I find that this is most bizzar...... My understanding is that any govenment building or the like is owned by the people and there for copywrite free. I have information on this somewhere........ I'll get back to you :)

copyright the image of a public building????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????are they totally insane?????????????????????????????????????????????????

You are definitely right. It seems the world will become a place where every peace of human culture will be under copyright. How to teach children in a few years from now if we have to pay even for the works of Pythagoras and Homer.

Well, this is lame. And surely beats the treatment I got at the airport there when I was on my way to Germany. I can understand wanting to protect your work. Some places ban photography (or just flash photography) of some of its features - usually interior, or what have you. Trade secrets, preventing espionage or terrorism, etc. But forbidding people to photgraph or display a building that can be easily seen by the public? To me, that seems... well, quite stupid. Funny thing is, you can find pictures of it (as well as the London Eye and a lit Eiffel Tower) online anyway. True, it's hard to police the entire internet, but that's not the point. What's next? The Statue Of Liberty (already mentioned)? The Leaning Tower Of Pisa? The Colliseum? The Parthenon? The Great Pyradmid? The Gateway Arch? The Great Wall Of China? The... I could go on, but I think you get the point.

I'm from Belgium and I heard about this like a year ago. Even more, there are more buildings like this with a copyright: Victor Horta buildings (even Cental station!) Parlement of Europe, Berlaymont theater, Navo buildings and even(I'm not joking) the Eiffeltower by night ; because the lighting is protected by copyright. Sad..but true..

Odd, it seems that any photograph taken in a public place would qualify as an original work and as such the copyright belongs to the photographer - NOT the owner of the photographed subject. At least I'm pretty sure that's how it works in the USA - no clue about copyright laws in Europe. I do know that in the USA, you are permitted to TAKE photographs of any publicly viewable place. There seems to be some that think there are laws that prohibit taking pictures of certain buildings for national security reasons, but there are no actual laws against such. Now, what you DO with such pictures might get you in trouble, but posting on the internet as personal artwork for no profit generally can't get you into any trouble no matter who owns the building or sculpture or whatever. If someone wants to control having their works photographed, they need to move it somewhere out of public view.

It seems as though the Copyright subject is getting surely out of hand, if this goes on and gets worse, some or many people might altogether just stop posting Images, and even leave Renderosity for fear of being indicted! Bad Times!!!

I agree, this sounds so ridiculous, to copyright a public building! But then I did a google search and found plenty of websites with pictures of the Brussels Atomium. So I think maybe it's just Renderosity overreacting as usual!!

I think I going to get myself copyright. No one can photo me then. Hey we all can do that . The movie stars would love that. No one can take they photo then. wow there a big deal going on with some of the artist work getting rip off here and now this. each side is fighting. check out B_PEACOCK last three images on that subjuct. He did a super job helping the artists.

100% in agreement, the whole idea is ludicous. The clowns that decide this nonsence only leave themselves open to ridicule (and deserve it too). Yip they should cover the lot up if they are so sensitive about it.

i would have liked to had seen that one..shame

I think there is "trump" card for such a spectacle. what I do not understand is some images of famous entertainers are able to stay in the galleries but others gets their feet yanked out

Dang - I once took a pic of the Eiffel Tower at night and showed it to a friend. I better go in hiding before I get persecuted! It is a ridiculous perversion of copyright laws. Maybe - if enough people protest - the owners of these copyrights can be forced to remove these items from the public view. Especially the London Eye - which was conceived with this idea already in mind. Who needs a stupid wheel anyway. Remove the light s from the Eiffel Tour and the Atomium? Poke it with a needle - maybe it deflates. If I were a Londoner, Parisian or an inhabitant of Brussels - I would rally up support - to have either the copyrights or the items in question removed. Our City - our rules! Love the image btw - better than the real deal! ;)

If anyone need's to see the eifel tower at night with all the lights check http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070317.html its from NASA. We don't ha ve those problems here (in Portugal) neve heard about any copyrighted building. Specially if there is a public one. Only buildings inside a fence and if its for profit. Since the posters at this site don't have none i'll forget the issue. By the way your picture it should be "Collage"???

Belgium? That Banana Republic somewhere in Europe? Must be funny there.

Hi friends Sorry I don,t understad and nan,t say nothing :-))) erland

In short, the Atomium Structure in Brussels, Flanders, Belgium, can be seen in thousands of guises and from any angle on the world wide web. But those pictures are copyrighted, and they - at least the legal ones - have been paid for. I took my pictures as a stupid tourist visiting Brussels. I didn't even mean to take a shot of the Atomium only - what's the point? I took a funny picture from the Mini-Europe perspective, showing miniatures of the French Eiffel Tower and the Arc the Triomphe against the real Atomium. Haw, haw! How very funny! I agree it was a silly picture, but there was no harm intended. Then Renderosity removed my picture saying I had infringed copyrights. I'm sure they don't do that so readily, and have done what they thought right. My point with this posting is that copyrights are getting way out of bounds. I can understand the Mona Lisa must not be photographed. I went to the Louvre, and "sped" by it - there are so many visitors who want to see it you have to move on! Flashlights will affect an old painting, so they are prohibited. I agree fully with that. Tomorrow in my lovely city of Ghent a private company brushes up the 1000-year-old belfry. In their contract they have added the clausule: "From now on no one is allowed to take pictures of the belfry again unless they pay us copyrights." The city (well, this or that political party) has agreed. Isn't that disgusting? Isn't that truly American?