Urban Landscapes...Permissions?

Hello everyone, I have started doing urban landscapes (mainly

nighttime) about a year ago. Although, it has mostly been around

places that are commercial by nature or abandoned. But now,

I'm starting to get into neighborhoods.

 

While talking to a city official (a person who works at the city hall)

I was told that I needed to ask permission for every photograph

of homes or urban type landscape that included homes or

property -- even if I was shooting from the streets. If it were a

"hobby" it would be alright. But if I somehow publish a book or

sell photographs, I was told to ask for permission for every home

or property -- even if shot from public space. I was also told that it

was a good idea to ask because if something happens to a

home (broke into, for example) that I would be the prime

suspect. This is downright paranoia!

 

Ultimately, my question is: What are the laws regarding shooting

a private property from a public space? Does it matter whether a

hobby or commercial purpose? Perhaps every city or town have

different rules and regulations -- What is the best approach?

 

Thanks to all in advance for your time and comments.

 

Darrell

First, (in the US) if you are photographing from a public place - even if what you are photographing is private property, you generally need no-ones permission (in broad terms it's "freedom of expression" but there are other issues as well). Issues of the California paparazzi laws aside.

 

Secondly, use. You may need permission for later "commercial" use (it doesn't matter what your intended use when you actually take the photograph). However, the following have generally excluded from being defined as commercial use - educational, editorial/press and artistic use. You would be unlikely to find that Todd Hido, for example, gets permissions for use of images either in his books or for sale at galleries, nor George Tice or Stephen Shore or Joel Sternfeld or Nick Nixon whoever - pick an urban photographer of your choice.

 

However, if you start using the photographs in an ad campaign or corporate annual reports etc, then you may need permission.

 

Also, a slightly different issue (because people will mistakenly tell you "I own the copyright to my building") - US copyright law specifically excludes images of publicly viewable buildings from copyright protection. You can both take the photograph and use it.

 

Because of the inflated Homeland Security paranoia, you may well be hassled.

 

A useful tool is:

 

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

 

with it's flyer for your bag

 

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

 

as is his book in general

 

http://www.krages.com/lhp.htm

The best way to handle officials like the person from city hall is ask them to cite the laws, bylaws, regulations� whatever. Put the ball back in their court.

I agree with the commentors above. There is one thing about housing neighborhoods that you should be aware of though. There are communities....I live in one....that have lakes and beaches. Private lakes and beaches. They are owned by a Lake Association, whose funds come from fees/dues paid for by the land owners. And although all the normal public access and photography rules apply on the streets, these beaches and lakes ARE private property. Now a reading of the associations by-laws will probably tell you if you are allowed to photograph on them, but a good clue that you are not allowed, is if the beach is posted with signs that say private property of so and so members.....no trespassing.

 

Although, if you are familiar with these communities, fishing is also not permitted by non members..............i've never seen a non member procecuted in my area though...........but, still.

No permission is required. Even the issue of property releases is questionable. <p>

 

Although the advice to get property releases is widespread, according to PDN, property has no slam-dunk publicity rights. Unfortunately, the PDN article in question appears no longer to be online, but there is an interesting article <a href="http://www.allworth.com/Articles/article11.htm" target="_blank">here</a>.<p>

 

This is one reason why owners of distinctive properties try to trademark their properties, but even this is difficult as shown by the <a href="http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/jan98/98a0020p.06.html"target="_blank">Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Case</a>.<p>

 

Releases in most cases aren't required and are simply a CYA thing. If you aren't using the pix for advertising then you really shouldn't be too concerned. If you really are worried, you should talk to a real lawyer, instead of looking for advice here.

The best advice I have heard given on this subject is: Ask a lawyer.<p><p>

 

But read this also: <a href="http://www.dig-mar.com/Commentaries/shellgame.html">click me</a>

>Jamie J. Photo.net Patron, apr 14, 2004; 03:42 p.m.

 

>The best way to handle officials like the person from city hall is ask them to cite the laws, bylaws, regulations� whatever. Put the ball back in their court.

 

Jamie hit the nail on the head--I often get told by NYPD that I can't photograph this or that. Then I politely ask them to cite an ordinance or code, to which they give me a dumb stare and leave me to do what I was doing in the first place. Sad that many police/officials don't comprehend the difference between public and private property and the rules inherent to each. I keep the 'Photographer's Right' in my bag--and a pleasant but tenacious manner.

Thanks everyone, for your helpful comments. Mark, I wondered

about Todd Hido also, regarding his photographs. And I think I

read it on his website about some of the situation he has gotten

into while working on his project. And like you said about the

inflated homeland security paranoia -- it�s good to really know

the laws in case someone happens to confront me. I�ve only had

one confrontation in the year that I�ve been doing nighttime

photography, but he was very nice about it. Actually, they were

hunting for coyotes out in the fields -- I didn�t ask why, but I think it

was for my own good that I left.

 

I just want everyone to realize that I live in a small town. If you've

ever lived in a small town you know how the politics go. When I

used to live in San Francisco I felt like I could do anything without

anyone questioning me. Here, I don't know if it's curiousity or just

plain snoopy -- but people sometimes tend to tell you how things

should be done. I was being nice to the lady at the city hall

because I needed permission to climb a city tower to pursue my

project. Otherwise, I think requesting her to cite the laws might

have been a good idea. Thanks for reminding me. :-)

 

Come to think of it, I probably will see a lawyer just to get the

facts. Sometimes a small town does have their own little rules

that I may not be aware of. Not that I drink or anything, but they

have a rule here that no alcohol is served on Sundays. I'm not

even going to get further into that.

 

I appreciate everyone taking their time and posting on the board.

Thank you. Your comments have been helpful.

 

Darrell

Moiz, I don't know that I'd take too seriously an article that manages to confuse the basic facts of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame case, such as (a) what it was about (trademark, not copyright), and (b) who won.

Evidently, Mr. Gentile won. If you go to his site he continues to

sell those posters.

Get Krages book and read it - you are within your rights to do this. BUT he also has good advice on avoiding conflict - while you are within your rights as noted above, unless you are out to make a point instead of just taking pictures, there are responses you can make that diffuse the situation rather than attempt to educate an uninformed police or security officer. Usually a half block later they will be out of sight, and you can resume pursuing your legal right to photograph.

Darrel, I know what you're facing because I've been out doing exactly this recently. Of two encounters with local residents, I had one who turned quite friendly when I explained what I was up to, and one who offered to jam my camera up my ass without caring what I was up to. I don't think squawking to him about my rights had much effect. ;-)

Whether you need releases to use pictures is mostly a matter of state law, but since very

little is truly local anymore, the laws of the more restrictive states are generally the

guideline. Currently the situation seems to be that only advertising (defined pretty loosely,

an annual report cover would count) or perhaps TV/cinema production needs a release.

But, to clarify, you only need a release to USE a picture, not to TAKE a picture.

 

Where city law matters is this:

 

Hobby vs. commercial matters for another important point in many cities: film

permits. In many American cities, especially within a day's drive of Hollywood or NYC, you

need to get a film permit (cheap) and insurance (exorbitant) to shoot anything commercial

on public property. I've noticed in the past the San Diego police asking me leading

questions trying to get me to admit to commercial intent.

 

Here commercial use is interpreted much more strictly than in the case of releases. Any

admission of intent to make even the smallest amount of money could be a problem. Stick

with "it's a hobby" "going to compete in the county fair" etc.--which for me is the truth,

albeit partial. The idea that you've dreams of gallery representation and a book deal

somewhere out in the distant future is something NOT to share.

 

If you shoot at night you're going to get a fair amount of questioning from property

owners, security guards and police. Get used to it.

 

My experience has been that police are business-like and polite. Once they're satisfied

you're neither breaking any laws nor intending to break any laws, they're gone. Yes, there

have been some much-publicized exceptions, but I think they're just that: exceptions.

 

Security guards are generally bored, have a chip on their shoulder, like to lie about what

the law is, have cop-show fantasies, and are generally a pain in the tail. Research your

city's permit situation first, but if you're not standing or parked on their property you can

generally tell private security to go fly a kite.

 

I don't shoot much residential, so I don't have any property-owner-confrontation

experience. At this point in the art-world fad cycle anyone shooting night residential is

probably going to end up labeled a Todd Hido wannabe anyway.

Another thought, upon re-reading your posts: Is there some other town nearby where you

could do this, instead of your own town?

 

This kind of thing, especially residential, can make you enemies. It's best not to make

enemies who might have a recurring role in your life, and my memory of small town life is

that an amazing percentage of the people either do have a recurring role in your life, or

know (and gossip/complain to) someone who does. In a small town you go from seven

degrees of separation to about two.

 

Again, in a big city, this would be a non-issue--no one even knows their neighbors--but

in a small town I'd be careful.

 

Small town police are also less likely to have more important matters to attend to, and

more time/inclination to engage in harassment. Some small departments are perfectly

modern, but some are still good-old-boy to the core. Know your police department's

reputation before you put yourself in a position to have an encounter with them.