 BetterPhoto Member |
Photography Legal Question Does anyone know whether it's legal to take a picture of someone's house and use the image in blank photo notecards or framed enlargements without the owner's permission? Thank you-Debbie
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
It's perfectly legal to take a photo of someone's house from a public place such as the street or sidewalk. You can not use the photo for profit without a property release. Unless they come to your house I don't suppose they'll ever know you have a pic of their house hanging on one of your walls. Here's a previous Q&A that discusses this type of thing. http://www.betterphoto.com/forms/QnAdetail.php?threadID=18103
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
No Debra, it's not. People who own property have what's called "a proprietary interest" in the land and anything it contains, like houses, animals, etc. That means they have a financial interest in, and legal right to control how, images of the property etc., are used. Along with that, property owners have a right to control HOW the images of their property are used and to say no for any commercial use or to tell you how much it's going to cost you to use the images commercially. If the property is rented, then you need to track down the actual owners and you can find them listed with a mailing address in the records at the county recorders office where the house you're interested in is located. Okie dokie?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Janet L. White |
I often will find answers to questions like this here: http://www.photoattorney.com/ Also check out
|
|
|
|
||
|
Chant C. Dhames |
I believe the keyword is "identifiable" although I'm sure that in any instance you'd rather be safe than sorry with a PR.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Brendan Knell |
Mark, I was just looking through the link Janet posted. In there, it says this: "Take, for example, the property release. Readers of my blog know that the law does not require permission to take and use a photograph of property, so no release is required except when trademarks or copyrighted works are at issue. Most photographers understand that you may stand on public accessible land to take a photograph of a building without a release....Extensive searching of federal and state law throughout the United States reveals no case that held that a property release is required to use photographs of property (absent trademark issues - for more on that subject, go here). While not all lawsuits are reported and disputes often are resolved before a case is filed, no incident has been reported of a photographer being prosecuted for using photographs of property without a release (except for the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame case where the photographer won). If you know of one that occurred in the United States, please report it here." So Mark, do you know if this is just a load of BS, or what?
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||