Now this may be a strange question but it is bugging me. I have done some pictures with Poser people/animals and used pictures of local buildings as backdrops. I have an opportunity to sell copy of my pictures but here is the crunch. Do I need permission from the owners of the buildings to use them? I took the photos from public roads and the resulting pictures are not rude or unflattering to the buildings in anyway. If I had painted a local pub would I need permission from the landlord to sell copies of my picture? I would of course be happy to give a copy to the landlord/owner in thanks. Any comments, pointers or links would be much appreciated as I don't want to cause any trouble.

I don't see any problem with that. The landlords own the buildings, not the copyright on what they look like. They are part of a landscape. Any photo you take is all yours. Regardless of subject matter YOU own the copyright on the image. And No on the painting of the pub question too. Your painting, your copyright, regardless of subject.

Attached Link: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html

Copyright law has been amended to determine what is & isn't covered in architecture... anything built before 1990 is not protected under current law. Point #10 at the link above explains it more fully but the salient passage is... "Copyright protection extends to any architectural work created on or after Dec. 1, 1990... Architectural designs embodied in buildings constructed prior to Dec. 1, 1990, are not eligible for copyright protection. See, Circular 41, Copyright Claims in Architectural Works"

Attached Link: http://www.anarchosyndicalism.org

(1) "Landlords" do not own buildings. No one does. Buildings, unless they are suspended in the air, stand on the ground. The ground is shared by us all, regardless of what the Man's written laws might proclaim. Possession of a bit of paper signed by a like-minded capitalist does NOT give anyone the right to own land. (2) The obsession with copyright on R'osity is strange. I understand that the capitalists are blowing a head gasket over the free sharing of information through services like Kazaa (the popularity of which showing that most people understand property is a myth that serves only the wealthy) but in an artist's enclave like R'osity, I'd have expected a less reactionary view. Art is typically the purview of the liberal. It makes me wonder whether there is something essentially different about CG artists, especially after seeing all the flag-waving, gun-toting Amerikan agitprop posted to the world events gallery. (3) In regard to the question, the answer is: follow your conscience. If you don't have any moral problem with it, then what a judge thinks about it is immaterial.

HeWhoWatches, since you link to a global site, I don't know if you're US-based or not, but the current United States legal system has a slight problem (which has been brewing for a while now)- it's extremely sue-happy. That's made CG artists extremely gun-shy where lawsuits and Intellectual Property issues are concerned. It's not being -successfully- sued that's the problem, it's being sued at all. Lawyers and court cases are -expensive-, so much so that they can practically bankrupt individuals and small companies; and even if the first round of court cases doesn't, large companies can just keep suing until the small companies give up or do go bankrupt. In fact, there are certain companies who's sole business model is to take out patents on broad processes, then proceed to extort money out of smaller businesses by threatening them with legal action for "patent violation"; since the small companies can't afford to defend themselves in court, they pretty much have to pay. There's one company that's patented "a business method for selling product over the phone lines with a video monitor and terminal"- which covers basically all web-based transactions. Ridiculous! Sounds pretty disgusting, doesn't it? Worse still, since many politicians are lawyers, it's extremely difficult to reform the legal system- bills to do so frequently get shot down. The end result is a fear of getting sued over "fair use" and "intellectual property" which may seem irrational- even satire and parody isn't immune. Web-based comic artists usually pull the offending material at the first "Cease-and-Decist" order they receive, rather than risk going to court over their supposedly legally protected right to parody. It's the ones with the money that usually win in court. Given that, is it any wonder why we're so concerned about copyright issues around here?

If you were shooting interior shots of a building or from within the privately owned/rented grounds of said property, you would definately have to have what is known as a 'property release' signed, (same thing as a model release) but to shoot it as a part of a general background you do not have a problem. Filming for movies is a different matter as each local authority has quite a bit to gain in licences. Don't worry about stills though. Mike

What mike said is pretty much my understanding of how it works. But Cooler is "THE" copyright person so i guess i need to bone up on this since i do allot of photography. Personaly I find it better to offer prints to landlord/owners and try to get a general release to make life a bit easyer. Ohh and stay away from Malls, Man there visous cutthroats.

Regardless of anyones idealistic views that the world cannot be owned (in theory, I agree), there is still the matter of protecting ones hard work. Copyright is not merely for the protection of capitolists, but for the protection of artists and creative works. An example: You pour your heart and soul into a painting (the media used is inconsequential), a play, musical composition, computer program, dance choreography...choose one. You may or may not profit from this piece..your choice, but one day you come across someone who has taken your hard work, and represented it as thier own. This person is receiving recognition, monetary or otherwise, for your creation. Another example: You work hard for a living, to feed yourself, your family, to house and clothe yourself and them. You happen to make a living with your craft; let's say it's software programming. Now let's imagiune that the software you helped to create, and which you have a vested financial interest in (because no matter how idealistic you are, you must admit that unless you are part of a self sustaining community that uses no shared technology, you need money to survive), is then distributed freely over the internet. This causes sales of your software to drop...because why buy it if you can get it for free? Sales drop, meaning less money is available to pay programmers to improve upon, or create new product, meaning you could very well be out of a job.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=1239068

Here is an example an copyright problem from the artist prespective.

Thanks for the feedback, guys. I should have mentioned that I am in England. I feel a lot happier now. Big thanks! Love Elgyfu