You might not be able to “sell” the image. For example, if you own a Frank Lloyd Wright home you have a unique image. As the owner of the property, you can control the commerical use of the image.
However, if it is visible from a public way, there is no one that can stop you from taking the photograph. They CAN stop you from publishing the image and making money from it.
I know for many people that is a difference without distinction.
For example, as the photographer for the Basketball Hall of Fame many years ago, I took photos of the “Dream Team” in a private setting. I have those images all over my office. They are in my portfolio. I can use those to show other people the kind of work I can do. But I tried to sell them commercially the NBA and the Hall of Fame would be all over me in a second, as I was working for them and I assigned the rights to them.
I OWN the copyright, because I took the image. I sold my “rights” in exchange for the images.
Now, if the Dream Team was walking into the Hall of Fame and some joe schmo took pictures of them (which hundreds of fans did) they are free to print them up and hang them on their walls. If they went to sell them on Ebay or to any other publication they would be in dutch with the people in the photos and with the NBA.
Does that make sense to you? I know its a fine line...but its an important one.
Yes, that makes sense to me, and that’s been my understanding. I would hesitate to make money off any image that contains an identifiable private building, even if the image is in the public domain.
Nope. Papparazzi take pictures like that all the time and sell them for a profit. And they have every right in the world to do so.
I don't think that is true either. The photograph would be a "derivative work" and not a reproduction of the existing art.