Property release for... entire city?

[Wladislaus]

Hello,

 

I am new to Alamy and photography in general, so it is the first time I am trying to sell my pictures and heard that you need a release for both people and property.

 

It is all cool, however, it gets a little tricky when... you make a picture with tens of building in it. For example, Manhattan skyline as seen from another side of the Hudson river.  Does the property release rule still apply in this case?  If so, how one is supposed to get a property release for tens or potentially hundreds of buildings?

 

Any help/info is much appreciated!

 

Thanks,

Vlad

 

[Sheila Smart]

Generally speaking, you only need property releases if you take snaps within the property itself (such as inside buildings and not on the foothpath outside) but I assume that there are different rules for each jurisdiction and particular buildings.  There are, of course, exceptions such as the Sydney Opera House where you will need property release if the SOH is the main subject of the work but not if its just part of the Sydney landscape.  I do have a property release for the SOH but the restrictions are so tight it was really not worth having!

 

As far as Alamy is concerned, you just tick No when it asks if you have Property Releases and leave it up to the purchaser to obtain releases if they feel it necessary.  

 

Sheila

[Wladislaus]

Generally speaking, you only need property releases if you take snaps within the property itself (such as inside buildings and not on the foothpath outside) but I assume that there are different rules for each jurisdiction and particular buildings.  There are, of course, exceptions such as the Sydney Opera House where you will need property release if the SOH is the main subject of the work but not if its just part of the Sydney landscape.  I do have a property release for the SOH but the restrictions are so tight it was really not worth having!

 

As far as Alamy is concerned, you just tick No when it asks if you have Property Releases and leave it up to the purchaser to obtain releases if they feel it necessary.  

 

Sheila

 

Sheila,

 

It makes perfect sense.  Thank you very much!

 

- Vlad

[Brendan D]

Browsing through this and found the explanation above very helpful, cheers! Had been on a small island off the coast of Ireland that was privately owned and had a similar query to Wladislaus'!!

[M.Chapman]

Alamy's rules state (see http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/image-licences.asp) the following;

to avoid legal issues you must never set a licence as RF (but only as RM with restrictions set for “Editorial use only”), if it:

• contains people or domestic buildings without releases.

On this page http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/image-releases.asp they state the following:

Subject: Private property - identifiable.
Description: Homes, office buildings, private schools, universities and the surrounding property, cars, boats, private and corporate jets and planes. Studio locations with identifiable features.
Release needed : Yes

but...

Subject: Private property from public accessible location. For example, a street or motorway.
Description: Building(s) in an image whose central focus is not these buildings. For example landscapes and skylines.
Release needed : No

For Cityscapes I usually tick "Yes" it contains property that requires release and "No" to having Releases and licence type as "Rights Managed" and let the publisher decide if they want to publish without a release.

[Phil Robinson]

I tend to put everything as 'requires PR / haven't got one' for anything man-made and identifiable. In other words, if there's the slightest possibility that someone could see it and say 'that's mine' or 'I made that'. 

I make an exception for ancient Roman coins that I own, but that's about it.

Erring on the side of caution, I know, and I hope I'm not losing hundreds of sales as a result.