Register · Software · Search · Image Upload · Buy & Sell · Reviews · Hosting

	Moderated by: guardian
	Username   Password Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell FM Forum Rules FM Forums | PRO digital corner | Join Image Upload end

Ron Wimmer Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #1 · Property Release I have been hired to photograph a local city. Parks, businesses, homes etc for a local cities' new website. My question is do I need a property releases for the businesses and private homes? Do I need a release for view of a sub division with several homes? Does anyone have a copy or know where I could get a copy of a standard property release. I am portrait photographer by trade and don't know much about property releases. Please advise. Ron Sep 15, 2008 at 02:25 PM

Craig Gillette Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #2 · Property Release "I ..... don't know much about property releases." That's not at all uncommon. http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/releases/ This is what these guys say: "A property release says that the owner of a certain property, such as a pet or a building, has given you consent to take and use images of the property. You don’t need one for public property, such as government buildings (although you may run into problems just from photographing them, for security reasons). But for images of private property — and particularly of objects that are closely identified with specific people — you are safer if you get a release." This is really a fairly strong suggestion that property releases are needed but there's nothing in the way of references behind it. (They may be covering their organizational backside.) There is a lot of concern (among some photographers) that there is a practice of getting "property releases" from requirements from stock agencies, etc. that's generating an expectation that they are necessary when it's not entirely clear that they are. I would suggest you discuss it with the city and have them utilize their pockets and their city attorney, etc., to find out for sure, to evaluate their expected uses, and to provide you with a release that meets their needs. Given that they will be the user/publisher, they would be the ones running the risk so it probably wouldn't be a great idea to depend on getting legal "protection" and coverage from a photographer when they have qualified attorneys available. Sep 15, 2008 at 11:33 PM

MDteX Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #3 · Property Release Did Google get releases for their "Street View" where all buildings, public and private, are easily recognizable? I don't know but this is just a thought I had. Sep 16, 2008 at 07:06 PM

Ron Wimmer Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #4 · Property Release Craig, Thanks for the info. I have the city attorney looking into the matter. I will let you know what I hear. Thanks again, Ron Sep 16, 2008 at 08:31 PM

Ron Wimmer Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #5 · Property Release MDteX That was a question that I had. You know Google did not get property releases. If that is the case then, is anything visble from the street fair game? I don't know? Ron Sep 16, 2008 at 08:34 PM

mdude85 Offline Image Upload: On p.1 #6 · Property Release MDteX wrote: Did Google get releases for their "Street View" where all buildings, public and private, are easily recognizable? I don't know but this is just a thought I had. Don't need property releases for buildings within clear public view unless the use of the building in the image confuses consumers or insinuates some connection between the building and the image that is not actually there (for instance, you cannot associate building owned by companies for the purposes of advertisement of your own company as consumers may accidentally identify that company with your company). Note the use of Google (www.google.com) may be useful to find the answer to your question. Particularly, first result using the words "property release" and "buildings" may prove to be very useful! Good luck! Sep 16, 2008 at 08:39 PM

RDKirk Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #7 · Property Release Did Google get releases for their "Street View" where all buildings, public and private, are easily recognizable? I don't know but this is just a thought I had. No, they didn't. They are being sued, too, by a property owner whose house is on a private lane which had "No Trespassing" signs posted. His charge is that they couldn't have gotten the street view without trespassing on his private lane. Sep 21, 2008 at 01:18 AM

jjlphoto Offline Image Upload: On p.1 #8 · Property Release In some of the release info I have read, it has been mentioned that if the photo is of a "skyline" or other large section of buildings, a release may not be needed as no one single property is being singled out. Also, can you imagine how burdensome that would be? Make sure you have a hold harmless clause in your contract, something like: .....Unless delivered to Client by Photographer, no model or property release exists and Client agrees to hold harmless Photographer from any claims arising from such..... Sep 21, 2008 at 07:13 PM

Craig Gillette Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #9 · Property Release People mix up the need for permission to take the pictures - the visible from public property being fair game (and it is) (although a subdivision could possibly be private property with private/non-deeded/dedicated streets), with the potential problems arising from the use of the images. Copyright laws do not prohibit that taking and using of pictures of buildings, etc., from public property. Copyright protection for buildings specifically does not include the right to control the taking and use of pictures of the outsides of the buildings from public property. You could, however, run afoul of problems depending on the nature of the images, say if they include other copyrighted items, like logos, or trademarks. Then you have to examine how the use might run when compared to trademark laws, or if the copyrighted items are used in a way that infringes on the owner's rights. Sep 22, 2008 at 02:22 AM

Ron Wimmer Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #10 · Property Release Wow! Thanks again for all the info. I haven't heard back from the City attorney yet. The images I have been shooting a few homes and some overviews of the sub divisions. I also have been photographing the entrance ways to the sub divisions showing the signage of the sub division. I'll post what I hear from the City Attorney. Thanks everyone! Ron Sep 22, 2008 at 02:28 PM

Ron Wimmer Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #11 · Property Release I just heard from the city attorney. He said that since they (city) are purchasing the images and all the copyrights that they would be liable. (I'm not sure about that.) He also said that they could provide me with a letter releasing me of any liablity should anything happen. Any advice? Am I covered with a letter? Ron Sep 26, 2008 at 02:03 AM

Craig Gillette Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #12 · Property Release Unless you are trespassing, etc., taking the pictures isn't the problem, it's using the pictures. I would expect the letter should be plenty to cover you, especially since it's the "user," in this case the city, that is typically the target of legal actions if someone asserts their rights were infringed. If concerned, you could check with your own attorney but I think that's more than enough coverage. I think there may be some confusion about copyright ownership - are they clearly treating this as "work for hire" and is that clear in the terms of the contract? Did you expect to be able to use the images? (In which case, their letter (I'd guess) wouldn't cover you for your uses.) Sep 26, 2008 at 06:05 AM

	FM Forums | PRO digital corner | Join Image Upload end

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password   Lost password?