Jump to content

Sold property and releases


Recommended Posts

I was asking a friend of mine of coming out in spring and taking some photos at her farm and would she be willing to sign property releases. She told me they are thinking of selling the farm and asked how that would affect the release  for her legally should it be used commercially later on.

 

I had never thought about this. What happens with property you have a release for but is sold? Is the release valid as it was signed by the owner at the time, or would you need to get a new release from the new owner. If used commercially after the property was sold, would they be able to sue and win?

 

Jill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THere's a microstock site term which says you don't need to worry because the release refers to the ownership when the image was taken.

http://de.stockxpert.com/support/help/2_3

 

It really has to be, doesn't it? If not then you'd have to check your licenses for each image daily, if they had a property release, to see if the property had changed hands.  The same might go for a child when they pass 18 and their parent signed a model release... 

 

On a different front, does anyone know who owns the copyright of a painting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The copyright of a painting belongs to the artist. There is now an extra royalty payment that you pay at auction if the artist is still living or if they have died within the last 70 years, the copyright having passed to their heirs.

 

I believe it applies if the painting sells for more that £1000.  If you are buying at auction, you will see RAA next to the lot in the catalogue. 

 

See:

 

http://www.dacs.org.uk/for-artists/artists-resale-right/frequently-asked-questions#FAQ201

 

edit:  Artist's Resale Right is the term for the above - this is additional to the copyright owner being able to charge for licensing any image of the artwork.

 

I think it applies to visual artworks, so would include photographs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About copyright of art:

 

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/copyright-ownership-rights-29953.html

 

The Little Mermaid sculpture in Copenhagen is an example of heirs owning the copyright 70 years after the death of the artist - and fighting obstinately:

 

http://piratetimes.net/copyright-preventing-public-statue-from-appearing-in-media/

 

http://www.thelocal.dk/20140816/denmarks-iconic-symbol-that-we-cant-show-you

 

 

A great example of why you should tick the correct boxes when annotating your images and  state that the image contains property that would need a release and you don't have it. Simply the photographer's protection....

 

I don't understand how images of the Little Mermaid still can be sold as RF - even at Alamy - but especially at microstock...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding for the original question is that the property release stays in force. However the sellers should disclose this when selling and obviously this could affect price or indeed sale completion. Not to disclose could lead to litigation against the seller later. That's my understanding anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding for the original question is that the property release stays in force. However the sellers should disclose this when selling and obviously this could affect price or indeed sale completion. Not to disclose could lead to litigation against the seller later. That's my understanding anyway.

That makes a lot of sense... I'll bet a few forget that one though!

 

Fascinating once you start delving into the practicalities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.