Photography Locations

Puppy · Feb 1, 2008

I've always wondered about the ethics of shooting outdoor photography (landscapes especially), and now that I have a DSLR, I'm really interested in the subject. Right now the practice I'm following is pretty simple: I try not to shoot from any location that's clearly private property, and of course if there's a "No Photography" sign posted (don't know if I've seen one of those, but I guess the exist?) I'd comply.

Obviously all I'm doing right now is not trespassing on private property; is there anything else I need to know? Is making private property the subject of a photo OK, if it's taken from a place I'm allowed to be? And if it is OK, does the fact that the subject of the photo is someone else's property disqualify the photo for commercial use (not that it's an issue for me now, but I'd still like to know)?

Sorry, this may be a dumb question, but I really am a little baffled by the subject. Thanks!

GC Jr · Feb 1, 2008

I highly, HIGHLY doubt you'll get in trouble for taking a picture of private property, but just to be really safe, ask the person who owns it first. It doesn't hurt to ask, and in the end, you know you won't be fined or something.

I happen to be very lucky to be living in a very, very beautiful foresty neighborhood, so I've made landscaping my expertise.

Getting off topic. Lol.

To conclude, I would ask the person who owns the private property to take pics of it. We don't want any neighbors breaking your camera. Lol.

passerby · Feb 1, 2008

I am kind of moralist from religious environment, so I don't step in to other people property for no good reason, well sort of. It just the way I am I guess, sound weird in the 21st century but I like it that way. Yet this is still so tame in comparison with the religious teaching which I don't follow. According to it smelling the perfume before buying it is considered as stealing the perfume already:mrgreen:. Yap I am not exagerating.

So yes I just have to be content with all this limitation - otherwise I will fall into papparazzi style shooter, shoot anyone without the person's consent from anywhere.

The earth is spacious, the sceneries are endless, the sky is the limit - so I heard. It is the power of our imaginations that will frame a small space into a wonderfull thing to look at. One spot taken from 5 different angles - just for an example - produced into 5 different photos. The same spot taken under morning sun and the sunset also end up with different results.

So why jumping the fence?

Puppy · Feb 2, 2008

Thanks for the advice!

Here's a similar dilemma that really confuses me:

I've taken a photo of a local farm from the side of the road; it ended up being a good picture and I want to stick it on Flickr. I like the open-source community, so I want to attach the most liberal CC license available, which allows for commercial use. Do I have the right to do this? It's certainly my photo. And I didn't break any laws or anything when I took it. Still, the subject of the photograph was someone else's property.

Thanks!

passerby · Feb 2, 2008

Puppy said:
Thanks for the advice!

Here's a similar dilemma that really confuses me:

I've taken a photo of a local farm from the side of the road; it ended up being a good picture and I want to stick it on Flickr. I like the open-source community, so I want to attach the most liberal CC license available, which allows for commercial use. Do I have the right to do this?

The photograph is the result of someone seeing. If I see you somewhere in the street an you aware that someone sees you and look at you just like the rest of human you have come accross in your life, than is there anything illegal in it? it is normal occurance. But if I take your photo than spread it around for others to see than the rule has change, let alone for profit.

But as long as you are poor no one will bother to sue you for this kind. People only start sueing when there is something to gain.

Yesterday I drove for over than 100km distance just for the purpose of taking pictures. Along the way I stopped by the railway museum. I paid the $10 fee which gave the right to look and to take pictures. It is wriiten there.

Assuming that you inform the property owner above of your intention, than they give you the permission to use the photo of their property for your commercial use, than one day they sue you, what are you going to say?

In the court the whole lot is black and white. I have the ticket to enter the museum and take pictures, that what the court accept, no less.

ThePup · Feb 2, 2008

Disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer!

Lots of talk on the forums about this semi-regulerly - search the forums for more info.

The law here in Australia, and I believe in most western countries, including US, UK, Europe (NOT France!) and the like...

If you're on public property, ie, side of the road, footpath and the like, you can photograph whoever and whatever you like, and use it however you like FOR NON-COMMERCIAL USE.

COMMERCIAL use means that the person in the photograph is seen to be endorsing a product. You can take a complete strangers photo, put it on the web, sell prints of it, show it at an art display, whatever you like, as long as that person is not seen to be endorsing a product. (Magazine front cover is seen as endorsing the magazine...)

Also note there's clauses in there regarding defamitory photos as well...

There's always debates about if this is morally right or wrong, that's up to the individual. If you don't feel right doing it, fine, don't do it, just don't go moaning for others to stop. The point is it's LEGALLY not a problem.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, shoot with respect, and if someone asks you nicely to stop, well, if the're being polite, be polite in return and respect their wishes.

passerby · Feb 2, 2008

ThePup said:
Disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer!

Lots of talk on the forums about this semi-regulerly - search the forums for more info.

The law here in Australia, and I believe in most western countries, including US, UK, Europe (NOT France!) and the like...

If you're on public property, ie, side of the road, footpath and the like, you can photograph whoever and whatever you like, and use it however you like FOR NON-COMMERCIAL USE.

COMMERCIAL use means that the person in the photograph is seen to be endorsing a product. You can take a complete strangers photo, put it on the web, sell prints of it, show it at an art display, whatever you like, as long as that person is not seen to be endorsing a product. (Magazine front cover is seen as endorsing the magazine...)

Also note there's clauses in there regarding defamitory photos as well...

There's always debates about if this is morally right or wrong, that's up to the individual. If you don't feel right doing it, fine, don't do it, just don't go moaning for others to stop. The point is it's LEGALLY not a problem.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, shoot with respect, and if someone asks you nicely to stop, well, if the're being polite, be polite in return and respect their wishes.

Many thanks for your thoughtful response, hopefully it clears thing up for us to do the worry less shooting. :wink:

Puppy · Feb 2, 2008

Yes, thank you, ThePup! That helps a lot!

So, I guess the answer is no, I don't have the right to licence the photo as Attribution 3.0. Do I have to use a license that does not allow commercial use?

I guess the answer should be obvious, but I really want to be able to use a liberal licence.

jedithebomber · Feb 2, 2008

Puppy said:
Yes, thank you, ThePup! That helps a lot!

So, I guess the answer is no, I don't have the right to licence the photo as Attribution 3.0. Do I have to use a license that does not allow commercial use?

I guess the answer should be obvious, but I really want to be able to use a liberal licence.

Just use a attribution, non-commercial CC licence. I use an attribution, non-commercial, share alike. or a attribution, non-commercial, no derivitive works license for all my stuff, depending on what its of. Its still a very liberal license for photographs.

Hertz van Rental · Feb 3, 2008

There are often threads about this subject and related in the Photographic Discussion forum.
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42752
There are probably others in there. Try searching.

That One Guy · Feb 3, 2008

It probably wouldn't hurt to have the owner sign a property release just in case the photo ends up in a magazine or other publication. This maybe overkill, but it's best to CYOA.

bango707 · Feb 3, 2008

That One Guy said:
It probably wouldn't hurt to have the owner sign a property release just in case the photo ends up in a magazine or other publication. This maybe overkill, but it's best to CYOA.

so true!!!
You never know when a photo that you took will be the one! In which case, if you don't have a location agreement or a talent release then you just screwed yourself bigtime! It isn't hard to have a few copies of each release in your camera bag for when things pop up!
I know a lot of stock agencies won't buy a photo or video if you don't have all talent/property releases.