Release form question

[Alpha]

There is a separation between advertising use which "represents" the location in a different manner and where releases may be advisable and strict publication use. For example, taking a photo of a newly painted house and using it to advertise a particular brand or paint store would certainly be asking for trouble. On the other hand, a coffee table book on barns in the rural countryside is neutral.

For publication use, a release is not required. Whether some photographers go after one for extra "insurance" in their mind is of course their personal choice.

skieur

This is generally true, but carries a number of exceptions. It is still possible for the owner of a mountain house to sue you for publishing a shot of their home. Just boils down to insurance I suppose.

 

[Dagwood56]

This is generally true, but carries a number of exceptions. It is still possible for the owner of a mountain house to sue you for publishing a shot of their home. Just boils down to insurance I suppose.

I wouldn't think it would be an issue unless the exact address of the barn[home] was published. Would it?

 

[el_shorty]

This is from the Photo Attorney's website
Know Your Rights and Limitations When You Photograph Property
Property Releases Revisited
Property Release Requirement Put to the Test

 

[skieur]

In terms of statues. You can take a photo of a statute that is on permanent display in a public place which is defined by the US Supreme Court as a place to which the general public has access and use it as you see fit.

In general terms copying a photo infringes the copyright of the original photographer but taking photos does not infringe the copyright of other items. An architectural design of a building may be copyrighted but copying means building a similar structure not taking a photo of it. Infringement of Trademark law involves "passing off" as in copying the trademark and name of Coca Cola on to a bottle and then filling it with your own brown coloured concoction and passing it off as "real thing." This cannot be done with a photo.

The third article/case may revolve more around the trespass issue than the taking and using of the photo. The usual scenario is that the photographer for example has gone onto private property through an open entrance and taken photos. In this example, if he is asked to leave the property and does so, he is not trespassing.

In the case mentioned, if you enter a property that is signed against trespassing or totally fenced off, locked, etc. then you are automatically trespassing as soon as you enter. The usual journalistic right is that even when trespassing you are still allowed to take photos and use them.

What the plaintiffs are suggesting is that the photographer cannot benefit from the crime of trespassing. The counter argument is that the trespass was not criminal in nature and he benefited from his photographic skill.

skieur

 

[el_shorty]

You can take a photo and use it in any way you see fit of a statue on permanent display in a public place. That is written in the law.
skieur

Yes, you're right about this, but she's refering to statues being display on private property

"In general, if property is visible and can be photographed from a public place, you don't need a property release to use the image in any manner. This exclusion to copyright law includes buildings located on the property, but not statues or other items that may have separate copyrights." Photo Attorney

 

[skieur]

Yes, you're right about this, but she's refering to statues being display on private property

"In general, if property is visible and can be photographed from a public place, you don't need a property release to use the image in any manner. This exclusion to copyright law includes buildings located on the property, but not statues or other items that may have separate copyrights." Photo Attorney

US Supreme Court has defined a public place as a place to which the general public has access, NOT necessarily public property. (Disney versus Sony decision). So, the question becomes did the general public have access to view these statues on private property? If they did, then photos are legal as is use assuming they were on permanent display.

skieur

 

[el_shorty]

(Disney versus Sony decision)
skieur

I've been trying to find any information about the "Disney versus Sony Decision" but I haven't been able to, all I could find was "The Betamax Decision."
Can you please post a link, I would appreciate it.