Jump to content

property release clarification


Recommended Posts

Alamy says in relation to property releases " If there’s recognisable property in your image" so I take from that that the operative 

word is 'recognisable' ?

So that - unlike with model releases - if it's only a random, generic bit of a building (for example a window) that could be anywhere, a release isn't required.

Whereas with a person even if it's only a part of them or a silhouette you will need a release ?

Is this a correct reading of the rules ?

cheers

Geoff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alamy says in relation to property releases " If there’s recognisable property in your image" so I take from that that the operative 

word is 'recognisable' ?

So that - unlike with model releases - if it's only a random, generic bit of a building (for example a window) that could be anywhere, a release isn't required.

Whereas with a person even if it's only a part of them or a silhouette you will need a release ?

Is this a correct reading of the rules ?

cheers

Geoff

 

I would treat it so that if the person who owns that property could recognise it then it needs a release. That sounds obvious but there are plenty of cases where the majority couldn't identify it but the owner could i.e very unique ornate details on a building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not just the person who owns it, the designer/maker probably has more claim to owning the propery rights. For example Ferrari would probably expect to sign off, or not, on property releases featuring one of their cars, As would Rolls-Royce if you want to use an image of "The Spirit of Ecstacy" mascot. Similar for most manufactured products unless its inclusion was merely incidental.

 

Legislation is about to, or has, changed recently in the UK (or  is it EU) about getting advance permission before using even 2D images of 3D products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks Martin, the example  I had in mind is a much more simple case of a shot of a Norwegian cabin window and the view beyond where there is pretty much nothing to

identify the specifics in the picture so your first reply confirms what I'd thought.

cheers

Geoff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but Alamy ask does this image contain property that needs a release for commercial use....... that's a long way from recognisable property, the vast majority of which does not need a release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

now I'm confused, a few real-world examples might be useful...

eg  

a car

someone's house in a landscape

a church

a monument

cityscape  

landmark building

somebody riding a bike......

 

This will help on copyright http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/62

 

Manufacturing rights are rarely sought.... Apple being one example where the shape/design features are subject to applied rights. Manufacturers don't get rights in mass produced items simply because they make them, they have to apply for them and be granted them...... ever noticed how many cars look very similar.

 

Trademarks and copyright are easy to look up....... logos etc being most obvious. Anything which is designer...i.e. not mass produced as per a beer can, is something that can't be used commercially. A number of court cases have seen to that. It has to be designer not designed, since everything is designed by someone..... doesn't give them the same rights.

 

Your most difficult example is someone riding a bike. The person needs to be relased (if we are talking commercial use), the clothes should not have photo prints or logos ....... three white stripes etc. The bikes needs no logos etc. It's something you work out before you take the images. Here's an example that has gone through a legal check and is fine. The logos on any clothing were removed, that included the striping on her shoes ..... also the bike...that had all the graphics removed.

 

woman-mountain-biking-on-dirt-path-cbbra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

How far does the need for a property release of a building extend to? If I'm not photographing the whole building, but let's say an ornament detail above the front entrance as seen from the street?

 

Example 1: Walking down the street of a European city where I'm on a vacation. I see a pretty interesting to me sign above the front door which reads the year that building was built (something 19th century), I then photograph it. But the sign is so distinct and produced in such a way that the people who live inside - if they were to accidentally see that photograph in an advertising about old buildings might recognize it. Do I need a property release? Probably I do.

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-amsterdam-overdoor-window-ornament-on-the-keizersgracht-460-this-is-29834857.html#.VwQNEA4bnB8.twitter

 

Example 2:What about a whole block in an urban area. A block where some hundreds of families live - think a pretty generic ghetto housing in the outskirts of an old communistic country's city. Do I need a property release signed by the inhabitants of that building if a photography of it were to be used for a commercial about buying a boutique house outside the city avoiding the cramped mass living spaces of the city? https://flic.kr/p/dKCPjrI'm sure people who live in that block can recognize it as their home if they were to see this photo.

 

Does one need a PR for those two scenarios? What do you do, do you check "property release needed" for that type of submissions?

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.