Garden photo releases

[seppo_vesterinen]

<p>I have been taking plant portraits over the years at many botanical gardens around the world. These include Kew Gardens in London, LA County Arboretum, Sydney Botanical Gardens, Singapore Botanical Gardens and many, many more. These are strictly plant and flower close-up portraits with no general or design views of the gardens. I have currently about 10 000 hi-def (Nikon D1/2/3/3X and Hasselblad 39) photos of thousands of plant species in stock.<br>

I have never used these pictures commercially, but I'm planning to launch a new site and start offering them to book and magazine publishers and other commercial uses. Also it would be nice (and I think correct) to include location info where the pictures were taken.<br>

Does anyone have information if botanical institutions like Kew can require a release for commercial use of pictures taken in the gardens. As I said these are plant species portraits and no details or buildings are shown, but it would be great to have location in the photo descriptions.<br>

My old personal (slow) flash-based archive is at <a href="http://www.flowerfile.com">www.flowerfile.com</a>.<br>

Thank you.</p>

<p>seppo</p>

 

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>Seppo:<br /><br />Use in magazines, newspapers, and books etc is, in the US, considered Editorial usage and no releases are needed, unless the images are used in an advertisement selling or promoting a product or service. I license unreleased images of arrests, search warrants, forensics, traffic stops etc to big national book and magazine publishers all the time with no problems.<br /><br />You can absolutely include location in the caption as well as in the appropriate fields in the image data. As a matter of fact, many editorial publishers demand accurate and factual captions etc and including location is a big plus.<br /><br />Best of luck! </p>

[john_a5]

<p>I suppose it would be a matter of your own judgement, but I probably wouldn't have even thought about the need for a release of such things shot without context. If there were paths and buildings and other items that define the place, that would be another thing unless they were public property(in the US in any case).</p>

<p>The only place that I have actually had to register that I was shooting was a Japanese Garden and they ask for attribution as I remember, and possibly restricted commercial use altogether. But I also seem to remember that there policy changed a lot over the years and what is a more current, restrictive policy on use was not in place even 5 years ago. With the increase in photographers over the last several years, photographic permissions and permitted uses in these places have gotten much more strict and current policies don't necessarily reflect the terms or restrictions that were in place when you shot your work.</p>

[adamphoto]

<p><a href="http://www.kew.org/shops/photog.html">http://www.kew.org/shops/photog.html</a> for starters. I believe several zoos have taken action against unauthorised use of photos of their animals. I would imagine horticultural societies will feel the same way. It's always going to be a consideration where these institutions - often charitable - rely on photo licensing for an income.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>The L.A. County Arboretum charges for commercial photography, wedding photography, etc., but the site description for fees starts at 0-100 people. They also "rent" areas for commercial uses. The Descanso Gardens also charges for commercial uses of the area. But your use isn't really the kind of use their sites discuss. </p>

<p>I think you are stuck in a position of having to choose between contacting the varous locations individually and getting clarifications or deciding how to deal with images where you may choose to not list locations or go without clear permission. Given the international character of the collection, the various ownership scenarios, like public park/garden, private organizations, etc., there's there's no way to be sure how any given source would react or even if there is an issue at all. </p>

<p>I would think in a publicly owned facility in the US, there would be no problem. Images taken in a private facility under conditions of entry that they wouldn't be used commercially is a different matter</p>

[john_a5]

<p>I am really a stickler for releases, but I think Craig makes a good point. If I am not going to attribute, and I am not sure that there is a reason to do so, I would not worry about releases. Of course, that would only be if the images have no way of being tied to a specific place--like identifiable context or a species only found at that specific place. I would also suggest that most places only restrict photography for commercial use. Since you took these for personal use and not under contract, you would not be in violation of their rules--US National Parks do not allow commercial photography unless permitted but make no claim to the sale of images for stock. Since one isn't under contract to create an image, it is personal photography and perfectly fine with them.</p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>If any of the gardens were UK National Trust-owned locations you may find the following thread from EPUK's site of some interest:</p>

<h3><em>Alamy’s 17,000 National Trust images</em></h3>

<p><em>Last month, picture library Alamy contacted photographers who were syndicating photographs of National Trust properties through the agency, telling them that the images would be removed from the picture library in just twelve days claiming that they breached NT byelaws.</em><br>

<em>At the time, Alamy wrote: “We have recently been working with The Trust to identify problematic images on the Alamy website. As a result of this we will shortly be contacting a group of contributors who have images taken on National Trust property without permission and advising them that these images will be removed.” In total 17,000 images were said to be affected.</em><br>

<em>According to the National Trust, landscapes and even photographs of plants and animals on open land, are criminal offences under a 1965 byelaw. While the National Trust claimed that they were simply enforcing their legal rights, many photographers saw this as a move to increase the value of the National Trust’s own commercial photo library by creating a near-monopoly on stock photographs. There is also <a rel="external" href="http://copyrightaction.com/forum/national-trust-byelaws-in-a-twist" target="_blank">considerable doubt</a> </em> whether this byelaw applies to stock photography.<br>

<em>Several Alamy contributors spoken to by EPUK said that they had been asked to remove images which had been taken from public land or with permission from the National Trust and which they were fully entitled to market themselves. </em><br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

They have been fairly aggressive in enforcing this - apparently with lawyers letters being sent to photogs, but so far I am not aware of any legal proceedings actually taking place.</p>

<p>There's been a fair bit of online discussion of this issue and a Google for Alamy & National Trust should unearth some of it.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>No, this is clearly a change to a commercial use - it's stock sales. This isn't personal use. The problem is, over the years, it was personal and for non-commercial uses. But circumstances have changed. He's now acquired a collection with commercial value (one hopes, of course). There was no sneaking about or subterfuge. Someone who goes in as a guest or as a personal visit and shoots knowing they intend to use the images commercially is potentially violating the local laws, trespassing, etc.</p>

<p>The problem is, some of the places may have set different rules for different uses. Some locations wouldn't have an issue, probably as seen by their current policies. OTOH, for some owners, probably but not necessarily private, commercial shooting fees go to defray operating expenses or are clearly fundraisers. The only way to be sure if an owner has a concern or problem is to contact that agency/owner. </p>

<p>As can be seen from the post above, some organizations are very diligent and aggressive about protecting their own interests.</p>

[katherinemichael]

<p>I know this is going to sound like a huge PIA, but I would make a list of all the locations and do research on their policies regarding commercial photography. That is the only way to really know for sure. Every place has different rules so I don't think that there is a blanket answer to this. As far as I am aware, most buyers do want the location included in the photo's information. Just my two cents. Better to take the extra time now and do the homework then find out the hard way later. </p>

[williamchuttonjr]

<p>Craig<br>

What does intent have to do with trespassing?<br>

If one's physical presence was permitted, how could one be charged with trespassing years later because they used a photograph editorially?</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>You're mixing issues. We (or most of us apparently) are aware of situations where as a condition of entry, there is to be no photography or no commercial photography. If you take pictures or it becomes apparent that the picture taking is commercial, you can be asked to leave, etc. You have violated the terms of entry. That's trespassing. If those locations are sensitive to the value of their pictures or would have charged increased fees or required payment to engage in commercial activity, they could well have a different attitude about permitting later use of the images commercially even if they were taken for private use initially. </p>

<p>If one pays the simple private visitor fee and claims to not be intending to use the images commercially when the intent all along is to use them commercially, that's dishonest and unethical. And, as pointed out, could subject one to legal problems at the time.</p>

<p>I didn't say they would be charged with trespassing years later. It does impact the position the institution may take when deciding to approve (or not) the use of the images for stock sales. </p>

<p>He's not intending to use the images editorially, he's expecting to sell them as stock. If you enter or expect to enter private property, you do so under some set of agreed terms. If as a part of the agreement, you agree not to sell or publish the pictures, the "end use" isn't the issue, it's the sale or publishing. Editorial or not, the agreement was to not do that. Besides, dealing with a wide variety of locations in multiple countries, "editorial" definitions are probably irrelevant.</p>