Copyright

[SnowFireRose]

Hi,

I would like to know what exactly it means to state if there are property or buildings or logos or people in a shot and if they are recognizable for the purposes of avoiding copyright infringement. I have some photos that have buildings in the distance, would they qualify for recognizable property in the shot? What if I were photographing a cityscape? Would I then need to make such a shot only available for book and magazine publishing? Crowd scenes, would they qualify for books and magazines but not commercial means? If I had a portion of an object where the logo didn't show but the brand could be recognised by the shape of the object, would this type of shot be only suitable for magazine and book publishing? If I took photos in the underground (subway) and of museums and statues in the street and public buildings, which categories would these qualify under: commercial or books and magazines? I'm a bit frustrated because I would like to avoid being overcautious yet I don't know what I would be liable for were I to make a mistake inadvertedly. Thank you for your help. 

[Inchiquin]

In today's litigious society the cautious route is always the wise one. Different people will have different approaches but mine is very simple. I sell everything as RM and on the basis that almost every shot I take will contain something that belongs to someone, I mark it as containing property with no release and lose no subsequent sleep over it. As far as people are concerned it's much more clear cut. If any person, or part of a person, can be seen in the photo, I specify the number of people and mark it as no releases (apart from the rare occasions when 've used a model and have a release).

 

Alan

 

[SnowFireRose]

Hi Alan, thank you. What does RM stand for?

Thank you.