Posted by Andy Richards on September 29, 2006 at 8:33 AM
Sorry if this topic is in the wrong forum -- or if it has already been "beaten to death." I did search for it before starting this.
I am wondering if anyone can direct me to where I can find some information on when I need a property release.
As an example, I have a shot of the NBC building in Chicago with the "peacock" on the front of the building. I was just wandering the streets of Chicago trying to capture images in the morning light. Not sure whether I was "standing" on private property or still on the public sidewalk (if that matters) -- sometimes its hard to tell in the city. I assume NBC has rights to the peacock image. I am hesitant to put the image anywhere "public" or use it other than for my own personal enjoyment without knowing more about this issue.
Thanks.
Andy
Posted by Toni Lankerd on September 29, 2006 at 9:10 AM
Posted by Andy Richards on September 29, 2006 at 10:13 AM
Toni, thanks. I have bookmarked this site. It was very informative. Unfortunately, in my specific example, he probably raised more questions than he answered
I appreciate his pov, as I am myself an attorney and understand "grey area." His discussion on the need for a release seems to focus on the issue of privacy rights. While hand-in-hand, I am wondering if there isn't a "trademark" issue also, because of the "peacock" on the building.
I would be interested in anybody else's take on my question.
- - - For personal uses, such as showing it to friends and at camera clubs, you can use ANY image you take anytime. You can also use 99% of the images you take ( IF ) they are used for news or educational purposes.
That is about it! - - - ALL other rights belong to the property owner!
You CAN NOT use an image of anyone else's property for any other reason unless you have a signed release to do so. If you use it for "commercial" purposes, without a release, you have a 99.9% chance of being sued, and you WILL lose.
ALL major company logos are not copyrighted, they are trademarked, and you can be sued for even more for using those without permission.
It matters NOT where you shoot from. It only matters WHAT you shoot.
Shooting from someone's property will only get you arrested for trespassing, they can't do anything about what you shoot. ( They also CAN NOT take your film or camera for doing so, EXCEPT for two places. Secured government facilities, and Indian reservations )
Also,,, most people do not realize that using such images on their web sites, or on brochures, to promote their business is also considered a "commercial use." Anything you profit from is commercial, even ad images.
Posted by Andy Richards on September 29, 2006 at 2:48 PM
Paul: Hi. Thanks for your response. I do not by any means mean to be disrespectful by this question, but am wondering if there is an authoritative source for this information? Part of what makes me ask is that Mr. Heller at the website Toni directed me to does not seem to be as firm about this as you are. He indicates there is a fair amount of grey area, especially in the area of "fair use." I'll be the first to say I don't know much about this topic -- just trying to learn. Thanks again,
Andy
Fair Use only deals with the main things I already said about the personal, news and educational uses.
(satire loosely falls under the educational area.)
Those are protected by the constitution.
(making postcards to sell of someone's property is not)
In almost all other cases the constitution protects the person and the property owner.
A search of the web should give you plenty of sources, or just read a property release.
They spell out what permissions are given, so that should tell you what permission anyone needs.
If you need more then it is best to talk to a lawyer.
99% of this is all "if" matters. You can use any image you take for any use you want, "if" it doesn't matter to anyone else, or "if" you don't get caught at it, and in some cases "if" you do not make a profit from them.
"IF" you do make a profit and "if" it does matter to someone, then you have a very good chance of being sued. Model and property releases were not created because they are so much fun to use. They are manditory because the law protects people's privacy and their property rights before almost everything else.
Most of this is also just common sense as to why it is the law. Why should a person have to spend their money to pay for property that someone else can just come, take a picture of, and then make a profit from what the owner paid hard earned money for? If you bought a one-of-a-kind item, how long would you stand for people taking pictures of it to sell?
Posted by Andy Richards on September 29, 2006 at 5:18 PM
Thanks, Paul. Makes sense. The irony of it is I am a lawyer . Intellectual property is just not my area. I can certainly understand the points you make -- which is why I asked the question in the first place. I had an inkling that there might be a problem with using it for anything other than personal use, or the "fair use" things you mention.
I will do some additional research just because intellectual curiousity makes me want to know more about this issue. I also e-mailed an intellectual property lawyer and will be interested in his "take." I appreciate your time and comments.
Best regards,
Andy
Posted by Richard Wong on September 29, 2006 at 6:46 PM
"If you bought a one-of-a-kind item, how long would you stand for people taking pictures of it to sell?"
Forever. As long as they don't touch. Because at the end of the day, she is still coming home to me...
Posted by David Prichard on September 30, 2006 at 12:18 AM
Andy,
Releases, property and model, are a rapidly changing world, particularly with stock work. I know my agency will not accept work without a model release that they would take a year ago. This is largely due to the fact they have partnered with a large American stock agency which is much stricter about releases. In reviewing their new work portion of their website, many of the images of people no longer show heads.
About twenty years ago, the CN Tower in Toronto wanted a royalty from any who published a photo of the CN Tower. When they realized the courts would not side with them they backed down. In tourism work I have often shot cityscapes which featured logos and not heard a word about it. Generally the rule of thumb is if it can be seen from a public place it can be photographed from that place and published unless the context is misrepresentation.
As with model releases it boils down to commercial gain. I haven't the faintest idea how they determine this. I have had shots of commercial towers striped into ads without a release, yet have also had images of private houses declined as they didn't have a property release.
A stock photographer of my acquaintance got into a bit of trouble when the owner of a property sold it without revealing the property release. While it was established he was in no way negligent when the shot was sold, the legal fees exceeded anything he made on the shot.
That is the great difficulty currently. You may be in the right, it is the cost of proving it should it come to that.
Dave
Posted by Toni Lankerd on September 30, 2006 at 9:08 AM
It is my understanding that IF you only sell the image for editorial use, you may do so without a release. If someone wants to buy it for use in advertisement/commercials....then you need a property release.
Alamy, Getty and Jupiter stock all have images showing various logos from Starbuck's to McDonald's.
Our standard is always to ask, preferably in writing, before using images in all but educational or editorial applications. If the owner says no, you will learn a lot in discussing and trying to understand their viewpoint (but NOT by engaging them in debate). In most cases property owners are willing to issue limited property releases for a specific application you describe, even if they are unwilling to issue a blanket release. It's time consuming to go back to them case by case for future uses, but worth the effort most of the time. They simply want to be engaged in decisions about how and where their property will be portrayed. We also run into this problem with secure facilities and military uniforms. We photo a lot of people in uniform for their professional portfolios as well as to document events. But we cannot use those same photos to advertise our business and the services we provide.
There is no one-size-fits-all definition or solution, but the simplest is by far to ask for permission. If you are specific in the usage you contemplate, owners quite often are compliant while they are totally resistant to blanket rights.
Posted by Andy Richards on September 30, 2006 at 1:43 PM
Thanks for all your replies. Sounds like (as I suspected when I posed the question), there is a lot of gray area. For example, everyone talks about "commercial" use in the context of advertizing and commercials. I can especially see the problem there, because the logo owner could be perceived as "endorsing" the product and because the familiarity of the image may have in and of itself, some (albeit maybe subliminal) marketing and sales effect. But what about selling the shot (my NBC building shot, for example) as a print -- i.e., as just a Chicago CityScape? Because there is a payment involved, that sure seems like a commercial use. But now, I am wondering if all those photos with the Starbuck signs, etc. are property released.
Of course, another difference might be that my photo's primary subject is the NBC building -- not just an element in the photo.
Kind of an interesting topic -- I still don't know if I have an answer. Now I know how my clients feel when they ask me about a specific transaction and I give them the "two-handed" answer
Posted by Ron Niebrugge on September 30, 2006 at 1:53 PM
The trademark is what could get you in trouble. If it is just private property without the trademark you wouldn’t have any problem marketing the photo even for commercial use. You need a model release to commercially use a photo of a person, but you do not need a property release for private property.
Paul wrote:
“You CAN NOT use an image of anyone else's property for any other reason unless you have a signed release to do so. If you use it for "commercial" purposes, without a release, you have a 99.9% chance of being sued, and you WILL lose.”
Name one time this has happened. From what I have read, there has not been a single case where a photographer was successfully prosecuted for not having a property release. The most famous private property case involved a photo of the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame, and the photographer prevailed.
This has been discussed at length at other sites, and the Photo Attorney website is maybe the best source on information on the subject as Carolyn has researched and written on the subject extensively.
Posted by Ron Niebrugge on September 30, 2006 at 2:06 PM
The trademark is what could get you in trouble. If it is just private property without the trademark you wouldn’t have any problem marketing the photo even for commercial use. You need a model release to commercially use a photo of a person, but you do not need a property release for private property.
Paul wrote:
“You CAN NOT use an image of anyone else's property for any other reason unless you have a signed release to do so. If you use it for "commercial" purposes, without a release, you have a 99.9% chance of being sued, and you WILL lose.”
From what I have read, there has not been a single case where a photographer was successfully prosecuted for not having a property release. The most famous private property case involved a photo of the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame, and the photographer prevailed.
This has been discussed at length at other sites, and the Photo Attorney website is maybe the best source on information on the subject as Carolyn has researched and written on the subject extensively.
Posted by Toni Lankerd on September 30, 2006 at 2:33 PM
But now, I am wondering if all those photos with the Starbuck signs, etc. are property released
I doubt it, Andy...otherwise they wouldn't be listed as for editorial use only.
Posted by Ron Niebrugge on September 30, 2006 at 10:28 PM
I had a chance to search the Photo Attorney site for the write up on property releases, the source of my information. It can be found here: http://www.photoattorney.com/2006/05/property-releases-revisited.html
Until my on-line discussions with Carolyn, I was always under the impression that a property release was necessary.
She also writes about trademarks, you should be able to find information about his subject with a serach on her blog.
Discussion
15 repliesI am wondering if anyone can direct me to where I can find some information on when I need a property release.
As an example, I have a shot of the NBC building in Chicago with the "peacock" on the front of the building. I was just wandering the streets of Chicago trying to capture images in the morning light. Not sure whether I was "standing" on private property or still on the public sidewalk (if that matters) -- sometimes its hard to tell in the city. I assume NBC has rights to the peacock image. I am hesitant to put the image anywhere "public" or use it other than for my own personal enjoyment without knowing more about this issue.
Thanks.
Andy
You might want to try checking Dan Heller's site. http://www.danheller.com/biz-trademarks.html
I appreciate his pov, as I am myself an attorney and understand "grey area." His discussion on the need for a release seems to focus on the issue of privacy rights. While hand-in-hand, I am wondering if there isn't a "trademark" issue also, because of the "peacock" on the building.
I would be interested in anybody else's take on my question.
That is about it! - - - ALL other rights belong to the property owner!
You CAN NOT use an image of anyone else's property for any other reason unless you have a signed release to do so. If you use it for "commercial" purposes, without a release, you have a 99.9% chance of being sued, and you WILL lose.
ALL major company logos are not copyrighted, they are trademarked, and you can be sued for even more for using those without permission.
It matters NOT where you shoot from. It only matters WHAT you shoot.
Shooting from someone's property will only get you arrested for trespassing, they can't do anything about what you shoot. ( They also CAN NOT take your film or camera for doing so, EXCEPT for two places. Secured government facilities, and Indian reservations )
Also,,, most people do not realize that using such images on their web sites, or on brochures, to promote their business is also considered a "commercial use." Anything you profit from is commercial, even ad images.
Andy
(satire loosely falls under the educational area.)
Those are protected by the constitution.
(making postcards to sell of someone's property is not)
In almost all other cases the constitution protects the person and the property owner.
A search of the web should give you plenty of sources, or just read a property release.
They spell out what permissions are given, so that should tell you what permission anyone needs.
If you need more then it is best to talk to a lawyer.
99% of this is all "if" matters. You can use any image you take for any use you want, "if" it doesn't matter to anyone else, or "if" you don't get caught at it, and in some cases "if" you do not make a profit from them.
"IF" you do make a profit and "if" it does matter to someone, then you have a very good chance of being sued. Model and property releases were not created because they are so much fun to use. They are manditory because the law protects people's privacy and their property rights before almost everything else.
Most of this is also just common sense as to why it is the law. Why should a person have to spend their money to pay for property that someone else can just come, take a picture of, and then make a profit from what the owner paid hard earned money for? If you bought a one-of-a-kind item, how long would you stand for people taking pictures of it to sell?
I will do some additional research just because intellectual curiousity makes me want to know more about this issue. I also e-mailed an intellectual property lawyer and will be interested in his "take." I appreciate your time and comments.
Best regards,
Andy
Forever. As long as they don't touch. Because at the end of the day, she is still coming home to me...
Releases, property and model, are a rapidly changing world, particularly with stock work. I know my agency will not accept work without a model release that they would take a year ago. This is largely due to the fact they have partnered with a large American stock agency which is much stricter about releases. In reviewing their new work portion of their website, many of the images of people no longer show heads.
About twenty years ago, the CN Tower in Toronto wanted a royalty from any who published a photo of the CN Tower. When they realized the courts would not side with them they backed down. In tourism work I have often shot cityscapes which featured logos and not heard a word about it. Generally the rule of thumb is if it can be seen from a public place it can be photographed from that place and published unless the context is misrepresentation.
As with model releases it boils down to commercial gain. I haven't the faintest idea how they determine this. I have had shots of commercial towers striped into ads without a release, yet have also had images of private houses declined as they didn't have a property release.
A stock photographer of my acquaintance got into a bit of trouble when the owner of a property sold it without revealing the property release. While it was established he was in no way negligent when the shot was sold, the legal fees exceeded anything he made on the shot.
That is the great difficulty currently. You may be in the right, it is the cost of proving it should it come to that.
Dave
Alamy, Getty and Jupiter stock all have images showing various logos from Starbuck's to McDonald's.
There is no one-size-fits-all definition or solution, but the simplest is by far to ask for permission. If you are specific in the usage you contemplate, owners quite often are compliant while they are totally resistant to blanket rights.
Of course, another difference might be that my photo's primary subject is the NBC building -- not just an element in the photo.
Kind of an interesting topic -- I still don't know if I have an answer. Now I know how my clients feel when they ask me about a specific transaction and I give them the "two-handed" answer
Paul wrote:
“You CAN NOT use an image of anyone else's property for any other reason unless you have a signed release to do so. If you use it for "commercial" purposes, without a release, you have a 99.9% chance of being sued, and you WILL lose.”
Name one time this has happened. From what I have read, there has not been a single case where a photographer was successfully prosecuted for not having a property release. The most famous private property case involved a photo of the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame, and the photographer prevailed.
This has been discussed at length at other sites, and the Photo Attorney website is maybe the best source on information on the subject as Carolyn has researched and written on the subject extensively.
Paul wrote:
“You CAN NOT use an image of anyone else's property for any other reason unless you have a signed release to do so. If you use it for "commercial" purposes, without a release, you have a 99.9% chance of being sued, and you WILL lose.”
From what I have read, there has not been a single case where a photographer was successfully prosecuted for not having a property release. The most famous private property case involved a photo of the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame, and the photographer prevailed.
This has been discussed at length at other sites, and the Photo Attorney website is maybe the best source on information on the subject as Carolyn has researched and written on the subject extensively.
I doubt it, Andy...otherwise they wouldn't be listed as for editorial use only.
Until my on-line discussions with Carolyn, I was always under the impression that a property release was necessary.
She also writes about trademarks, you should be able to find information about his subject with a serach on her blog.