As soon as you click the shutter, you own the PICTURE. Period.

You are not “using” architecture by taking a picture of it. Generally, one uses architecture by doing things like “living in it” or “working in it” or “making it part of their functional life”. It is intrinsically not art. One can reimagine architecture works as art, one can make a conceptual piece out of the process of building something, whatever, art can really be everything but not everything can be art.

So, when one uses the word “original”, what does one mean? Does one mean “merit”? Or does one mean “as created first and only by a certain person”. Now, originality, legally speaking, does not care about concepts or subjects in photography. Kind of like free speech, everybody should be free to take as many pictures of whatever as they want (although this is probably is not true for a lot of things, laws are made up as we go for this kind of stuff).

Does the angle of a picture of a building really make a difference? Yes and no. Those pictures of a bridge and a building, those pictures were taken by Patrick first and only by him. He is the original owner of the content. In the bridge one, he even modified the picture so it becomes a work of design, leaving photography behind completely. It is his design that he did first and only himself, with a picture taken by him first and only himself on top of that.

So no: he is not “using” a building for his design. He is using a picture he took. He doesn’t really care, otherwise he would’ve commented on his own blog post to the questions spook had, and so this whole conversation was more about spook than it was about Patrick.

Finally: You pay for a service, that is, having a picture taken. And for a product, that is, a picture of you. If you wanted to keep the negatives, you probably would’ve had to sign a contract for them, stating that you are the owner of those negatives. Since you didn’t, you are not.

Ricardo FAIL.

You got informationdemocracyowned.