Permission to Photograph?
Have any of you out there experienced difficulty in getting permission to photograph architecture? On a recent trip to Wisconsin I planned to get some images of the Frank Lloyd Wright designed Johnson Wax building. After finding it I was approached by the security folks there and told that photographs were not allowed....period. I contacted the PR dept. later and after several e-mails was told that indeed photo's are not allowed except when for specific "designated publications". What has been your experience out there? I was frankly very depressed to the point of minor outrage. In a way I can understand but it seems that some of these folks are a bit selfish.
Permission to Photograph?
There have been several previous discussions of this matter. You might do a search.
It was my impression that as long as you are not trespassing on their property, they can't legally prevent you from photographing the building. After all, if you can look at it, you should be able to photograph it. Similarly, presumably they can't prevent you from writing an article describing the architecture. There is really no difference between that and photographing it. but of course, if they use muscle to interfere, it may be difficult for an individual photographer without a team of lawyers to do anything about it.
More and more private corporations are trying to encroach on the rights of the public in these matters by claiming ownership of their images. It may be that they have rights to commercial use of the image, so you may have difficulty using the image that way without permission. But it would seem to me that if you used it simply for your own use or even to display as art, there would be First Amendment issues.
The whole thing is rather silly. Anyone with a picture phone or other small hidden camera can photograph such a building without anyone being the wiser. It is only those of us who use large cameras on tripods whom they can actually interfere with.
Permission to Photograph?
Better to ask forgiveness than permission ;)
I will admit to travelling with a hardhat, earplugs, boots and safety glasses so that when I walk around a construction or industrial facility I look like I belong there. I have also written and called public relations people at corporations asking for access to do "editorial work" for an obscure publication. Most are very helpful.
Permission to Photograph?
Yes, it's a silly policy, loosely based on owning the copyright to the building design, that an increasing number of building owners seem to be adopting. While the owner of a building may have the right to restrict commercial usage of such images, it seems clear they really don't have the right to restrict photographs made from public property.
The security guards, of course, are just doing what they've been told to do. I'm of the opinion that we should politely inform such security guards that we're on public property (assuming, of course, that's true) and the owner of the building does not have the right to restrict photography from that location. Then, let them know that if they continue to harrass and intimidate us, both they and the building owner will be sued for violating our civil rights. I'm confident that there are plenty of young, hungry, firebrand attorneys out there who would love to take on big corporations on a contingency-fee basis. It would only take a couple of multi-million dollar civil rights judgements to turn the trend around.
Permission to Photograph?
I was denied permission at the National Gallery of Modern Art in Washington DC (at least without a free permit that I couldn't get until Monday and it was Friday) and the Capitol Bldg from the steps (both pre 9/11 by 10 years). The Capitol can only be photo'd from one side and then only with a permit that they were happy to provide. I've also been denied some buildings in San Francisco from their property and the J. Paul Getty Mueseum. I should say that all of these were 'tripod' photography. People don't like tripods. Can't blame them, I don't like them either.
Permission to Photograph?
I was chased from the Lucent Technology building property one Sunday morning about three years ago. I was on their property, but no one was around except the security guard. I heard him talking on the radio that "he has a tripod and everything". It`s a 4x5 Zone VI and a heavy wood tripod. I suppose it was impressive to a rent a cop.
H e told me I could call security for permission to photograph, but I never could get a return phone call. I left their property without a hassle. The whole thing was stupid though as there is a clear view from the road and any picture necessary for subversive use could be take from public land, but it would not show the flowers etc as the building is on a slight hill.
Permission to Photograph?
The problem is really one of political attitude and not legality. We are in a climate now of such negativity that being in the right is of no benefit. I was recently run off of the National Arboretum grounds because I didn't "have a permit". I went to inquire about obtaining one and was given the application. The FIRST THING on the application was a statement to the effect that no permit for photography is necessary anywhere on Arboretum property (unless it would impede pedestrian traffic flow, such as in the bonsai pavilion) if the photography is for non-commercial use.
I've never sold a picture. I don't work for any company that sell pictures. Nobody paid me to set up my view camera to photograph cherry blossoms that day, but the rent-a-cop who told me to pack up my equipment flagged me as "commercial" because of the large format equipment and tripod. The lady at the information desk who gave me the application was no more enlightened. When I pointed out the disclaimer on the application welcoming any and all to do personal photography anywhere on the grounds for free, she said: "I can see from the equipment you're toting there that they'll want you to have a permit." And around and around we go.
It may not be hopeless as I could have demanded to see a decision maker about the situation, someone who could instruct the guard to leave me alone. But, it's just not worth the time and trouble. I packed up my stuff, drove 15 minutes to the Franciscan Monastery and spent the rest of the afternoon making some lovely photographs. The end result was a splendid day.
BTW, the fee for a photogaphy permit is $500.00/day. Yeah, right. Better give me two so that my daughter can take pictures as well.
Permission to Photograph?
I was recently in Asheville, NC and toured the Biltmore House. They are very specific about the rights to the image of the House. You are granted the right to photograph the exterior of the house, but only for personal use. The interior of the house is off limits to both personal use and commercial use photography. I did follow one guy around on the tour who held his video camera as his side. He got a knee high view of the house.
When you are on private property, you play by the owner's rules.....
Permission to Photograph?
I've been stopped by a security guard at a bank building and at a local art museum. In both cases I was on their property though the art museum is a public building funded by the city, county, and state so that one irritated me more than the bank. In neither case was the work commercial.
Permission to Photograph?
"Yes, it's a silly policy, loosely based on owning the copyright to the building design, that an increasing number of building owners seem to be adopting. While the owner of a building may have the right to restrict commercial usage of such images, it seems clear they really don't have the right to restrict photographs made from public property."
And even that is dubious - the copyright law protects architectural plans but specifically excempts buildings as a whole from copyright protection (it does, however ambiguously protect some "unique architectural details" which, on a Frank Lloyd Wright building may be an issue - but would most likely depend in part on the details with regard to the overall building).
In addition (although it wasn't fought on copyright, but rather trade mark issues - in part because it was felt that they would have failed basign the case on copyright) the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame vs Gentile case still sets the precedent in some of this area - that is the photogorpahs of buildings can certainly be taken, and there well be nothing the buildign owner can do to prevent even their commercial use.
But like all these issues, it's complicated and never clear cut.
The short answer is that you cannot be prevented from photographing the building from a public location. If you move onto their property, then all bets are off.
This is a useful link,
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
as is Krages book.
http://www.krages.com/lhp.htm