Re: Photography & National Parks. You ONLY need a permit IF:

1. The activity takes place at location(s) where or when members of the public are generally not allowed; or

2. The activity uses model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) that are not a part of the location’s natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities; or

3. Park would incur additional administrative costs to monitor the activity.

Weddings I’m pretty sure fall under #2 there, so it’s the photographers bad for not getting a permit. However, you can walk into any National Park and take a picture and turn around and sell it. However, interfere with the normal process of things and you need permits.

http://seattlest.com/2010/02/04/more_on_the_dance_steps_on_broadway_1.php

There is no reason why you can’t use the work as a background in a photograph. Actually you are probably okay using it for a wedding and selling one copy to the bride and groom. However, I do know someone who was photographing a wedding in a National Park and they received a ticket for not having the proper photography license.

If you plan to use a recognizable building in a photo and place that photo on a *stock photography website* then you are required to have a release from the owner.

Fair use comes into play when you are talking about a travel brochure of some sort. That would fall under “comment” in the following section. It’s also the way “news” magazines get away with using a celebrity’s image to sell a magazine. You could not take a photo of Brittney Spears, for instance, and make a poster to sell but you can take her photo and sell a magazine based on that image.

“Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.”

Next they’ll say architects like me should get royalties for our work when someone takes a picture of it and puts it in their pictorial travel guide. Sculpture and architecture are often done on a fee for service basis. Photography is a fee per use. These two areas really aren’t comparable traditionally or logically. Short of their being an obvious sign prohibiting photographs of the work, there is no way for a photographer to reason not to use the available environment as a background.

http://www.christojeanneclaude.net/tg.shtml

You could have taken as many photos of that as you wished but you could not sell them as long as people could recognize it as the artists work.

I live in Michigan and Michigan State University is located nearby. I can go to MSU anytime and photograph whatever I wish and freely post the pictures on Flickr or Facebook.

I cannot take photos of the Beaumont Tower or Spartan Stadium and set up a website to sell the images. In that case I could be sued for copyright infringement. Even posting the images on my portfolio could be construed as advertising. I also can’t go to a national park or many zoos and photograph the area with intent to sell the images.

I think the court will need to determine, “The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.”

Did Hipple’s use of the copyrighted artwork result in sales of $60,000 or more? Did those sales hurt or hinder Mackie’s ability to sell images of his work?

Anyway. I am not a lawyer. Just throwing out my two cents.

Assuming the photos in fact do only show the work partially and the fact the work was paid for with public funds there isn’t really a case. If I bought a piece of art work and photographed it, as millions of people do, I wouldn’t be violating copyright. This art work was bought by the people of Seattle, making Mike a de facto owner, as a resident of Seattle. If an owner photographing art is in violation of copyright then every auction house, museum and anyone else except the artist is violating copyright. Furthermore, the photographer didn’t create a copy of the footprints.