Permission for photographing houses for artistic purposes?

[Leonard Evens]

I've read several lengthy discussions of whether or not releases are needed to photograph architecture. But I'm still unclear about the risks I might run in the kind of architectural photography I do.

I am retired and pursue photography largely for my own enjoyment, although on occasion I've been asked to photograph events sponsored by schools or other not for profit entities. Most of my photographs are purely for personal use, but on occasion I may display them in a public context or on a website. For example, I have agreed to give copies to our local Historical Society which tries to keep a record of the architectural history of the city. Some of these photographs may be displayed at their headquarters and eventually in other contexts. When I photograph local buildings, if an owner or resident is present , which is usually not the case, I explain my purpose and in only one case was there an objection. Since that particular house is one of several designed by one architect whose work I am trying to document I would like to go back and photograph it anyway, perhaps from further away to avoid directly confronting the owner.

Seeking releases would be cumbersome. Is it at all likely that I will encounter legal problems somewhere down the line if I don't generally seek releases? What about a specific case where someone objects?

[Ed Richards]

We pretty much beat this to death:

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=23568

[Leonard Evens]

Thanks Ed.

I had read that entire thread, but I couldn't tell if anything said there applied to a situation like mine. I'll go back and look again.

[chris jordan]

Leonard, there's a huge difference between what you are supposed do do according to the law, and what goes on in real life. In real life, you can photograph whatever you want, and it is very unlikely that you will ever be bothered by some grumpy property owner whose house is in the picture on the wall of some gallery. In those rare cases, you can tell the person that it is an artistic project, and that you aren't making a bundle of money from their house (as you might with a stock photo or some purely commercial type of shot). And if they still object, you can tell them that they can sue you, but if they do, they will not recover enough money to make it worth the attorney fees, at which point they will probably drop the matter, and your picture can continue hanging on the wall. And if they do sue you, you can tell their lawyer to go to heck for all of those same reasons, and at that point they probably will. And if they continue past all of that, and a court date is set, and you finally have to hire a lawyer, incur some expense,etc., then at that point you can take the picture down off the gallery wall, and send them a letter to the effect that you have ceased and desisted, and it will be done with.

But to refrain from taking or exhibiting the photo in the first place because of the remote chance of all of that happening? I wouldn't even give it a second thought.

[Ralph Barker]

Besides, Leonard, you're just photographing the public sidewalk. It's not your fault their house is in the background.

[Ed Richards]

Just do not get shot standing on your rights.

[davidb]

I am currently working on a project, photographing tree houses. Most of them so far, are in the front yard. I stand in the street, focus on the tree house and try to crop out as much of the actual house as I can.

I've been watched and followed (by a woman in her 80's) but no one has said anything to me yet.

Not sure what the big deal is, but I will take my chances as I am planning on showing these images in July.

(ps....if you live in or near albuquerque and know of a tree house, let me know.)

[Dave Parker]

Well I know here in Montana, I have cultivated many relationships, just for the specific purpose of doing photography, but just showing up and shooting pictures if the owner don't know you, might not be the best course of action..Shooting first and asking questions later, does still happen up this way...the private property laws here, kind of lead you to believe your private area, is pretty much what you can see from your front or back window in your home!



Dave

[Brian Ellis]

While in rural Wisconsin a few years ago I saw a lovely forest scene right next to a lot on which a run down mobile home was standing well back from the road. I couldn't tell whether the scenic area was part of the trailer property or not. So my wife and I debated whether to just get out of the car and start photographing the scenic area or to knock on the door of the trailer and ask permission. I finally did what any brave American male would do under the circumstances - I pursuaded my wife to knock on the door. She did and there appeared in the doorway an elderly, overweight guy in an undershirt, holding a beer in one hand and a rifle in the other. She explained what we wanted to do, said we'd send him a picture when we got home, and he agreed to let us make the photographs. He said some drug dealers and customers had been using his road-side mail box as a drop-off and he was getting tired of it so he was planning to shoot us until he saw my wife approaching his trailer. Would he really have done it? I don't know but I'm glad I didn't have to find out.

The nice ending to the story is that we did send him several of the photographs, he sent us back a note thanking us for them, saying how much he liked them, and said he was proud to have them hanging on his wall.

You can take the attitude that "by God I have a right to photograph whatever I damn well please and I don't need nobody's permission to do it" as some have suggested here and in the earlier thread. That's easy to say when all that's involved is posting a message here. But in real life I have no interest in taking chances either on getting shot or getting sued for the sake of a photograph. For that matter I don't even care to get involved in an ugly scene with some irate property owner. Plus I think it's just a matter of common courtesy to ask somebody before you photograph their property. And finally, you might get a reward greater than money as I got when I received the note thanking me for the photographs from somebody I would have thought was illiterate. For all of these reasons I would ask if I were you, whether it's legally required or not. I don't think I'd worry about a release given your purposes but I sure would ask.

"And if they continue past all of that, and a court date is set, and you finally have to hire a lawyer . . . "

Better not wait until a court date is set to hire a lawyer. Among other reasons, if you're served with complaint and you don't file an answer, usually within 30-60 days after service, you automatically lose. And just wait until those monthly bills from your lawyer start rolling in . . . you'll be amazed at how much time we lawyers can spend even on cases with little or no merit. : - )

[tim atherton]

While in rural Wisconsin a few years ago I saw a lovely forest scene right next to a lot on which a run down mobile home was standing well back from the road. I couldn't tell whether the scenic area was part of the trailer property or not....

heh - even the deer have to wach their backs in Wisconsin - if you know what I mean...