NYSE Threatening to sue photography over picture of building

[ryang 166]

I figured this might be something of interest to the photographers around. A well-respected photographer on an art/photography website I frequent just released this call for help in his blog:

The photographs in question were taken by myself on January 06, 2010 - I had a physical witness there with me to prove that I did take the photographs and that they were taken legally and lawfully. According to the New York Stock Exchange, these photographs I took are in violation of their rights.

The New York Stock Exchange is threatening me with legal action and threatening my rights as an artist, photograph, and photo-journalist. The New York Stock Exchange claims I do not have rights to my photographs and works of art (of buildings and a street-scene in New York City) and that I do not have the right to make a profit off of or sell my works. The New York Stock Exchange also claims I do not have the right to exhibit, publish, or display my photographs and works of art. They are threatening legal action against me.

http://bandlero.deviantart.com/journal/35305591/

I'm not particularly up-to-date on photography law; is it in the NYSE's right to sue over photos of their building? It seems to be a bit of a stretch as far as claiming rights goes. If so, what implications does this have for public photography in general?

[abaduck 123]

This is BS. I guess some lawyers are getting very creative. The issue that *could* arise is if you take and publish a photograph of a *copyrighted work* - a logo, a work of art etc. For instance, if someone hated KME rigs, created a website called kmesucks.com, and stole the official KME logo from the KME site and used it on their site... that *might* be a problem. But putting up photographs of trucks which bore the KME logo wouldn't be a problem; the fair use exemption there is so wide you could drive a truck through it.

I'm *guessing* something similar is going on here - some twisted lawyers are somehow trying to claim that the facade of the NYSE building is somehow their copyrighted logo. It's BS, it's not going anywhere.

[Alpinerunner 61]

If I were him, I wouldn't worry until the *actually* sue. When companies want something that they can't legally have, they routinely send out these letters as a scare tactic. If he ignores it, it will probably go away.

[FFLieu 70]

I was always under the impression that you could photograph any public building by way of the fact that, being that it was erected in public, you'd see it anyway, and therefore, could memorialize its mere presence. Now if I climbed the side of the NYSE building like King Kong so that I could take a picture of it, then maybe I'd consider myself to be subject to some sort of sanction, either civilly or criminally. However, being that Wall Street is a huge tourist area (I used to work at 120 Broadway), I'd like to see them try to collect money from the thousands of people who pass through and photograph the evirons on a daily basis. And, if they really don't want people taking pictures of the building, then maybe they shouldn't be so high-profile by wrapping the outer columns in a flag, or by making that same flag out of Christmas lights around the Holidays.

[ryang 166]

What about use of the images for profit? I presume that the photographer keeps all rights to the images and can sell them as desired, as it is considered public domain?

[Tanker 10eng 140]

although I think this is also BS... and silly, you have to always look at it threw someone else's stand point... SECURITY !!! maybe by taking these picture, you might be exposing some aspects of their structure which is important to maintaining thier systems.. just like taking photos of trains.... who really knows ?? its said that is where we are getting to.