Architecture is an artistic medium, so it’s subject to copyright. It gets a little complicated though, because this wasn’t legally decided until the latter half of the 20th century.
Does the architect hold the copyright of a photograph that a photographer has taken though?
I can see it getting murky quickly. What if the building is in frame, but is not the focus of the photograph. Can the architect still claim copyright infringement on that particular photo?
ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 years ago
The lighting is copyrighted, so it’s technically copyright infringement.
Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 2 years ago
I’m sorry, fucking what?
How can lighting, or the sight of something be copyright?
Fuck what wonderful captialistic hellscape we live in
ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 years ago
Architecture is an artistic medium, so it’s subject to copyright. It gets a little complicated though, because this wasn’t legally decided until the latter half of the 20th century.
Johanno@feddit.org 2 years ago
While architecture could be copyrighted. Public buildings are excluded from that for obvious reasons. This includes the eifel tower.
Gork@lemm.ee 2 years ago
Does the architect hold the copyright of a photograph that a photographer has taken though?
I can see it getting murky quickly. What if the building is in frame, but is not the focus of the photograph. Can the architect still claim copyright infringement on that particular photo?
the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 2 years ago
I’ll start obeying French law when they extradite Roman Polanski
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 2 years ago
He’s not in France, so that’s tricky.