Property Release?

[zxzoomy]

If I own an object today and upload a photo of it I can say I have a property release. But if I sell it in the future do I have to amend the listing to delete the release? 

[Steve F]

What sort of object are we talking about here? If you own e.g. a smartphone that is identifiable, or clothing with a brand in the photo you take, then you cannot have a property release. A property release allows an image to be used commercially. You can't use a company's brand or intellectual property for advertising purposes without their permission - it doesn't matter that you own one of their manufactured items in question. If the item is generic and unidentifiable, then you wouldn't mark the image as having property in it. If you take a picture of your house that you own, then you could say you have a property release. But if you sell the house.... Hhhmmm.... Grey area. Can you be more specific?

[Bella]

 

1 hour ago, Steve F said:

If you take a picture of your house that you own, then you could say you have a property release. But if you sell the house.... Hhhmmm.... Grey area. Can you be more specific?

 

As far as I'm aware, at least what I have read in the past, is if the house was yours at the time the image was made then it's fine to sell with your property release. Please correct me if I'm wrong anyone.

 

This might not be the kind of image you're referring to anyway @zxzoomy 

[zxzoomy]

Thank you for these replies as they make it a lot clearer. The current example I was thinking of was original signatures of expedition members in an old mountaineering book, which I will sell in the future. But on another day it might be a postcard that was out of copyright. It seems safer not to fill out a property release unless one is sure, like a house one owns today? 

[spacecadet]

I don't think there's any value in offering a property release on something such as a house. Even in the US the owner doesn't have right of publicity on a house, and the concept hardly exists elsewhere.

[Niels Quist]

 and you may own the house but there will be protected designs probably.

[sb photos]

I have a stock image that only passed QC on Friday that is waiting to go on sale, I have indicated that I have model and property releases. It shows a closeup of my wife's hands knitting. The yarn and needles are hers and are generic, no manufactures markings or of a specific design. I assume the property release is valid, am I correct? If I am convinced they are not I can re shoot the image using home made needles and home spun yarn from a fleece. The partialy completed garment is of my wife's own design. 

Edited November 14, 2020 by sb photos

[Steve F]

1 minute ago, sb photos said:

I have a stock image that only passed QC on Friday that is waiting to go on sale, I have indicated that I have model and property releases. It shows a closeup of my wife's hands knitting. The yarn and needles are hers and are generic, no manufactures markings or of a specific design. I assume the property release is valid, am I correct? If not I can re shoot the image using home made needles and home spun yarn from a fleece. The partialy completed garment is of my wife's own design. 

In this instance, I wouldn't put that the image has property in it so no release required. But ready to be corrected! 🙃

[meanderingemu]

7 minutes ago, Steve F said:

In this instance, I wouldn't put that the image has property in it so no release required. But ready to be corrected! 🙃

 

would you put that it has "No property" or leave it blank?  I feel i am not a property ownership expert,, from designs, goods, branding,  so except for obvious nature shot i rarely represent "no property" and leave that to the expertise of the image user.  

[sb photos]

5 minutes ago, Steve F said:

In this instance, I wouldn't put that the image has property in it so no release required. But ready to be corrected! 🙃

 

So it's likely that if property is generic and owned by the model and cannot be identified as originating from a specific source a property release isn't required?

[Steve F]

Just now, meanderingemu said:

 

would you put that it has "No property" or leave it blank?  I feel i am not a property ownership expert,, from designs, goods, branding,  so except for obvious nature shot i rarely represent "no property" and leave that to the expertise of the image user.  

I normally put 'no property' if no recognisable items or brands in shot. If there are buildings in shot, then I always mark as 'property'. I'm fairly sure Alamy aren't quite as stringent with property as they are with people in shots, where e.g. a fingertip means there is a 'person' in the picture.

[meanderingemu]

13 minutes ago, sb photos said:

I have a stock image that only passed QC on Friday that is waiting to go on sale, I have indicated that I have model and property releases. It shows a closeup of my wife's hands knitting. The yarn and needles are hers and are generic, no manufactures markings or of a specific design. I assume the property release is valid, am I correct? If I am convinced they are not I can re shoot the image using home made needles and home spun yarn from a fleece. The partialy completed garment is of my wife's own design. 

 

i am assuming if the client wanted a release for the creation in the picture (the knitting) your wife would sign it off (she owns it based on description)- to me this is the most obvious one in there. 

[Steve F]

1 minute ago, sb photos said:

 

So it's likely that if property is generic and owned by the model and cannot be identified as originating from a specific source a property release isn't required?

That would be my take. I would like to hear from some other people though....!

[meanderingemu]

4 minutes ago, Steve F said:

I normally put 'no property' if no recognisable items or brands in shot. If there are buildings in shot, then I always mark as 'property'. I'm fairly sure Alamy aren't quite as stringent with property as they are with people in shots, where e.g. a fingertip means there is a 'person' in the picture.

 

I don't really care about if Alamy is stringent or not, I care about what i am representing, and as i stated i am a photographer not a legal property lawyer (physical, design or moral).  To me this is up to the image user of the image.  

Edited November 14, 2020 by meanderingemu

[Steve F]

Just now, meanderingemu said:

 

I don't really care about if Alamy is stringent or not, I care about what i am representing, and as i stated i am a photographer not a legal property lawyer (physical, design or moral).  To me this is up to the image user of the image.  

Agreed that the responsibility is up to the end user. We're just trying to be helpful to the purchaser.

[meanderingemu]

Just now, Steve F said:

Agreed that the responsibility is up to the end user. We're just trying to be helpful to the purchaser.

 

 

so am I, by not representing an expertise i do not have and potentially misleading them.

[GeoffK]

1 hour ago, sb photos said:

I have a stock image that only passed QC on Friday that is waiting to go on sale, I have indicated that I have model and property releases. It shows a closeup of my wife's hands knitting. The yarn and needles are hers and are generic, no manufactures markings or of a specific design. I assume the property release is valid, am I correct? If I am convinced they are not I can re shoot the image using home made needles and home spun yarn from a fleece. The partialy completed garment is of my wife's own design. 

 

Any craft or art in an image should have a property release applied, if you can get one. It gives you options not open to an image which has no release. Needing a release and benfiting from a release are two different things. Also, in the wider scheme of things, relationships change and that that IP in the image may become more contested in later years.

 

I shot for commercial agencies for many years and that's an instance that I would have been flagged up on by an editor (the hand made garment). 

[GeoffK]

14 hours ago, zxzoomy said:

If I own an object today and upload a photo of it I can say I have a property release. But if I sell it in the future do I have to amend the listing to delete the release? 

 

Releases are valid at the moment they are signed, subject to you being able to sign the release i.e. you own the IP/commercial rights to that property (e.g.a house) - you have 'standing' at that time and that doesn't change with time.