Copyright In Photogrammetry-Based Polish Castle Models.

27 Feb 2026 --
0 Comments

1. Introduction

Photogrammetry-based 3D models involve using multiple photographs to reconstruct a three-dimensional representation of a real-world object, such as a castle. In Poland, many castles are historical monuments, and 3D photogrammetric models are often used for:

Heritage preservation

Virtual tourism

Academic research

Gaming and VR simulations

The copyright issues arise in several areas:

Authorship of the photogrammetric model – is it the photographer, the software, or the institution?

Originality requirement – is a faithful 3D reconstruction creative enough for copyright?

Derivative works – does digitizing a castle infringe architectural copyright?

Use of public domain or copyrighted images – does training AI or using third-party photos create liability?

2. Human Authorship Requirement

Most copyright laws require human authorship.

📌 Naruto v. Slater (United States, 2018)

Facts:
A macaque monkey took selfies with a photographer’s camera.

Issue:
Can a non-human create copyrightable works?

Holding:
The court held that animals cannot own copyright.

Application:
If a photogrammetry model is generated automatically by software or AI without meaningful human input (e.g., fully automated drone scanning and reconstruction), under U.S. law it likely does not qualify for copyright, because no human “author” created the work.

3. Originality Standard

📌 Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service

Facts:
A phone directory company copied white pages from another.

Issue:
Are compilations of facts copyrightable?

Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that a “modicum of creativity” is required. Pure effort or mechanical compilation is insufficient.

Application to Photogrammetry Models:

A 3D reconstruction that mechanically reproduces a castle from photos without creative choices may not satisfy originality.

Adding human creative decisions (lighting, camera angles, textures, annotations) strengthens copyright protection.

4. AI-Generated or Computer-Assisted Models

Photogrammetry often involves software that automates reconstruction.

📌 Thaler v. Perlmutter

Facts:
Stephen Thaler tried to register a work generated solely by his AI system “Creativity Machine.”

Holding:
Works produced solely by AI without human involvement cannot be copyrighted.

Application:
If software produces a 3D model with minimal human guidance (fully automated scanning and mesh generation), it may not be protected under U.S. copyright law.

5. Authorship in Computer-Assisted Works

Some jurisdictions recognize the human creator of arrangements for computer-generated works.

📌 Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd (UK)

Facts:
Authorship of computer-generated graphics in a video game was disputed.

Holding:
The court held that the programmer who designed the system is the author. Players who triggered images were not authors.

Principle:

Application:
In Poland or EU law, if a researcher, artist, or cultural institution sets parameters, selects photos, or curates output, they may be considered the author of the photogrammetric model.

6. EU Originality Standard

📌 Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening

Holding:
A work must reflect the author’s own intellectual creation.

Application:

Simply capturing the physical form of a castle does not automatically create copyright.

Human choices in framing photos, editing textures, or annotating the 3D model can provide the required originality.

7. Architectural Works and Heritage Protection

Photogrammetry models often replicate historical buildings.

📌 Shine v. Childs

Facts:
Architect claimed a skyscraper design was copied.

Holding:
Architectural works are protected, but protection covers original elements, not functional or purely historical aspects.

Application:

In Poland, castles may be centuries old, and their architecture is in the public domain.

A photogrammetry model that faithfully reproduces the building may not infringe copyright, but incorporating creative enhancements (lighting, textures, virtual modifications) could qualify as original.

8. Derivative Works and Copyrighted Sources

Photogrammetry models may use copyrighted photos.

📌 Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith

Facts:
Warhol used a photograph as the basis for artwork.

Holding:
Transformative use is limited; derivative works require permission.

Application:

If a model uses copyrighted tourist photos, or textures from proprietary sources, reproducing or distributing the model without permission could be infringing.

Using public domain or self-created photographs mitigates this risk.

9. Polish Copyright Law (Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych)

Key Points:

Artistic works protection – includes visual arts and architectural works.

Originality requirement – requires individual creative input.

Derivative works – require authorization if based on copyrighted material.

Computer-generated works – human author must exercise creative control.

Implication:

A fully automated photogrammetric scan of a castle is likely not copyrightable.

A model enhanced, curated, or creatively modified by a human can obtain copyright protection.

10. Practical Recommendations for Polish Castle Models

Ensure human creative involvement (photo selection, camera angles, editing).

Use public domain or licensed images for photogrammetry input.

Document human contributions to strengthen authorship claims.

Avoid direct copying of copyrighted architectural works or modern reconstructions.

Consider moral rights under Polish and EU law if reproducing historical cultural heritage.

11. Summary Table of Key Cases

Case	Jurisdiction	Principle	Application to Photogrammetry Models
Naruto v. Slater (2018)	US	Non-human authors cannot hold copyright	Fully AI-generated scans may not be protected
Feist v. Rural Tel. (1991)	US	Minimal creativity required	Automated reconstruction alone insufficient
Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023)	US	AI-only works not copyrightable	AI photogrammetry needs human intervention
Nova v. Mazooma (2007)	UK	Programmer of system may be author	Person arranging photogrammetry is author
Infopaq v. Danske (2009)	EU	Work must be intellectual creation	Human editing of model provides originality
Shine v. Childs (2009)	US	Architectural works protected	Creative additions to castle model may qualify
Warhol v. Goldsmith (2023)	US	Derivative works need permission	Using copyrighted photos as input may infringe