People and Property releases

[Steve Hyde]

I know this has been discussed a lot on here (I’ve been going through past posts on the subject and there’s loads) and ultimately it will make no difference to how I license my images, but just to satisfy my own curiosity....

 

I was was given a book for my birthday today, it’s George Steinmetzs brilliant ‘New York Air, The View from  Above’. Whilst leafing through some superb images I thought, how can all these images, full of people and buildings, be used in a book without the appropriate releases? Yes I’ve become that sad!

 

There’s no way the author could have obtained releases for everything in the book. However, there was a clue on the books jacket sleeve which explains that the original  project was launched following an assignment from the New Yorker.

 

So, that being the case, does that make the book an editorial work and as such exempt from releases or, could a similar book about any other city, be compiled from images bought from a stock site without the relevant releases?

 

BTW l’d definitely recommend the book, it’s a superb take on a fantastic city 😊

 

 

[Kukkudrill]

I think the book would count as editorial even without the connection to the New Yorker.

[losdemas]

10 minutes ago, Kukkudrill said:

I think the book would count as editorial even without the connection to the New Yorker.

 

I agree. I also think that many large organisations will at times turn a blind eye when something already in the public domain by default, posts them in a very positive light. 

[Niels Quist]

If not used to promote or sell the book or magazine or anything else, but to illustrate a story, etc. the use will probably count as editorial. A different matter is the book cover / book front page - which may count as commercial as it will promote the book. Same thing for magazines. Anyway AFAIK.

[Rick Lewis]

From what I know of the subject, the book is clearly editorial.  I can guarantee you that the photographers for National Geographic do not carry around a binder full of unsigned releases.  Now, if he licensed a photograph with recognizable buildings as the center point of interest in the image or if the building was trademarked (did you know Harley Davidson have trademarked their motorcycles?) or if there were recognizable people in the photograph, and if that photograph was used to sell a product, yes he would have needed to obtain the proper release(s).

 

In the U.S., the photographer would not be off the hook if he/she licensed the image for commercial purposes.  The marketing firm, photographer, and end user (the product manufacturer), would all be liable for infringement.  It can get pretty complicated.  And, in the U.S. anyone can sue just about anyone else for just about anything. 

 

Some countries have some very restrictive laws governing usage rights for photography.  (France and Italy come to mind.)  I'm not saying its right or wrong but it is always good to bone up on this sort of thing before venturing out of your own country.

 

Rick

 

 

[Steve Hyde]

Thanks for the responses guys. I guess it must be an editorial work..

 

[Doc]

22 hours ago, Niels Quist said:

If not used to promote or sell the book or magazine or anything else, but to illustrate a story, etc. the use will probably count as editorial. A different matter is the book cover / book front page - which may count as commercial as it will promote the book. Same thing for magazines. Anyway AFAIK.

Agree entirely - and the law in the USA is basically if someone is out in public, releases are not required for editorial work

 

Kumar (the Doc one)

[Betty LaRue]

5 hours ago, Doc said:

Agree entirely - and the law in the USA is basically if someone is out in public, releases are not required for editorial work

 

Kumar (the Doc one)

True, true. My port Has many unreleased people...editorial.