Photographing houses - Allowed?

KIPAX

KIPAX

Seriously Likeable
Suspended / Banned
Messages
21,370
Name
KIPAX Lancashire UK
Edit My Images
No
Crimbo soon and theres an estate near me (bit posh) that seems to excel in house decorations... its like there all competing against each other. house, garden, garage the lot all decked out with crimbo decorations..

Make a great set of pics

Is it OK to take pics of peoples houses... never reallly thought about it before
 
Maybe ask them first and give them a copy of the image via email?
 
:agree:

I am sure they would be honoured that you want to take pics of their house at all :)
 
i've been led to belive that you can photo the outside as long as you can see inside in any detail as this invades privacy.
 
Legal-wise, I think you're good as long as you're on a public road/pavement and you've not got a 500mm pointed in their front window. Whether residents will see it this way or not is another matter.
 
MJ Stebbings said:
Maybe ask them first and give them a copy of the image via email?
Click to expand...

Indeed, maybe also check that if there are any open curtains: no-ones getting changed!
The only baubles you want in the photo are the manafactured kind :D
T.
 
You are, as others have said already, perfectly entitled to photograph the outside of someone's house provided you are on public land when taking the photograph.

However, as others have also said, I'd recommend knocking on a few doors and asking first. The offer of the shots on email and the flattery of you wanting to shoot their display will almost certainly be enough to get a yes.
 
A street in a town near Skipton used to get themselves decked out each xmas and the local news used to report people visiting from miles around to take pictures or just look. I think the residents did it for charity so I suppose a few pennies in the pot pot was expected.

I don't think anyone would be averse to having their houses photographed at xmas, flattered more like.
 
schrismonkey said:
i've been led to belive that you can photo the outside as long as you can see inside in any detail as this invades privacy.
Click to expand...


hmm that sounds reasonable

its a big estate to be knocking on doors at night... but not rough so i might be OK :)
 
you can take a picture of anything you can see from public land (through any lens you choose), the only exceptions to this are very rare circumstances, and can be avoided by common seance. The few laws that could stop you are The Official Secrets Act, The Protection From Harassment Act (after an injunction is obtained), The direct order of a judge, or an ASBO.
 
Effectively you're into paparazzi territory here. As long as you're on public land you can point your camera where you wish and shoot the houses.

For commercial use though, if the house is recognisable then you'd need to have a property release to do anything with them. Sales to the media for editorial use would be fine without of course.
 
it will be polite to ask if its just a single house, if its a group of house then i wouldnt bother asking just make sue you're on public land!
 
dazzajl said:
For commercial use though, if the house is recognisable then you'd need to have a property release to do anything with them. Sales to the media for editorial use would be fine without of course.
Click to expand...

Really???
 
hepburn said:
Really???
Click to expand...


That's certainly my understanding of the law. Property is treated the same way as a persons likeness when it comes to copyright.

As an example, images libraries won't take an image with a reconisable building or logo for commercial sale without a property release.
 
dazzajl said:
That's certainly my understanding of the law. Property is treated the same way as a persons likeness when it comes to copyright.

As an example, images libraries won't take an image with a reconisable building or logo for commercial sale without a property release.
Click to expand...

Well that's not quite houses is it? ;)
 
hepburn said:
Well that's not quite houses is it? ;)
Click to expand...

To my interpretation it would be. I've always been lead to believe that recognisable is as in distinguishable by the owner, rather than famous or known. :):)
 
dazzajl said:
That's certainly my understanding of the law. Property is treated the same way as a persons likeness when it comes to copyright.

As an example, images libraries won't take an image with a reconisable building or logo for commercial sale without a property release.
Click to expand...

Not quite right...

In the UK neither property nor model releases are required by law. However, as you rightly say, image libraries won't touch a picture without one.

In the case of property, as long as you are on public property and not touching anything belonging to the building owner (a fence, a hedge or a tree for example) you may legally take whatever pictures you like and do with them as you will.

Some property is mentioned in the Official Secrets act and you are not allowed to even think of taking photos of such buildings - they are easy to spot, because they usually have notices all over the place - except for Telephone exchanges which are, IIRC, covered as well.

If you are on private land taking pictures of the owners property (for example a shopping mall or the redeveloped centre of Liverpool now the local authority has given 41 streets to the developer) the owner or his representatives can ask you to stop and to leave, however they cannot touch you, your property, or insist that you delete pictures already taken. Making a fuss about any of that is entirely up to you.

B.
 
We need a hat doffed smilie. :)
 
dazzajl said:
To my interpretation it would be. I've always been lead to believe that recognisable is as in distinguishable by the owner, rather than famous or known. :):)
Click to expand...

Well I'm not one to argue over interpretations as we each have our own. However, that said, using your statement one would conclude that to include any owned property.

My understanding is anything I photograph from public land is my copyright and i'm free to do as I wish in terms of sales unless the image includes something which is already copyright, which could be a logo or the whole image (replication).
 
hepburn said:
hehe Nah, we just need to educate people rather than misinform or perpetuate myths. :)
Click to expand...
agreed.... but if you're using images for commercial gain then you should be checking the facts for yourself at source. If you ask these questions on a forum, as someone who wants some images for themselves, it's quite a different story wouldn't you say?
 
My opinion would be that if you are doing it for yourself and it will not be sold you can do this from the public road without permission

If you are intending it for editorial use you can take pictures from the public road without permission

If you are intending to add them to an image library or sell for advertising of some kind (royalty free) then you will need a property release from the owner for the house and to include their "art work" in creating the light display. This may not be a legal requirement but stock libraries will need it and it covers your back if they see it in commercial use and come after you for compensation at some time in the future.
 
This is an afterthought and only brought on reading the replies... But google are commercial (very) and they didnt ask for permission to photograph my house and I can see it quite clearly..

Also.. A great many houses are rented, council or housing associations..., yes even nice ones that decorate (I live in a eaves brooke rented house before anyone gets defensive) Where does that leave asking permissions if its not even there house?

the above 2 questions dont effect my original one but they have popped in my head reading the replies
 
dazzajl said:
agreed.... but if you're using images for commercial gain then you should be checking the facts for yourself at source. If you ask these questions on a forum, as someone who wants some images for themselves, it's quite a different story wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...

Agree that you can't beat checking facts for yourself, disagree with your comment on forums. Facts are facts and should be as accurate as possible wherever you go, even a forum for personal use.
 
Facts are facts and should be as accurate as possible wherever you go, even a forum for personal use.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with that too.

Fact is that as a working snapper I wouldn't sell anyone an image of someone else's house without a release.

My perception is still that it would contravene the owners copyright ownership of the likeness of their property. I'd also say that while we can debate the law and I'll still tilt my cap to greater legal knowledge, it's unprofessional at the very least.
 
Posh estate in Accy?..........You sure?...........:D
 
:bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang:

Just go and shoot them dont worry about it until/if someone says something.

Honestly if someone feels its ok to light up their whole house and half the street while they are at it and yet feels compelled to complain if someone points a camera at it then.......agghhhhhhhh i hate this what can i what cant i take pictures of thing.........Just point and shoot
 
I was in Wales for work just over a year ago and i wasn't far from my Granddads old house which was a lovely house by the sea, so thought i would pop by to take some pics. The new owner was in the garden so i asked if he minded and told him why i wanted to take the pics. Turns out he new my granddad before he died and not only let me take pics of the outside but also showed me what they had done with the place inside (and i got a coffee). They were chuffed with an email of the pic and my dad was well happy to see the old place. You never know, ask them if you can take pics of the xmas decorations outside and you might get a mince pie or 2. Good luck either way :)
 
I wouldn't dispute the advantages or politeness of requesting permission to photograph someone's house, though I would dispute obtaining permission is an indication of professionalism. But there are times when it's just not possible. What happens when you photograph a whole row or street of houses? An aerial photo of a road or estate?

Extend the concept of obtaining permission to say street photography and the recently discussed proposed EU law requiring you to obtain everyone's permission who was to appear in it. See where this could be going? ;)

Anyway, regardless of all that, the orginal question was "Is it OK to take pics of peoples houses... " and the simple answer is yes, without permission, from public land.
 
There are 3 main elements in the creation and use of an image.

1. The right to create the image. This is very well covered in the document referred to by Peter aka 'special-eyes' at http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php It is worth noting that in the UK the definition of a 'public place' is very broad. In general terms any place that the public has access to (even if the access is ticketed) and there are no restrictions on who may enter (eg. not an invitation only event) then it is considered a public place. The venue/property owners or their agents may place whatever restrictions they wish on the use of property and this includes 'no photography'.

2. The ownership of the copyright of the image. In general terms the image creator is the copyright owner and holder. Some work contracts and work for hire contracts will give the copyright to the person who commissioned the work. Owning the copyright does not give you the right to use an image in any way. You can think of this in roughly the same terms as owning your house. The ownership of the property does not give you the right to use the property in any way you wish. For many uses you require additional permission eg. planning permission. You cannot build on it, change its use etc. without the correct permissions.

3. Usage rights. These are like your planning permissions :) Some uses are generally part of the package eg. personal use. Owning the copyright does not give you the right to use an image as you see fit nor does it give you the right to use an image commercially. For editorial purposes and artistic purposes there are broad exceptions but any commercial use usually requires property and/or a model release. You can still sell an image or the rights to use an image even though you do not have releases but the person buying these rights would still require releases to be able to use it commercially.

There seems to be a misconception amongst a large number of photographers that owning the copyright to an image gives them unrestricted rights to do as they wish with the image. This is not the case.

John
 
if they cover their house in decorations they can hardly expect no one to take a pic of it.

i think those decorations are bloody awful anyway.. and they do seem to spread like an infection as all the neighbours try and out do each other.
 
KIPAX said:
an estate near me (bit posh) that seems to excel in house decorations... its like there all competing against each other. house, garden, garage the lot all decked out with crimbo decorations..
Click to expand...

Certainly not the case around here. It's the commeners who compete in such a way. Not sure how they afford the electricity bills, to be honest!!

:exit:
 
>>any commercial use usually requires property and/or a model release.

What statute or case law requires the release?

Granted most agencies won't do anything with an image without said release, but there AFAIK no legal requirement for one.

Willing to sit corrected though.

B.
 
As I understand it there is no statute covering the the application/usage of release forms. Generally it is not a criminal offence to use an image without a release. Therefore you cannot be arrested for using an image without a release. The exceptions to this would be children on the Child Protection Register etc.

However, you can be sued by the person or the property owner for compensation for the use of their likeness or property if the image is used commercially. Where they feel that they have been misrepresented (eg. used in an advert for a product they would never endorse) then they can also sue for damages.

I am not a lawyer and the above is based on the advice I was given a few years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top