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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.....
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.
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.
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.
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.)
So for stock use a skyline or a street photo should have any business names PS'ed out?
What if it's a busy street with lots of people? Seems unreasonable to get model releases from everyone, what's the definition of "recognizable"? A face a local resident might recognize, or only a family member? Big difference.
Drew_Persson wrote:
So for stock use a skyline or a street photo should have any business names PS'ed out?
What if it's a busy street with lots of people? Seems unreasonable to get model releases from everyone, what's the definition of "recognizable"? A face a local resident might recognize, or only a family member? Big difference.
You need to research the difference between editorial and commercial stock, and the release requirements for each.
For a factual, editorial content, city website, I doubt you need to worry about property releases.
I don't think anyone suggested editing anything out. Unless the use somehow infringes the rights of the individuals or the businesses, there's no need for releases or changes. Without knowing the details of the uses, there's no point in speculating.
First thing to consider - the only place to get legal advice specific to the circumstances of the pictures and the actual use is from a lawyer. The second is to ask yourself if you ever saw that kind of PS'ing anyplace? (That's not a guarantee of any sort but it's a framework you could at least look to.)
If you are worried about "recognizable," it's probably defined in the laws of the area. In California, for example, there is a definition in the "publicity" sections of the civil code as to how that would be determined if it came to using an individual's image.
