Property releases?

[Exhibiter]

I going to try to sell photography at art fairs. I've decided on what I'm going to photograph, horses and barns.

Will I need property releases to sell the photographs.

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

 

[Michael Ferguson]

My experience is with Getty images and they require a property release for more than you would expect. I would say that if the barn is unique or identifiable as a specific barn then you need to go to the door and ask for them to sign a property release. Technically same with the horse, but lots of horses look the same so unless the background or something makes the horse unique then you can likely get by without a release.

 

[JE Kay]

Not sure about the barn part, I guess you would. I shoot a lot of old barns around here, SW Ontario but I don't sell the images.

As far as the horse side goes, I'm not sure about the US but here you'd better believe you can get into big time legal trouble for selling images of horses you just happen to shoot in paddocks or on property. You never know what the horse is. If you live in an area that has a lot of thoroughbreds, you may be photographing a 200K colt or filly that belongs to a well known owner/farm. That would be bad for you. I'd say if you want to shoot photo's of horses on someones farm, play it safe and ask them, in most cases you would probably find most people would be fine with it.

 

[KmH]

I going to try to sell photography at art fairs. I've decided on what I'm going to photograph, horses and barns.

Will I need property releases to sell the photographs.

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Only if you want to be on their property when you make the image. Get a copy of "Business and Legal Forms for Photographers" by Tad Crawford ($20 on Amazon)
In the USA animals don't have rights. The owners might if they have the animal registered as a trademark. That costs the owners serious money to buy a trademark.

If you are on public property you can photograph pretty much whatever you want as long as you aren't using a long lens to shoot inside someones house. If you are on a public road you can take all the pictures of horses and barns you want and use them any way you want.

Getty wants a property release just in case, not because they need one. Getty wants the release to ensure every possible type of use for the image as do most stock houses and publishers.

You don't need a release to sell art images as long as they won't be used for commercial purposes, which means you retain the copyright since you are only selling your client a print.

I refer you to www.danheller.com (an attorney) for more information regarding model and property releases.
And to this right here at TPF.

 

[Exhibiter]

I will be photographing on private property with permission of both the horse and barn owners.

The link to Dan Haller's site has been helpful. Thank you for that.

Thanks for the responses.

 

[Phranquey]

I will be photographing on private property with permission of both the horse and barn owners.

The link to Dan Haller's site has been helpful. Thank you for that.

Thanks for the responses.

Then get the permission in writing to cover your butt, just in case.

 

[KmH]

Then get the permission in writing to cover your butt, just in case.

In other words get a properly executed property release.

Business and Legal Forms for Photographers by Tad Crawford or the Dan Heller web site may have an example.

 

[skieur]

You do yourself and other photographers a great disservice by getting a property release when one is not legally necessary.

skieur

 

[Exhibiter]

I am very suprised to see that you feel that way. Could you please explain why.

 

[Phranquey]

You do yourself and other photographers a great disservice by getting a property release when one is not legally necessary.

skieur

I am very suprised to see that you feel that way. Could you please explain why.

I'd like to hear this as well. It may not be legally necessary, but, what if, by some chance, a photo is taken that earns a bundle commercially. If the owner of said horse, barn, property, etc decides they want a cut of that money & sues, you will have a release in hand stating that you had full permission & rights to use that photograph as you saw fit....case closed. If you don't have one, it can become a legal battle royale.

Now, I will agree that if I see an interesting structure (barn, house, old schoolhouse, etc), I am not going to go tracking down the owner just to get permission to photograph from a public road. But, if I were ever offered money for any of those, I certainly would return and get a release just so someone couldn't come back and say "Hey, that's my barn on the cover of that Americana book, I want something for that!!"

 

[manaheim]

I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. However...

You can take pictures of anything you like, without release. The only exceptions I are children who are inappropriately dressed and anyone with a reasonable expectation of privacy. (so, getting up in a tree with a 400mm lens to take pictures of the ladies in the girl's shower... bad.)

You can even take pictures trodding upon someone's private property. You may be guilty of trespassing... but the pictures are legal assuming they don't violate the above conditions.

Now, if you are taking pictures for commercial purposes, you have a couple things you need to watch out for... namely trademarked/copyrighted works and people.

If something is a trademarked or copyrighted work (such as, believe it or not, the Eiffel Tower), you may not use a picture taken of the item for commercial purpose without a signed release from the trademark holder.

If you take a picture of a person, you must get a signed release from that person (or from their parent/legal guardian in the case of a minor) before using the picture in a commercial way. There are some exceptions to this (see Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), but they're dodgy. Best to get a release in these cases.

In your barn/horse situation... you're totally fine. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I wouldn't think TWICE about selling anything from such a collection and I'd laugh my ass off at anyone who got weird and decided to sue me, and that's after getting over the shock of even having an image that warranted enough attention to have some random person notice I snapped a shot of their barn.

Seriously. Don't worry about it.

 

[fast1]

well i think prevention is better than cure. although chances of anything going wrong is extremely slim, maybe you want to cover all angles?

 

[manaheim]

well i think prevention is better than cure. although chances of anything going wrong is extremely slim, maybe you want to cover all angles?

Not sure. I'm of the mind that photgraphers need to continually be asserting and using their rights, or they will lose them.

Look at the case of the dude who sued the photog for taking his picture in the street. If that man had won his case, there would be precedent of people being unable to photograph people in public spaces, and that could be used as a basis for taking away the right nationally... which could be used as an example to do it globally.

Look at the Eiffel Tower...

Apply this same scenario across the board to all possible subjects and you start quickly reducing what you are allowed to point your camera at.

Rights. Use 'em or lose 'em.

 

[Phranquey]

Not sure. I'm of the mind that photgraphers need to continually be asserting and using their rights, or they will lose them.

I wouldn't argue with this statement in the least. My only concern is if photographs are used in a commercial application. Having been in the construction industry for over 20 years, one thing I can say for certain about anything....."GET IT IN WRITING".

 

[skieur]

I am very suprised to see that you feel that way. Could you please explain why.

Sure, my experience with work related laws is that current practice whether legally necessary or not becomes part of legal judgements and codified into law.

Another way of putting it, is that if you do NOT use your freedoms and rights, then you will lose them. Legally that is exactly what can happen, so encouraging such action (adopting an unnecessary practice) is a disservice to all photographers.

So, in general terms for most property photos, you do not require a release if you are using them in art related or editorial fashion. For advertising purposes you DO need a release.
For unique and identifiable properties whether you have a release or not may be somewhat irrelevant, if its published use can be construed in any negative light. To use an extreme example, if everyone knows the photo is of the mayor's barn and the angle you shot it from makes it look badly maintained and run down, it could be considered that you are indirectly defaming the mayor. In another case of an irrelevant release, the photographer made the mistake of indicating the location of the unique property. That caused a considerable increase of tourist traffic around the house and damage to the owner's property.

Bottom line is that property releases are not always necessary and will NOT necessarily protect you from liability.

skieur