The Chrysler building can't be used in advertising without paying
royalties to the owners. I tried to use it in Chrysler advertising. The
fee was a nice round million dollars, although I think it would have
been negotiable. However, the project in question didn't justify
anywhere near that expense, so I it was abandoned.
Paul
On Aug 15, 2005, at 8:20 PM, frank theriault wrote:
On 8/15/05, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That quote only tells us that copyright applies to buildings, which I
don't
dispute. It doesn't say anything about whether a photo (or a sketch
or a
watercolour) of the building is a violation of the copyright.
Copyright determines who has the right to make copies of a thing. I
fail to
see how anybody could think a photograph was a copy of a building.
So, I can photograph the Empire State Building, and maybe even sell
copies of those photos, but I can't build another Empire State
Building.
That's fair.
I'll try to restrain myself...
<LOL>
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
