Legality / Contract need for interior architectural-type shots?

eoren1

I have been photographing my new home town for the past year and have stuck mostly to landscapes and, more recently, the facade of businesses. Today, I shot part of a yacht club and had to be on their property to get the composition I wanted. I had contacted them ahead of time and was given free reign to shoot the exterior of the club. This is an outdoor cafe and so feels like a gray zone. Prior to approaching the yacht club, and before this comes up again, I wanted to see what others have done for interior/architectural type shots. I have seen lots of model release forms but these are targeted at portrait shooters...
Greatly appreciate your advice

Angelo

eoren1 wrote: »

I have been photographing my new home town for the past year and have stuck mostly to landscapes and, more recently, the facade of businesses. Today, I shot part of a yacht club and had to be on their property to get the composition I wanted. I had contacted them ahead of time and was given free reign to shoot the exterior of the club. This is an outdoor cafe and so feels like a gray zone. Prior to approaching the yacht club, and before this comes up again, I wanted to see what others have done for interior/architectural type shots. I have seen lots of model release forms but these are targeted at portrait shooters...
Greatly appreciate your advice

you're asking about Property Release forms and they are covered in the "Photographer's Resources" sticky thread at the top of this MYOB forum

.

eoren1

Thanks! Couldn't do a very good search without knowing what it was I needed... Appreciate it!

eoren1

After reading a number of articles on Dan Heller's site, I'm even more confused... As background, photos will be on my blog and available for sale.
I have three specific photos and, I think, only one needs a release:

1. Photo of outdoor cafe belonging to yacht club depicting the location with a view of the harbor beyond
-I was on their property for this but don't think I need a property release. Was planning on showing the photo to the manager of the yacht club before publication anyway but was torn as to whether to bring along a release form.

2. Photo of the harbor with two kayakers in the frame.
-Zoomed at 100% they might be recognizable but pretty sure I don't need a model release for them.

3. Photo of the room where the original Spirit of '76 painting hangs (http://www.americanrevolution.org/spirit.html)
-The town owns the copyright on the painting. I was planning to ask the selectman for permission to show this but now wonder if I need a release for this as well.
-Hmmm...a Google search reveals a few photos of the painting that clearly have not obtained any permission to display...

For scenarios 1 and 3, I wouldn't want to anger anyone by publishing the photos without a verbal ok. I think discussing this rather than having them sign a legal document would offer a much better chance of getting approval though

Appreciate your thoughts.

Dan7312

If you feel you need a verbal ok to publish and sell the pictures then you probably really need a signature.


The problem with a verbal ok is that it's never really clear what was ok'd, the ok'er forgets, the ok'er gets replaced by someone else who can't believe anyone would have given that ok, yadda, yadda, yadda.

I've just gone through a verbal ok process for some of the stuff I sell (instructional videos) that much later turned into a contract that was quite different. As luck would have it not disaster, but not what I originally expected. Verbal ok's just leave too much to interpretation.

eoren1 wrote: »

After reading a number of articles on Dan Heller's site, I'm even more confused... As background, photos will be on my blog and available for sale.
I have three specific photos and, I think, only one needs a release:

1. Photo of outdoor cafe belonging to yacht club depicting the location with a view of the harbor beyond
-I was on their property for this but don't think I need a property release. Was planning on showing the photo to the manager of the yacht club before publication anyway but was torn as to whether to bring along a release form.

2. Photo of the harbor with two kayakers in the frame.
-Zoomed at 100% they might be recognizable but pretty sure I don't need a model release for them.

3. Photo of the room where the original Spirit of '76 painting hangs (http://www.americanrevolution.org/spirit.html)
-The town owns the copyright on the painting. I was planning to ask the selectman for permission to show this but now wonder if I need a release for this as well.

For scenarios 1 and 3, I wouldn't want to anger anyone by publishing the photos without a verbal ok. I think discussing this rather than having them sign a legal document would offer a much better chance of getting approval though

Appreciate your thoughts.

Cygnus Studios

eoren1 wrote: »

photos will be on my blog and available for sale.

1. -I was on their property

2. Photo of the harbor with two kayakers in the frame.

3. -The town owns the copyright on the painting.

-Hmmm...a Google search reveals a few photos of the painting that clearly have not obtained any permission to display...

Let's keep it simple. You are using the images for commercial use.

#1 The property belongs to someone.
#2 People who may be recognizable.
#3 An image that is already copyrighted.

In all 3 situations you can be sued quite easily (and rightfully so) for using the images commercially.

Verbal permission is never good enough. What it ends up being is one person's word against another. A signed release is hard to argue.

Just because someone got away with it doesn't mean you will.

If you do things right and above board you never have to worry about it.

aktse

eoren1 wrote: »

...As background, photos will be on my blog and available for sale.
I have three specific photos and, I think, only one needs a release:

1. Photo of outdoor cafe belonging to yacht club depicting the location with a view of the harbor beyond

2. Photo of the harbor with two kayakers in the frame.

3. The town owns the copyright on the painting.

You can be sued for all three.

I am not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one. However, I'm good friends with licensing attorney (writes contracts and goes after infringement for something that has a copyright) and time after time again, he has proven to me that I'm often wrong on copyright issues. Actually, thinking about it, I've always been wrong.

And it's not anger you should be worried about...

I think this guy was sued for $60K for copyright infringement for taking a photo with someone in front of the artwork; he finally settled.

In general, most people sell photos (stock, fine art etc) in locations that can not be identified and with extensive releases for a reason.

You can take your chances, but can you afford to defend a lawsuit?

When in doubt, hire a copyright attorney. They know the laws and it's interpretations, you don't. I know that I don't...

Angelo

there's always a lot of confusion and misinformation on the subject of selling images...

firstly, the definition of "commercial" in the context of copyright is limited to selling images to a third party for their use in advertising, marketing or promoting a commercial endeavor.

use of any of the images you've described, on your blog, could (emphasis, could) be defined as commercial since their use promotes a third party enterprise (your blog). Blog content would play a big role in this determination (i haven't looked yet)

selling any of the described images as individual art prints would not create a breach of copyright or property rights. (I very much doubt the town owns copyright to the painting)

PS: I am not an attorney but I am very confident of the accuracy of my comments

.

Dan7312

I think the phrases in your sentence are at odds with each other

Maybe "don't doubt" or "town doesn't own":help

Angelo wrote: »

(I very much doubt and can almost guarantee the town owns copyright to the painting)


.

eoren1

Thanks everyone. Angelo, in reading Dan's site, he stresses the publication aspect as playing a key role. And that posting to a website (even with the intent of selling) does not constitute publication. Nearly all lawsuits he alludes to (and the one mentioned above) involve publication of photos - either to stock agencies (who really should then nail down the release forms) or in the case of the dancing feet, a brochure.
I contacted Dan to ask if I could include a succinct summary from his site in this thread and asked him to weigh in on the three scenarios above. Will add that when I hear from him.

eoren1

From Dan's site (link):

Checklist for Photographers

Model Releases are only necessary to publish pictures.
Even then, very specific guidelines are necessary to trigger the need for a release: if the photo suggests someone subscribes to a particular idea, product or service.
It is highly unusual that photographers ever publish images in a manner that requires a model release.
Photographers sell (or license) photos to others who publish those images.

Selling or licensing photos does not require a release.
Such is not a form of publication, nor is it an action that suggests anything about the person in the photo. It is merely a financial transaction.
Placing photos on websites for the purposes of selling them does not require a model release. It is what courts have called a vehicle of information (that the photo is for sale). The buyer of the photo may need a release if and only if the nature of its publication would trigger the need for a release.

Money or profit has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a release is required.
Because the need for a release is only governed by how and whether the person in the photo might be regarded as subscribing to an idea, product or service, it is entirely irrelevant whether money (profit) was made. Similarly, even free uses of photos (or use by non-profits) does not mean that releases are not required. Get the whole idea of money out of your mind.

Photos of property (of any sort) even more rarely require releases.
There are substantially further limitations on when a release is necessary for buildings or other property, because "things" don't have rights. Things are protected by "copyright", and its extremely difficult for a photo of a copyrighted thing to violate that copyright. In fact, it is impossible for a photo by itself to violate the copyright of something—rather, it's the text associated with a photo that might. For example, the text with an image of the Transamerica building being used in an ad that might suggest the owners of the building advocate some other, unrelated idea, product or service. That would violate the building's copyright and its trademark. A photographer doesn't publish images in that manner, so the photographer never need a property release.

Cygnus Studios

eoren1 wrote: »

I contacted Dan to ask if I could include a succinct summary from his site in this thread and asked him to weigh in on the three scenarios above. Will add that when I hear from him.

Dan's site is great resource, but for legal questions, I suggest speaking to an attorney, preferably one that specializes in copyright law.

It is far better to get the answer from the person who is willing to defend that answer in court than someone who isn't.

Every lawsuit costs time and money, regardless if you are right or wrong.

Angelo

Dan7312 wrote: »

I think the phrases in your sentence are at odds with each other

Maybe "don't doubt" or "town doesn't own":help

I don't know how it happened but you captured my quote prior to my edit even though the time stamp has a 9 minute variance.

.

Angelo

eoren1 wrote: »

From Dan's site (link):

Checklist for Photographers

Model Releases are only necessary to publish pictures.
Even then, very specific guidelines are necessary to trigger the need for a release: if the photo suggests someone subscribes to a particular idea, product or service.
It is highly unusual that photographers ever publish images in a manner that requires a model release.
Photographers sell (or license) photos to others who publish those images.

Selling or licensing photos does not require a release.
Such is not a form of publication, nor is it an action that suggests anything about the person in the photo. It is merely a financial transaction.
Placing photos on websites for the purposes of selling them does not require a model release. It is what courts have called a vehicle of information (that the photo is for sale). The buyer of the photo may need a release if and only if the nature of its publication would trigger the need for a release.

Money or profit has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a release is required.
Because the need for a release is only governed by how and whether the person in the photo might be regarded as subscribing to an idea, product or service, it is entirely irrelevant whether money (profit) was made. Similarly, even free uses of photos (or use by non-profits) does not mean that releases are not required. Get the whole idea of money out of your mind.

Photos of property (of any sort) even more rarely require releases.
There are substantially further limitations on when a release is necessary for buildings or other property, because "things" don't have rights. Things are protected by "copyright", and its extremely difficult for a photo of a copyrighted thing to violate that copyright. In fact, it is impossible for a photo by itself to violate the copyright of something—rather, it's the text associated with a photo that might. For example, the text with an image of the Transamerica building being used in an ad that might suggest the owners of the building advocate some other, unrelated idea, product or service. That would violate the building's copyright and its trademark. A photographer doesn't publish images in that manner, so the photographer never need a property release.

I'm glad you found some of the pertinent passages regarding the issue. And you are correct to take caution when individuals are included in images if they could be misidentified as agreeing with, endorsing or participating in something contrary to their personal beliefs. Without a release the photog could find himself the target of a defamation suit.

An example might be capturing my image, in public, in front of a group of Neo-Nazis (signs and banners seen behind me) and whether through the accidental capture or through creative cropping or manipulation it could be suggestive of my being part of and therefore a neo-Nazi sympathizer. THAT would not be good and could result in a law suit regardless of how the image is used.

.

Angelo

Dan Heller's site is but one of more than a dozen assorted sites in the Photographer's Resources sticky thread. Some of the info I shared and that EOREN1 found on Dan's site can also be found on the PHOTO ATTORNEY site, hosted by:

Carolyn E. Wright

Carolyn E. Wright, a/k/a the Photo Attorney®, is a full-time attorney whose practice is aimed squarely at the legal needs of photographers and other copyright owners.



I've also added a new blog to the resources - "Dear Rich: Nolo's Intellectual Property Blog"


.