Selling Photos of Buildings, Murals and Statues in the U.S.

Selling Photos of Buildings, Murals and Statues in the U.S.

A picture of a constructed building that stands in or is ordinarily visible from a public place can be made, distributed and displayed without the architect's permission, because 17 U.S.C. 120(a) removes that right from the architect's copyright. Murals and statues are not buildings, and section 120 does not reach them.

Between 1995 and 1996 a photographer named John Alli visited the Korean War Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. five or six times. On one January 1996 morning, just after a snowstorm, he made about 100 exposures of its soldier sculptures. One of them became a print that he sold under an agreement to pay a 10 percent royalty to a licensing entity set up by Mr. Lecky of Cooper-Lecky Architects, the memorial's prime contractor, who had held himself out as the copyright owner. In 2002 the Postal Service chose the image for a 37-cent stamp. The sculptor, Frank Gaylord, sued the government, and in 2010 the Federal Circuit held that the stamp was not a fair use and that the sculptures were not an "architectural work" that section 120 shields from copyright claims. Alli had already settled his own dispute with Gaylord by agreeing to pay him 10 percent of net sales.

One table for every subject you are likely to shoot

Each verdict in the table rests on the clause named beside it. The sections after the table quote those clauses in full. "Without the creator's permission" in the second column refers only to the copyright of the architect, muralist or sculptor; the last column lists what else can still stop you.

A single frame is the sum of its rows. A street photo of a 2008 office tower with a painted wall beside it clears the tower in row one and still has to answer row eight for the wall. The photographer who frames the wall as the subject of the picture, and not the tower, has moved from the first row to the eighth.

Section 120 in full, clause by clause

The text below is 17 U.S.C. 120 from the United States Code, 2024 Edition, on govinfo.gov. The House Office of the Law Revision Counsel's copy, current through Public Law 119-136 (October 22, 2026), carries the same words.

(a) Pictorial Representations Permitted. The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

(b) Alterations to and Destruction of Buildings. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(2), the owners of a building embodying an architectural work may, without the consent of the author or copyright owner of the architectural work, make or authorize the making of alterations to such building, and destroy or authorize the destruction of such building.

(Added Pub. L. 101-650, title VII, sec. 704(a), Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5133.)

The opening words are "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed." The sentence trims one copyright, the one in a building's design, and only once the building exists. An unbuilt tower is outside it, and so is a photograph of the plans. The Copyright Office's Compendium treats the two as distinct: "An architectural work and a technical drawing of an architectural work are separate works," and a registration for the drawing "covers the drawing itself, but it does not cover the architectural work depicted therein." A picture of an architect's elevation drawing copies the drawing, and 120(a) does not speak to drawings.

The next phrase is "does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display." Those are the acts a photographer performs. Making the photograph is reproduction under 17 U.S.C. 106(1), "to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords." Selling prints, or licensing files that are delivered as copies, is distribution under 106(3), "to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending." Showing the picture on a website or a gallery wall is display. Section 120(a) names all three. It does not contain the words "commercial," "noncommercial," "editorial" or "personal." A print sold in a gift shop and a snapshot kept in a drawer fall under the same sentence, and the architect's copyright does not distinguish between them.

The object of the permission is "pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work." Every item on that list is an image. Section 101, in defining "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works," lists "photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings" as separate entries, so the statute itself treats a model and a photograph as different things. A scale model of a building, a resin souvenir or a 3-D print is not named in 120(a). Whether it counts as an "other pictorial representation" is a question the statute does not answer, which is why the decision table sends that row to a lawyer.

The last clause is the condition: "if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place." Section 101 defines a long list of terms, including "publicly," "display" and "created." It does not define "public place," and that phrase does not appear in section 101 at all. The condition attaches to the building, not to the photographer: it asks where the building is, or whether it is ordinarily visible from a public place, and does not say where the camera must be. A reader can draw two practical conclusions from the words alone. A tower on a city street satisfies the condition on its face. A house behind a gate whose rear garden is only ever seen from a neighbor's land is a harder case, because "ordinarily visible" suggests ordinary sightlines rather than what a telephoto lens or a drone can reach. No court decision cited here resolves either point.

Subsection (b) is about owners, not photographers. It lets the owner of a building alter or destroy it without the architect's consent. It matters for this topic because it shows what the building regime is built around: the building is a useful object whose owner keeps control of it. Murals are treated the other way around, which the section on visual art rights below sets out.

What the law counts as an architectural work

Section 101 gives the definition, in full: "An 'architectural work' is the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features."

The Copyright Office's regulation fills in "building." Under 37 C.F.R. 202.11(b)(1), as it stands in the eCFR on October 30, 2026, the term "building means humanly habitable structures that are intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and office buildings, and other permanent and stationary structures designed for human occupancy, including but not limited to churches, museums, gazebos, and garden pavilions." Paragraph (d) lists what cannot be registered: "(1) Structures other than buildings. Structures other than buildings, such as bridges, cloverleafs, dams, walkways, tents, recreational vehicles, mobile homes, and boats. (2) Standard features. Standard configurations of spaces, and individual standard features, such as windows, doors, and other staple building components." Circular 41, revised March 2021, adds that copyright does not protect "Interior design, such as the selection and placement of furniture, lighting, paint, or similar items" or "Purely functional features of an architectural work, such as innovations in architectural engineering or construction techniques."

Those are registration rules, and the Office applies them when deciding what to register. They are not a court ruling on infringement. They still tell a photographer where the architectural-work category ends, and the Federal Circuit used the same regulatory definition of "building" in Gaylord. Three consequences follow.

A bridge, a dam, a tent or a boat is not an architectural work under the regulation. A photograph of a suspension bridge therefore has no architectural-work copyright to clear under the Office's definition, and 120(a) never comes into play. Any sculpture mounted on the bridge, any lighting artwork on its cables and any logo on its tower are separate questions.

An interior is partly inside the category and partly outside it. The Compendium says the protected authorship "may include interior architecture," and Circular 41 says the authorship includes "any arrangement and composition of walls or other permanent structures that divide the interior into separate rooms and spaces." The paint, the furniture and the light fittings are outside it. A photograph of an atrium therefore shows an architect's possible copyright in the volumes and partitions, plus other people's copyrights in whatever art hangs in the space.

Standard features do not count. A photograph of a row of plain windows copies nothing that the architect can claim. What can be claimed is the "overall form" and the original "arrangement and composition" of the pieces, which a landmark's silhouette often is.

Ornament designed into the building sits on the boundary. The definition says the work includes "elements in the design," so a carved frieze or a relief that the architect designed as part of the building can be part of the architectural work, and then 120(a) covers pictures of it along with the rest of the facade. A sculpture that a different artist made and the owner placed in the forecourt is separate art. Where one gives way to the other depends on who designed the element and whether it forms part of the building's design, and the sources cited here do not draw a line between them. The decision table marks that row "depends on the facts" for that reason.

December 1, 1990, and the tail that ended on December 31, 2002

Congress added the architectural-works category to the Copyright Act in the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act, title VII of Pub. L. 101-650, enacted December 1, 1990. Section 706 of that law, printed in the notes under section 101, sets the reach of the new protection in full:

The amendments made by this title [enacting section 120 of this title and amending this section and sections 102, 106, and 301 of this title], apply to: (1) any architectural work created on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 1, 1990]; and (2) any architectural work that, on the date of the enactment of this Act, is unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings, except that protection for such architectural work under title 17, United States Code, by virtue of the amendments made by this title, shall terminate on December 31, 2002, unless the work is constructed by that date.

The Copyright Office restates the same boundary as a rule about what it will register. In 37 C.F.R. 202.11(d)(3) the excluded designs are: "(i) Published building designs. The designs of buildings where the plans or drawings of the building were published before December 1, 1990, or the buildings were constructed or otherwise published before December 1, 1990. (ii) Unpublished building designs. The designs of buildings that were unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings on December 1, 1990, and remained unconstructed on December 31, 2002." Compendium section 926.2(C), under the heading "Building Designs Created Before December 1, 1990," puts it in a sentence: "The Copyright Act does not protect building designs published or constructed before December 1, 1990." It adds that "plans, drawings, or models for such works may be registered as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, but the registration for such works does not extend to a building constructed from the plan, drawing, or model."

Run the cutoff against six invented buildings and the rule becomes concrete. The results come from the date test in the work script, which applies paragraph (d)(3) as quoted above.

The cutoff is almost 36 years old. Every building completed before it falls on the unprotected side of the line, and the 12-year tail between December 1, 1990 and December 31, 2002 has also closed. A reader photographing a building today can ask one question about its date: was it built, or were its plans published, before December 1, 1990? If yes, no architect's copyright exists to clear. If no, section 120(a) is the working answer for exteriors, and the date matters only for the harder cases of interiors and sightlines.

Renovations raise a question the cited texts do not settle. Section 101 says a work is "created" when it is first fixed in a copy, and adds that "where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work." An addition designed in 2004 to a library finished in 1990 is a post-1990 design, and the 1990 part is not. Circular 41's application tips mention "a work that constitutes a new version of an earlier work" without saying how much change qualifies, and how much change turns a renovation into a new design is not stated in any text cited here.

Why a mural is not covered by section 120

Section 102(a) of the Act lists eight categories of works of authorship. Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works are item (5). Architectural works are item (8). The categories are kept apart on purpose, and the Compendium draws the consequence in section 926.2: the design of a building "would not be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work." A mural is a painting, and a painting is a pictorial work in category (5). Section 120(a) limits "the copyright in an architectural work," so it does not touch the copyright in a painting that happens to be on the wall of a building.

The same wall therefore carries two copyrights with different permissions attached. Photographing the building from the street is within 120(a). Photographing the painted wall so that the painting is the subject is a reproduction of a pictorial work, which the owner of that copyright controls under section 106 subject to the exceptions in sections 107 to 122. Selling the picture is distribution and showing it online is display, and nothing in 120(a) offers the photographer a shield.

The muralist usually holds the copyright, not the building owner. Section 202 says: "Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied," and that transferring the object does not by itself convey rights in the work embodied in it. Owning the wall is not owning the image on it. Work made for hire, defined in section 101, covers an employee's work within the scope of employment and nine categories of specially commissioned work (a contribution to a collective work, part of an audiovisual work, a translation, a supplementary work, a compilation, an instructional text, a test, answer material for a test, and an atlas). A mural appears in none of the nine, so a mural by an independent artist is ordinarily the artist's own copyright unless the artist transferred it. Under section 204(a), a transfer "is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed." The linked guide to design copyright ownership and work for hire walks through the same definitions for freelance work.

A mural can also be old enough to be public domain, or can be a government-made work. The article on how to tell if an image is public domain sets out the date tables, and section 105 states that "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." The first clause covers works prepared by federal officers or employees as part of their official duties, per the definition in section 101. It does not cover a work by a contractor, which is the situation in Gaylord below.

Visual Artists Rights Act: a wall owner and an artist hold different rights

Section 120(b) lets a building owner destroy an architectural work. A mural is treated differently. Under 17 U.S.C. 106A(a)(3), the author of a "work of visual art" has the right "to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation," and "to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature." Section 113(d) adds procedures for works that are part of buildings, including a 90-day notice route for removable works. The definition of "work of visual art" in section 101 covers a painting, drawing, print or sculpture existing in a single copy or in a limited signed and numbered edition of 200 or fewer, and it also covers a still photographic image produced for exhibition purposes only, in a single signed copy or a signed, numbered edition of 200 or fewer. It excludes any work made for hire, posters, merchandising items and advertising material, among others.

These rights concern the artist's name and what happens to the physical work. Section 106A(a), which is itself "Subject to section 107," lists the right to claim authorship, the right to prevent use of the author's name on works the author did not create or on distorted versions, and the right to prevent distortion, mutilation, modification and destruction, the last subject to the limits in section 113(d). Photography is not on the list. Section 106A(c)(3) goes further for commercial uses: "The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work in, upon, or in any connection with any item described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of the definition of 'work of visual art' in section 101, and any such reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a)." Those items include posters, merchandise and advertising. The practical reading is that the artist's VARA rights do not turn a poster or a mug that depicts the mural into a VARA violation. The ordinary copyright in the mural, under section 106, is untouched by that sentence and is what a photographer must deal with.

Statues and sculptures: what Gaylord decided

The Federal Circuit's opinion in Gaylord v. United States, No. 2009-5044, decided February 25, 2010, is an appellate decision on a photograph of a public sculpture that was licensed and sold commercially, and it addresses section 120 directly. The facts were these. Congress authorized the memorial in 1986, and a competition sponsored by the prime contractor, Cooper-Lecky, chose Gaylord to sculpt the figures, which became 19 stainless steel soldiers in formation. Alli photographed them after the January 1996 snowfall, and his picture was licensed to the Postal Service. The Postal Service paid him $1,500 and issued the stamp, which shows 14 of the 19 soldiers, or 73.7 percent of them. The Postal Service produced about 86.8 million stamps and acknowledged receiving over $17 million from the sale of nearly 48 million of them.

The government argued three defenses: fair use, joint authorship and the architectural-works exemption. The court rejected all three. On architectural works, the court quoted section 120(a) and the Ninth Circuit's description in Leicester v. Warner Bros. that the Act "did not afford architectural works full copyright protection; rather, it exempted the making of pictorial representations of architectural works from copyright infringement." It then applied the regulatory definition of building, noted that the definition excludes "walkways" and "bridges," and found no clear error in the trial court's explanation that the work "is an artistic expression intended to convey a message rather than to be occupied by individuals," and that "Much like a walkway or a bridge, the memorial permits individuals to access through it, but is not intended for occupancy." The group was not an architectural work, so 120(a) did not apply.

On fair use, the court weighed the four factors in section 107. The purpose factor went against the government: "The stamp does not reflect any 'further purpose' than The Column," because "both the stamp and The Column share a common purpose: to honor veterans of the Korean War," and the use was commercial. The court rejected the argument that photographing after snow changed the work's character: "Nature's decision to snow cannot deprive Mr. Gaylord of an otherwise valid right to exclude." The nature of the work (creative) and the amount used (14 of 19 figures, the focus of the stamp) also weighed against fair use. Only the market-harm factor favored the government, because the stamp was not a substitute for the sculpture. The conclusion was that the use was not fair, and the case went back for damages.

Two limits matter. First, this is one circuit's ruling about a sculpture group in a national memorial, and a different court or a different set of facts can come out differently. Second, the Supreme Court has since sharpened the first factor in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, No. 21-869, decided May 18, 2023: "the first fair use factor instead focuses on whether an allegedly infringing use has a further purpose or different character, which is a matter of degree, and the degree of difference must be weighed against other considerations, like commercialism." The Court emphasized the specific use at issue, and found that a licensed portrait and the photograph it copied "share substantially the same purpose." Read next to Gaylord, one reading for a photographer is that a picture sold as a picture of a sculpture may serve much the same purpose as the sculpture itself, and that adding mood or light does not by itself change that: Gaylord held that adding snow and muting the color did not give the stamp a different character, and Warhol says new expression is "not, without more, dispositive of the first factor." Gaylord also noted that a use which comments on or criticizes the original sits differently. That sentence is analysis, not a holding of either court, and a different photograph or a different court could come out differently.

Fair use is also the statutory route open to some photographers of murals and statues. Section 107 begins: "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."

The statute lists "news reporting" and "criticism, comment" as purposes, which is why a news photograph of a protest in front of a mural stands on firmer ground than a poster of the mural. It also says the weighing is case by case. A photographer who needs certainty before printing 500 posters should not plan around a defense that a court decides after the fact.

Property releases, brand marks and the sponsorship test

Copyright is not the only right in the frame. Two others, releases and trademarks, can apply to the same photograph.

Releases. Section 120(a) and the other sections quoted here say nothing about releases from the owner of a building or the people in a photograph. The industry practice comes from contracts and state law, which are outside the federal sections quoted here. Canva's Content License Agreement, section 12, checked November 3, 2026, states the position of one large platform in a paragraph: "Releases are generally not obtained for Free Content, and some jurisdictions provide legal protection against a person's image, likeness or property being used for commercial purposes when they have not provided a release. Canva doesn't grant any right nor make any warranty for the use of names, people, trademarks, trade dress, logos, registered designs or works of art or architecture depicted in Free Content. You're solely responsible for determining whether a release is required for any proposed use of Free Content, and obtaining any such release." The sentence lists "works of art or architecture" among the things the platform does not clear, which is the same split drawn above. The free stock photos guide compares how Unsplash, Pexels and Pixabay handle releases clause by clause.

Trademarks. A building can carry a brand, and some buildings act as brands. Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114(1)(a), reaches use of a registered mark "in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive." Section 43(a)(1)(A), 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(A), reaches use that "is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person." For unregistered trade dress, 1125(a)(3) puts the burden on the claimant to prove "that the matter sought to be protected is not functional." Dilution claims have their own exclusions in 1125(c)(3), including "Any noncommercial use of a mark" and fair use "other than as a designation of source for the person's own goods or services."

For a photographer the working distinction is between a picture that shows a lit logo as part of a scene and a picture used to suggest that the logo's owner endorses the product being sold. The first is less likely to raise the confusion test, which asks about affiliation, origin or sponsorship. The second can. The guide to using other companies' logos on your website works through the confusion test and the nominative fair use cases with examples.

Six hypothetical shots, worked through

The six shots below use invented facts, and the verdicts apply the quoted text to those facts. They are an illustration of method, not legal advice about any real building.

Shot 3 is the one that most often goes wrong. The photographer is correct that the building can be photographed freely, and then frames the picture so that the painting is the image. The permission that 120(a) gave for the building does not follow the camera to the painting.

Clearing a mural or a statue before you sell

When a picture needs the artist's permission, the work is practical. Start by identifying the artist and the copyright owner, which may be different people. Signatures, plaques, a commissioning body's website and press coverage often name the artist. The U.S. Copyright Office's Search Records page links to its Copyright Public Records Portal at publicrecords.copyright.gov, and a registration or recorded transfer found there is useful evidence of who holds the rights. Because section 204(a) requires a signed writing for transfers, the person who commissioned or owns the object is not necessarily the person to ask, and the artist's own statement that the rights were transferred is not a substitute for the document.

Then agree the license in writing. A usable license names the work, the photographer, the uses (prints, calendar, stock licensing, advertising), the territory and term, any fee or royalty, and whether the artist wants a credit line. Alli's story shows the risk of getting this wrong: he obtained a license from Mr. Lecky, who held himself out as the "outright" owner of the copyright, and the sculptor later sued him, and Alli settled by agreeing to pay the sculptor 10 percent of his net sales. A license from the wrong party is worth nothing against the right owner.

Next, keep a record of the facts a later dispute would turn on. Note the date and exact location of the shot, where you stood, what the work was, the age and authorship of any mural or statue in frame, the sign or plaque, and the license or the decision that none was needed. Photograph the plaque as well. This is the same discipline the asset licensing checklist applies to fonts and icons, and it costs a minute at the time.

Finally, set the caption and keywords to describe what is in the picture without implying a connection. A stock listing for a skyline needs a location and a description. It does not need a brand name or the words "official" or "licensed," and a listing that names the muralist or the sculptor can read as a claim of permission. The tracing guide covers the separate question of drawing from a photograph that includes someone else's artwork, and the Creative Commons guide explains why a CC-licensed photo of a mural does not carry the muralist's permission with it. If a takedown notice arrives, the DMCA guide for designers explains the response steps. For the registration side, including how your own photograph is protected, see the copyright registration guide.

Photographing buildings, murals and statues: common questions

Can I sell a print of a famous skyscraper?

Yes as far as the architect's copyright is concerned, if the building is constructed and is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place. Section 120(a) says the architect's copyright "does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work." Trademarks on the building and any art attached to it are separate questions, covered in the rows above.

Does section 120 cover murals?

No. Section 120(a) limits "the copyright in an architectural work." A mural is a pictorial work, which section 102(a) lists as category (5) and keeps apart from architectural works, category (8). Selling pictures where the mural is the subject needs the muralist's permission, a public-domain status or a fair use defense.

What if the building was built before 1990?

Then no architectural-work copyright exists. 37 C.F.R. 202.11(d)(3)(i) excludes designs where the plans were published, or the building was constructed or otherwise published, before December 1, 1990. Section 120(a) is not needed for such a building, because there is no architect's copyright in the design to clear.

Is a drone photograph treated differently?

The text of 120(a) asks whether the building is "located in or ordinarily visible from a public place" and does not mention the camera. A drone photograph of a building that is visible from a public place meets the condition on its face. No text cited here addresses flight rules or site rules, and a building that cannot ordinarily be seen from any public place is a harder case.

Can I photograph the inside of a building and sell the pictures?

The cited texts do not settle it. The Compendium says protected authorship "may include interior architecture," and 120(a) does not mention interiors. The condition in 120(a) attaches to the building, not the camera, which a reader could take to favor coverage; the interior-architecture language could be taken the other way. No cited text decides between them. Art in the room is separate and needs the artist's permission. A venue's own photography rules also apply, and they are a matter of contract, not copyright.

Is a statue in a public park free to photograph and sell?

A statue is a sculptural work, section 120 does not cover it, and the sculptor's copyright can last long after installation, so a public location alone does not clear it. Gaylord shows a public sculpture whose photograph, licensed to the Postal Service, was held not to be a fair use. A statue made by a federal employee as part of official duties has no copyright under section 105, and an old statue may be in the public domain.

Does the Visual Artists Rights Act stop me from photographing a mural?

Section 106A gives the author rights of attribution and of preventing distortion or destruction, and section 106A(c)(3) says the attribution rights in (a)(1) and (a)(2) do not apply to a reproduction or depiction in connection with posters, merchandise, advertising and similar items, and that such a depiction is not a distortion or destruction under (a)(3). VARA does not replace the ordinary copyright in the mural, which is what governs your photograph.

Do I need a property release to sell a photo of a house?

Releases are not a copyright requirement. The sections of Title 17 quoted here do not mention them. Stock platforms and clients often ask for them by contract, and some jurisdictions give people and property owners protection against commercial use of an image or likeness, as the Canva license paragraph above says. For a client project, ask what the client requires.

Statute, opinions and Copyright Office texts

• U.S. Code, Title 17, section 120, 2024 Edition, full text of (a) and (b) and the effective-date note; also the House Office of the Law Revision Counsel copy, current through Public Law 119-136 (October 22, 2026); checked November 3, 2026.
• U.S. Code, Title 17, section 101, definitions of "architectural work," "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works," "created," "work of visual art" and "work made for hire," and the Pub. L. 101-650, sec. 706 effective-date note; checked November 3, 2026.
• U.S. Code, Title 17, sections 102, 105, 106, 106A, 107, 113, 202 and 204, 2024 Edition; checked November 3, 2026.
• U.S. Code, Title 15, sections 1114 and 1125, 2024 Edition; checked November 3, 2026.
• 37 C.F.R. 202.11, Architectural works, eCFR current text as of October 30, 2026, last amended 84 FR 16785 (April 23, 2019); checked November 3, 2026.
• U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 41, Copyright Registration of Architectural Works, revised March 2021; checked November 3, 2026.
• U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition, chapter 900, sections 926 to 926.2(C), page footers dated January 28, 2021, the effective date of the current Compendium; checked November 3, 2026.
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Gaylord v. United States, No. 2009-5044, decided February 25, 2010; checked November 3, 2026.
• Supreme Court of the United States, Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, No. 21-869, decided May 18, 2023; checked November 3, 2026.
• Canva, Content License Agreement, section 12 (Disclaimers); checked November 3, 2026.
• U.S. Copyright Office, Search Records, the page that links to the Copyright Public Records Portal; checked November 3, 2026.

Quotation note: where statutory text has a dash introducing a list (section 107, "shall include"; the section 706 note, "apply to"), this text prints a colon. Scope: this article states United States federal law. Texts from other countries, state right-of-publicity statutes, local permit rules and the policies of individual venues and stock platforms are not covered, and nothing here is legal advice about a specific photograph.