Including views of private homes in images for poster

Hi,

I'm working on putting together a poster of a town to show its beauty

and have included images of pretty porches or front gardens etc.

I'd greatly appreciate advice on whether I would need any property

releases for the images (I hope not as I'm ready to go to print). For

the most part, I was standing at a distance away from the direct

property.

Thanks much,

Suz.

I believe that if you are on Public property and shoot photos of what is in public view ,that you should not have any problems.If you were using the photos in a derogatory way that misrepresented the property(saying they were a drug house,used for prostitution,home of a child molester),ect. you could be sued in civil court.It sounds like there would be no problem,you might ask a lawyer.

Wrong! if an image features an individual property, and the poster is a commercial project

you definitely need a property release from the current owner of the property. If the owner

sells the property the release is part of the contigencies and liabilities of the property that

is sold.

 

it makes no difference where you stood when you made the photo.

I know you are not a lawyer Ellis and neither am I, but since you seem certain, I would be

interested in your lay-person-this-is-not-legal-advise opinion on why a property release

is required. I understand there have been some much-publicized cases involving

trademark disputes, but in cases where trademark is not an issue I am not certain what

area of law (short of the all important cover-your-ass-just-in-case area of law) requires

property releases. It's always been my understanding that model releases arise out of

protection provided by privacy torts--a protection not afforded inanimate objects like

buildings.

My understanding is that a property release is needed for commercial purposes. If the picture were being used for editorial purposes, such as appearing in a newspaper, where first amendment protections apply, you might be able to get away with it. However, here an image is being used for sale, so you need the property release. I photographed a house in Buford, SC where requests had been made for spreads in magazines and denied, but I was able to get a property release. Just northern charm, I suppose.

An added part to the picture - thought I'd add that the images I've taken include only a portion of the front of the homes/garden ie. a corner or so - don't know if that makes any difference?

 

Thanks so much for the responses so far

- Suz.

Suz,

 

It doesn't make a difference, if you don't have a release and the person whose home (or

portion of) you have included decides to go after you, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Ask

nicely, get the release signed and offer a poster or two as compensation.

 

You are right, I'm not a lawyer. i can't cite laws covering this. The first time I remember

seeing this as an issue had to do with the "P ainted Ladies" of san Fransciso being used in

an ad for I think MasterCard back in the early 1980s or late 1970s. If you have several

buildings in one image -- for example a skyline image -- that is considered okay, no

release generally needed. Single out a single property and you need a release. My stock

agencies are also pretty clear about this: The threshold seems to be three or more

buildings in a single image.

Common sense: Would you want your front porch photo'd/printed/sold without your knowing?

Thanks, for the tactful answer.

Actually, I wouldn't mind my place appearing in the nice way I'm presenting it.

- Suz.