do i need property release to sell art prints of Las Vegas hotels?

[georgekontaxis]

Hi

 

I have some pictures of Las Vegas hotels that i am interested to sell through an art gallery

in Vegas as fine art prints. I wonder if I would need any property releases to be able to sell

them as fine art prints. Also would it be the same case if i would be interested to sell them

through a stock agency?

 

You can see the images here:

 

http://www.dreamandtravel.com/vegasnight.html

 

I would appreciatte any answers on that matter.

 

thanks

George

[dpowis]

My first reaction is : you need a property release from the owner of this building to sell photographs of it. IMHO, it would have been a better idea to ask first, but that's just MHO.

[r_bryant]

If these photos were taken on public property then no, you don't. Otherwise we would need property releases for everything.

[keith_van_hulle1]

Interesting quote from a Stanford site:

 

"In some cases, you'll need to obtain a release for using pictures of places. You may find this odd -- after all if a building can be viewed publicly why is permission required to use an image of it? Over the last few decades some buildings have earned protection under both trademark or copyright laws or both. Trademark law will protect a building's appearance under very limited circumstances. If a distinctive-looking building is used to signify a business's services, then you cannot use an image of that building in a manner that will confuse consumers. For example, the Sears Tower in Chicago functions as a trademark, and if you intend to use it in the foreground of an advertisement, permission should be obtained from the Sears Company. Use of the building's image for informational purposes, such as in magazine article, does not require permission."

 

Good luck w/o consulting an attorney.

[chris_leck]

Nice images! Maybe the property managers would want to partner with you somehow. I would guess that the prerogotives of those with money (and there's quite a lot of that there) would trump any minor legal technicalities.

[dpowis]

Looking at these pictures, the casinos and buildings are pretty recognizable, and could be considered as trademarks, just like the lighting of the Eiffel Tower in Paris is a trademark, so yes you're allowed to take pictures of it from a public place, but as to selling the pictures, I would think you'd need some kind of an authorization from them.

 

Now, considering the pictures, I'd guess they'd be very happy to see them, as they are pretty nice.

[joeb]

http://photoattorney.blogspot.com/2005/04/know-your-rights-and-limitations-when_23.html

 

The stock agency would require a property release. It doesn't hurt to ask for one.

[james_c._turner]

Here is a link about Photography and the Law. There are some good links at the end also;

http://www.photosecrets.com/p14.html

Good luck.

[dean_tomasula1]

<If these photos were taken on public property then no, you don't. Otherwise we would need property releases for everything.>

 

 

 

This is totally wrong. if the casinos are recognizable and/or have visible signage (such as the name of the casino) then you need a property release. The pictures may be beautiful, but some lawyer for the casino may decide he wants to sue for some extra bucks.

 

 

Stock agencies will insist on property releases. If you don't have any, this limits the markets in which your photos can be sold to basically editorial markets. Stock houses like to get the widest distribution possible for their images.

[joeb]

The issue is not can you use an image taken from public property. You can. The issue is do you have as deep a pocket as the hotel. The property owner could sue and cost you a lot of money defending and winning the suit. Anyone can sue. Written releases carry more weight than verbal agreements. It's worth asking.

 

Art prints should not be an issue.

[georgekontaxis]

thanks for all your answers.

 

i have got a lot of contradictory opinions on the matter so still not sure 100%. My main

interest is selling the images of the Las Vegas hotels as fine art prints in an art gallery in

Vegas. Any other uses that i might be interested in doing are not a concern of the present

time, rather than just curiosity for future uses that might come up.

 

i suppose if the gallery was worried about legal issues with the hotels they wouldnt want

to put the prints there either since they are the ones selling my art work, so they would

get in trouble too, right? And they are not worried about the whole thing.

 

what if i shot images where you could see many hotels, more of a ganeral city view, would

that solve the problem since it is not about a particular hotel and it is more of a shot of

the city of Las Vegas?

 

i would appreciatte more opinions on selling the Las Vegas hotel images as art prints in an

art gallery, in order to get a better idea of the legal status of the situation.

 

thanks for your time

 

George Kontaxis

dreamandtravel.com

[keith_van_hulle1]

You don't need more opinions. Related to what Joe said, you need sound legal advice. You might get away with it IF you weren't trying to sell them in Vegas. Picture a lowly hotel employee from any of your shots coming to the gallery, thinking "why should he profit off of MY hotel" and then sending email to their Legal department.

[joeb]

Read Carolyn Wright's response to this question from early December.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ESou

 

There are exceptions in trademark and copyright law for photographs of copyrighted buildings and photographs that include trademarks in them.

 

You can take a photograph of a store with signs for Coke and Marlboro and be fine. The amount of original content is how these issues are decided.

 

I would sell fine arts prints of any scene taken from public propery with out releases with two exceptions. If the subject of the photo has sued others or the subject is people. I sell fine art prints including ones with people in them. The subject of the image is not the people. I am comfortable with this. You need to comfortable with selling your images. As I said, anyone can sue.

 

I try to understand copyright and trademark issues. There are many blogs with copyright info on the internet. My advise would be to read blogs written by lawyers practicing in this field and if you still have questions hire one for an hour or two.

[dean_tomasula1]

If you have any intentions of ever selling anything you photograph for profit, you will do yourself a favor by always getting a release and always letting the subject know your intentions.

 

However, this is not always practical. Sometimes you can't get the subject to agree to sign a release and some of the time you don't want them to know you're photographing them (street photography, candid portraits, etc).

 

When you try to sell photographs taken without permission, particularly of large corporations, watch out! This is what keeps corporate lawyers in buisness.

[ted_marcus1]

<i>Anything</i> you shoot (other than your own property) is someone's property. So if you're going to take pictures intended for use other than secure storage in a locked file cabinet, you really do need to get written permission from the property owner to avoid possible lawsuit. And even if you're able to do that, it isn't a guarantee they won't decide to sue if they don't like the picture.

 

<p>But in reality, tracking down the owner and finding the right person who can grant permission may be utterly impractical unless you're an advertising agency, Hollywood studio, or media conglomerate with a full-time staff dedicated to those specific chores. So the risk of getting into trouble probably doesn't justify the effort of getting permission absent a specific, planned commercial use for the pictures for advertising or with wide distribution through a media conglomerate. Still, Americans are so litigious that there's always a risk of getting sued no matter what you do. Getting permission can only reduce that risk-- if it's indeed possible to get permission.

 

<p>On the other hand, if you ever get tired of photography you can probably have a new and rewarding hobby of obtaining permission from property owners. You could meet all kinds of interesting people as you navigate a bureaucracy that isn't accustomed to dealing with individuals, in search of the right person. And instead of boring pictures you could have a fascinating collection of property releases.

[craig_gillette]

Since you are looking to sell Vegas pics in Vegas, getting sound legal advice from an attorney familiar with the law in Nevada is probably the best bet. It would be anecdotal to see what is being sold as postcards, calendars, or in galleries, etc.

[j_sew]

You have some very good answers above. The bottom line is to always assume that you will require a release on any property that clearly is identifiable in the photograph. You can sometimes earn a release, simply by offereing a framed copy of the photography with a release in return. In the case of any photograph being editorial, then there is generally no need for a release, as it falls under a journalistic or new classification.

[john_aceti]

<p>The link wouldn't come up for me but if you got logos and trademarks there so my guess is technically no.<br />To the hotels it is promotion and will help them attract business. Everyone wants to be popular but just a word of caution<br /><strong>Legal or not, Here in America anyone can sue anyone for anything.</strong><br />This means if someone of wealth or a major entity wants to stop you from doing something they can do so by simply burying you with legal fees.<br />In this situation, will they care about you and a few photos? Probably not.<br />Suggest you are an LLC or S corp before you venture into commercial photography tho</p>

<p> </p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I do like all this stuff about "get permission beforehand" and "get a release" as if its the easiest thing in the world. Property Releases are a major pain. First you have to find out which organisation(s) need to grant a release to make it effective- is it the building owner, and is that the occupier or whatever. Second you have to find the right person in those organisations to sign. Then you have to persuade them to sign a piece of paper that grants you rights whilst explaining that there isn't much, if anything in it for their business. Then you have to cope with the probability that the "right person" won't in fact sign it until its been reviewed by their boss, by their lawyers or whatever. And its possible/probable that you're doing all of this remotely, possibly after the event ( some people don't want to sign releases until they've seen the pictures, not unreasonably). Oh and then you have the fact that some stock agencies strongly prefer their own release wordings - which doesn't help if you actually want to submit to more than one. </p>

<p>The problem in all of this is that it takes so much time that it can negate the entire economic benefit of the photographs. Has anyone here found an economically sustainable way to get property releases? Or is my suspicion correct that many of the images in stock libraries that are claimed to have property release either don't have one or have one that is less than fully legitimate?</p>