- This topic is empty.
Property release
-
I am shooting a series of street panoramic views for personal use & would like to use some of the images for reproduction in a book on street architecture in the future.
As the images include general street views in public areas with various buildings included, what is the position regarding reproduction & property release requirments for this purpose ?
thanks.gs wrote:
I am shooting a series of street panoramic views for personal use & would like to use some of the images for reproduction in a book on street architecture in the future.
As the images include general street views in public areas with various buildings included, what is the position regarding reproduction & property release requirments for this purpose ?
thanks.I would say that there is no need for releases or anything else, since you are in a public street taking an image of that street.
However, be careful if any logo or sign is prominently/dominantly in any image, since that could be construed as unauthorised reproduction of a registered trademark, if someone wanted to be awkward ( but that would be pushing the law too far in my view, since the purpose of a sign is to promote the business, and your images are helping that process)
wrong. if the property is defined as a landscape structure then you do need property release. also stay away from recognisable brand /logos.
IE. If I take a photo of a model in Cork, and in the background I have Elisian Apartments then I do have to obtain a property release from O’Flynn Construction.121FOTO wrote:
wrong.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
121FOTO wrote:
if the property is defined as a landscape structure then you do need property release.
Can you point me to the definition of a “landscape structure”?
all I can find about it is references to zoo environments-121FOTO wrote:
If I take a photo of a model in Cork, and in the background I have Elisian Apartments then I do have to obtain a property release from O’Flynn Construction.
Then O’Flynn construction are having a laugh too-
while the design of a building is subject to copyright, the building itself is not.If O’Flynn Construction are the architects as well, then they will be the copyright holders for the building-
if they’re not, then any permissions they give will be vacuous.However, that observation is entirely moot, since the building itself is not subject to copyright.
There are grey areas, such as the representation of the lighting design for the Eiffel Tower, for example-
which does seem to be subject to strict policing on behalf of the designers-
however, that lighting design is separate from the building, and as an iconic landmark,
it is one of the few structures in the world where money can be made from mass reproductions of its image.
And it is the commercial rights which are being protected.Similarly, if you’d like to photograph the Red Light District in Amsterdam at night,
then you might find that some burly friends of the models will try to move you on.
Talking to their legal department might clarify the issue-According to the op’s original question, which provides the context for my opinion-
gs wrote:
I am shooting a series of street panoramic views for personal use & would like to use some of the images for reproduction in a book on street architecture in the future.
there is no intention shown that the purpose of the photographs is for commercial endorsement-
which is the main reason why a picture would be the subject of a release.Any picture taken from a public place is fair game, as long as it does not invade personal privacy-
for example, if a picture was to be taken of people on a private property-
although this is also subject to interpretation-Any pictures taken on private property may be subject to a property release, but that was not the question asked-
I know that I would be within my rights to photograph any building visible from the street,
and publish the pictures in a book of architecture and streetscapes-
including trademarks and signs.Of course, you might be right in your assertion that I’m wrong,
in which case you’ll point me to the law or case study that supports it-
but I got tired searching for the words you used,
and it seems to me, in the absence of any learned judgement to the contrary,
that what we have here are two opinions.I’d be careful of telling people that they’re wrong, unless you can back it up.
joseph
I honestly do not see what do you see funny in this. I have worked for O’Flynn..I asked for a property release..they issued one to me. Once again. I don’t see the funny side.
A landscape structure is a structure recognisable for different reasons. Historical, economical or social. Landscape structure describes the spatial configuration of the open and developed elements of the landscape at various scales.Elisian IS subject to copyright since it is used by O’Flynn Construction in their publicity campaigns.
The architect holds the copyright for the design (and even that is not 100% sure) not for the structure (or built element) These are two completely different elements.
Once again. Any building, structure..etc..that can be defined as a landscape structure ( see definition above) does need a property release.
The OP mentioned that the photos are going to be used in a book on street architecture in the future. That is commercial and does need a property release.O’Flynn Construction will not have a laugh at you or any other photographer looking for a property release. As a matter of fact they have a standard document that deals whit this. I dont know who is laughing here but certainly not me. All I tried was to help. I am an architect and in my work had to ask for these property releases quite few times.
Any picture of a private property taken from a public space and published in a book will need a model/property release. This is where people get it wrong. And yes, I do tell people when they are wrong simply because they are wrong.
I have attached a link with two form that might be of use. I used them and had no problems -with the exception of the model release and the wording “agree to allow photographs of me to be offered for sale without further consideration to me”..that always gets me in trouble :)
Well, I’m not going to get involved in a tit for tat argument-
I’ll stand by my opinion,
and your arguments are not sufficient to convince me otherwise-
just your opinion.
That’s where the laughing comes in-
convince me, show me the references, and I’ll stop laughing.Anyone interested in an answer is able to do the research themselves.
So can you, though you run the risk of having your definitions and opinions dented-Landscape structure describes the spatial configuration of the open and developed elements of the landscape at various scales.
Does it?
You learn something new every day.I have worked for O’Flynn..I asked for a property release..they issued one to me. Once again. I don’t see the funny side.
While in your case, it might be politic to indulge in a bit of deferential behaviour,
it really isn’t necessary to obtain releases for photography based on the original poster’s question.Just by the way-
have you seen any of those ‘From the Air’ books?London? New York? Los Angeles?
Do you think the publishers got releases from all the owners of the properties depicted in them?
Because there are many hundreds of thousands of them, and quite highly detailed.Or Google Earth?
Perhaps you should drop them an email…
Just as an example…
Been there, done that. You’re all right… and wrong in a way. There is no law that clearly states when you need a property release (if there is I haven’t found it yet). In my experience you should get a release if the building is (or could be identified as) the main subject of the image and you have to get a release if you work on private property.
For panoramic street scenes I wouldn’t bother if there are several buildings in the frame, but as said it’s a grey area and potentially you could get in trouble.C. / http://www.carstenkrieger.co.uk
You are obviously at a stage when doesn’t matter what I say you will not accept that argument.
What does it cost to pick up the phone, call the developer/owner of the building and ask for permission to photograph his building. I haven’t seen anyone refusing that. Free advertising for him and for you as a photographer.
In my experience, the fact that there is no law does not mean that you cannot be sued for something. So it is always better to be covered then to find yourself exposed.
The OP stated clearly that he “would like to use some of the images for reproduction in a book on street architecture in the future.” That to me, again, it is a commercial activity therefore you are better off being covered then un-covered.I have not seen the book, but knowing the huge apparatus involved in publishing a book, I wouldn’t not be surprised if property release have been sought for those structures. What makes you think they did not get one?
Google earth. You do know that a couple of properties have been blanked on google map. Wonder why?
Anyway. I think we should end this here. I wasnt looking for an argument. All I did was trying to help. I am always cautious when it comes to commercial activity. As someone here mentioned, there is no law stating that you do need a model release but there is also no law stating you do not need one.
peace!great reponse & interesting points.
thanks 121foto for the docs, may come in very useful.
I expect that I will need to seek releases for some shots as some buildings could definitely be interpreted as the main subject if argued so .I suppose it is a case of finding out who are the people to approach to get the release needed & how to obtain it without cost …do people expect you to pay for a release of a property ?
cheers.
gerry
Best way to see who owns the building is to check the planning files. Check online (planning enquiry system) with the local county/city council and see who was the applicant. If this is vague look at who was the agent(architect/planner) for that development. Call them and explain you are doing a book on the “amazing good quality architecture”(dont forget that you have to make them feel good 8) ) that might (dont make them think you are desperate to have photos of that building) require photos of a building they have designed/own..etc. I got loads of phonecalls from people requestin info re developments I designed for various developers. Never had a problem releasing the information. As long as you dont ask for layouts then it should not be a problem. The big advantage of all this is that you, as a photographer, get to introduce yourself to various business and also the developer will get free advertising.
If the building is famous, you might be asked to pay for that propery release. However, I never heard of anyone in Ireland asking for this. I know that in US, there is this cofe shop/petrol station famous for its architecture. The owner charges thousands of dolars in order to issue a property release for commercial photography…that will not be the case in Ireland.Now. I had a lenghty discussion with my solicitor who happen to be quite passionate about photography. He told me that legaly there is a difference between editorial photography and commercial photography. the first category does not require property release while the second does. Now, with regard to the second one the line is very vague. If the photo is used as a cover then a relase is 100% needed. If the photo is used to exemplify something that its beeing described in the book, release is not needed. However, if the book is mainly about photography then,again, a release is needed. As you can see the line between needing a release and not needing one is very blurry but, he stressed, it is always better to have a release then not to have one when you plan to use the photo for a commercial reason. He also gave me a document, a complaint, use in a case in US.
http://121foto.com/docs/Complaint.pdfPlease look at FACTS point no.24 to 29. no. Interesting isnt’t.
I know you will say this is US, but he told me of a case in UK whwere the photographer was sued for using the BOOTS sign in one of his photos. I think that asking for permsion is a matter of respect and good business practice.Lets be clear about this. the Copyright Act 2000 explicitly says you can take a photograph of buildings in public places. The actual text is
Representation of certain artistic works
on public display93.-(1) This section applies to the copyright in-
(a) buildings, and
(b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, where permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.
(2) The copyright in a work to which this section applies is not infringed by-
(a) making a painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart, plan, engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut, print or similar thing representing it,
(b) making a photograph or film of it, or
(c) broadcasting or including in a cable programme service, an image of it.
(3) The copyright in a work to which this section applies is not infringed by the making available to the public of copies of anything the making of which is not, by virtue of this section, an infringement of the copyright in the work.
Secondly, the OP explicitly stated that he was taking streetscapes, and as such each individual building would be presumably incidental to the overall streetscape. While as other posters have said, it might be advisable to get permission, you don’t actually need it. But also, as I hinted in my earlier post, if you were taking detailed shots of particular buildings with a view to criticise that company, you might have other legal difficulties, but you would still not legally need a release.
So much here that continues to attempt to mislead and misrepresent.
The Complaint in your PDF?
is that all you could find?
A common trespass suit?I think I mentioned private property in a previous post,
and this just serves to illustrate my point.
The document you posted was not a judgement, but a complaint- pretty meaningless really-
but lawyers frequently wave bits of paper in attempt to intimidate.Since you mention the US, to confuse matters even more,
it should be noted that the laws pertaining to copyright have been changed-
only buildings after 1990 are protected by copyright, but even this does not apply to photographs made of them.Don’t read this, you won’t agree with it-
http://www.photosecrets.com/tips.law.html
It’s also worth noting that photography in the US is frequently defended on the basis of the First Amendment to The Bill of Rights-
the right to free speech.No, you don’t have to make anyone feel good.
I mean, what is the point?
You see a rubbish building, and you have to make the designer/owner/developer/planner feel good about it?
What about your own opinions, are they to be subsumed?
Fair comment is acceptable, even on copyrighted works.There are more than two types of photography, Commercial and Editorial-
your learned friend with a passion for photography should know that.
There is art- and photojournalism, documentary- to name but a few.The act of publishing a photograph in a book does not make it commercial;
using a photograph to endorse something is.
Again, the complaint you linked to is not proof of anything, just more allegation.You seem to be coming at this from the side of the property owners and developers-
and it would be in your interests to make everyone think they need permission to publish a photograph-
symptomatic of the attempted erosion of the right to make photographs.I’m not buying it, nobody else should either.
Anyone interested in the subject who is reading this online can do their own research, and should-
just be careful to consider all the information out there-
not all of it is correct.Still think I’m wrong?
joseph
Usage rights & copyright appear to me to be seperate topics .
Anyone can take a photo in a public place & own the copyright for that image (& use it for personal ) but that does not mean that the image can be used commercially by the photographer without relevant permission if it shows a privately owned property in a prominant way as ‘part’ of the overall image.Following research & discussion here on this topic this is now my understanding of the situation & I will endeavour to obtain releases where required on that basis.
thanks guys, very helpful info.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
