Legal question about recognizable buildings in product shots

[Sue Bruce]

I have a product shoot coming up and the vendor wants to have their product staged in an urban setting. I have explained that any shots that include a recognizable building, license plate, etc, should be subject to a property release. He wants to risk it without a property release and wants to handle any complaints, etc, down the line.

I am not convinced it's him who would get in trouble, however ... seems like by selling the photographs for use, it would be me who gets in trouble.

Am considering writing a clause into his contract asking him to hold me harmless from any and all actions caused by the use of the photographs ... thoughts?

Sue

 

[musicaleCA]

I don't think you can write a clause that'll protect you in that case; you're still the copyright holder. Sounds like you really need the input of a lawyer to get a firm answer that's attuned to your local laws. </unprofessionalopinion>

 

[KmH]

The publisher gets sued, not the photographer. Once you license an image it's out of your control.

As it turns out the attornies that write the legal column for Scott Kelby's magazine 'Photoshop User' (Ed Greenberg and Jack Reznicki) say they have never seen or heard of suit filed over photographic violation of any property rights.

If you shoot from a public location it's fair game, be it license plates, famous buildings or any other type of property. You might also consider inanimate objects don't have rights.

MusicaleCA nailed it that adding that clause to your contract won't work.

 

[skieur]

To belabour what should be obvious, buildings and property are NOT copyrightable. Architectural design, yes, but photography does NOT violate that copyright.

skieur