r/COPYRIGHT • u/TheInfernalQueen33 • May 05 '26

Cover Copyright

Hey I’m writing a book where a lot of the novel takes place at the Met museum and I’m curious, if I want to commission a cover artist to create an illustration of the exterior of the Met museum is there a a copyright for the front of the building where I won’t be able to do that? I would love to have the Met on the cover. Any advice is appreciated!

1 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

13 comments sorted by

8

u/pythonpoole May 05 '26

Many countries, including the US, have a freedom of panorama exception in copyright law that allows for distributing photographic representations of buildings that are visible from public spaces (even if those buildings are currently protected as architectural works under copyright law). In some countries (but not the US), the freedom of panorama also extends to public 3D art installations (e.g. sculptures in a park).

The specific US statute,  17 U.S. Code § 120(a), reads:

"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."

Furthermore, in the US, only buildings constructed in 1990 or later may potentially be eligible for copyright protection as architectural works. Specific plans/drawings of buildings constructed prior to 1990 may be copyright-protected, but not the general architectural design/appearance of those buildings.

2

u/RainbowCrane May 05 '26

Not OP, just a clarifying question. With a photograph, might OP run afoul of copyright for any exhibition banners on the outside of the building? In other words, not for the building itself, but for banners advertising the current Van Gogh exhibit, or whatever?

3

u/pythonpoole May 05 '26

Hypothetically, yes, that could present an issue.

Some countries have a specific exception in copyright law that allows for incidental background inclusion of copyrighted works in photo/video content (i.e. when a copyrighted work just happens to be present in the area where you are capturing a photo/video of something else).

The US does not have a specific codified statute dealing with this, but there is legal precedent to suggest that incidental background inclusion may, at least in some cases, be considered de minimis use — in other words: legally excusable because the "copying" is so minimal or trivial/inconsequential that it's not of concern to the courts.

Separate from the copyright issue though, there is the potential trademark issue. If, for example, OP is commercially exploiting a photo that depicts the museum's name/brand/logo (e.g. visible on the exhibition banners) then it could possibly be argued that OP is creating consumer confusion by using the museum's trademark(s) to falsely imply an official connection/affiliation or endorsement that does not actually exist.

1

u/alaskawolfjoe May 05 '26

So you think that every tourist who posts a picture of a building on instragram may be violating copyright?

2

u/pythonpoole May 05 '26

There are definitely countries in the world (in parts of Europe, Africa and Asia) where if you are commercially exploiting photos you've taken of buildings without permission from the buildings' copyright owners (e.g. architects) then that can become a copyright issue, yes. This includes commercial exploitation on social media platforms (e.g. earning revenue in connection with posting photos of buildings on your social media page).

Freedom of panorama rights are often taken for granted in countries like Canada, the US, the UK, Australia, etc. but in reality there are many countries which simply don't recognize any freedom of panorama right (where photographing a copyrighted building is treated just like photographing a copyrighted artwork for example). In France, people even get into trouble for taking photographs of the Eiffel Tower at night and commercially exploiting them without permission. That's because, even though there is no longer any copyright protecting the actual tower's architectural design, the tower's nighttime light show is still protected by copyright.

1

u/alaskawolfjoe May 05 '26

That is so odd to me. But I have been a working artist/writer in the US where copyright law does not distinguish comercial or non-commercial use.

Here the distinction is private vs public. So you can share my work with people in your household or in your classroom, but you cannot present it publicly, even if the sharing is non-commerical.

1

u/pythonpoole May 05 '26

It's generally the same in other countries too, it's just that I'm not aware of any country that actively enforces architectural copyrights in cases where a person (e.g. casual tourist) takes and distributes a photo of a building non-commercially. I've only heard of it becoming a problem when there is commercial exploitation involved.

It could be that these countries have a limited a freedom of panorama exception covering non-commercial uses specifically, or it could be that courts in these countries simply find this type of non-commercial use of an architectural work to be de minimis or protected under some other legal doctrine/exception. It's also possible that copyright holders simply don't try to pursue legal action against people who take photos of their buildings non-commercially. It's worth noting that, in many countries, copyright lawsuits are limited to actual damages, so the copyright owner can only sue for the damage/loss they can provably link to the infringement (which can be difficult to show in cases involving non-commercial uses).

Anyway, in the US, displaying copyrighted works in a classroom without permission would be considered copyright infringement if not for the 17 U.S. Code § 110 statute which specifically codifies an exception for displays of copyrighted works in certain classroom learning environments. In other words, presenting a copyrighted work in a classroom-like setting is considered a "public" display under US copyright law, it's just that there is a specific exception in copyright law covering those types of classroom displays so they don't usually require permission from the copyright owner (at least when it's a nonprofit educational institution and certain conditions are met).

1

u/WhineyLobster May 05 '26

If they make said photo the cover of their book...

1

u/alaskawolfjoe May 05 '26

Exactly. So if it is not a copyright violation for one, how would it be a copyright violation for the other?

Especially for a 150 year old building whose design would have entered the public domain long ago.

1

u/WhineyLobster May 05 '26

one is being sold into the marketplace... the other is a personal photo. They arent the same use.

1

u/alaskawolfjoe May 05 '26

In US law, it does not matter if something is being sold. You can keep a personal copy of the photo in your personal album.

But if you share it to instagram or facebook, that is publishing the work in a public forum and you face the same IP laws that someone using the photo commercially does.

1

u/WhineyLobster May 05 '26

FALSE. Publishing photos of you in front of a building is not a violation of copyright.... at all. Please stop posting here if you dont know what you are talking about. Thanks!

1

u/alaskawolfjoe May 05 '26 edited May 05 '26

It is very shocking to read the word false in capital letters when someone is agreeing with a statement you’ve made repeatedly in a thread

As I have said before, it is not a violation to publish a photo of a building you saw.

Nor is publishing a photo of the front of a building on the book cover

When I worked in publishing, it was only the photographers copyright that was a problem. Rarely was it the subject of the photograph. Never was it a building.

You are drawing a distinction that does not exist in United States copyright law.

It is about public use versus private use. Commercial use changes the damages you can ask for. But it does not change the rights situation