Private Property viewed from public streets

[Ed Richards]

> As a lawyer I love people who make suggestions like this. Of course the writers who urge others to take risks aren't the ones who end up in court paying someone like me thousands of dollars to defend themselves. Kind of like the Generals behind the lines who scream "Charge!" at the Privates.

It is the creation of risk through misleading the public about the law that really riles me. Unfortunately, the courts are not really very sophiticated about the law, esp. lower level state and federal courts. If enough "authoritative" sources claim that, well, you better do this because you could be sued, then the courts start to think it is true and are not willing to dismiss frivolous claims and sanction the lawyers who bring them

There is an interesting example with Good Samaratan laws for physicians rendering aid at the scene of an accident. (The belief that they would be sued probably came from a 1939 or so Dr. Kildare movie where Dr.Kildare was sued when rendered aid at an accident.) There was a standing prize for years offered by the AMA and ABA if anyone could find a single case where a doc who volunteered at an accident scene had been successfully sued. I am not sure they even found any where there have been suits. But the popular mythology because conventional wisdom and states starting passing special laws to protect docs who volunteered. In many cases, these created new legal risks and actually created a risk of suit.

[tim atherton]

"From one of the links I cited, which sums it up pretty well:

Photographers should stand up for their rights and not submit themselves to customary procedures that are not legally required. While it is safer to get a release, it is even safer to keep your camera in the bag. Don't let fear inhibit your photography."

As a lawyer I love people who make suggestions like this. Of course the writers who urge others to take risks aren't the ones who end up in court paying someone like me thousands of dollars to defend themselves. Kind of like the Generals behind the lines who scream "Charge!" at the Privates.

BTW - the quote is from one of your fellow lawyers...

[David Louis]

A little common sense. If releases were necessary in the these situations the prints and books of many well know photographers would never have seen the light of day. Does anyone think Bernd and Hilla Becher received written permission from the owners of every building they’ve photographed over the years. No way! The same goes for Frank Gholke, Lewis Baltz, Joel Meyerowitz, Joel Sternfeld, George Tice, David Plowden, Steven Shore, John Divola, etc, etc, etc. The history of photography is repleate with photographic surveys of people, buildings, cars, billborads, dumpsters, vomit and just about anything else that can been seen from the street or road. All of it done without a release. I agree with Ed (I’m also an attorney); Go forth, be brave and shoot, and don’t use your photos in an advertisement. Your biggest risk taking a picture from the street is getting hit by a car, not a lawsuit.

[Dorothy Blum Cooper]

Interesting stuff...just wanted to comment that I appreciate the 'legal' insight from this thread. I do alot of street photography (have for many years) most which was for me personally.

The only time I've ever asked 'permission' was in photographing someone on their property. I've never been turned down...but know that I wouldn't want to be 'shot' on my front porch without permission.

Thanks again for the info shared.

[Photojeep]

I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV but recently I was reading the copyright act (don't ask) and there is a specific section about buildings built after 1990 that are copyrighted. Now doesn't that mean one cannot shoot the building for commercial use because of violating the architect's copyright?

Just wondering...

[tim atherton]

I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV but recently I was reading the copyright act (don't ask) and there is a specific section about buildings built after 1990 that are copyrighted. Now doesn't that mean one cannot shoot the building for commercial use because of violating the architect's copyright?

Just wondering...

which section is that?

this is Section § 120

· Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works:

(a) Pictorial Representations Permitted.—The copyright in an architectural
work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the
making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or
other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is
embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

further notes on the The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990 (part of the overall "umbrella" of copyright law in the US)

Limitations on Exclusive Rights

Congress inserted two limitations on the exclusive rights of owners of copyrights in architectural works. The "public place " limitation permits the unauthorized publication of pictures or other pictorial representations of buildings located in or visible from a public place. The "building owners " limitation permits a building owner to alter or destroy the building without the copyright owner's consent. These limitations acknowledge the need to protect authors of architectural works while recognizing architecture as a public art form and real estate investment as an important component of the economy. The 1990 Act also expressly permits the enforcement of state and local zoning, building, landmark and historic preservation codes which might otherwise impinge on a copyright owner's exclusive rights in architectural works.

[Photojeep]

Thank you for the clarification.

[PhotoAttorney]

Hi - Just joined the forum. This is the most intelligent discussion on this topic by photographers I have ever experienced!

In sum - rights of privacy/publicity for people are well recognized in the law. There is no similar protection for buildings.

Best,
Carolyn

[Kirk Gittings]

Carolyn, Welcome to the best photography forum on the web.

[Bill Koechling]

Max,

This is a very good reason for joining ASMP. We have on staff an intellectual property lawyer that is very willing to answer any and all questions such as this. He has been very helpful to me concerning just this same topic as well as release questions. He has also been happy to review contracts with clients and with stock photo houses. All of this is free to members.

Check out www.ASMP.org. The annual fee, approximately $300.00, is recouped in good legal advice alone.

Just a thought...

Bill Koechling