COPYRIGHT ON MATERIAL SUBJECTS

[FLH]

Hello everyone, I was wondering if you need a release form for material things such as cars and boats and such. I took an image of someones 57 T-Bird the other day and it came out quite nice. Can I display the image in public or sell prints? Appreciate any help.

[PhotoAttorney]

Except when photographing other copyrighted works or trademarks (in rare cases), there is no legal need for a property release. You do need permission to be on the private property when you take shots just as any one does when going on private property (with or without a camera).

The only lawsuit over the lack of a property release was the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame case where the claim was for trademark infringement. The case was heavily litigated but the photographer won. The current concepts of law and the law itself do not support the need for a property release.

Some clients may insist that you have a property release over their concern about being sued. Having any release may reduce the chance of being sued and may increase the chance of winning the lawsuit.

The concern when publishing photos with trademarks in them is whether it is an infringement (confusing the customer as to the source of the goods) or dilution (blurring or tarring the mark). There is a fair use exception for trademarks.

Best,
Carolyn

[ssim]

Except when photographing other copyrighted works or trademarks (in rare cases), there is no legal need for a property release. You do need permission to be on the private property when you take shots just as any one does when going on private property (with or without a camera).


We see this question come up quite often. I am clear on your answer but what about a variation on the above theme. If you are on public property but the item that you photographed happened to be on public property. For greater certainty in this thread if the photographer shot this T-bird from the street but the car was in the owners driveway?

[FLH]

The car was on public property (STREET). And so was I. I blurred out the license plate so it would not be recognizable. Other than that...it was just another Perfect Red T-Bird. I would like to post it, but want to be sure of the implications first.

Dan

[PhotoAttorney]

It does not make a difference in the analysis whether the property was on private or publicly accessed areas.

Best,
Carolyn

[DiscoLizard]

Carolyn, welcome to the forum, it's nice to get some qualified legal opinions for once.

[FLH]

Thanks Carolyn...for all the help. I do not know who owns the car, and the lab here would like to display it in the front showroom. I have also had an offer to purchase a finished print. I just wanted to make sure I didn't step on any toes in case the car is recognized by the owner sometime in the future.

Dan

[tony79]

sorry if this has been asked before and sounds really thick but if i wanted to sell a pic of a public landmark (the angel of the north in gateshead, Uk) would I not need to approach the council or even the artist who made the sculpture for conscent?

[PhotoAttorney]

You need permission from the copyright holder if the work of art you are shooting is still in the public domain (unless it falls under fair use).

Best,
Carolyn

[Gary_Evans]

sorry if this has been asked before and sounds really thick but if i wanted to sell a pic of a public landmark (the angel of the north in gateshead, Uk) would I not need to approach the council or even the artist who made the sculpture for conscent?

Not as far as I am aware.

I know that BA are currently trying (and failing) to restrict sales of images of the London Eye, but seriously how can this be policed?