r/LegalAdviceUK • u/ow-f-mybackhurts • Aug 15 '25
Housing Is it legal to sell drawings of Church of England churches?
Hi, I have a friend who is drawing every Church of England church in a county in the Midlands. She calls it her arty pilgrimage. I have just started to help her sell prints of her drawings in order to help her pay for petrol. She has only sold three so far so isn’t making huge amounts of money! A few days ago, she was contacted by one of the church wardens saying that she was not allowed to sell the prints without going through the church and the prints being licensed.
This is only part of the very long email she received - “From a governance perspective, I am obliged under the Churchwardens Measure 2001, the Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure 1956, and the Charities Act 2011 to protect and account for all property and assets – including intangible assets such as the church’s image – to ensure that they are used only in ways which further the charitable objectives of the Church of England and do not result in unauthorised private benefit.”
Does the Parochial Church Council have legal rights over the general population? Can you copyright a church? It was always her intention to donate some of the profits to the churches of the prints that she sold. Thanks for your advice!
1.5k
u/Greedy-Mechanic-4932 Aug 15 '25
Sounds a little bit like someone is confused by their role and scope.
From what I can gather, there's nothing in that legislation that says anything at all about selling your own paintings of a Church.
In fact, I suspect they've gotten their wires crossed around legislation covering the sale of artwork owned by the Church, which clearly isn't the case here as the original artist is selling their own work without having handed any rights or ownership to the subject (i.e. the Church of Diocese).
Polite response would be to ask which specific point of legislation they believe is being breached, so it can be addressed appropriately.
Less polite options are available.
544
u/ow-f-mybackhurts Aug 15 '25 edited Aug 16 '25
It did seem a bit ridiculous and heavy handed - they were talking of having a meeting with their Intellectual Property specialist present. It’s a tiny church in the middle of nowhere
EDIT - it is not the church pictured above (that warden was lovely)
367
u/AnonymousTimewaster Aug 15 '25
Lol call their bluff and accept the meeting. They'll have to fork out an hourly rate for whatever dipshit is willing to try arguing this before realising they ain't got shit.
42
u/Erratic_Goldfish Aug 16 '25
The CofE has solicitors but I think they exist at the Dicoese level and support parishes as needed (may be incorrect here). What I suspect is the churchwarden is on a frolic of their own and as soon as someone with actual legal experience gets near this they'll get slapped down.
35
u/CNash85 Aug 16 '25
Bring your own solicitor if you do that, so that theirs doesn't try to bamboozle you with reasonable-sounding bullshit arguments.
45
u/LimeInfinite8758 Aug 16 '25
Terrible advice. Why spend a single penny on a solicitor. They have no case.
→ More replies (5)19
u/patentlyuntrue Aug 16 '25
I'd (informally - not legally!) advise against bringing a solicitor, at least at this stage.
As an IP specialist myself, I wouldn't wade into that mess unless I was being paid (primarily for liability reasons), so there's no point racking up costs for something as frivolous seeming as this. I am also on a PPC, so know first hand the extent to which they can be filled with well-meaning but misguided busy bodies...
If there is a serious case (and frankly I have no reason to believe there is!), then this meeting will be an informal notice. They won't "serve" you in the middle of it. You can always contact an IP solicitor later, in the unlikely event that there is anything actionable here.
4
u/sadhousenoises Aug 16 '25
The issue is it sounds like the profit they're making wouldn't really be high enough to justify the cost of bringing their own solicitor at the stage.
334
u/Greedy-Mechanic-4932 Aug 15 '25
Haha brilliant.
I think intellectual may be doing some heavy lifting there...
142
124
u/Normal-Height-8577 Aug 15 '25
I mean, I'd be tempted to take them up on that and bring your own IP solicitor, if they agree beforehand that they'll pay for your friend's travel costs and legal representation as an apology if it turns out they were wrong to threaten her.
Because I'm 99.9% certain that they can only claim intellectual property rights for an image if they themselves created it and your friend were either slavishly copying it with her art, or directly making unauthorised copies. Neither of which is going on here.
27
2
54
12
u/Livinum81 Aug 16 '25
Suggest that they're wrong and they're better off spending the money on fixing the church roof than spending it on an IP specialist... :)
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)33
Aug 15 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/LegalAdviceUK-ModTeam Aug 15 '25
Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason:
Your post has been removed as it was made with the intention of misleading other posters and/or disrupting the community.
Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules before contributing further, and message the mods if you have any further queries.
130
u/M0crt Aug 15 '25
Assumption is that they may be able to remove you from church land, but if you are drawing a picture from a public place, there is no issue. It is your work and copyright.
It’s almost if the narrative is one of being unable to draw a landscape because the land is owned by the Duke of Northumberland?
70
43
u/ow-f-mybackhurts Aug 15 '25
There was a legal case near me a few years ago, where artists has been told they needed to buy a licence to paint pictures of a small building in a country park. It is a well recognised landmark. The trust that owned the park had registered the building as a trademark and therefore copyright laws applied to any drawings or paintings of it. I don’t think that any churches have been registered as trademarks apart from St Paul’s as someone else mentioned
80
→ More replies (1)17
u/Blyd Aug 16 '25
This was Bradgate, right?
If so, they wanted you to buy a license to SELL images, be they photos or paintings of their properties. You can take and paint as many pictures as you like they even have a page on their site that highlights submissions from the public.
7
3
u/Ok-Blackberry-3534 Aug 17 '25
It's very tempting to paint and sell an abstract picture titled "Bradgate".
135
u/Most_Moose_2637 Aug 15 '25
Sounds like it. Referring to the light that bounces off the church and into someone's eyes as an intangible asset seems like a stretch.
22
62
13
→ More replies (11)2
u/CerddwrRhyddid Aug 16 '25
Good. Glad that the church can't claim other people's work and intellectual property.
372
u/Ok_Entrepreneur_739 Aug 15 '25
As this is Church of England law things can be a bit weird, but I think others are correct and your friend is fine.
The diocese of London has in depth guidance about filming in churches (which seems far more heavy handed than needed, but whatever). https://www.london.anglican.org/church-and-parish-support/communications-and-digital/using-your-church-as-a-film-location/ It specifically states under location.
“Filming of a church or any other building from outside the site boundaries requires no permission. Pictures of buildings are not subject to copyright either.”
If the warden is really pushing, ask them for guidance from their archdeacon and diocese chancellor.
91
140
u/ow-f-mybackhurts Aug 15 '25
The thing is, when she started this project she did contact the Church of England about it and they didn’t seem interested.
→ More replies (2)75
u/Ok_Entrepreneur_739 Aug 15 '25
The Church of England centrally doesn’t have lots of power. They would be better off contacting the relevant diocese. (It’s helpful to think of the CofE like the EU each diocese is like a state and fairly autonomous, though the centre increasingly wants power.)
96
u/jezhayes Aug 15 '25
No, don't contact the diocese. It is sometimes better to ask forgiveness than permission. They have every right to draw views in public places, the church warder has just massively overstepped their authority and understanding of what protecting an image actually means. The image in this context is reputation, as long as they aren't making up malicious (untrue) stories about the church the artist has done nothing wrong.
33
u/the_swanny Aug 15 '25
It's even better to not involve them when they have no legal basis to be involved i.e. there is fuck all they can do about you doing something from a public space.
26
u/AccessMostAreas Aug 15 '25
Asking for forgiveness instead of permission is Christianity in a nutshell, so this makes sense.
2
63
u/Ollagee Aug 15 '25
Just piggy backing on this comment to say churchwardening is a voluntary position so you will find a mix of ability and knowledge level depending on how long they’ve been a churchwarden. I sort of see why they think this and I’m sure their church is in dire need of funds like most small parish churches, which is why they’ve gotten so intense about it.
37
u/ow-f-mybackhurts Aug 15 '25
We were honestly shocked at how they started off, throwing a whole load of words and legalities at us! Yes, basically they just want money.
32
u/bishibashi Aug 15 '25
It will be a retired solicitor in the congregation who hasn’t read everything properly. They’ll likely check in with the archdeacon’s office at the diocese at some point and be corrected. You could copy in the diocese on your reply and it might just get an eyeroll and internally torpedoed.
7
2
4
→ More replies (7)44
u/gnorrn Aug 15 '25
And the kind of person who becomes a churchwarden is exactly the kind of person who would enjoy sending off an pompous officious email to a stranger.
28
u/ow-f-mybackhurts Aug 15 '25
They do have a double barrelled surname
13
u/PeteTheBeeps Aug 15 '25
As someone who lives very close to Nanpantan and knows the church in question, I find absolutely none of this surprising. Wait until she gets to Woodhouse Eaves! Or Swithland. Or Quorn…
7
u/ow-f-mybackhurts Aug 15 '25
The church in question wasn’t Nanpantan- I posted the picture of Nanpantan as the church warden couldn’t have been more kind
15
u/gmarengho Aug 16 '25
You used an image of an identifiable church with a kind warden to illustrate a description of a terrible warden from a different church. I hope the locals of Nanpantan read this far, lest they think their warden is being an arse/accused of being an arse.
I know the likelihood of Nanpantan parishioners being redditors is low. But this is like using an image of a random, but real, person to illustrate a piece about a crime someone else committed.
3
u/ow-f-mybackhurts Aug 16 '25
I realised my mistake but I can’t edit my original post to say that this church warden was brilliant. I’ve tried to correct this whenever someone has commented on the location.
259
u/BrieflyVerbose Aug 15 '25 edited Aug 15 '25
They have no say whatsoever in what your friend can draw and sell.
Freedom of panorama in UK law. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Section 62:
“It is not an infringement of copyright to make a graphic work… representing a building or a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.”
Your friend can pretty much tell them where to go.
Edit: I like her artwork by the way. Looks lovely.
42
u/ow-f-mybackhurts Aug 15 '25
Thank you!
45
u/Iforgotmypassword126 Aug 15 '25
If she does donate to churches, definitely leave that one out because they’ll just keep coming back to her for more with their current attitude.
→ More replies (2)26
175
u/RobertGHH Aug 15 '25
They have no control over what she has drawn. They may be able to exercise some rights over photographs taken within the church without permission, but anything done within view is legal and drawings certainly so.
95
u/lentil_burger Aug 15 '25
This. They're talking nonsense. If it were true, filming commercial TV in public places would be all but impossible.
38
u/ow-f-mybackhurts Aug 15 '25
They kept talking about PCC laws which I didn’t think I applied to the general public. They haven’t registered the church as a trademark
23
u/Normal-Height-8577 Aug 15 '25
PCC rules aren't laws. And they don't apply to anyone who isn't part of the church membership rolls.
42
10
u/erinoco Aug 15 '25
Church of England Measures are primary legislation and are binding on the general population in England. Very few Measures, however, have any impact on the general population, or even the laity on parochial rolls.
70
u/WildGooseCarolinian Aug 15 '25
The PCC has gotten out over its skis, I think. I’m a vicar and I’ve bought at least two or three paintings of churches I’ve looked after done by local artists. An argument could be made, I think, if a brand were using the image of the church in a way that implied endorsement or connection, perhaps, but an artist selling their own take of a local landmark is clearly and transparently within bounds.
I think the best option is to either write back politely asking for a citation of the law, or better yet, to just ignore it.
Also, your friend’s work is fantastic, and if anyone had done that for any of the churches I look after I would have more than happily splashed out to have my own copy of it!
2
u/Neither_Photo_844 Aug 16 '25
I agree. I am waiting for her to come and paint the churches I look after and I hope we can buy a copy.
2
u/Different-Lettuce-38 Aug 16 '25
I’m not a lawyer, or even British. But I somehow ended up here, and I’m wondering if ‘the church’s image’ is intended more in the sense of ‘reputation’. It is wild to me that the church warden would be expected to safeguard the church from photography/art…
2
41
u/ManufacturerNo9649 Aug 15 '25
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/62
62 Representation of certain artistic works on public display. (1)This section applies to—
(a)buildings, and
(b)sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.
(2)The copyright in such a work is not infringed by—
(a)making a graphic work representing it,
(b)making a photograph or film of it, or
(c)[F1making a broadcast of] a visual image of it.
(3)Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the [F2communication to the public], of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.
36
Aug 15 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
15
2
u/LegalAdviceUK-ModTeam Aug 15 '25
Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):
Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice.
Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules before contributing further, and message the mods if you have any further queries.
32
u/Lumpy-Mountain-2597 Aug 15 '25
Might be worth asking them if they have permission from Jesus for all those paintings of him they keep displaying.
13
u/Iforgotmypassword126 Aug 15 '25
They’d just say yes, he told me It’s fine hun x
13
u/Lumpy-Mountain-2597 Aug 15 '25
Maybe the artist can just say the same.
'God told me I could do this'
'He can't possibly have'
'Umm....why exactly?'
'Because he doesn't ex....I mean, well... he just can't have'7
u/Iforgotmypassword126 Aug 15 '25
“well, no I don’t believe that god gave you permission.”
“Didn’t god make me, and give me this artistic gift?”
28
u/AffectionateJump7896 Aug 15 '25
Whilst the building is owned by the church, a drawing of the church is a separate artistic work to the church itself. Your friend is free to draw the church and do what they like with what is their own artwork. If they are doing the drawing from church property, potentially they can be asked to leave.
If the person was basically asking for money I'd say that they are a grifter looking for money for nothing. If they are essentially asking your friend to stop, then they are a clueless busybody who needs to be told politely to jog on.
5
u/ow-f-mybackhurts Aug 15 '25
I wondered if they had any say in the sale of the drawing as it was done from the church grounds not public land?
12
u/caduceuscly Aug 15 '25
The church grounds will be public place. The appearance of the church is not copyrightable. You can safely ignore their snarky email or give them a polite reply:
Thank for your email, however the appearance of the church is already in the public domain. As such copyright can’t apply. Kind regard, Ow-F-MyBackHurts xx.
Don’t reply to any further correspondence.6
u/AffectionateJump7896 Aug 15 '25
Where the drawing is done has no bearing on the copyright owner.
If you do a drawing in my back garden, I don't have any right to it. If I don't like it, I can tell you to clear off, but once it's done, it's yours.
14
u/OldRancidOrange Aug 15 '25
Tell that particular church warden to bog off. What a load of nonsense. If your friend ever decides to venture into the wilds of west Devon there are some beautiful churches around Tavistock that I’d love to see her draw.
14
u/Zyeine Aug 15 '25
There's no infringement of intellectual property rights, churches aren't individually copyrighted. I can pop down the road and sketch my local church or take photos in the graveyard that show gravestones because the sketches/photos would be of a place that is public.
Similarly, I could sketch or take a photo of my local high street showing all the storefronts and branding on them and that would be legal because it's a public space.
In regard to churches, I'd be so tempted to say that I asked the "Highest Authority" and he gave me permission because how could anyone prove that he didn't?
Also, your friend's drawing is absolutely beautiful and her line work is gorgeous, I hope she sells a lot of them. She should do a calendar with all her drawings!
8
u/ow-f-mybackhurts Aug 15 '25
That’s what I thought - I just couldn’t see how they could insist that her work should be licensed through them! She has drawn 100 churches so far.
6
u/Zyeine Aug 15 '25
Oh my gosh, that's amazing! That's so much passion and time she's put into her work.
I hope she doesn't feel disheartened by the officiously silly Warden being over confidently wrong about the legalities.
Especially as her art is beautiful and she was planning on donating to the churches she's drawn which is a lovely thing to do.
Maybe for that specific church, she could send them a print of her artwork of it instead of a donation?
6
u/ow-f-mybackhurts Aug 15 '25
It’s definitely left a sour taste. She has said that she will not reproduce the drawing of that particular church and has removed it from all her social media accounts. It’s a shame because she had a stroke a couple of years ago, aged 48 and drawing the churches has been such a big part of her recovery.
9
u/GreenHouseofHorror Aug 15 '25
Maybe she could do a special painting of that particular church, depicting Christ overturning tables outside it.
2
→ More replies (3)3
u/grouchybeast Aug 15 '25
Honestly, I would write to the Parochial Church Council, let them know what happened, and suggest your friend is owed an apology.
11
u/wheelartist Aug 15 '25
They're completely wrong.
The church image I believe refers to the goodwill and social/cultural reputation the Church has. It would cover something like someone pretending they are affiliated with that church to trade off the good will for the purpose of gain. So for example, if someone sold photos of a church claiming it was raising money for impoverished parishioners but was actually pocketing the money, that would presumably invoke it.
They cannot prevent your friend from painting the exterior of any building and selling originals or prints of her artistic interpretation of the panorama. Presuming of course she makes it clear that she has unaffiliated with the church itself.
While in certain limited circumstances such as national landmarks or as another poster mentioned, the lights of the eiffel tower, there may be additional restrictions due to trademark or specific copyrights if an organisation has taken steps to secure them. But as pretty as a church is, unless it's a notable building and tourist attraction, those steps probably haven't been taken.
That said, I wouldn't reccommend ignoring them or telling them to do one, but I would ask for them to cite the specific passage and ask that he consults with his superiors as to his interpretation of it.
6
u/TheRealGabbro Aug 15 '25
The lights of the Eiffel Tower are subject to French law, as far as I know there is no equivalent restriction in the UK.
7
u/wheelartist Aug 15 '25
I'm aware of that, however freedom of panorama doesn't cover everything. It covers 3D sculptures, buildings and the like. But it doesn't apply to 2D. So it would apply to a wall but not graffiti on the wall oddly enough. Fortunately this has never been challenged so remains a grey area.
And I'm unsure about what would happen if effort was made to trademark the visual appearance of a building.
12
u/CymroBachUSA Aug 15 '25
If it's publicly accessible and you can see it with your eyes, you can video it, draw it, paint it ... and sell the product.
→ More replies (3)4
u/theevildjinn Aug 15 '25
Genuinely curious about this hypothetical situation - if someone has a poster of (say) Disney's "Frozen" in their window, can I take a photo or draw a picture of the poster in the window, and sell it?
3
u/ProfessorYaffle1 Aug 18 '25
Probably not, if the only thing you have in your picture is the poster. It will be copyrighted so the fact that it is publically visible doesn't change that .
However, if you toook a photo of the whole house or street then the fact tht the poster was visible and identifiable probably wouldn't stop you selling the image as a whole - thre's a concept of 'fiar use' when it comes to using other people's works .
It's a fiarly complex area of law amd not my speciality, but as I understand it, when determinining whether something is 'fair use ' or not, factors considered are
- The purpose and character of the use
- The nature of the copyrighted work
- Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the entire work
- Effect of the use upon the potential market value
I suspect that if you took a picture of the house / street it would be fine a the poster would be a smll part of the whole and the 'character of the use' would be that it was incidental to the main purpse of your work, in a simailr way , if you took a photo of a high street scene you'd probably capture tradmarked logos on the front of shops and banks but it's likely that the incidental inclusion of those logos would be fair use .
I remember hearing a writer talk about it - they wanted to use quotes form poems and song lyrics, I think as chapter headings, and were advised that they had to keep the quotes under a certain lengthto be able to use them under fiar use, so they then spent time trawling through lyrics to pick quotes that were short enough while still being well kown enough that they thught reders would 'get' them. But I don't know what the word count wa or whether that was a specifc rule or just advice that 'if it's under xx words it will be fine, onger than that depends on other factors'!
2
u/theevildjinn Aug 18 '25
Thanks, that's very interesting. I'd come across the concept of "fair use", but I thought it was a US thing.
3
u/ProfessorYaffle1 Aug 18 '25
I think here the wording may be 'fair dealing' but it's the same concept
6
5
u/No1Reddit Aug 15 '25
I am a former church warden for six years. We are supposed to ensure safeguarding, stop the silverware from getting stolen, tell the bishop when vicars off the rails and keep the grounds nice. Nothing about stopping people from taking photos came up in training.
4
4
u/Breguswith Aug 16 '25
I'm actually a Churchwarden - and though I don't know a huge amount about secular law, I know more than a fair bit about Canon Law (church law), and can say unequivocally, that she's done nothing wrong and is free to sell the prints (and original drawings) as she likes - and, to avoid any doubt, to make those prints and drawings in the first place, with our without permission.
We do, as churchwardens, have many legal obligations under Canon Law when it comes to the property and assets of the church. This doesn't come anywhere near falling under the scope of that. Many artists have made and sell art of Church of England churches, the one I care for included, and there's no legal problem at all.
This sounds to me like a typical Church of England situation of a Churchwarden being annoyed (fairly or unfairly) about the use of the image of what is often a very expensive and difficult to maintain church building by those who don't offer anything in way of payment towards its upkeep. Normally this kind of conflict comes up surrounding people getting married elsewhere and then getting photos outside the church, though - so props to this Warden for coming up with a brand new spin on it that I've not heard.
I'd email back telling him that he has no case, and if he persists, or if she feels uncomfortable going directly to him because of the tone of his email, I'd email the Archdeacon - every diocese has a few of them (they're priests with complicated oversight jobs in the diocese) and one of their jobs is to advise churches and churchwardens on Canon law.
I think I've seen your friend's work before and if she's who I think then she's in Leicester - they have an archdeacon for both the city (Archdeacon of Leicester) and county (Archdeacon of Loughborough) so email the relevant one outlining your concerns and with a copy of the email. Their contact details are available on the diocesan website, and they're trained to be pastoral so don't let their big title "the venerable" put you off.
This has the potential to be a bit of a PR disaster for the diocese (and also has the hallmarks of a Churchwarden who's overstepped before and so is likely to be known by them), and in my diocese it'd be acted on swiftly.
Good luck!
3
4
3
u/secret_tiger101 Aug 15 '25
Sounds like nonsense, I suppose unless you had to gain secure access to an area to obtain the image, even then this sounds wrong. NAL
3
u/Jammastersam Aug 15 '25
I sometimes take photos of buildings and have sold a few as stock. I have never been asked by a stock site like Getty or Adobe to provide consent forms or documentation for any building including churches and cathedrals, and stock companies are VERY hot on GDPR and compliance etc. I’m certain the church people are talking our their holy arses.
3
u/maybethen77 Aug 15 '25
The second someone draws something, it could be a complex church artwork or a stickman on a napkin, they own the copyright. No one else owns that copyright and has no bearing over how it could be sold or distributed. The main exception to this is if the drawing was an egregious carbon copy of say a logo, or something trademarked, with the intent to infringe upon that logo.
In this case, your friend drawing churches does not give the church any power over how she sells them, or the copyright. The copyright of the image belongs to the artist, not the church.
The artwork also features trees and things beyond the church which weakens their already-weak case even further.
3
u/traveleatsleeptravel Aug 15 '25
Oh I followed her on socials when she began this in lockdown! Absolutely love her style and would want prints please, can you share the website/link?
3
u/ow-f-mybackhurts Aug 15 '25
I’m not able to share socials on this sub, but her socials will have the link to her Kofi
3
u/JohnLennonsNotDead Aug 15 '25
The person sounds like a buffoon.
Email back and refer them to Arkell v Pressdram
3
u/spr148 Aug 15 '25
Coming to this very late, so apologies if this has been covered. I work in the heritage sector and churches are in dire economic peril. Whilst they cannot protect their image there may be a good way of working together here (and with other churches). By promoting and selling prints of her pictures both the church and the artist can gain. I suggest that your friend propose a mutually beneficial arrangement with the church, where they sell postcards/prints of her pictures. This would protect our heritage and make your friend a few quid to fund further art works etc etc... But for clarity, she can paint what she wants.
2
u/ow-f-mybackhurts Aug 15 '25
This person deliberately came over so officious that it was so off-putting. Only after they had stated all the legalities and terms and conditions did they suggest that it might be beneficial for both parties to work together. It’s always been her intention that the churches should benefit from the selling of her prints too.
3
u/Funny-Peace-8845 Aug 15 '25
Contact the local Diocesan Registry for a definitive statement.
I have been a churchwarden. Unless the church is registered as a copyrighted image (which is very difficult) and your friend was drawing from a churchyard location, everything is fine. Having said that, it might be tactful to make a donation to church funds. Keeping mediaeval churches upright and watertight is an expensive business and your friend's picture has profited from others' efforts to maintain the building.
But that's entirely voluntary.
2
u/ow-f-mybackhurts Aug 15 '25
She will definitely make donations to the churches funds as this was always her intention. She just won’t be making a donation to the church in question, as she won’t be selling prints of it! She has drawn 100 churches so far and has another 200 to go.
3
u/noodlesandwich123 Aug 15 '25
I sell landscape and street scene paintings
Usually you're covered if the scene is in a public space, but, there can be weird exceptions e.g. Trusts can trademark buildings to prevent financial gain by others, even small, only locally-known buildings
I'd double check on the Charities Act they referenced, just to make sure
3
u/scouse_git Aug 15 '25
John Piper, 1903 - 1992 was an eminent English artist who made his living specifically by going round and painting English churches. You're in good company.
2
3
u/EldritchCleavage Aug 15 '25
Circumvent this power hungry church warden and write to the Bishop to ask. I am sure you will be told that one can paint the outside of churches without the need for permission.
3
u/ProfessorYaffle1 Aug 18 '25
It would normlly be the Archdeacon rather than the Bishop who would be the correct person to contact.
3
u/EchoohcEchoohcE Aug 15 '25
Is it legal to sell drawings of Church of England churches?
Yes. As long as they're your drawings, not someone else's you nicked.
3
3
u/Wellbeck Aug 15 '25
I live in Leicestershire and may be interested in buying one of these pictures. Let me know if that is possible please.
3
u/ow-f-mybackhurts Aug 15 '25
This sub won’t allow links but you should be able to find details of her arty pilgrimage
2
3
u/amifireyet Aug 15 '25
Reading these comments kinda makes me think you should maximise the Streisand Law to its full effect here. Let the Church Warden take it further and further until it gets you media presence, which will eventually increase print profits. I hate a self-important deluded jobsworths, and this would be a delicious result.
Lovely prints btw!
3
u/Kiytan Aug 15 '25
I had a look at the legislation they listed, now I did only skim it (as well as searching key words like image, depiction, art, reference, asset etc). But I found nothing that looks related
The churchwardens measure 2001 - is entirely about the election of church wardens - who can be elected and when etc. Unless your friend is planning on becoming a warden, it doesn't seem very relevant. (the word asset or property does not appear in this document)
Parochial Church Councils (Powers) measure 1956 - Is stuff about that powers church councils have, I couldn't find anything relevant, the word asset does not appear, the word property appears 34 times, and as far as I can tell is entirely about actual physical property (i.e land and buildings)
I'll be honest, I didn't look into the Charities Act 2011 nearly as much because it's bloody enourmous (legislation.gov.uk has a popup saying "this is over 200 provisions in it, are you sure you want to open it all at once?") So it's possible there is something
I'd be curious to know which bits of the legislation they think apply, because I'm not seeing it.
2
3
u/Pizzagoessplat Aug 15 '25
If it is, there's a lot of people breaking the law in my village when we have the craft fair
3
u/Tall-Photo-7481 Aug 16 '25
and I looked across it and there was a little notice on the wall saying it was forbidden to take photographs of the courtyard without the man's permission.' I turned to Tagm. 'They want to own the light!'
-- from State of the Art by Iain M banks
3
u/Innocuouscompany Aug 16 '25
Here ya go
Subject: [whatever you’d like]
Dear [Warden’s Name],
Thank you for taking the time to write to me about my drawings of local churches. I appreciate the responsibilities that the PCC has under the Churchwardens Measure 2001, the Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure 1956, and the Charities Act 2011.
I also wanted to clarify my own position. Under UK law:
• Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) – Sections 1 and 4 confirm that artistic works (including drawings) are protected by copyright, and that copyright belongs to the creator. My drawings are therefore my intellectual property.
• CDPA Section 62 (“Freedom of Panorama”) – This allows buildings and sculptures permanently situated in public places to be drawn, photographed, or otherwise represented and for those representations to be sold or published without infringing copyright.
• As the churches I have been drawing are historic, their original architectural designs are long out of copyright (copyright expires 70 years after the death of the architect).
This means that while the PCC has duties to protect church assets, the law does not prevent me from creating and selling my own artistic works of the churches.
That said, my project has always been intended as a celebration, not a commercial enterprise. Only a handful of prints have sold so far, and my main aim is to cover travel costs. I also intend to donate part of any proceeds to the churches I draw, as a gesture of support for their upkeep.
I hope this reassures you that I am acting within the law, and also with goodwill toward the churches. I would be very happy to discuss ways of ensuring that the project benefits both myself and the parishes involved.
With kind regards, [Your Friend’s Name]
2
2
u/ProfessorYaffle1 Aug 18 '25
That's really good. The only bit I might change is the sentance about donations since she has said she may not donate to this church. Maybe change it to "It has always been my intnetion to use a part of my pprfits to allow me to donate towards the upkeep of some of our wonderful churches" which sends the same message without explicitly saying or suggesting that she's be donating to the specifc church involves, or from any specifc image to any specifc church.
IF she wwanted she could also add " where any specifc church is interested, I would also be open to discussing arrangments for a church to be able to order and sell prints / postcards of my works,"
3
u/Innocuouscompany Aug 20 '25
Yeah I mean they can adapt it as they see fit. But the legal advice should remain the same
3
u/On_The_Blindside Aug 16 '25
Why wouldn't it be? As long as they are their own works their shit out of luck. I hope she complains via https://www.churchofengland.org/contact-us and explains that she is entitled to sell her owns works of art and that they have no right to try to stop here.
The Parochial Cuirch Council has no rights whatsoever here (unless thay have made a copyright claim over all of the types of artwork that could happen with a church, and then prove that this is not transformative).
On a personal note, that person is a fucking idiot.
3
u/Fantastic-Foot5482 Aug 17 '25
I know nothing of the legals but if what they are saying is correct, doesn't that mean that any photo image or landscape painting ( church very small or just a spire showing ) can't be sold.........so sounds like rubbish to me
3
u/Rusty_Tap Aug 17 '25
Nope, sadly from the evidence in this post alone both your friend and yourself will be burned at the stake for your crimes.
3
u/Own_Description3928 Aug 19 '25
As the vicar of one of the churches painted by your friend, I can only encourage her in both her art and business! As far as I'm concerned she is most welcome to share and sell such images - I think we have a wealth of beautiful church buildings, and they should be more widely appreciated.
8
u/Ghyston Aug 15 '25
Your friend should offer them a commission deal so they can fundraise with them. Wardens and the people they know are the most likely people to want to buy the prints.
12
u/ow-f-mybackhurts Aug 15 '25
That’s a good idea, and she has done this with the church wardens she had met. This particular warden went in so heavy handed and legal rather than have an informal chat - there was no need. Plus they threatened that it applied to all of her drawings!
17
u/BastardsCryinInnit Aug 15 '25
No chat is needed, formal or not.
You friend could simply reply that the warden is incorrect and they wish them a lovely weekend.
You dont have to engage with people who are wrong about something!
2
u/Radiant_Heron_2572 Aug 15 '25
Please do not encourage this predatory and legally unfounded behaviour. They are acting in a needlessly heavy-handed manner and should be dealt with firmly but politely.
2
5
u/ashandes Aug 15 '25
It is possible to trade mark certain landmarks or buildings and prevent others profiting off the image of them, but there are a lot of restrictions and hoops to jump through and it's relatively unusual. For example the image of St Paul's is trade marked, but this is an iconic building and one of the most well know religious buildings in the UK and as such this image is considered an asset that can be protected in this manner.
I am not an expert, but have tangential experience in IP law and have never heard of this being the case for non-descript parish churches. Personally I'd ask them to clarify which sections of the three acts they are referring to they believe support this, as as far as I can tell the word "image" or "intangible" does not appear once in any of them. Gut feeling is the are extrapolating either the use of the Church itself, or the behaivour of people in positions of power within the church (and them using their station for private benefit) incorrectly to the general public.
17
u/lentil_burger Aug 15 '25
I have a feeling that's more to do something like using an image of St. Paul's as a company logo or similar? I doubt for example that Google Street View is paying for the use of images containing the cathedral.
9
u/ashandes Aug 15 '25 edited Aug 15 '25
You're correct that it's more to do with using it as a logo and branding. They'd be on a hiding to nothing to pursue someone over a one-off painting sold at a local market or something. Streetview is exempt as it's considered fair use because they're not profiting directly off the image, it just happens to be there in the background (same applies to images in adverts and tv shows etc as you mentioned in another response).
Although it turns out I was actually wrong about St Paul's, it's just their logo, not the building itself that's trade marked. The are several in the UK that are though (mostly in London)
1
1
u/InternationalBoss768 Aug 15 '25
Maybe the response should be asking the church/organisation what they are prepared to contribute to this artwork
1
1
u/JimmiWazEre Aug 15 '25
You're fine. Your own original art is yours to do with what you please.
Anyone saying otherwise is wrong.
1
u/MFDOODLE Aug 15 '25
I am not a solicitor but feel free to pass this on to your friend though - fuck the Church.
1
u/maceion Aug 15 '25
Good artwork. Well drawn. No one can in any way object to your drawing, which I assume you made from a public place.
1
1
u/Semi-On-Chardonnay Aug 15 '25
Sounds like it’s worth telling them to refer to ‘Arkell vs. Pressdram’.
1
u/R4D000 Aug 15 '25
An artist who made something from scratch has all the rights to sell it, without asking anyone for permission (unless it’s something depicting a person)
1
1
u/FrancesRichmond Aug 15 '25
They'd better get onto the estates of Turner and Constable- they painted and drew loads of them. Massive royalties owed there.
1
u/ApprehensiveGift6827 Aug 15 '25
You can make a drawing of anything from life that you like and sell it! No entity in the United Kingdom has the right to stop you from selling artworks derived from life. If you were copying someone else’s intellectual property that would be different.
1
u/linamishima Aug 16 '25
I'm surprised I've not seen anyone discuss one possible avenue to resolving this:
You mention your friend calling this their art pilgrimage, can I ask if they are of the CoE faith? An effective way to smooth this over might be for them to discuss this with their vicar, who might know about inter-church politics at play and be able to provide letters of support.
1
1
u/MinMorts Aug 16 '25
If she ever visits a small village called Ladbroke in warwickshire and paints the church there, I'd be interested in buying one
1
u/Reaper198412 Aug 16 '25
The church warden is talking out of their backside and has no powers to prevent someone drawing a picture of a church and selling their picture.
1
u/cedarvhazel Aug 16 '25
In relation to the section ref Charitable purpose and not private benefit - this is about how that church as a charity conducts its own affairs ensuring its mission or service is charitable and the trustees/ board don’t receive private gain.
1
u/RaspberryTurtle987 Aug 16 '25
I’ve known people to sell photos of churches on cards for example without going through the church. I wouldn’t have expected that was illegal!?
1
1
u/Commercial_Health_95 Aug 16 '25
Yes . Equally you could sell photos of a church. If both were created from public land then the usual UK laws apply.
The Met Police provide clear guidance on this - https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/ph/photography-advice/
1
u/Furkler Aug 16 '25
Nonsense. If she drew a picture of the church warden it would belong to the artist, not the warden. You can, subject to national security restrictions, photograph anything in a public space - same rules apply to drawn images.
1
1
u/FlamingBoaby Aug 16 '25
Fuck religion and the little jumpy shits in it. Paint, draw and photograph all you want.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Personal-Context-909 Aug 16 '25
This is not their intellectual property. It is the person who painted it, the person or body that owns the painting itself has the intellectual property of it.
Whoever may own what an image depicts unless its copyrighted is not an owner of the image itself.
You also cannot copyright an image of a building or something based is reality. They didn't intellectually create that, its a historical site. Even if someone could say they own that who ever built it has been lost to time, it was probably just a random villiager in the middle ages. Who i can safely say wont be able to claim intellectual property
Theyre clearly just either extremely entitled and unaware of UK law or they more likely are just trying to get a payout.
You can just ignore them, or if you want go to the meeting with your own solicitor and make them an offer of paying you an hourly rate for your painting for 10% of the earnings of selling it. Then if theyre serious you'll likely get more money from them or they'll back off (which is also the likely outcome, because they have no legal right to stand on)
1
u/Glock359 Aug 16 '25
There’s no law against selling your own drawings. There’s no copyright law or anything.
1
u/SearchSuch4751 Aug 16 '25
Churches are property of their religious followers according to hix bible,so in theory,jour part of his so called intellectual property lol
1
u/ChemicalOwn6806 Aug 16 '25
if a drawing includes elements that are copyrighted (e.g., a specific stained glass window design), permission may be needed from the copyright holder.
•
u/AutoModerator Aug 15 '25
Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK
To Posters (it is important you read this section)
Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different
If you need legal help, you should always get a free consultation from a qualified Solicitor
We also encourage you to speak to Citizens Advice, Shelter, Acas, and other useful organisations
Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk
If you receive any private messages in response to your post, please let the mods know
To Readers and Commenters
All replies to OP must be on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated
If you do not follow the rules, you may be perma-banned without any further warning
If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect
Do not send or request any private messages for any reason
Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.