Property release required for nature?

[JSaunders]

I hope this hasn't been asked before. Would a close-up of a flower in a private garden be considered someone's property, if all you can see is the flower? Or a tree in the same private location? I know if you have the surroundings included or any buildings it would be. But just the flower or tree, that actually could be anywhere in the world?

[spacecadet]

The test, as with people, is : could anyone say "that's mine" and prove it. If so, yes, it's property and should be marked as such and unreleased. That said, I don't bother so much these days, as the default is unreleased, and for the publisher to check.

[NYCat]

I would be concerned if someone posted my images without the watermark. I don't even know how you did it. Rather alarming.

 

Paulette

[meanderingemu]

2 hours ago, JSaunders said:

I hope this hasn't been asked before. Would a close-up of a flower in a private garden be considered someone's property, if all you can see is the flower? Or a tree in the same private location? I know if you have the surroundings included or any buildings it would be. But just the flower or tree, that actually could be anywhere in the world?

 

 

let the buyer decide. Say there is property when there is property.  Buyers will figure out if they need a release for their specific use. 

 

 

 

[JSaunders]

Thanks for your comments, especially to David! Quite helpful. I have some flower photos that I took some time ago that I didn't think I could use, but there is nothing in it but the flower so there is no way anyone could say I got that in their garden!

[M.Chapman]

4 hours ago, David Pimborough said:

...though the building is not property for the purpose of photography and neither are plants the gardens owners may deny commercial photography on private property/

 

But, when answering the AIM question "Is there any property in the image?...." I'd still put yes as I don't want to get into making legal judgements as to whether a release might be required or not.

 

Mark

[Allan Bell]

5 hours ago, NYCat said:

I would be concerned if someone posted my images without the watermark. I don't even know how you did it. Rather alarming.

 

Paulette

 

I can see watermarks.

 

Allan

 

[M.Chapman]

Why the red arrows? I didn't give any.

 

Mark

[geogphotos]

10 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

Why the red arrows? I didn't give any.

 

Mark

 

Mark,

 

There are some prats around.

 

Ian

Edited February 9, 2021 by geogphotos

[M.Chapman]

On 09/02/2021 at 16:27, David Pimborough said:

 

That of course is your choice and the choice for each individual to make

 

The law is clear enough though.

 

That maybe the UK legal postion. But Alamy say the following;

 

When do I need a property release?

If there’s recognisable property in your image you’ll need a property release in order to sell for commercial use.

 

https://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/model-property-releases-stock-images/?section=7

 

Alamy no longer make the distinction between property that requires a release and any "recognisable property". (Unlike the previous version of AIM in which asked if the image contained property that required a release, whereas the current version of AIM asks is there any property in the image).

 

IMHO this makes life much simpler for contributors as we're no longer being asked to make the judgment over whether the property in our images requires a release, (which can be complex as laws vary from country to country, and according to the usage). It also protects Alamy and the contributor as fewer images with property, that may require a release, will be incorrectly marked as not containing property. The judgment over whether a release is required is passed to the publisher who knows their usage and (hopefully) local laws.

 

Mark

Edited February 10, 2021 by M.Chapman