"model release" for outdoor places?

I've seen places that have signs posted warning photographers that

commercial photography is forbidden without prior consent. Examples:

(A) I think Royal Botanic Gardens Kew in London used to have such a

sign - but I haven't seen it recently. (B) I've also seen it in a

scenic natural landscape, which is owned by a private owner.

 

Is there any sense in which raw ownership of land confers the right

to control the creation and use of commercial images of the land?

If I owned a bit of Yosemite, could I exert control over people's

photos of it?

 

What are the principles involved here?

 

Any suggestions about public domain sources I could read in order to

understand this better?

 

thanks,

 

Heather

A "property" release is what you may need -- if you plan on using the image you have taken for a money-making project: calendars, note cards, advertising (i.e.) Coca Cola.

 

 

For your own use, if you can see the property, you can take a photo of it (most of the time.)

 

 

 

You can try a Google search for 'property releases' and find some sample forms that you can use.

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p>Heather, I believe you can obtain a permit for commercial photography at Kew and other places such as RHS Wisley. Last time I made enquiries the permits were expensive and limited to a certain date (if it's pi**ing down that day then hard luck ;-)).<p>I used to do a lot of commercial horticultural photography but gradually the locations increasingly became permit restricted which led me to abandon much of this work and switch to nature work in the Great British Landscape. Much less restrictive.<p>As I understand it ownership of land gives the owner the right to say what does and does not happen on their land. This I suppose is fair enough, I wouldn't want a whole posse of photographers stomping around my garden, though having suffered personally from these restrictions I do understand your concerns.

I have seen this sort of thing in a few national parks in the US and Canada. In a way I can understand the idea. Why should governments spend all this money to preserve a place just to have photographers snap free shots of them that they are going to turn around and make money from?

Thanks, all.

 

My problem is that my intent changed some time after pressing the shutter.

 

Any one have any experience of rights negotiations in a situation like this? Can it be done?

 

Another question: I would like to avoid up-front payments, as I am working on a proposal which may or may not be accepted. In print publishing you can do back-to-back deals which make this no problem: you don't pay, until you get paid. Anyone have any experience about the feasibility of this kind of deal, for property-image-rights?

 

Finally: every bit of the landscape is owned by someone. Farmer Brown owns the hill that cute sunset just disappeared behind. Millions of people own their various bits of the skyline of Toyko. So I'm not sure that landscape photos are a sure bet, although they may be 'for all intents and purposes', i.e. the odds of the rights-owner chasing you with an axe, for infringements, are very small.

 

thanks,

 

Heather

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p>Heather, much of the landscape here in the UK is managed by Trusts such as the National Trust and Woodland Trust and thankfully access is pretty much unrestricted.

Keith - looks like you've been there, done that, and bought the t-shirt, all before I've even had my coffee and figured out what day it is - thanks very much for sharing your knowledge of how this all works. p.s. nice web site!

Heather, believe me I need at least three cups of coffee before I know what day it is ;-)