NationStates

SO I understand that the issue of copyright is complicated especially when it relates to photographs so here is a scenario

So I own a building, architecturally designed with hills in the background. A friend of mine who is a known artist creates an installation which is fixed to the wall of my building.
One day a landscape photographer comes by and decides she likes the scene and so takes a picture which shows the juxtaposition of the art installation, my building and the landscape in the background.

It so happens that the photograph is used in an exhibition, gets noticed and an offer of $50,000 is made to purchase it

Who has the copyright in this case and who has the right to profit of the work?

1The Photographer - they took the actual photo being purchased
2 The Artist - they created the installation which gave the picture 'interest'
3 Me as the owner of the building
4 The Architect who designed and placed the building in that position

Photographs of buildings and landscapes taken from a public area are copyright of the person taking the photograph, regardless of who owns the building or land in the landscape. If it wasn't the case, the courts would be clogged with thousands of frivolous lawsuits.

I take photographs of architecture all the time, so I know my rights in regard to this kind of thing. I make sure that I am taking photographs from a public area, or I have paid the owner of the property for photography rights, which are often purchasable at many tourist sites. I have only once been harassed by a security guard for taking photographs of a building, but since I was taking photos of it from a public area there was really nothing that the security guard could do about it.

The New California Republic wrote:Photographs of buildings and landscapes taken from a public area are copyright of the person taking the photograph, regardless of who owns the building or land in the landscape. If it wasn't the case, the courts would be clogged with thousands of frivolous lawsuits.

I take photographs of architecture all the time, so I know my rights in regard to this kind of thing. I make sure that I am taking photographs from a public area, or I have paid the owner of the property for photography rights, which are often purchasable at many tourist sites. I have only once been harassed by a security guard for taking photographs of a building, but since I was taking photos of it from a public area there was really nothing that the security guard could do about it.

That said you cannot take photos of Trafalgar Square without written permission from the Mayor, and the payment of a fee.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Photographs of buildings and landscapes taken from a public area are copyright of the person taking the photograph, regardless of who owns the building or land in the landscape. If it wasn't the case, the courts would be clogged with thousands of frivolous lawsuits.

I take photographs of architecture all the time, so I know my rights in regard to this kind of thing. I make sure that I am taking photographs from a public area, or I have paid the owner of the property for photography rights, which are often purchasable at many tourist sites. I have only once been harassed by a security guard for taking photographs of a building, but since I was taking photos of it from a public area there was really nothing that the security guard could do about it.

That said you cannot take photos of Trafalgar Square without written permission from the Mayor, and the payment of a fee.

As with everything there are notable exceptions to the rule. The Trafalgar Square rule only applies to photographs taken for commercial purposes, and many tourist sites have similar rules regarding commercial use of photographs.

Based solely on the OP, the site in question in this case is not a tourist site, and the photographs appear to be taken from a public place, so the person taking the photos would hold the copyright for the photos. Neither the person that owns the house nor the architect has any valid claim of copyright over the photos. The artist using the photos without permission in the art installation would be held accountable by the photographer for the breach of copyright, if the artist didn't seek permission to use them beforehand.

That depends, among other things, on your local jurisdiction's freedom of panorama laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama

In an ideally just world, all of the money from the transaction would go to the land owner (the whole 50,000). Our entire system should rest on the ownership of land so that those with land may exercise privilege over those without.

If someone can just waltz by, click a camera, and then make 50,000 off the image of someone else's land, then we don't live under true capitalist Exploitation. In such a case, there's too much room for social mobility and equality and that ought to be genuinely upsetting.

Infected Mushroom wrote:In an ideally just world, all of the money from the transaction would go to the land owner (the whole 50,000). Our entire system should rest on the ownership of land so that those with land may exercise privilege over those without.

If someone can just waltz by, click a camera, and then make 50,000 off the image of someone else's land, then we don't live under true capitalist Exploitation. In such a case, there's too much room for social mobility and equality and that ought to be genuinely upsetting.

You seem to be confusing capitalism and feudalism. Which is not surprising.

Which jurisdiction are we talking about? Copyright laws can vary wildly across State borders. The Benelux and the US have very different intellectual property laws.

Infected Mushroom wrote:In an ideally just world, all of the money from the transaction would go to the land owner (the whole 50,000). Our entire system should rest on the ownership of land so that those with land may exercise privilege over those without.

If someone can just waltz by, click a camera, and then make 50,000 off the image of someone else's land, then we don't live under true capitalist Exploitation. In such a case, there's too much room for social mobility and equality and that ought to be genuinely upsetting.

We (mainland Europeans at least) have fought a long bloody battle throughout history to curtail the right of the land owner.

The blAAtschApen wrote:That depends, among other things, on your local jurisdiction's freedom of panorama laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama

It does indeed. I assumed for argument's sake that we were talking about the USA in this specific scenario.

It should belong to the photographer, but really depending on were the building is then it's either the photographers or the building owners.

Infected Mushroom wrote:In an ideally just world, all of the money from the transaction would go to the land owner (the whole 50,000). Our entire system should rest on the ownership of land so that those with land may exercise privilege over those without.

If someone can just waltz by, click a camera, and then make 50,000 off the image of someone else's land, then we don't live under true capitalist Exploitation. In such a case, there's too much room for social mobility and equality and that ought to be genuinely upsetting.

Sounds like a shit world.

Infected Mushroom wrote:In an ideally just world, all of the money from the transaction would go to the land owner (the whole 50,000). Our entire system should rest on the ownership of land so that those with land may exercise privilege over those without.

If someone can just waltz by, click a camera, and then make 50,000 off the image of someone else's land, then we don't live under true capitalist Exploitation. In such a case, there's too much room for social mobility and equality and that ought to be genuinely upsetting.

What a load of nonsense. You are completely overlooking the fine art of composition on the part of the photographer.

But then again, what you have written just sounds like parody to me, so I am interpreting it as such.

the photographer composed it- determining where, when and how to take the photograph.

if you're playing about with contributors - how about god/gaia etc for providing the weather conditions and lighting conditions etc.

Stiltball wrote:the photographer composed it- determining where, when and how to take the photograph.

if you're playing about with contributors - how about god/gaia etc for providing the weather conditions and lighting conditions etc.

God is dead according to Nietzsche. Their copyright has expired

Stiltball wrote:the photographer composed it- determining where, when and how to take the photograph.

if you're playing about with contributors - how about god/gaia etc for providing the weather conditions and lighting conditions etc.

Gaffers and set designers are paid union rates. Is God an IATSE member?

The blAAtschApen wrote:

Stiltball wrote:the photographer composed it- determining where, when and how to take the photograph.

if you're playing about with contributors - how about god/gaia etc for providing the weather conditions and lighting conditions etc.

God is dead according to Nietzsche. Their copyright has expired

Nietzsche is dead according to God, who's word you going to take?

Ethel mermania wrote:

The blAAtschApen wrote:
God is dead according to Nietzsche. Their copyright has expired

Nietzsche is dead according to God, who's word you going to take?

I haven't heard God say such a thing. Do you have a secret hotline to God? Did you find the Ark of the Covenant?

The New California Republic wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:Nietzsche is dead according to God, who's word you going to take?

I haven't heard God say such a thing. Do you have a secret hotline to God? Did you find the Ark of the Covenant?

I found the breakfast cereal of the convenant, and the secret prize was a fortune cookie saying Nietzsche wasn't feeling very well at the moment, and his health insurance had been divinely cancelled.

Ethel mermania wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:I haven't heard God say such a thing. Do you have a secret hotline to God? Did you find the Ark of the Covenant?

I found the breakfast cereal of the convenant, and the secret prize was a fortune cookie saying Nietzsche wasn't feeling very well at the moment, and his health insurance had been divinely cancelled.

He's a freelancer, I believe, German health insurance is tricky then.