Upload & Sell: On
Before suggesting that we can do "whatever we want" with our pics, because they are our images (i.e. we own the copyright), based on these two instances ... the issue that seems to be overlooked here is the element of "identifiable" (iirc, I think that's the right term).
While I didn't read through the linked articles of Carolyn's (whom I'm spoken with and emailed on multiple occasions) ... the images on both linked pages are images that could have been shot similarly elsewhere and have no real identifying elements to them. That is not the same as taking a shot of the 18th hole @ Pebble Beach or the Biltmore Estate which are readily recognizable (or a recognizable logo as Chuck mentioned).
I admit that I need to study more on the matter of "property release" ... and welcome correction on the matter ... but a "carte blanche" attitude because we own the pics, we can do whatever we want is folly dissemination of advice, imo. If that were truly the case, we would never need a "model release".
Has the use of "property release" gone by the way of the dinosaur, or is it an extremely rare necessity ... some may think so. Rather, I think there is some mixing of the "right to take the pic" with the "right to use the pic" for commercial gain going on here. I'd not be the one to have advised someone that just because it is okay for them to take it, that it is okay for them to use it anyway they want (i.e. commercial gain) ... might want to recheck that one.
I can take a picture of Coke bottle all day long ... does that give me the right to use "my pic" (that I own) for commercial gain in any manner that I want. Coke (as the owner of that identifiable entity) might have something to say about that. Coke has a vested interest in that recognition. The owner of a golf course, water park, etc. may feel likewise that they have something to say in the realm of "property release" for specified usage.
If you were putting together a "tourist guide" or something as such, I'd think that most entities would have little objection, as they are potentially receiving some benefit of the marketing ... and rarely would they say much about it. But, just because they aren't making any noise about that usage, doesn't extend "carte blance" usage to all pics that we own. I plan to be working on a different project in the next 1-3 years that I anticipate will incur the need for property releases ... based on my preliminary research on the issue.
I re-iterate my need to further understand the specifics of the issue (relative to the specifics of the instance), but my lacking of expertise in the subject doesn't render it moot to consider its pertinence in lieu of a "carte blance" perspective.
+1 @ appropriate legal counsel regarding specifics (i.e. editorial, commercial gain, personal use, etc.) vs. generalities.
ASMP has put forth some introductory info regarding property releases.
To my way of thinking, if they've chosen to mention it ... it might have some merit. Whether or not you will need one for a given application ... depends.