Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If there are any commercial photographers on here, I would appreciate your feedback. I'm very much an amateur, but a friend would like to use one of my photos on his website and some of his print ads. The photo is a typical beachfront house - big porches, hammock, etc. There are many other similar homes, but I feel sure the homeowner will recognize their home if they happen to see the ads. The photo was taken from the beach, which is open to the public. Does my friend have any responsibility to the homeowners, to get their approval to use the photo? BTW, there are no people in the photo, just the house, dunes, sea grass, etc. Thanks for your comments.
I can't name the law, but I'm sure you (or he or both) would need a release if the photo is to be used commercially. Go ask 'em. You need to give them something for the release to make it legal -- maybe just a nice big picture of their home. Then it's "For consideration of one 16x24 inch photographic print, So And So, owner of residential property at Such And Such Lane, Hometown, U.S.A., grants So And So....."
You can find sample property release forms online.
I can't name the law, but I'm sure you (or he or both) would need a release if the photo is to be used commercially. Go ask 'em. You need to give them something for the release to make it legal -- maybe just a nice big picture of their home. Then it's "For consideration of one 16x24 inch photographic print, So And So, owner of residential property at Such And Such Lane, Hometown, U.S.A., grants So And So....."
You can find sample property release forms online.
A few choice quotes are most useful... First and foremost: "The whole subject of property releases is filled with urban legend, assumption and myth, along with a bit of actual law." We should try not to add to that, eh?
Here are the pertinent comments regarding actual law (emphasis added):
"ASMP has never seen a statute or a legal case that requires a release for property."
Not a single one! They go on to say that two legal theories (theories, not cases and not laws) suggest that there is the possibility that a property release could at some point in the future be useful. One is in regard to "association", where your use of a photo may associate the owner of a property with something defamatory. The other is in regard to "conversion", where you use someone else's property to make money in a way you are not entitled to.
The article then immediately states:
"We know of no case that has ever settled those kinds of questions. ASMP advises that property releases be acquired whenever possible because we don’t want to see you be the test case."
Another, and only very slightly risky, interpretation is that getting a property release might make you feel good, but it clearly is a waste of your time too.
Seriously, thanks very much for both comments. I've forwarded your comments to my friend who wants to use the photo. I'll let him figure out what he wants to do. Thanks again.
becareful of trademarks more. try photographing at disney and capturing things in the background that are trademarked and using them for commercial purposes and see how fast their legal dept contacts you.
there may be very few or no property cases because most never go to court.
but if you have to retain an attorney to defend yourself or work a deal it can be very costly.
Just be aware that if the homeowner sues both you and your friend will be getting a lawyer. Generally, it's the photographers responsibility to get the necessary releases when their images are used commercially.
its not the photographers responsibility at all...
the photographer isnt required to get one ,it just makes his pictures that more valuable to sell if he has one.
its only the end user that may need one if he wants to advertise or promote something that needs one.
i sell my photos all the time and the end users just buy them to display. no release is ever needed for that.
if the end user uses the photo for any other purpose other than that allowed by law and has no release he is the one who is in trouble.
yes we both may get sued as the photographer may get dragged in as a formality but the photographer is never responsible for what an end user does as long as its a legally taken photo..
A few choice quotes are most useful... First and foremost: "The whole subject of property releases is filled with urban legend, assumption and myth, along with a bit of actual law." We should try not to add to that, eh?
Here are the pertinent comments regarding actual law (emphasis added):
"ASMP has never seen a statute or a legal case that requires a release for property."
Not a single one! They go on to say that two legal theories (theories, not cases and not laws) suggest that there is the possibility that a property release could at some point in the future be useful. One is in regard to "association", where your use of a photo may associate the owner of a property with something defamatory. The other is in regard to "conversion", where you use someone else's property to make money in a way you are not entitled to.
The article then immediately states:
"We know of no case that has ever settled those kinds of questions. ASMP advises that property releases be acquired whenever possible because we don’t want to see you be the test case."
Another, and only very slightly risky, interpretation is that getting a property release might make you feel good, but it clearly is a waste of your time too.
Or, maybe not? ... :-)
there are lots of cases but i agree i havent seen one that was won.
The two stock agencies that sell my images and every magazine that I have delt with over the last 30 years all require a model release or a property release for them to consider selling or publishing them. That's what I know, that's what I go with.
It's a very big grey area, for sure, especially when you shoot images editorially. When I was a staff newspaper shooter many decades ago a release was not needed or needed today when used in that genre. Using an image commercially is a whole another ball of wax. If you shoot a home, even from a public street, and sell it(even at no cost) to be used commercially your walking a very shakey line.
I have never seen a stock agency, even the royalty-free ones, that do not require both releases. If you shoot alot of great images, get the proper releases, you can make some money doing this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
