Jump to content
  • 0

When does countryside start needing a property release?


Steve F

Question

Hey all,

So it's a lovely autumn here in Lower Austria and the vineyards have gone lots of shades of yellow and red. I've taken a range of shots, from fairly wide-angle and zoomed out, through to very closeup.

 

So my question is, when do I start filling out in the optional field that the photo has "property"? There are no buildings, cars, people etc. but the vineyard owners would be able to identify some of their land from the trees and lie of the land plus the location information I'm giving (i.e. the village).

 

So I'm thinking marking the photos as "no property" if I couldn't identify where the location is myself, and with "property" if I could. What are your thoughts?

Steve

Edited by Steve F
Link to post
Share on other sites

24 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 1
13 hours ago, Steve F said:

" A property release is needed if property is featured in the image. This includes buildings and pets, but also covers intellectual property such as trademarks, brands, logos and works of art."

https://www.alamy.com/blog/model-and-property-releases-explained

 

Just so this one line quote doesn't end up causing confusion - it's useful to include the text that appears immediately before in the blog...

 

2. When do I need a release?

Releases are only needed if you are going to use the image commercially – if an image or clip is being used to sell a product, promote something or raise money for a cause. You don’t normally need a release for editorial use, which is when you’re using the image to illustrate an article or story, or in educational text – there are a couple of exceptions to this which we explain on our releases page.

 

It's also useful to note that this blog is targeted at users of images  (i.e. Alamy's customers) and not directly at contributors. So although the principles are useful to understand, "you" and  "you're" in the clause above are referring to the user of the image and not (directly) to the contributor.

 

If an image contains property Alamy contributors should mark it as such and then answer the question as to whether they have a property release or not. If an image contains property, but there's no release the image can still be used editorially.

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1
On 19/10/2019 at 13:09, Steve F said:

Hey all,

So it's a lovely autumn here in Lower Austria and the vineyards have gone lots of shades of yellow and red. I've taken a range of shots, from fairly wide-angle and zoomed out, through to very closeup.

 

So my question is, when do I start filling out in the optional field that the photo has "property"? There are no buildings, cars, people etc. but the vineyard owners would be able to identify some of their land from the trees and lie of the land plus the location information I'm giving (i.e. the village).

 

So I'm thinking marking the photos as "no property" if I couldn't identify where the location is myself, and with "property" if I could. What are your thoughts?

Steve

 

I think this is being over thought.

 

For general landscapes, farmland, crops etc then it shouldn't need a property release.

 

A photo of someone's identifiable farm house/building where it is central to the image then yes a property release or mark it as containing  property

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
14 minutes ago, Steve F said:

Hey all,

So it's a lovely autumn here in Lower Austria and the vineyards have gone lots of shades of yellow and red. I've taken a range of shots, from fairly wide-angle and zoomed out, through to very closeup.

 

So my question is, when do I start filling out in the optional field that the photo has "property"? There are no buildings, cars, people etc. but the vineyard owners would be able to identify some of their land from the trees and lie of the land plus the location information I'm giving (i.e. the village).

 

So I'm thinking marking the photos as "no property" if I couldn't identify where the location is myself, and with "property" if I could. What are your thoughts?

Steve

Just had a look at my vineyard images. Some are marked as property some aren't. It depends whether I got around to doing it.

Even if you identify the einzellage, most are owned by many growers, so I probably wouldn't worry about an image taken from a right of way.

Thinking again, if I've identified the grower, I mark it as property.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Just had a look at my vineyard images. Some are marked as property some aren't. It depends whether I got around to doing it.

Even if you identify the einzellage, most are owned by many growers, so I probably wouldn't worry about an image taken from a right of way.

Thinking again, if I've identified the grower, I mark it as property.

Hi Mark, thanks, you've got a real mix of images there. Ok, maybe I'm being too careful, I'll just mark as not having property in if it's just green stuff then essentially.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hi fellow Austrian! That is an interesting question! I always took property to mean intellectual property, as in something that can be copyrighted (architecture, arts, vehicles...), which a landscape can't. Am I wrong about this?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

A farmer here so I'm thinking it would be respectful to mark a farmer's field as property.  It's a work of art and reflects hundreds/thousands of hours of care.  Every choice on the farm reflects the farmer, from the land contours they keep or change, to the way they face the rows.  Drainage, irrigation, plant type, intercroping, row spacing, choices all reflect the way that individual farmer deals with that individual climate.  Something as simple as putting the roses at the end of each row in the vineyard is a personal choice that influences the entire farm.  Whether or not it's legally property, it still represents someone's hard work and livelihood.  

 

One thing to note for the future:  a few crops and plants are now patented in parts of the world.  I'm not happy about this, but if someone's developed a specific cultivar, they can seek to protect not just the genotype but the phenotype (the way the plants look) as well.  I haven't seen the companies in question go after phenotype, yet, but they might in future and in an extreme case, having photos of these online could put the farmer at risk of breaking their contract.  Admittedly this is more likely with an annual crop like corn or soy than with grapes.  

 

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
12 hours ago, sturmwarnung said:

Hi fellow Austrian! That is an interesting question! I always took property to mean intellectual property, as in something that can be copyrighted (architecture, arts, vehicles...), which a landscape can't. Am I wrong about this?

Servus Andrea (Storm Warning!)

On the basis that any part of a person in a picture, even a finger, constitutes a person requiring a model release for commercial use (according to Alamy), then any part of someone's property would also require similar. Yes, buildings (or properties!), also count as properties. Here's a quote from Alamy's blog:

 

" A property release is needed if property is featured in the image. This includes buildings and pets, but also covers intellectual property such as trademarks, brands, logos and works of art."

https://www.alamy.com/blog/model-and-property-releases-explained

 

Steve

 

p.s. Schoene Bilder, aber du brauchst viel mehr!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
5 hours ago, CrowingHen said:

A farmer here so I'm thinking it would be respectful to mark a farmer's field as property.  It's a work of art and reflects hundreds/thousands of hours of care.  Every choice on the farm reflects the farmer, from the land contours they keep or change, to the way they face the rows.  Drainage, irrigation, plant type, intercroping, row spacing, choices all reflect the way that individual farmer deals with that individual climate.  Something as simple as putting the roses at the end of each row in the vineyard is a personal choice that influences the entire farm.  Whether or not it's legally property, it still represents someone's hard work and livelihood.  

 

One thing to note for the future:  a few crops and plants are now patented in parts of the world.  I'm not happy about this, but if someone's developed a specific cultivar, they can seek to protect not just the genotype but the phenotype (the way the plants look) as well.  I haven't seen the companies in question go after phenotype, yet, but they might in future and in an extreme case, having photos of these online could put the farmer at risk of breaking their contract.  Admittedly this is more likely with an annual crop like corn or soy than with grapes.  

 

 

 

 

Hi CrowingHen,

Thanks for your interesting take on this. I do find property more of a grey area than people - the rules for people are much simpler. Well, there's very few parts of the landscape that aren't managed at all, especially in the UK. Even a lot of woodlands are managed. It wouldn't leave much for landscape photographers to photograph if it all needed property releases....

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
18 minutes ago, Steve F said:

Servus Andrea (Storm Warning!)

On the basis that any part of a person in a picture, even a finger, constitutes a person requiring a model release for commercial use (according to Alamy), then any part of someone's property would also require similar. Yes, buildings (or properties!), also count as properties. Here's a quote from Alamy's blog:

 

" A property release is needed if property is featured in the image. This includes buildings and pets, but also covers intellectual property such as trademarks, brands, logos and works of art."

https://www.alamy.com/blog/model-and-property-releases-explained

 

Steve

 

p.s. Schoene Bilder, aber du brauchst viel mehr!

 

interesting.  this actually differs from what i understood so I'll have to adjust.

 

i had understood that the photographer's responsibility was to state if we had a release available or not. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
44 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

interesting.  this actually differs from what i understood so I'll have to adjust.

 

i had understood that the photographer's responsibility was to state if we had a release available or not. 

 

 

 

Salut jean-françois,

On est tres international aujourd'hui! Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I was talking about whether an image needs a release for commercial use (i.e. for advertising rather than editorial usage) because it has people or property in.

 

You should mark whether an image has people or property in it (if you choose to fill out the optional fields). So any part of a person in an image means you need to mark it as having people in. Then you can say 'yes/no' as to whether you have a model release. Ditto if there's part of a building in an image - you should mark it as having property in.

Steve

Edited by Steve F
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, Steve F said:

Servus Andrea (Storm Warning!)

On the basis that any part of a person in a picture, even a finger, constitutes a person requiring a model release for commercial use (according to Alamy), then any part of someone's property would also require similar. Yes, buildings (or properties!), also count as properties. Here's a quote from Alamy's blog:

 

" A property release is needed if property is featured in the image. This includes buildings and pets, but also covers intellectual property such as trademarks, brands, logos and works of art."

https://www.alamy.com/blog/model-and-property-releases-explained

 

 

I know about the buildings, I thought you were talking about the hills with plants. But CrowingHen raised some interesting points about this too. Food for thought. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Steve F said:

 

p.s. Schoene Bilder, aber du brauchst viel mehr!

 

Danke! I'm working on it (slowly). :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
10 hours ago, CrowingHen said:

A farmer here so I'm thinking it would be respectful to mark a farmer's field as property.  It's a work of art and reflects hundreds/thousands of hours of care.  Every choice on the farm reflects the farmer, from the land contours they keep or change, to the way they face the rows.  Drainage, irrigation, plant type, intercroping, row spacing, choices all reflect the way that individual farmer deals with that individual climate.  Something as simple as putting the roses at the end of each row in the vineyard is a personal choice that influences the entire farm.  Whether or not it's legally property, it still represents someone's hard work and livelihood.  

 

One thing to note for the future:  a few crops and plants are now patented in parts of the world.  I'm not happy about this, but if someone's developed a specific cultivar, they can seek to protect not just the genotype but the phenotype (the way the plants look) as well.  I haven't seen the companies in question go after phenotype, yet, but they might in future and in an extreme case, having photos of these online could put the farmer at risk of breaking their contract.  Admittedly this is more likely with an annual crop like corn or soy than with grapes.  

 

 

 

 

You obviously have special knowledge in this area and that would give you an advantage if you shoot specifically to these issues. Yours could be the only images available for the subject if someone is writing about it.

 

Paulette

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
18 hours ago, Steve F said:

Thanks for your interesting take on this. I do find property more of a grey area than people - the rules for people are much simpler. Well, there's very few parts of the landscape that aren't managed at all, especially in the UK. Even a lot of woodlands are managed. It wouldn't leave much for landscape photographers to photograph if it all needed property releases....

 

We think about people a lot in our photography - because we are people.  We can easily imagine what it would be like if our image was used in a way that offends us.  My picture being used, without my consent, to promote the opposite political view to my own would probably upset me.  

 

Most of us have somewhere to live.  Most of us probably live in a building.  So it's easy to imagine if an image of our home was used against our will, to promote something we disagree with or embarrassing.  that could upset us.

 

But most people don't understand where their food comes from.  We all eat stuff.  But we don't think about how many hours are invested in each meal.  How many hundreds, or thousands, or in some places, how many hundred generations it took to make that land so beautiful.  It's hard to imagine how much a farmer values their property (and labour) and wants it treated with respect.  Think about it like any art - only our canvas is the land and all that grows within our stewardship.

 

I suspect a shot of many farms or a distance landscape shot wouldn't be much of a problem for a farmer, but anything showing the details of their technique can cause problems for the farm and the people caring for it.  

 

Like any property, I think it's good to be respectful of the owners and the people who made that land so beautiful that you want to share it with the world in photograph. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
12 hours ago, David Pimborough said:

 

I think this is being over thought.

 

Oh no, that's my problem, thinking too much!! #facepalm

Edited by Steve F
can't spell!
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
55 minutes ago, Steve F said:

 #faecpalm

 

37 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Hope not, sounds horrid.

 

Ah, the power of just one single teeny weeny little letter . . . :)

 

DD

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
43 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Hope not, sounds horrid.

 

4 minutes ago, dustydingo said:

 

 

Ah, the power of just one single teeny weeny little letter . . . :)

 

DD

 

Ojjjeee, lack of sleep. I can still taste the toothpaste man....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 30/10/2019 at 01:00, CrowingHen said:

A farmer here so I'm thinking it would be respectful to mark a farmer's field as property.  It's a work of art and reflects hundreds/thousands of hours of care.  Every choice on the farm reflects the farmer, from the land contours they keep or change, to the way they face the rows.  Drainage, irrigation, plant type, intercroping, row spacing, choices all reflect the way that individual farmer deals with that individual climate.  Something as simple as putting the roses at the end of each row in the vineyard is a personal choice that influences the entire farm.  Whether or not it's legally property, it still represents someone's hard work and livelihood.  

 

One thing to note for the future:  a few crops and plants are now patented in parts of the world.  I'm not happy about this, but if someone's developed a specific cultivar, they can seek to protect not just the genotype but the phenotype (the way the plants look) as well.  I haven't seen the companies in question go after phenotype, yet, but they might in future and in an extreme case, having photos of these online could put the farmer at risk of breaking their contract.  Admittedly this is more likely with an annual crop like corn or soy than with grapes.  

 

 

 

 

Whilst I appreciate the effort that goes into farming (living in a farming community from a family of farmers & game keepers)

there is no way that a field of wheat/barley/pumpkins etc can be classified as property for the purposes of photography.

 

The obvious conclusion would be that everything visible is property even wild areas as they often managed, a country road was once laid by someone so is that property?

 

Or a canal? Or even a nature reserve?

 

 

"having photos of these online could put the farmer at risk of breaking their contract" and I'm going to say "how so?" not to be contentious but if a wandering photographer happened on a crop and took a photo of it how would that in anyway cause the farmer to be sued for any kind of breach by the seed producer?

 

The worst that could happen is the company would go after the photographer but for what reason? There are plenty of "editorial" and rights managed photos for products and logos which do not have problems for either the photographer, supplier or producer.

 

Unless of course there is some way of identifying a brand I'd say there would not be a problem but then it would have to be editorial or RM with property tagged i.e.

 

Hybrid maize plant Pioneer 33G26 a genetically modified glyphosate resistantant maize developed by Pioneer Hi-Brd Stock Photo

Edited by David Pimborough
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 hours ago, David Pimborough said:

"having photos of these online could put the farmer at risk of breaking their contract" and I'm going to say "how so?" not to be contentious but if a wandering photographer happened on a crop and took a photo of it how would that in anyway cause the farmer to be sued for any kind of breach by the seed producer?

 

This is going to get political at light speed.  So I'm just going to say: At this time, I have only seen the big companies go after infringement of genotype (the genetic component of the plant).  However, the contracts sometimes include protection of phenotype (the way the plant looks).   Some contracts prevent the farmer from sharing aspects of the farming with the public to protect patented genes or techniques.  Whether or not this is legal... or extends to outsiders... This is a highly charged issue where I live.

 

 

What is more important is that someone spent a great deal of time and skill creating that beautiful landscape or crop.  Just as the photographer takes time and skill to capture a moment of time and light in an image.  We recognize the photographer.  Why so much resistance to recognize the farmer's contribution to the picture?  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
12 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

It might be helpful to know where you live in fact, you don't have it on your profile. Which country at least.

With all the talk of lawyers, I think it's a pretty safe bet that it's the US.

1 hour ago, CrowingHen said:

 

This is going to get political at light speed.  So I'm just going to say: At this time, I have only seen the big companies go after infringement of genotype (the genetic component of the plant).  However, the contracts sometimes include protection of phenotype (the way the plant looks).   Some contracts prevent the farmer from sharing aspects of the farming with the public to protect patented genes or techniques.  Whether or not this is legal... or extends to outsiders... This is a highly charged issue where I live.

 

 

What is more important is that someone spent a great deal of time and skill creating that beautiful landscape or crop.  Just as the photographer takes time and skill to capture a moment of time and light in an image.  We recognize the photographer.  Why so much resistance to recognize the farmer's contribution to the picture?  

 

In the UK, and most of Europe, farmland is criss-crossed by public rights of way. You couldn't prevent photographs of crops being taken if you tried.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Because it's of no relevance whatever to the thread.

 

I understood it to be the original question of this thread.  Is the countryside property?  What qualifies as property?  Ownership is one thing to think about.  Time, effort and skill to produce something is another thing to think about.  

 

Those beautiful landscapes of farmers fields were created by people. 

 

6 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

It might be helpful to know where you live in fact, you don't have it on your profile. Which country at least.

 

Canada, but we increasingly get a lot of spillover from the US agricultural trends.  I think agriculture in Europe is much more open and kind to the farmers than it is here.  

 

6 hours ago, spacecadet said:

In the UK, and most of Europe, farmland is criss-crossed by public rights of way. You couldn't prevent photographs of crops being taken if you tried.

 

I like this way better.  Making it easy for people to see and interact where their food comes from helps prevent the discordance between farmer and consumer we have here.  

 

 

Personally, I feel that taking photos of the countryside, especially farming, is a good thing!  Anything that reminds people of where their food comes from is a good thing!   Photography can do that and so much more.  Please keep taking those beautiful shots.

 

The question was, does the countryside property?  I just wanted to offer some things to think about as the farmer sees it.  What you choose to do is up to you.  

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.