patstubbs Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 I've read a lot on the forum and I'm clear about model releases. A bit more confused re: property releases though and I would really appreciate any thoughts. I get it that if there is any 'property' within the image, it should have a release (or be RM/editorial only), but what would the case be if there is no property in the image itself, but I am taking the photo within a 'property'? For example, if I take a photo of a lion in Kruger National Park in South Africa, then there is no 'property'. But, the Park itself is owned by Sanparks, part of the South African Government, so I am within the 'property'. So I either need a release or sell RM / editorial. Or am I overthinking it all? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Hodgson Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 I'm pretty sure that ON private property requires a release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starsphinx Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 Possibly this is going to be something which legally varies from country to country - and there is going to be a difference between on private property which is fully open to the public (like national parks) and private property which is, er, private (someone's home) For instance, in the UK there is actually relatively little land that is not, actually, in private ownership and getting releases would be a nightmare (yes that high street you walked down is almost certainly owned by the council) if it was even possible. Go on a walk along a public footpath take a photo of that butterfly it is almost certain you are on private land - but whose? Is it a farmers? the councils? an absentee landlord? and by the way, were you to the left or right of that bush because that is where the boundary passes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patstubbs Posted February 20, 2019 Author Share Posted February 20, 2019 16 hours ago, Starsphinx said: Possibly this is going to be something which legally varies from country to country - and there is going to be a difference between on private property which is fully open to the public (like national parks) and private property which is, er, private (someone's home) For instance, in the UK there is actually relatively little land that is not, actually, in private ownership and getting releases would be a nightmare (yes that high street you walked down is almost certainly owned by the council) if it was even possible. Go on a walk along a public footpath take a photo of that butterfly it is almost certain you are on private land - but whose? Is it a farmers? the councils? an absentee landlord? and by the way, were you to the left or right of that bush because that is where the boundary passes. So that means pretty much any scene in the UK should have a property release?! Following that, I therefore should post everything RM or RF with editorial use only. What about the ‘don’t sell for advertising and promotion’ and ‘don’t sell for consumer goods’ boxes...should I tick those as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starsphinx Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 34 minutes ago, patstubbs said: So that means pretty much any scene in the UK should have a property release?! Following that, I therefore should post everything RM or RF with editorial use only. What about the ‘don’t sell for advertising and promotion’ and ‘don’t sell for consumer goods’ boxes...should I tick those as well? No, it means that you do not necessarily need a property release when shooting on private property. There is private as in a persons home that you can only enter with permission and which is not open to everyone and there is private that anyone and everyone can enter with implied permission which can be anything from a footpath to a shopping centre to a park, and there is private that anyone can enter by payment like a sports ground. All have different rules. Those rules may also vary from country to country. I think if you are concerned you need to research on a location by location basis - say the national park you mentioned check their terms and conditions - if you do not see anything about photography email them. In the UK zoos with paid entry vary from total freedom to take and sell photos so long as the location is attributed to somewhere that kicked off about putting photos on Flickr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patstubbs Posted February 20, 2019 Author Share Posted February 20, 2019 I’ve checked the Kruger/Sanparks rules and they basically say you need a permit if you are taking photos for any commercial gain. ‘In terms of Regualtion 20(1)(h), the making of a cinematographic film or the taking of photographs in a national park for a commercial purpose - either directly or indirectly - is unlawful unless a filming permit has been obtained. The procedure for obtaining a filming permit is contained in the SANParks Filming Policy, which can be viewed on our website at www.sanparks.org. Special filming privileges are also subject to the policy.’ There are loads of photos taken in Kruger for sale on Alamy and other sites and I can’t believe every photographer is compliant. So, if I follow their rules, I basically shouldn’t be trying to sell anything taken in the park. Any Kruger photographers like to comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Clemson Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 It helps to begin by deciding whether the image you are shooting at any given time is intended for commercial use (e.g. advertising) in which case you need to ensure that all people pictured are model released and no property (physical property or intellectual property) appears in the image where the owner might claim their property is being used in a way they might not approve of (leading to the possibility, even if slight) of legal action. If your image is intended for editorial use you have a lot more freedom. I work on the basis that if I am on a public right of way then I can photograph and use editorially the things I see around me .There are some exceptions to this, such as photographing around courts of law and ministry of defence property. If the property I am standing on is privately owned then I can be asked by the owner not to take and/or use photos from such property and sometimes this is made explicit from the outset by signs and suchlike. Increasingly the terms and conditions applied to entering private property which is likely to be of interest to the photographer (zoos are an example) bars the use of photography altogether or bars the commercial use of photography (in this context 'commercial use' includes any resale of imagery for profit, editorial or commercial). In such cases permission can be sought but often involves a significant fee. The key for me is to always have in mind the question as to whether I am in a place where I might need permission to sell my images, and if so, I go to whatever lengths are needed to establish what their policy is. Other photographers take the line what unless it says explicitly that commercial photography is not allowed, then the location is fair game. Much depends on your approach to life, and I am cautious by nature. You can't rely on other people having images on an agency of any given location. They may have permission which is not immediately apparent, them may have made a calculated decision to take the image and damn the consequences. Most likely though, they have taken the image without investigating what is and isn't allowable in any given place, snd you may not necessarily wish to follow such an example. The important thing to remember is that the onus is on the photographer to establish what they can and cannot do - Alamy's contract places the responsibility firmly on the photographer's shoulders, even though the purchaser also has responsibility for not using an image inappropriately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patstubbs Posted February 20, 2019 Author Share Posted February 20, 2019 Thanks everyone, things are getting clearer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meanderingemu Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 On 2/20/2019 at 18:49, patstubbs said: Thanks everyone, things are getting clearer. interesting, for me it's getting more confused. here is the policy https://www.sanparks.org/docs/general/filiming_policy.pdf it's like they added photo only after the fact. for example 7. FILMING & PHOTOGRAPHY FEES • Fees should be set out per day, or part thereof, of filming. so if you are not filming, it would be nil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Clemson Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 12 hours ago, meanderingemu said: interesting, for me it's getting more confused. here is the policy https://www.sanparks.org/docs/general/filiming_policy.pdf it's like they added photo only after the fact. for example 7. FILMING & PHOTOGRAPHY FEES • Fees should be set out per day, or part thereof, of filming. so if you are not filming, it would be nil. Even if the document was originally written to cover only filming rights, it was been updated in detail to cover still photography. It seems to me to be an extremely comprehensive policy document dealing with both filming and photography throughout, and the rationale behind it. I, personally, would be in no doubt that I was required to pay a fee if I was to either film or photograph for commercial purposes in the locations it applies to. Highlighting a single paragraph where the wording is a little ambiguous should not put anyone in doubt of the document's meaning and intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patstubbs Posted February 22, 2019 Author Share Posted February 22, 2019 10 hours ago, Joseph Clemson said: Even if the document was originally written to cover only filming rights, it was been updated in detail to cover still photography. It seems to me to be an extremely comprehensive policy document dealing with both filming and photography throughout, and the rationale behind it. I, personally, would be in no doubt that I was required to pay a fee if I was to either film or photograph for commercial purposes in the locations it applies to. Highlighting a single paragraph where the wording is a little ambiguous should not put anyone in doubt of the document's meaning and intent. Definitely, and the section I posted earlier seems pretty clear to me. No stills or film for commercial purposes unless you have a permit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.