2 ms·

> Many buildings are copyrighted Well, let me stop you right there. That's the bit that needs fixing.

by andybak 2mo ago

dylan604 2mo ago
Nope, can't stop right there. It is the situation we live in now. You can release a product like a poster or puzzle or whatever and try to YOLO with your protest, but you will lose in court when you are sued by the rights holder. There's a museum with a very distinct building that is infamous for sending security staff out to tell photographers they cannot image the building. They have no idea what someone will do with the image, so they have no legal basis to prevent someone from taking the picture.
- randallsquared 2mo ago
  > It is the situation we live in now. That's what > That's the bit that needs fixing. means.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- otterley 2mo ago
  > There's a museum with a very distinct building that is infamous for sending security staff out to tell photographers they cannot image the building Which one is that?
  - dylan604 2mo ago
    perot museum dallas
    - otterley 2mo ago
      They're probably doing it 1/to people who are on their property (the Museum can permit certain activities on its property while prohibiting others), and 2/for security purposes, e.g., to help slow the identification of building or security vulnerabilities, or to prevent harassing the staff. If they said it's because the design of the building is copyrighted, they're just wrong. Nor can they prohibit the taking of photographs from off the property.
      - dylan604 2mo ago
        To frame the building properly, the best position is across the street not on their property. The building has been there for 20 years now, so disovering security vulns from snapping pics of the exterior are pretty established. But I'm glad you've come to the same ultimate conclusion as previously stated
- ButlerianJihad 2mo ago
  Yes folks, architecture is copyrightable under US Law! And other laws too!! It seems plausible that the Perot Museum is copyrighted, and being post-1990 this should be a sure protection, but however, it should also be always permissible to photograph the exterior from public places and there should be nothing the staff can legally do to discourage this activity. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panora... Interior photography by patrons would be another matter, and discretion and policy would be in play there as well.

> Many buildings are copyrighted Well, let me stop you right there. That's the bit that needs fixing.

by andybak 2mo ago

> Many buildings are copyrighted Well, let me stop you right there. That's the bit that needs fixing.

Nope, can't stop right there. It is the situation we live in now. You can release a product like a poster or puzzle or whatever and try to YOLO with your protest, but you will lose in court when you are sued by the rights holder. There's a museum with a very distinct building that is infamous for sending security staff out to tell photographers they cannot image the building. They have no idea what someone will do with the image, so they have no legal basis to prevent someone from taking the picture.

randallsquared 2mo ago
> It is the situation we live in now. That's what > That's the bit that needs fixing. means.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
otterley 2mo ago
> There's a museum with a very distinct building that is infamous for sending security staff out to tell photographers they cannot image the building Which one is that?
- dylan604 2mo ago
  perot museum dallas
  - otterley 2mo ago
    They're probably doing it 1/to people who are on their property (the Museum can permit certain activities on its property while prohibiting others), and 2/for security purposes, e.g., to help slow the identification of building or security vulnerabilities, or to prevent harassing the staff. If they said it's because the design of the building is copyrighted, they're just wrong. Nor can they prohibit the taking of photographs from off the property.
    - dylan604 2mo ago
      To frame the building properly, the best position is across the street not on their property. The building has been there for 20 years now, so disovering security vulns from snapping pics of the exterior are pretty established. But I'm glad you've come to the same ultimate conclusion as previously stated
ButlerianJihad 2mo ago
Yes folks, architecture is copyrightable under US Law! And other laws too!! It seems plausible that the Perot Museum is copyrighted, and being post-1990 this should be a sure protection, but however, it should also be always permissible to photograph the exterior from public places and there should be nothing the staff can legally do to discourage this activity. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panora... Interior photography by patrons would be another matter, and discretion and policy would be in play there as well.