- This topic is empty.
Property release
-
As I said, it is a matter of respect and good practice business to seek permission if the photo is used for commercial reasons.
The complaint refers to trespass but the main issue there was the use of the photos. Do read again please.
Nobody was trying to intimidate anyone with that paper. it is a case that happen, and was used as an example.Rubbish building?? Based on what qualification can you comment on the design, structural integrity or social value of a building?? If you look in the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage, 90% of the buildings there might appear as “rubbish” and yet they are of a huge aesthetical, technical or historical value.
Yes. You do have to make them feel nice because it is nice to be nice if you want something from people. Assuming that you have the right, and even if you do, doesn’t give you the reason to stamp on someone’s feelings. As I said, it is a matter of respect to seek permission. It shows you care about what others think. Yes. They may say no, because they are in that category of people that don’t want to make other people feel nice, and if that is the case then you can explain them your rights. Showing respect for one’s property will always position you and your business above other.The act of publishing a book is a commercial act as long as you have a financial gain. You make money out if it…it is commercial.
Jospeh. I just don’t understand why you constantly have to attack. My friend knows very well how many categories of photography are out there. I don’t see any reason to be smart> all he did was to mention two common categories. No harm done in that.
I am not coming from anyone’s side. I am for respect on both sides. I believe it is nice to be respectful. If a developer will not give you permission when you seek it, you can be sure he will come after you in court when you publish the photo. At the end of the day all you are trying to do is to avoid any potential hassle.
I don’t see why I would have an interest in making everyone thinking they need permission. I am for freedom when it comes about art but I am also for right to privacy when it comes about my property.I do not think you are wrong and I think I know why you are so vehement about your opinion. It is probably because of the way I started my post here with the word wrong. I apologise for that. I was in the car, typing with one hand. Once again my apologies for that.
You are entitled to your own opinion. I am not asking to buy it or not. I am not selling anything here. I just found that, in my limited experience, it was of benefit for me to ask permission before taking a photo for a commercial reason. As a matter of fact, asking for permission at one stage generated work for me from the developer I was seeking permission from.
All the best to all…and may I say Merry Xmas?? Are we allowed?? It’s December after all
I’ve read it, no need to read it again.
The basis of the complaint was trespass, all other claims are subsidiary to that.Their claim would not have been made if the photographer had not made the image (one image) on private property,
as it would have been an obvious waste of time.What qualification?
My degree in Architecture, does that count?But you don’t need to be qualified to hold an opinion,
and not all buildings are pretty, or cared for.No, you don’t have to make owners of buildings feel nice,
but it does rather depend on your motives if you choose to do so.Respect? the root of the word is in seeing-
the picture will make its own comment.I’m not constantly attacking, as you have just noted, my reaction was to your offhand and dismissive ‘wrong’.
We trade in opinions here, and there was scant respect for mine,
which were replaced with disinformation preached as truth.
Although thanks for the last post, where you say that you do not think I was wrong…With regard to art-
have a look at this judgement, also, unfortunately in the US-
although the image in question refers to a person, rather than a building-
however, it might be argued that privacy of a person’s image might have more weight than that of a building on a street-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia
Although it was argued that the purpose of the picture was commercial, as it was published in a book,
that argument was thrown out, and the image was protected as Art, under the First Amendment.Again, in order to be commercial, an image must endorse something-
Anyway, I’ve been flogging a dead horse for a while now, hopefully this will be the end of it,
and that people will not assume they have to seek releases for pictures taken on the street.
I’ve had many published, and never sought releases.
Since all pictures posted here are also published here,
I’m sure Mark is glad that he, as the publisher, doesn’t feel the need to go, cap in hand,
to the owners of all the buildings represented on these pages.Although I hope he doesn’t decide to shut down the Architecture section,
if he reads the same meaning into these posts as some have.Merry Christmas to you too-
and there’s no problem with anyone having opinions-
However, if I tell somebody they’re wrong,
then I’ve got to be pretty sure that I’m right-joseph
:) Ok Jospeh. Each with its own opinion. At least we both have once common thing..our degree.
& guess what……………i’m also an architect.!!
good luck lads, we all need it !MERRY XMAS ALL….& thanks again.
I took a picture of a Hotel, then sold that picture to the hotel for use in a year long advertising campaign. With all this talk I’m now afraid of being sued by that hotel for not getting a property release to allow me to sell them an image of their own property that they used for commercial gain! ;)
climberhunt wrote:
I took a picture of a Hotel, then sold that picture to the hotel for use in a year long advertising campaign. With all this talk I’m now afraid of being sued by that hotel for not getting a property release to allow me to sell them an image of their own property that they used for commercial gain! ;)
I’m sure you are being tongue in cheek with your comment, but its a good illustration of how a bit of common sense is needed.
I have had a picture of mine of St Peters Square in Rome purchased for use in a book on iconic architecture. Nobody asked me whether I had the Pope’s permission to sell it on for commercial use! :lol:
This really has been an entertaining thread – thanks lads!
I’m off to the classifieds to pick up some cut-price Leica gear ;)
Damien
just a small note not all contracts have to be in writting or indeed stated. there is a form of contract that can be created by implication. ie if someone pays you to take a picture or lets you have access to take a picture then there may be an implied consent and a contract may form an industry norm
I wrote an essay on copyright as part of my studies for HND Photography a few years ago. I’m now studying for a degree in Creative Imaging and guess what? I have to make up a Powerpoint presentation on legal aspects of setting up a business, including copyright issues. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed following this thread, falling about laughing at times! I have no intention of commenting on the rights or wrongs of any contributors, but you can be sure I’ll be using this thread as an illustration of the pitfalls and grey areas involved in the subject. And before anyone tries to tell me I’ll be infringing copyright by quoting the posts here, I’m claiming “Fair Usage” for scholastic purposes!
Alex.I have been looking into something similar to this and thought the above info from Getty Images might be helpful:
What is a release?
A release is a written permission from an individual or property owner allowing the use of that individual’s likeness or property (for example, a private home, a place of business, a copyrighted work of art, or in some cases, an animal) in an image for commercial purposes. A release is required for any recognizable people or property in your images. Recognizable means that at least one person, other than the person depicted in the image, is able to recognize the person in the image.
What is ‘commercial use’?
Generally speaking, commercial use means a use that is intended to sell a product, raise money or promote or endorse something.
Why do I need a model or property release?
A release is a legal agreement between you and a model or property owner. It gives you permission to use a model’s likeness or the image of an owner’s property (for example, a private home, a place of business, a copyrighted work of art, or in some cases, an animal) for commercial purposes. Right-to-privacy, right-to-publicity (in the case of celebrities), trademark, and copyright laws require that you have releases if the images are to be used for commercial purposes.
It’s actually a bit of a ‘grey area’ – and one that has never (as far as I know) been ruled on in a Court.
Use common sense is the best advice really – and ask permission if in doubt.
An interesting thread & good arguments for both sides. My personal view on it (which may not be the legal view) is, if a building can be seen from the street & is part of the street which is normally seen from a public viewpoint & is not the main subject of a photograph, then it is fair game to photograph, whether the photograph is to be used commercially or not.
However, if the building is very prominant in the photograph, it would be respectful to ask for a release even if this is not a legal requirement to do so. Buildings are not exactly something that can be moved so that it’s not included in a photograph & the photographer will also have rights as to how they want to portray their subject.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
