Private Property viewed from public streets

[max mayfield]

I am currently working on self-publishing a photo book on the New Jersey shore resort town of Cape May. Most of the pictures are of the victorian architecture of the town. They are all strictly taken from the street. Would I need a release form from each property owner or Bread & Breakfast Inn that appear in the photographs?

[Ed Richards]

Nope. So far Congress has resisted changing the copyright law to cover pictures of buildings. Just do not try to BUILD a copy.:-)

[Brian Ellis]

Nope. So far Congress has resisted changing the copyright law to cover pictures of buildings. Just do not try to BUILD a copy.:-)

Ed probably knows more than I do but that sure wasn't my understanding. While photographing from the street avoids an arrest for trespassing, I thought you needed a property release from the property owner before using a photograph of the property for commercial purposes. I don't see it as a copyright issue, copyright has to do with unauthorized use of other people's images. Here you aren't using anyone else's image, you're using your own but it's for commercial purposes and it's of someone else's property. I think you need a release but I wouldn't argue with someone who knows more than I do about the subject (which means most people).

[D. Bryant]

Ed probably knows more than I do but that sure wasn't my understanding. While photographing from the street avoids an arrest for trespassing, I thought you needed a property release from the property owner before using a photograph of the property for commercial purposes. I don't see it as a copyright issue, copyright has to do with unauthorized use of other people's images. Here you aren't using anyone else's image, you're using your own but it's for commercial purposes and it's of someone else's property. I think you need a release but I wouldn't argue with someone who knows more than I do about the subject (which means most people).

Brian,

AFAIK, you are correct. Images of property cannot be used for commercial use without the owners permission.

Don Bryant

[Greg Lockrey]

If the book is documentary in scope, would that make it "commercial"? If you used said photo in an ad campaign, that would be commercial. Now Ed should know, he is an attorney isn't he?

[Gene McCluney]

I own a weekend home in a Victorian style village in Arkansas. A couple of years ago there was a low-budget movie that selected the street my house is on for their production. They sent me a release to sign. I called and inquired, saying, if they were not actually going to be ON my property that I didn't see the need to sign anything. They told me they had to have a release even if the property was just shown in passing as the camera panned. I had no problem signing. Of course, this was a specific production, where people (we assume) got some pay for working.

As a still photographer, I have never felt the need to get permission to shoot architecture that is visible from public sidewalks and streets.

[Ed Richards]

While I am not teaching intellectual property law these days, I checked the books and there has not been a change in this law since last I looked. I have the lead case on my law site:

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/IP/...k_and_roll.htm

It is worth reading. This is probably the best case for the building owner - the photographer was selling posters of a very distinctive building, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Despite that, the court ruled for the photographer. I doubt that movies are different, but they run scared of anything that might hang up the release of the movie.

You might cross the line if you used the photo to put the building in a false light - perhaps some photoshop work that made the B&B look like a whorehouse.

[Ed Richards]

Commercial is OK, as I noted, the case is about a photographer selling posters of the building, which is about as commercial as you get.

> Now Ed should know, he is an attorney isn't he?

Law professor

[neil poulsen]

Commercial is OK, as I noted, the case is about a photographer selling posters of the building, which is about as commercial as you get.

> Now Ed should know, he is an attorney isn't he?

Law professor

I only know what I've heard from attorneys. And then, did I hear it correctly? That's always a question, too.

Isn't the distinction that's made is whether or not it's being used for advertising? For example, one can run into problems if a photographer's images are being used for advertising, versus selling them over the internet. The lawyers who I've heard always mention advertising as an important consideration.

Another wrinkle is whether or not the photograph is regarded as a copy of a building that itself has been copyrighted. For an extreme example, if one photographs a painting that's been copyrighted, and then sells that photograph as an art object, then I think they would run into problems. But in the case of photographing from a public street buildings with a copyrighted design, even then, I believe the courts have leaned towards the photographer.

For myself, I would feel comformatable selling images that included buildings taken from the street. But, I would not feel comfortable, and would avoid selling images that were going to be used for advertising, if I didn't have a release.

[tim atherton]

Another wrinkle is whether or not the photograph is regarded as a copy of a building that itself has been copyrighted. For an extreme example, if one photographs a painting that's been copyrighted, and then sells that photograph as an art object, then I think they would run into problems. But in the case of photographing from a public street buildings with a copyrighted design, even then, I believe the courts have leaned towards the photographer.

For myself, I would feel comformatable selling images that included buildings taken from the street. But, I would not feel comfortable, and would avoid selling images that were going to be used for advertising, if I didn't have a release.

there are some other issues, but broadly, regarding US copyright law, photographs of buildings explicitly don't violate copyright - see earlier:

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...1&postcount=26