Craig Gillette Offline Image Upload: Off
|
"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.
|