Posted by Bill on 12/05/06 19:46

I believed the owners are asserting otherwise.

Pardon me-- I'll take my lumps. Not for photographs. But...

their assertions of copyright relate to motion pictures, not still
images, as far as I know. The makers of King Kong paid for the rights
to use the building in the film, whatever exactly that means in terms of
copyright.

While searching, found this-- a good primer for anyone who believes we
should all cave the minute someone jumps up and shouts "copyright".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v._Nintendo_Co.,_Ltd.

For those who like straw men, to repeat: I am not opposed to copyright.

Just the excessive, unreasonable, authoritarian abuse of the idea.

PTravel wrote:

> You certainly can use a picture of the Empire State Building:
>
> 17 U.S.C. § 120. Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works
> (a) Pictorial representations permitted. 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.
>

[Back to original message]