I understand the title is somewhat loaded so I'll explain better what I mean.
I've read massively conflicting views in various places about where to draw the line when declaring an image does not have property. Some cases are obvious, like brand names, symbols or even patented shapes like the iPod click wheel, and I am not talking about these. Other cases are much harder to decide, like landscapes containing a single distant house in shadow that is virtually unrecognisable, or generic looking property on a distant horizon. Where do you draw the line?
In many ways I've been very cautious with a lot of photos in my port, marking as property even if there are no logos or brands visible at all. If you take the meaning of the word "property" literally, then any photo I take inside my own house needs a release, as does anything "owned", which is err, nearly everything. How many photos of durdle door bereft of people are marked as "no property" - I wonder? To my understanding durdle door is NOT public land, but I wonder how many people take the risk anyway? Just how far do you go in defining what "property" is? This is a question I am struggling to answer but generally I draw the line at "how likely am I to get sued if I mark this as no property and someone sees it used commercially" and if the answer is "not a cat in hell's chance" I do it.
I've questioned my own judgement too often though. A couple of bricks from a house in an image of a flagpole. Does that require to be marked as property? What about a distant landmark, a literal spec on the horizon, from dozens miles away? The aforementioned house nestled deep in the pixels of a landscape photo? The foot of a boot that contains no recognisable branding but to an expert in the field could be placed to a single manufacturer? I once read from someone who appeared to be a seasoned pro that images of cityscapes, so long as they don't contain recognisable brands or symbols, can be marked as not containing property. I do wonder how the owners of the buildings feel about that, and I've not been brave enough to risk it. Is there a general consensus that once you are a certain distance away from something, the owner of that building loses the ability to claim it in an image?
It's a dicey situation to be in given the wrong answer could result in a lawsuit, but I also feel like I am stealing potential sales from myself by being overcautious. The guidelines say what they say about property, but there are far too many grey areas not covered. Who in the know can clarify at least some of this and distill into a common sense approach?
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.
Question
Cal
I understand the title is somewhat loaded so I'll explain better what I mean.
I've read massively conflicting views in various places about where to draw the line when declaring an image does not have property. Some cases are obvious, like brand names, symbols or even patented shapes like the iPod click wheel, and I am not talking about these. Other cases are much harder to decide, like landscapes containing a single distant house in shadow that is virtually unrecognisable, or generic looking property on a distant horizon. Where do you draw the line?
In many ways I've been very cautious with a lot of photos in my port, marking as property even if there are no logos or brands visible at all. If you take the meaning of the word "property" literally, then any photo I take inside my own house needs a release, as does anything "owned", which is err, nearly everything. How many photos of durdle door bereft of people are marked as "no property" - I wonder? To my understanding durdle door is NOT public land, but I wonder how many people take the risk anyway? Just how far do you go in defining what "property" is? This is a question I am struggling to answer but generally I draw the line at "how likely am I to get sued if I mark this as no property and someone sees it used commercially" and if the answer is "not a cat in hell's chance" I do it.
I've questioned my own judgement too often though. A couple of bricks from a house in an image of a flagpole. Does that require to be marked as property? What about a distant landmark, a literal spec on the horizon, from dozens miles away? The aforementioned house nestled deep in the pixels of a landscape photo? The foot of a boot that contains no recognisable branding but to an expert in the field could be placed to a single manufacturer? I once read from someone who appeared to be a seasoned pro that images of cityscapes, so long as they don't contain recognisable brands or symbols, can be marked as not containing property. I do wonder how the owners of the buildings feel about that, and I've not been brave enough to risk it. Is there a general consensus that once you are a certain distance away from something, the owner of that building loses the ability to claim it in an image?
It's a dicey situation to be in given the wrong answer could result in a lawsuit, but I also feel like I am stealing potential sales from myself by being overcautious. The guidelines say what they say about property, but there are far too many grey areas not covered. Who in the know can clarify at least some of this and distill into a common sense approach?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
6 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now