Architectural works are protected by copyright law, specifically by 17 U.S. Code § 102(8). Indeed, copyright law was officially changed in December 1990 in order to include these architectural copyrights. What does this mean for photographers, who want the ability to make and sell architectural photos? The answer:
Therefore, photographers need to be concerned only when entering private property without permission to take a photo of a post-1990 building. Such photos may result in a claim of copyright infringement.
Although the law does not distinguish interior architectural designs from exteriors, both are likely covered by the same provisions. That is, if an interior is publicly viewable, like a glassed-in porch, you can reproduce it (assuming you’re not violating invasion of privacy laws).
As for non-publicly viewable interiors, the determining factors will be (1) whether the interiors are sufficiently original to merit copyright protection, (2) what elements (unprotected) are functional elements whose design or placement is utilitarian, and (3) whether the photographs of the interior reveal enough information to infringe the architectural plans or designs. Simply showing the kitchen, or bedroom, for example is unlikely by itself to constitute an infringement; you would need to show that the combined effect of the photos is an infringement of several elements of the design.
The only other issues that might arise would be contractual, for example if you agreed not to post images, or privacy if you did not have permission from the owner.
Typically, if a building contains integrated sculptural elements, you can still photograph and reproduce the building along with those elements.
However, if the building contains a “separable” work such as mural or garden sculpture that is protected under copyright, the reproduction of that work (within your photo) may constitute copyright infringement. This is particularly true if you take a "close up" of that element and sell it separately.
Trademark law presents additional issues for photographers to consider. Building owners have claimed building appearances as a trademark when used in connection with the sale of goods and services.
But in order for a trademark owner to stop you from reproducing a photograph of their building, the following would have to be true: (1) the building would have to have an identifiable, distinctive appearance; (2) the building would have to be publicly associated with certain goods or services; (3) your use would have to be commercial (not editorial); and (4) your use would have to be linked to an offer or endorsement of similar goods or services.
For example, you will run into problems if you use a picture of the Transamerica Pyramid in an ad for another company's financial services. Generally, this strategy has not always worked so well for trademark owners, and you probably do not need to worry about it. If you are concerned, however, the safest course is to obtain a release for your photography.
If you’re looking for more information on photography and the law, check out Carolyn Wright’s blog, which covers issues related to the law of photography.