analysis of each (an analysis, by the way, which needs
to take into account trademark law as well as copyright law!).

At your current pricing, you are offering $4 per scenario, of which
the researcher's share would actually be only $3.

If you're really looking for in-depth information, I would suggest
considerably increasing your offering price, or substantially
scaling-back the scope of your question.

Just my two cents...

pafalafa-ga

---

Clarification of Question by wladcaswiata-ga on 24 Oct 2005 01:19 PDT

pafalafa-ga, I increased the offer to $50, although I don't require
very detailed answer to each question. I'd suspect that there one
answer may cover all areas in general, then there may be some
exceptions or variations to the rules.

ipfan-ga, thank you for your comment. It's helpful already.

wladcaswiata-ga 

Thanks for an interesting question, and for sticking with the process.

Let me being with two caveats:

1.  I am not a legal professional, and as the disclaimer on the page
bottom notes, Google Answers is not a substitute for professional
legal advice.

2.  Even if you have a clear-cut legal right to, say, photograph a
given building, that right, in itself, is no guarantee that you won't
get sued by someone who feels they have been wronged (just as
Leicester sued Warner Bros in the case cited in the comments, even
though Warner Bros was ultimately found to have the right to use the
images).




In general, buildings have only limited copyright protections -- less
so that a book or sculpture.

Buildings in existence prior to 1990 basically had very little in the
way of intellectual property protections.  Those built after 1990
gained a limited amount of protection as defined by the Architectural
Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990, which was passed to bring US
copyright law in harmony with international practices.

 

As for your particular questions, here is my take on them, from the
perspective of law in the US (things may be different in different
countries, though):
 
1. Is it legal to produce photos, postcards and posters featuring
exclusively one such building, without obtaining licensing from the
owners?

Yes, as long as the photo is taken from a public viewing point.  

HOWEVER -- photos that include non-architectural elements that may be
independently protected by copyright or trademark should be used with
caution.

Such elements could be:

--a name prominently included in the photo, such as "Trump Towers"

--a unique and identifiable lighting display

--a piece of sculpture on the grounds of the building, or on the building itself.

In general, though, photos of buildings are on safe territory,
regardless of whether the building is pre- or post-1990.





2. Is it legal to produce photos, postcards and posters featuring a
city where several such buldings are prominently featured, without
obtaining licensing from the owners?

Yes, for the same reasons, and with the same caveats, as above.




3. Is it legal to produce miniature replicas (made of wood, resin,
plastic, etc.) exclusively of one such building, without obtaining
licensing from the owners?

My understanding is that pre-1990 buildings can be replicated, since
they had no copyright protections.  Buildings built after 1990 ARE
protected, and cannot be replicated without obtaining license from the
copyright holder (the actual transition date is December 1, 1990, but
don't cut it too close!).

Again, specific building names may be trademarked.  This does NOT mean
that the name could not be printed on the miniature, but it would be
wise, first, to determine the nature of the trademark by searching the
Trademark Office database at:


http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=tess&state=4t6tc2.1.1



4. Is it legal to produce miniature replicas (made of wood, resin,
plastic, etc.) of several such buildings together, without obtaining
licensing from the owners?

Same as above -- pre-1990 is OK, post-1990 is not -- and be careful of
possible trademark issues.



5. Is it legal to copy and build the same or similar building by
someone else, without obtaining permission from the original building
owners?


Actual building plans have long been protected by copyright, even
prior to 1990.  So...you cannot build a copy of a building based on
access to the plans, without violating copyright.

As far as using images of a building to reproduce it (without access
to the plans themselves), this was allowed prior to 1990, but is
restricted after 1990.




Some useful sites for additional information on copyright of
architectural works in the US, see:



http://mainelaw.maine.edu/cli/documents/final.paper.hoass.pdf
The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act: Building on Copyright



http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter12/12-d.html
Copyright: Interview and Property Releases 




I trust this information fully answers your question.

However, please don't rate this answer until you have everything you
need.  If there's anything more I can do for you, just post a Request
for Clarification, and I'm happy to assist you further.

pafalafa-ga


search strategy -- Bookmarked sources on copyright, along with Google searches on:


"Architectural Works" Copyright photographer

"Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act"

---

Request for Answer Clarification by wladcaswiata-ga on 25 Oct 2005 11:23 PDT

Thank you pafalafa-ga.
Your answer provides good and logical information on the subject, but
I still feel little unsure about #4, especially now that I noticed on
the Trademark Website at
http://tess2.uspto.gov/tmdb/dscm/dsc_07.htm#0703 that they treat
buildings/skyscrapers separately from skylines. Possibly I also wasn't
clear enough and should've described #4 as a skyline.
Therefore I still wonder if similar situation may occur in case of
copyrights, where a skyline may have a separate treatment as a
representation or symbol of a city, rather than reproduction of
individual buildings. What comes to my mind are especially various
musical boxes and other gifts that include miniature replicas of the
city of Las Vegas, for example. There are also software programs like
MS Flight Simulator and others with 3D maps of Las Vegas, therefore
what would prevent anyone from creating a physical 3D map without
requesting permission from every building owner?
Of course I understand that you may may not have definite answer,
however, I'm just interested in your point of view on this, especially
if you may be able to cite other sources or related lawsuits.
I also noticed that the link you provided under #3 is expired. Was it
meant to include some specific search criteria? Otherwise I understand
that I can start at http://tess2.uspto.gov/.

---

Clarification of Answer by pafalafa-ga on 25 Oct 2005 12:09 PDT

Sorry about the dead link, but Yes, it was just meant as a link to the
TESS search page, so the link you mentioned would work just fine.

As for skylines, I can't imagine any scenario in which they would be
copyrighted.  First off, who would the author/creator of the skyline
be...?  Who would hold the copyright?  Would each new building be a
violation of the existing skyline?

It doesn't make sense to my (non-legal-professional) way of thinking
that a skyline could be copyrighted.

Trademarks are another matter, but the trademarked property would be a
specific rendering of a skyline as a representation of a particular
product or service, as shown in these examples:


http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin80/gate.exe?f=doc&state=ksrio6.2.2#tt060701.607..0


The fact that Skyline Chili uses a particular graphic for its product
only prevents others from using the same graphic, but does not impose
any restrictions on, say, a flight simulation game from including the
same cluster of buildings (but not the precise same image) in its
software.


Does that answer your question?  If not, just post another
clarification request, and let me know I can help out further.

Cheers,

paf

The answer was good and complete, however, in most part didn't go
beyond common logic. There could be a few additional links to legal
sources and attorney papers/discussions, which I now found separately.

17 U.S.C. Section 102(a)(8) allows protection for architectural works,
but that does not extend to photos of same.  See 17 U.S.C. Section
120(a), the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990. 
Affords copyright protection to architectural works, but protection
does not extend to photographs of the architectural work: "(a)
Pictorial Representations Permitted. - The copyright in an
architectural work that has been constructed does not include the
right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of
pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial   representations
of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located
in or ordinarily visible from a public place."

See also Leicester v. Warner Bros., (No. 98-56310, November 29, 2000,
9th Cir., Rymer, J. at
http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/0/fc9bbf091fe66426882569a600665eb7?OpenDocument.

Just a comment for anyone else looking for similar information. Here
are several additional discussions on the subject:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/bridge/Philosophy/kent.txt.htm
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/bridge/Philosophy/ipphil.txt.htm
http://www.idea.piercelaw.edu/articles/33/33_1/p1.altman.pdf