Is a property release required for a privately owned lighthouse?

<p>If I make a large print or postcards of a privately owned lighthouse and offer them for sale or other commercial use, should I get a property release for it? This particular lighthouse is in a bay off the Maine coast. It used to be government owned when it was in use, but is now privately owned. The only access to it is by boat, however, it is clearly visible to the public from many vantage points in and around Acadia National Park. The photograph was taken from the park during a period of high winds and rough seas (Not that that's relevant, but just to describe why I think the photo is somewhat special).</p>

<p>My inclination is to not bother with the release, since the lighthouse is easily seen by the public, and it was photographed from a public location. Also, considering it's location, it has no doubt been photographed tens of thousands of times before. However, since I plan to try selling this photograph in the general area around Acadia National Park, it is quite possible the owner will see it, and whether he has any legal recourse or not, may kick up a stink about it.</p>

<p>I have researched this question on both photo.net and the web, but haven't found a specific enough answer yet. I would appreciate any advice on this.</p>

<p>Joel Holcomb</p>

<p>A property release should be gotten for a photo of a privately-owned anything. Commercial use of an image of any individual or property could spark a copyright infringement or invasion of privacy action. <br>

People may take photographs from public places because there is no expectation of privacy for something that is clearly visible to the public. However, that does not confer license to use such images commercially.<br>

Offer the owner a few dollars and an 8X10 enlargement of his property in exchange for the release. </p>

<p>Thanks for your answer Chuck. Better safe than sorry is no doubt the best course where legal matters are concerned. I will track down the owner and get a release.</p>

<p>Joel</p>

<p>You can sell postcards or prints of anything without a release. You'd need one for commercial use - "this lighthouse only uses Behr paint for weather protection".</p>

<p>Some concepts are being mixed up here...<br>

<em></em><br>

<em>Commercial use of an image of any individual or property could spark a copyright infringement</em>...</p>

<p>Copyright is not an issue here. The photographer, not acting as an employee, who shots an image owns the copyright to that image.</p>

<p><em>...or invasion of privacy action</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Buildings are objects, not people. Objects don't have privacy rights.</p>

<p><em>there is no expectation of privacy for something that is clearly visible to the public.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Privacy is not relevent to 'things' whether visible to the public or not. Things don't have privacy rights.<br>

<em></em><br>

<em>However, that does not confer license to use such images commercially.<br /></em><br>

<em></em><br>

While the term "license" could be used here in the place of the word "permission", it is a term of art usually used when a copyright holder allows others to use their image. Using it in other ways tends to cause confusion. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>John offers good information.<br /><br />Worth noting is also that images used editorially need no releases. Hence usage of lighthouse images in books, magazines, newspapers etc (as long as it isn't in the form of an advert) is perfectly OK.</p>

<p>Owership of an item doesn't necessarily include ownership of the copyright. You might want to look up the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990 (it's incorporated in the copyright laws that can be found on the Library of Congress site). The "public place " limitation permits the unauthorized publication of pictures or other pictorial representations of buildings located in or visible from a public place. However, for a variety of other reasons, I doubt there are any copyright concerns on an old lighthouse designed and built for a government agency well in the past anyways.</p>

<p>As noted, "editorial" or "artistic" uses are protected expressions. So unless your sale or use of the images somehow infringes on any of the owner's rights, like revealing private information, defaming them, implying they endorse some kind of business, services, etc., it's just not an issue. </p>

 

<p>John's advice is (as far as I can tell) on the nail here.</p>

<p>However the waters are muddied somewhat by organisations such as the Sydney Opera House and the owners of the Gherkin building in the City of London who aggressively pursue actions (in different jurisdictions) against photographers and image libraries who attempt to sell stock photos of the buildings, on the grounds of trademark infringment and any other legal mud they can throw - to the extent that the libraries refuse to accept submissions of those pictures. </p>

<p>As far as I have read, none of the legal arguments put forward by these organisations have been tested in court, but nobody wants to foot the bill for arguing the other side. The practical effect is that they have built themselves de-facto exclusive image rights to their (distinctive) buildings by bullying and by threat.</p>

<p>So if your light-house owner has deep pockets, and a litigous and combative frame of mind, they may throw enough mud your way and force you either to cave or ante up and face them in court. By most criteria, if you are forced to employ an expensive legal team and waste time, money and emotional energy on instructing them then you consider yourself to have lost the battle.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Craig accurately summarizes the current legal precedent I know about.<br>

Assuming there are no copyright and trade mark issues, non-human subjects (property) can not provide endorsement or approval and they have no expectation of privacy. So as long as the property owners rights are not violated, you may have no problems.<br>

As Alec mentions, this doesn't mean you won't be sued. It just means precedent is in your favor. I think the owner has more to risk financially (high probability of losing and of you successfully counter suing to recover your expenses) than you do in a suit.<br>

This topic has been discussed on photoattorney.com.</p>

<p>Selling postcards or large prints IS commercial use. According to an article in the August issue of "Outdoor Photographer", commercial use of an image of "Recognizable Personal Property" requires a property release.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Selling postcards or large prints IS commercial use.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No it's not. Even your rather unusual choice of source of legal information, Outdoor Photographer, says that on its web site (Bob Krist interview of Carolyn Wright.)</p>

<p><em>Selling postcards or large prints IS commercial use</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Merely selling post cards or larger prints does not, by itself, make the use commercial. The media/format isn't even one of the criteria that is used to determine if the use is comemrcial. Its incidental at best.</p>

<p><em>commercial use of an image of "Recognizable Personal Property" requires a property release.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

There's more to it that that.</p>

<p><em>According to an article in the August issue of "Outdoor Photographer</em></p>

<p>Photograpghy magazines are not a reliable source to obtain legal information. A Popular Photograpghy article claimed that a photo could not be used as evidence in court unless the actual photographer testified, in court, that they took the photo which is false. Either the author recieved incorrect information, made it up, assumed it were true or misinterpreted the actual rule which is that someone who knows what the scene depicted looks like needs to testify that it is a fair and accurate portrayal of the scene.</p>

 

<p>Wow, this stirred up many more comments and differences of opinion than I had anticipated. In response to Alec Myers points, the owner of the lighthouse is a well known New York interior designer, and presumably has "deep pockets." However, I do not know if he has a "litigous and combative frame of mind" or not. In any event, I doubt that copyright is any issue because the lighthouse was built and owned by the US Government before this person was born. In addition, the photos I've taken cannot be construed to defame the owner or endorse any other commercial business. It does sound, however, like a release would be needed if I were approached by, say, some seafood business to use the photo in one of their sales ads.</p>

<p>I just did a wider spread Google search using some of the terms in the above replies, and found this very useful treatise on releases on the American Society of Media Photographers website:<br>

http://www.asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-model-releases.html</p>

<p>They confirm what John said, about "Buildings are objects, not people. Objects don't have privacy rights." However, they go on to say that the owners, who may be identified with the property, may view any use of the images as some form of violation of their privacy, and may be inclined to sue, whether they have a case or not. They acknowledge this is a gray area, but caution anyone who is unsure of exactly where they stand on the issue to get a release.</p>

<p>Again, thanks to all for your replies. To be safe, I am going to try to get the release.<br>

Joel Holcomb</p>