Model Release for Property

Steve Foss' thread on model releases got me thinking, and it reminds me of another related topic. You need a "model release" for non-journalistic use of an image of anyone's personal property. The example I'll use is Cinderella's Castle, but the legal theory applies to any personalty. You may photograph the castle and own the copyright on the photograph, but you cannot make commercial use of the image without permission from Walt Disney World. You could not, for instance, use that image in an ad for the Orlando Tourism Board without Disney's permission. The same concept applies to my Shelby Mustang GT 500 (I wish)... You can't use the image in a Castrol ad without first getting my permission.

I ran into this problem when I started to put together a poster of historic buildings in Richmond Hill. The most notable is the old Henry Ford Plantation Home. Of course I wanted to include it in the poster, but the Ford Plantation will not allow the home's image to be used for commercial purposes. I'm going to try a different tack by working through the Richmond Hill Historical Society, making them the benefactor of any profits generated by the sale of the poster. We'll see how that goes...

Also, don't you need a property release to sell photos of that cool old barn out in the country somewhere? I'm sure you can photograph it without permission as long and you're on public land but to sell the photo, I'm pretty sure you need a release.

What if the barn, for instance, is not recognizable. Say you just got a picture of part of it, and you can't really tell what barn it is? You wouldn't need one then would you?

A lot of buildings today are trademarked. Dan Heller has a good article on his web site concerning this topic here.

Say you just got a picture of part of it, and you can't really tell what barn it is?

I think that's true. In the same way, a shot of someone who is unrecognizable probably wouldn't need a model release.