Is it legal to use pictures of things that are copyrighted?

[breakaway]

Let's say I walked into a store or a wax museum or a themepark, and I took pictures there of things that are not my property, would I be legally allowed to post those pictures on my website?

 

[The Occultist]

Taking a picture is reproducing, or COPYing, a work, and as such, you would need the COPYright owner's permission to do so. So forget posting them online, as you are most likely not allowed to have taken the picture in the first place.

Standby as others should be along to offer more complete answers.

 

[quincy]

By buying an admission ticket to a theme park or museum, the owner is giving you permission to enter private property - but limits on photography in these places may exist. Admission tickets may detail the restrictions on photographers, but often the wording of the restrictions are vague. Concert tickets often clearly state that no cameras are allowed on the premises, and additional signs are posted throughout the venue warning you against taking pictures. But other facilities may not have such clear policies, and it often helps you avoid copyright problems by getting such a facility to explain their restrictions prior to taking photos.

A photograph of a statue or wax figure may be considered a derivative work and a violation of the creator's copyright if it is taken solely of the figure. Often, however, as in the case with tourist photos where a family is photographed surrounding the figure, a court would consider this a "de minimis" use, which basically means that it is too trivial a violation of copyright for the court to mess with.

Fair use is another exception to photographing copyrighted material, but fair use is determined at the court level, so you must be careful in deciding on your own whether the use is fair or not.

 

[pogomcl]

dispute in stock forums re : property-copyright

here's the dispute in ongoing forum
a lawyer claims that there is no need for any property release in the US
can you give me a good rebuttal or point to where I might find the legal resources? I believe SDZ has rights to limit photography, but there is also a basic conflict between a nonprofit org that is dependent on grants and endowments to survive and the personal interests of photogs. Zoos are generally classed under nonprofit ed orgs...

so they should at lest garner some income off stock images.


and gives this rebuttal to the circular of San Diego Zoo:

Rights of Publicity One of the "rights of privacy" of concern to photographers is the commercial appropriation of someone’s name or likeness, also known as the right of publicity. Violations occur when using the name or likeness of others without their consent to gain some benefit. That is why model releases are so important; they document that you have people’s permission to use their likeness in a photograph for certain or for any purposes. -Editorial Use - Editorial use of a photograph is found in a newsworthy item. In those cases, the use of a person's name or likeness is evaluated in light of constitutional interests. “Newsworthiness” is a First Amendment interest. Courts have extended it to include all types of factual, educational, and historical data, even including en*tertainment, amusement, and other interesting phases of human activity in general. A model release is not needed for editorial uses. -Commercial Use - Commercial use of a photograph usually occurs when the picture of the person has been used for advertising, endorsement, or trade. At times, it is difficult to determine if a usage is considered commercial or editorial, so it is always safer to get the model release. Restrictions on Photographing Property: Unlike using photos of people, there are no proven legal restrictions on using photographs of property except for copyrighted materials, and, depending on the use and other parameters, trademarks. But, in general, if property is visible and can be photographed from a public place, you don’t need a property release to use an image of property in any manner. There are restrictions on some govern*mental property, such as federal seals and insignia, currency, and military or nuclear installations. Nevertheless, some companies have tried to prevent the use—both commercially and editorially—of photographs of their buildings or objects via trademark pro*tection or contract law. While these attempts have been unsuccessful, it can be expensive to litigate them.


and this was the circular that San Diego Zoo sent out:

Large organizations often try to intimidate photographers from using
pictures of their property by alleging the uses are illegal but the
law has yet to support their claims. These threats understandably give
pause to the independent photographer who may not have the funds to
fight a lawsuit even when in the right. Unfortunately, photography
companies are now altering their practices.
>
> A major stock agency recently distributed the following notice it
received from The Zoological Society of San Diego (that runs the San
Diego Zoo) to its photographers:
>
>
> It has come to our attention that an image on your website, [name
removed], may have been taken on grounds at the San Diego Zoo. The
Zoological Society of San Diego does not allow any personal photos to
be taken and used for commercial purpose. We have strict policies
concerning this matter. The policy for photo and video taken at the
Zoo and the Wild Animal Park that can be found on your admission
ticket into the facility is stated as follows:
>
> The commercial use of photographs, video and film you may have taken
during your visit is strictly prohibited without the full written
consent of the Zoological Society of San Diego.
>
> Furthermore, the Zoological Society of San Diego policy prohibits
photographs and/or video taken on grounds to be utilized commercially
and/or promotionally. The Society is a private, non-profit
organization, which relies on exclusive images of our plant and animal
collection in order to raise money for our worldwide conservation
efforts. You are, therefore, prohibited from selling your images in a
gallery, on the Internet or for any other commercial purpose, as well
as referencing the Zoological Society of San Diego. Please remove any
images from your web-site [name] upon receipt of this letter.
>
> First, the Zoological Society never cites a law to support its
"policy" because selling photos taken there does not break any laws.
Second, selling images in a gallery or on the Internet does not
necessarily qualify as a "commercial" use. THIRD, THE ZOOLOGICAL
SOCIETY MAY NOT RELY ON A TERM ON THE TICKET/RECEIPT AS BINDING SINCE
A PERSON WOULD NOT HAVE NOTICED IT AT OR BEFORE THE CONTRACT WAS
ENTERED INTO WHEN ACQUIRING THE TICKET (hence the need for "I Agree"
check boxes on websites and shrink wrap packaging on software
signifying your agreement for the license).
>
> An increasing number of organizations are complaining about
photographs of their property. A list can be found on the Picture
Archive Council of America's website. They make all kinds of claims -
trademark violations, trespassing, property ownership/control - but
none of them are supported by law except for protection of other
copyrighted works (statues, but not buildings) and in a very few
cases, trademark infringement/ dilution.
>
> The Zoological Society has the right to prevent the taking of
photographs on its property but it does not try to stop it. Instead,
it sponsors and advertises photography activities on its grounds. That
it tries to restrict the use of the photos after they are taken there
is astonishing.
>
> It is disappointing that a stock agency would submit to the
Zoological Society's request by removing images designated as being
taken at the Zoo and then passing the notice on to its members with a
recommendation to comply. Individual photographers may not have the
resources to fight Goliath, but if photographers stand on the
shoulders of others, we may be big enough to knock Goliath down.