Of course everybody knows that you get problems if you copy and publish pictures or music without licensing that are not under a sort of creative common license. But things are much more tricky. You can run in a copyright problem if you take a picture of a building in public space and load it up to the web. Yes, even if the picture is done by yourself!
Star architects start protecting buildings under copyright. Even if you shoot the building by yourself you have not the right to publish it without license agreement of the architect. That sounds strange but is common law in several countries for example Germany. But there is one exception: If you do a panoramic picture and a protected building is part of it you are allowed to publish it without permission. Are you zooming and the building is the sole element, than you may run into problems and may get a letter from a nasty lawyer. That raises questions.
- Isn’t it perverted creating and constructing a building in public space and then asking as creator of the project for limitations in the above mentioned way? Wouldn’t it be better for those architects to stop their work in public space and start to erect buildings in a fenced environment where the public is locked out?
- Several buildings are financed by taxes that have copyright restrictions in the mentioned way. Shouldn’t governments stop contraction architects asking for such extreme copyright agreements?
Only two questions on that topic. The copyright problem in the web is much more sophisticated if you start digging deeper.