Field guide · Part 2 of 13
The Building Itself as a Copyrighted Work
5 rules on the building itself as a copyrighted work for architectural and real estate photographers, each with its source.
Educational, not legal advice. Every rule below carries its source and a
confidence level, because some of this is settled law and some is contested. The ones marked
contested need a lawyer's judgement on your facts, not a rule of thumb.
Rule 6Surprising
Photographing a building you can see from a public place is not copyright infringement, period.
The architect’s copyright in the building design does not include the right to stop photos of the constructed building visible from a public place.
The misconception: “The architect can stop me from shooting or publishing their building.”
Source: 17 U.S.C. 120(a), the pictorial representations exemption, enacted by the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act.
Confidence: Very high for exteriors and public-building interiors; the statute’s text is explicit. Not contested for exteriors.
Rule 7Surprising
Buildings substantially completed before December 1, 1990 have no architectural-work copyright at all.
The AWCPA is not retroactive, so a pre-1990 building’s design carries no separate architectural copyright to worry about.
The misconception: “All notable buildings are copyrighted.”
Source: AWCPA, Pub. L. 101-650, signed December 1, 1990; protection covers works created on or after that date, and buildings substantially completed before it are not covered.
Confidence: Very high. Not contested.
Rule 8
“Buildings” means habitable structures, so bridges, dams, and standalone kiosks are not protected architectural works.
The Copyright Office limits architectural works to humanly habitable, permanent, stationary structures.
The misconception: “Any structure is copyrighted architecture.”
Source: Copyright Office definition (Circular 41); Viad Corp. v. Stak Design (kiosks not covered); Yankee Candle v. New England Candle (a store within a mall not a “building”).
Confidence: High. Not contested.
Rule 9
Interiors of private homes sit in a grayer zone than exteriors.
The 120(a) exemption clearly covers exteriors and public interiors, and likely covers private-home interiors, but the case law is thinner there.
The misconception: “Interiors get the same airtight exemption as exteriors.”
Source: IP attorney Leslie Burns, writing for Architectural Photography Almanac, notes interiors of private homes are “likely covered as well, but it isn’t as clear in the case law.”
Confidence: Medium. Contested and fact-specific; requires a lawyer’s judgment.
Rule 10Surprising
An architect cannot legally stop publication of photos of their building, but they can bind you by contract.
The statute strips their copyright veto, but if you signed a project agreement giving the architect approval rights, you are bound by that contract, not by copyright law.
The misconception: “The architect owns the right to control building photos.”
Source: 17 U.S.C. 120(a) removes the copyright basis; contractual approval clauses are a separate, enforceable matter.
Confidence: High. Contract-dependent.
Keep reading
Resid
Every rule here is a decision Resid makes for you.
It finds the companies who worked on a property, prices each licence on real licensing data,
writes the agreement, and collects.
See how it works →
← All 54 rules