Jump to content

Do you need a property release for public sculptures and "celebrity buildings"


Recommended Posts

Generally they dont so long as you are putting them up for RM editorial use, rather than RF. However you do need to be careful with sculptures as they may be under copyright of the artist; and also around the world there are a few buildings which can cause photographers problems for example the gherkin in London, and The lights of the Eiffel tower lit up at night. I dont know about the CN tower - best to find out if any of our canadian colleagues can advise. 

 

For public sculptures if they are simply part of the general scene then no problem RM, but if the photo is specifically of the sculpture then occasionally you have to be careful not to breach copyright by the artist. Dont put them up RF

 

Hope thats (partially) helpful!!

 

Kumar

Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally take the view that, if the building is very old and in a public place (i.e. not a stately home in its own grounds), then you may be able to get away with RF, for example a medieval church, but everything else either requires a release or should be offered RM for editorial use. I did get caught out with Gaudi's cathedral in Barcelona, one of the first photos that I uploaded, when I was instructed by member services to change the designation from RF to RM. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen photos of the CN tower listed as being unacceptable for commercial use other stock sites:

 

e.g., http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/legal/stock-photo-restrictions

 

Also on their own web site they indicated you cannot use photos taken from the tower for commercial use.

 

http://www.cntower.ca/en-ca/plan-your-visit/rates/terms-and-conditions.html

 

From what I've read it sounds like it may be OK to have the CN tower in a photo as long as it's just part of the cityscape, not the main subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be protected by copyright anyway, but as you say it could also be a registered design.

Fortunately in the UK photographing it, or any building or sculpture, doesn't infringe its copyright (section 62).

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Back to this copyright issue, I receive last year the email below. To avoid any problem I removed from my sites all Le Corbusier buildings images.

In any case I noticed several Notre Dame du Haut Ronchamp images on Alamy. Maybe I sould ignore it.

 

 

 

          Monsieur,
 

Nous constatons sur le site internet suivant : http://www.jorgetutor.com la reproduction et la communication au public de reproduction d’une œuvre de Le Corbusier, que nous représentons pour la gestion de ses droits d’auteur . Sauf erreur de notre part, nous n'avons reçu aucune demande d'autorisation préalable concernant cette utilisation contrairement aux dispositions du Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle.

 

Nous vous rappelons, en effet, qu’aux termes de l’Article L 122-4 du Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle, toute reproduction ou représentation d’une œuvre faite sans le consentement de l’auteur ou de ses ayants droit est illicite.

 

 Vous voudrez bien nous communiquer  :

-  la date de mise en ligne 

- un état précis des ventes à savoir la liste des clichés commercialisés auprès du public ou des professionnels, leur quantité pour chacun d'eux et les sommes correspondantes.

 

Si vous avez contacté directement les ayants droit vous voudrez bien nous le préciser.

  

Dans cette attente, nous vous adressons, Monsieur, nos salutations distinguées.

Edited by Abiyoyo
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know where you are but that is a demand for an account of profits. It could only possibly apply in France as in the UK you wouldn't be in breach of copyright, nor would you be bound to make an account of profits unless a court ordered you to- no lawyer could demand it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know where you are but that is a demand for an account of profits. It could only possibly apply in France as in the UK you wouldn't be in breach of copyright, nor would you be bound to make an account of profits unless a court ordered you to- no lawyer could demand it.

 

Thanks Mark, currently I am based in UK, but when I received that email I was in Spain.

 

One day I will upload those here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that if there is a building which is the primary focus, then you cannot use it as RF. But I see so many photos of Edinburgh Castle as RF on micros, and I was wondering whether such buildings can be used commercially without a license (if they are marked as RF). I tend to mark all buildings as RM. Right ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the NT says but there's long debate on it here about the NT's misuse of a byelaw passed for a different purpose.

In the UK if you can get the image without trespassing, you can license it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but not clear whether release necessary ? Suppose I am standing in a London street and take a photo of multiple buildings, can I mark them as RF ? I have always thought that marking as RF without the property releases means that it can be used commercially (in ads for example, and that did not seem kosher; after all, if somebody was to use my home in a magazine, I may not be able to object, but in a TV ad or a print ad, I would certainly do so).

Edited by Ashish Agarwal
Link to post
Share on other sites
Clearly there's no point in selling images of buildings when the photos can't be used for any purpose whatsoever. But the problem is that when taking the photograph, or making it available for sale, the photographer has no idea what the image is going to be used for. Isn't it down to the publisher who uses the image to decide whether they are covered for the particular use they are making of it, whether they can use it for that purpose, and whether they need a property release? 

 

I don't know whether a specific building doesn't require a property release (note the negative logic here), so, by the path of ticking Yes it requires a release and No, I don't have one, the vast majority of my photos end up as RM. But that wouldn't stop someone licensing the image and using it for a purpose where a property release is required.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't know whether a specific building doesn't require a property release (note the negative logic here), so, by the path of ticking Yes it requires a release and No, I don't have one, the vast majority of my photos end up as RM. But that wouldn't stop someone licensing the image and using it for a purpose where a property release is required.

 

Well, I was thinking that if Release = Yes and No release available, then it would be editorial. If somebody used the photo for other purposes, then it would be their responsibility.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you mark it as no property release then you cant make it RF on alamy anyway as the system does not allow it

 

Kevin

Yes, but not clear whether release necessary ? Suppose I am standing in a London street and take a photo of multiple buildings, can I mark them as RF ? I have always thought that marking as RF without the property releases means that it can be used commercially (in ads for example, and that did not seem kosher; after all, if somebody was to use my home in a magazine, I may not be able to object, but in a TV ad or a print ad, I would certainly do so).

Link to post
Share on other sites

When people are reading on a tablet or phone it is easy to hit the red mark by mistake. The inexplicable ones are probably an accident.

 

Paulette

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.