Liability Concerns About Photographing Buildings

[Sandy Sorlien]

Howdy,

Do you architectural photographers/lawyers have any anecdotal or legal informati on about the necessity for a release for photographing a private home? My situation is this: I have photographed houses -- I was usually standing on pu blic property (the street or sidewalk) at the time -- and they will soon be publ ished in a book. The publisher is concerned about being sued for violation of r ights of privacy & property, and had asked me to sign a warranty indemnifying th em against any claims to that effect. I have verbal permission from most of the homeowners, written releases from a few (including the owner of the house on th e book's cover), but there are a few who I am unable to contact for permission. Also, some have since died or sold their houses to new owners.

It has been my understanding that if you are using a photograph for editorial (e .g. educational) purposes inside a book, and did not trespass, you do not need a property release.

Keeping in mind that it will be impossible for me to obtain all fifty of the rel eases, what would you estimate is my likely liability exposure here?

Thanks.

[John Bailey]

Dear Sandy

I am not a lawyer, nor an expert, but from my real estate experience I do not see where you would have too many issues. Unless a home clearly shows the street address (where you might be inviting others to go to the home) or unless you are showing the owner's name on say a mailbox, I think you are probably entitled to 'fair use'. If I recall, it is similar to shooting a crowd or urban sidewalk shot where there are numerous people, but no one person is specifically the subject of the image. Also, I presume you are not using the photo to make fun, ridicule or embarrass the home owner.

I remember a building in Dallas in the mid 80's where the architect posted a sign saying that taking photos was illegal and against their claim of copyright. I can't imagine their being able to perfect a claim if the shot had been taken from a city sidewalk or street. Sometimes, I think narrow minded people cause more attention than if they did not pursue objections.

Regards,

John Bailey

PS Tell us when the book is published so I can look for it at the bookstore!

[kthompson]

Sandy...it could go either way, really. I'd be hesitant to say you'd be okay in the litigious society we live in today....when I think of editorial I think of newspaper usage, reporting etc. not necessarily a profit making venture. There's a fine line there for sure, because as you've said you weren't on private property when you shot it....I would suggest getting in touch with a lawyer who deals with this sort of usage...if you were in the ASMP, or NPPA, or PPA, I would say this would be the place to start...the fact that you're talking about liability insurance (and I usually think of this in regards to having an unforeseen accident occur on a shoot....like a light tips over & burns down your client's house...), means that you've been considering this a bit....the ASMP handbook may be a good place to look for some guidance...

[David F. Stein]

This is, I believe, is another good place to start: http://www.photosecrets.com/p14.html TRAVEL PHOTOGRAPHY AND THE LAW, suggests answers to some of your important questions

From the Photo Secrets web site.

[David F. Stein]

BTW: In the US, some buildings-as the article indicates-do have copyright!

[Ellis Vener]

1.) Don't take legal advice from people who are not lawyers. I am not one so I am not going to give you any.

2.) Books are not, as far as I can tell, editorial projects. Editorial means you are despinsing information for the common good. Books are published for someone -- you or the publisher or both--to make a profit. they are a commercial enterprise. you can call it what you like, but proving it may be an expensive matter.

3.) Certainly you are intelligent enough to have a lawyer who is reviewing your contract for you. Your publisher has one: You should too.

4.) Get some stiff liability insurance that specifically covers this possibility. Think of your lawyer as part of your insurance policy.

[Pete Andrews]

Move to a country that doesn't have such a monetaristic sueing mentality. ;^)

[paul owen]

Sandy, I'd go with the advice to seek professional advice! Here in the UK it's okay to photograph buildings ( I think!!!!) as long as you do it from public rather than private property. In France, I believe that ALL public buildings are protected by a form of copyright!! but this is rarley enforced. I would assume that in your case as long as the owner gives you permission you are okay, but who knows?? I would have thought that most people would be "honoured" to have their homes etc immortalised on film, but I think Peter hit the nail on the head when he mentions the "sue them all" mentality that seems prevalent today. I wonder where we would stand if as a photographer we took photos of an abandoned building, you know the sort, all overgrown, dilapidated and moody......after all someone, somewhere probably owns it!! Go

[Sandy Sorlien]

Hi folks, I found a website (cni.org) about where there was a long, interesting discussion of these issues, by Google-searching on "permission to photograph buildings." The participants seem to be lawyers and law professors. Regarding copyright *by the architect* it is not an infringement to photograph a private home from a public place (street). However, there does seem to be room for another interpretation regarding the homeowner's rights. But I think I am OK with my project, because one lawyer wrote in saying that for a privacy infringement to be considered, the home would have to be strongly associated with the identity of the owner. "Certain homes are so famous and associated with their owners that an unauthorized picture used for commercial purposes may give rise under many states' laws to civil liability outside the realm of copyright." He cites a case where someone's well-known house appeared on the label of a can of house paint, unauthorized. I may also be somewhat protected by the notion "commercial purposes" since it will be a miracle if I make any money from a book of black- and-white photographs of unknown houses, published by a university press. I do consider my project educational, and never undertook it to make money. Still, I am considering looking into liability insurance. Thanks everybody.

[james norman]

sandy - two of the books i have had published by the oregon historical society included large numbers of photographs of private residences and commercial buildings. the lawyers for OHS assured me that there is no legal restraint on taking photographs of anything that is within clear view from public-owned property (anything you can see from the street is fair game). you do not need releases from any of those property owners.