New question about property releases

[Doc]

Hi all,

 

I have just returned from a trip to New England, USA.

The following 3 images were taken in The White Mountain National Forest New Hampshire; Wolfs Neck State Park, Maine, and Acadia National Park in Maine respectively

 

 

 

 

I have initially marked them all as needing a property release which of course I havent got, as they are all areas of land that are "owned" by the various parks mentioned. I know I dont have to have a property release as they are all RM for editorial use, but I am interested to know whether other photographers would mark them as needing, or not needing a property release?

 

Thanks

Kumar

 

 

[Lisa]

We should have had a Bar Harbor (Bah Haba) photography 'meet up'. 

 

According to Acadia National Park's website "Commercial Filming/Photography: A commercial filming/photography permit is required for any filming or photography involving models, sets, or props."

 

[NYCat]

I hope I am right about this but I have labeled my images from Lake Clark National Park as not needing releases. My images are RM.

 

Paulette

[ann]

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it:

 

National, state, county, town parks are public parks owned by "the people" - as in, "We the people of the United States, or state, or town..." - so one doesn't need Property Releases for photos of them, assuming photos don't happen to include some property that requires PM regardless of where it is.

Ann

[John Mitchell]

The whole concept of ownership can start to get ridiculous. Mother Nature owns us, we don't own her. I'm not sure that I would have even thought about whether images like these need property releases. However, since they are for editorial use, I suppose there's no harm in saying that they need property releases for commercial use since it most likely won't affect sales potential.

[Ed Rooney]

I don't think any of us are comfortable with being cast in the role of International Lawyers. (Do we need a release for the lions in Kenya?)

 

There is very little if anything that I submit as RF these days, and in the case of Alamy RM I routinely check YES, this image needs a Property Release, and NO, I do not have one. So I'm just covering my butt as Alamy is doing by putting those boxes in. 

 

Doc, as an America citizen, I give you my personal permission to cover all the fall foliage you find in New England. 

 

Edo

[John Mitchell]

I could see this becoming a political issue in certain circles: "Gonna build a wall around national parks. Gotta keep those freeloading photographers out. Send 'em back where they belong. Photographers love me."

[spacecadet]

I don't think any of us are comfortable with being cast in the role of International Lawyers. (Do we need a release for the lions in Kenya?)

 

There is very little if anything that I submit as RF these days, and in the case of Alamy RM I routinely check YES, this image needs a Property Release, and NO, I do not have one. So I'm just covering my butt as Alamy is doing by putting those boxes in. 

 

Doc, as an America citizen, I give you my personal permission to cover all the fall foliage you find in New England. 

 

Edo

Same here. In Europe there's usually a house in any landscape so yes and no.

Ed, as always, it's a pleasure to read your post.

[Doc]

Ha Ha ! Thanks everybody, and special thanks to Ed for his kind personal permission!

 

Particular thanks to Ann who I think has hit the nail on the head

 

Kumar

[John Mitchell]

In Canada, it's easy to find landscapes with no houses and national parks can be vast, larger than some European countries. Saying that property releases are necessary seems ridiculous, especially since indigenous peoples still lay claim to much of the land. However, I suppose that butt-covering in the legal sense is always a good idea. Like Kumar, though, I still find the whole question of property releases in cases like these to be very confusing.

[John Mitchell]

Ha Ha ! Thanks everybody, and special thanks to Ed for his kind personal permission!

 

Kumar

 

And you've even got it in writing!

 

I've always thought that it would make more sense for Alamy to simply ask us whether or not property releases are available. That would put the onus on the end-user, not on the photographer or the agency.

[Ed Rooney]

Thank you, Mark--very nice of you to say that. 

 

And let's not forget Lisa going to the trouble of looking up what one park has stated. 

 

If I remember correctly (and I'm not sure I remember anything correctly) I read once that the ASMP said that they had never had a case involving a property release. 

[KevinS]

Doc,

 

I'm pretty confident that none of the three photos above need a property release. As long as there is nothing privately owned included and the land is publicly owned, I mark the photos as not needing a release. Local businesses sometimes use images of scenery on labels, in ads, etc, so I think it's worth doing. One of my better fees was for an image of heavy surf at Acadia (taken not far from where you stood) used in a long running ad campaign by a Bar Harbor hotelier. Many of my photos here and on my own website are marked as not needing/having a release and I've never been asked by a prospective buyer.

 

Permits are a separate issue, and what Lisa posted is true for all National Park Service properties, I believe. I was challenged by a ranger once at a small National Monument while photographing a log cabin using a tripod. Not being sure what that problem was I asked for clarification. We went inside (it was Winter and I was the only visitor) and read what Lisa posted. I finished up what I was doing (with tripod) and the ranger then took me out to a small one-room schoolhouse to shoot.