Property Releases - Any legal boffins?

[yorkshirechap]

As I am now looking to market some of my images to the general public, the issue of property releases has arisen. My understanding is, that for editorial, you do not require releases, even for "models", although for commercial purposes, you require both model and property releases.

Whilst i can fully understand the need for a model release, the concept of a property release has me stumped. Unless the property is a unique work of art, purposefully designed as a work of art, such as a sculpture, then I cannot see why, unless there is a copyrighted or trademarked element, that property would not be fair game to photograph, assuming of course, the image is taken from public land and there is no possibility of infringing any intellectual property such as logo's and so on.

I've seen various opinions on this both on this forum and on others, but I think rather than an iron clad answer, I'd just like to hear peoples opinions.

I took some images of York recently, which I may wish to release as prints. As virtually every building in York is unique, and thus identifiable, it would seem, on the face of it, that I would require a property release. This is obviously completely out of the question, particularly for city-scape type images. It strikes me as ludicrous quite honestly, at least that was my first reaction, yet I see the likes of Getty, Alamy, Corbis and some of the smaller agencies, requiring releases seemingly for everything that is not editorial and contains a building. There must be a reason for this.

How do you professionals with more experience in this area, handle this specific issue?

Would appreciate any input.

 

[snap-happy]

If you shoot interiors you might need a release. Shoot a building from the street and you don't. Certainly not if you're selling prints.

 

[StewartR]

If you shoot interiors you might need a release. Shoot a building from the street and you don't. Certainly not if you're selling prints.

"Certainly" not? How certain are you, and on what basis?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/t...er-night-sharing-images-Facebook-ILLEGAL.html

 

[snap-happy]

There are a very very few exceptions - one being the Eiffel Tower at night because the light display is copyright!

 

[shreds]

Typical EU red tape.

 

[donut]

"Certainly" not? How certain are you, and on what basis?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/t...er-night-sharing-images-Facebook-ILLEGAL.html

well going on the link you posted the last line might be worth reading

" Meanwhile, in the UK, the Netherlands, and Germany, tourists are free to take and share photos of public buildings for any reason. "

 

[StewartR]

well going on the link you posted the last line might be worth reading

Crikey, I don't think I've ever made it all the way to the end of an article in the Daily Mail.

 

[donut]

not sure why i did really ,,, i'll never get that time back again ,,ever

 

[Box Brownie]

Re that last line ~ I wonder if one day that will be tested in court. Afteral tourism is leisure but any "use" could include commercial sales of the images. Possibly many images will go under the radar surmising the quoted line is legally accurate. Oh and no I have not read the article but the various interpretations of that quoted line caught my eye

 

[Box Brownie]

Just a thought? The rule of thumb (in the UK) was that providing you are standing in the street I.e. not on private land that you could take pictures potentially for sale/commercial usage.

However and though in the case of York as the OP asked about that city are all places the public walk actually public land. In some older places and I think you may find 'notices' this effect "the land is private but you are given permission to use it as a thoroughfare" in that you can walk on it but it is in effect a license to do so.

Maybe in places like York the question needs to be asked of the city authority though finding someone who knows about such matters may be harder to do than to think ~ beware of "jobs worth's" characters.

 

[SamHH]

Typical EU red tape.

According to the Mail article, it is the decision of the French Parliament not to apply EU law that means permission is required to reproduce the lightshow.

 

[modchild]

I remember reading recently, after the Eiffel Tower was copyrighted, that the government was looking into doing the same to certain landmarks in London. The ones highlighted in the article was Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Nelson's Column and Trafalgar Square, the Houses of Parliament and a few others too. I really don't know if it would be practicable to introduce the legislation and I don't know how they would be able to police each site to enforce the ban. Seems a bit pathetic to me but I can just see a small hut next to a bunch of building selling postcards and proclaiming they were the only place to buy legal photos of the building....ridiculous. I would think the Government would have more important issues to waste their time on to be honest.

 

[Steve Smith]

There are a very very few exceptions - one being the Eiffel Tower at night because the light display is copyright!

So they claim. I don't think they have tried this in court though.

I would consider the lights illuminating a building to be part of the building and the copyright in a building (if one exists) cannot be infringed by a photograph of it, as a photograph is not a copy.

Only another identical (or very similar) building can be considered to be a copy. Also the Berne convention states that a photograph cannot infringe a building's copyright.

that the government was looking into doing the same to certain landmarks in London.

You don't 'copyright' something. It either has copyright protection at the time of creation or it doesn't. If it hasn't got it now, it will never have it.


Steve.