Re: [Leica] Private property and buildings

["Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>]

Adam writes:

> Some building are copyrighted...the Chrysler
> Building is one...and if you use its image in
> a commercial or for profit as in a motion picture
> you have to get permission and pay royalties.

Nope.  See 17 USC 120 (a), which specifically exempts architectural works from
copyright protection with respect to photographs.  Under this section, you can
photograph a building all you want, and you are not infringing on the copyright
of the architect (the only party with any claim to copyright in the first place,
incidentally).

You may need a _property release_ for certain commercial uses of the image of
certain properties, but this is unrelated to copyright.  Current jurisprudence
tends to favor photographers except in a few relatively narrowly-defined
situations, as I recall.

> I know super markets that refuse to allow
> photographs to be taken inside.

They can do that because you are on their property.  If you can take pictures of
their market from off the property, they cannot object to that.