| Razor78 | 26 Apr 2015 5:37 p.m. PST |
Is there any restriction for modeling actual historical buildings to reproduce for sale? For example if I made a model of the Dunker Church at Antietam and wanted to mold it and sell copies would I have to get Antietam Battlefields (ie National Parks) permission? |
| HistoryPhD | 26 Apr 2015 5:51 p.m. PST |
Buildings can't be copyrighted, per se. Photo images of them can, but the building itself is in the public domain, so to speak. If you take a really great photo of the Empire State Building, you own the photo, but not the building. You can sell the photo and the actual owners of the building have no recourse. |
| Zagloba | 26 Apr 2015 5:56 p.m. PST |
As far as I can tell with copyright, there's what you can legally do and what will get you sued- so you could be well within your legal rights to sell a model of the Dunker Church, but if the current owner, or the United Brethren, or some artist or photographer who sell an image of the battle or whatever decide to sue you then you have to decide if you want to defend it in court, fair use be damned. Or you could also have no right to sell a model, and get away with it for years because no one notices/cares. FWIW I think JR Miniatures did a Dunker Church- they have certainly done other ACW and European buildings. Rich |
| coryfromMissoula | 26 Apr 2015 6:00 p.m. PST |
Some newer buildings have been trademarked, but I can't imagine that'd be any you would do for a battlefield would. |
| Yesthatphil | 26 Apr 2015 6:23 p.m. PST |
Copyright protection does not extend to 3D works of art permanently exhibited in public places. Therefore miniature copies of historical buildings can be made and under all normal circumstances a new work of art – the miniature building – would be created and the rights to that would belong to the sculptor. Of course, you could not make a copy of someone else's model (as that would infringe their rights in the new work they had created). Phil |
Tgerritsen  | 26 Apr 2015 7:45 p.m. PST |
You should contact a copyright lawyer on this rather than ask here. This is an area of law that is being hotly debated now, and some owners of buildings and estates of architects do claim rights over some buildings and have demanded royalties or sought injunction against those who try to make money off of their designs. In any event, something dating back to the Civil War should be fine, as copyright doesn't extend back that far. |
| MajorB | 27 Apr 2015 2:05 a.m. PST |
I agree with Phil. You can't copyright a building. |
| Defender1 | 27 Apr 2015 11:44 a.m. PST |
Not a copyright, trademark lawyer, just a lawyer. I would think that the Intellectual rights would belong to the designer/architect of the building until sold to the buildings owner whom would then possess those rights. Having spit out that mouthful I would think the only thing you should be careful about is the name you use for your model/rendering. That is if you are making and molding the Dunker Church at Antietam I would not call it that. Maybe just "Dunker Church", or "Antietam Church". However, TGerritsen would be correct as to the extent of copyright over something that old. |
| Dave Crowell | 27 Apr 2015 11:47 a.m. PST |
The building itself may not be copyrighted, but architectural plans and drawings can be. Photographs can be, and some buildings are trade marked or otherwise protected. There is a general rule of thumb for artists and photographers that if it can be seen from a public space it can be freely photographed and painted. Dunker Church is old enough that the original building (and ACW contemporary photographs, prints etc) would be in the public domain. But, if you are planning commercial use it is worth checking with an actual IP lawyer. |
| Yesthatphil | 27 Apr 2015 1:42 p.m. PST |
What Dave Crowell said (and not what Defender1 said) … Phil |
reports from the final California Gen Con...