Do I need permission?

[RichR]

Yesterday, I was driving down a country road and came across an old beat-up Toronto streetcar sitting on a farm. I was pressed for time, so I didn't have time to snap a shot. But, I'm thinking of going back to get the shot. My question is... Do I need permission from the owner of the property to photograph it. If I shot from the roadside, would that be ok? I want the shot for a local photography contest.

Appreciate your thoughts.

[tomd]

I think as long as you are on public property, shoot away. Canada laws may differ from US though.

Tom

[deadpass]

mostly it depends on if you're going to try and sell prints or profit from the shot in any way. If yes, then permission would be nice, even if you're on public property, while not legally required it's just the nice thing to do. From a strictly legal standpoint if you're on public property when you take the shot you're fine, if it's private property then you need permission.

[BillsBayou]

If this were the US, you'd need permission to be on private land. From public land, you can take the photo, even with a long lens.

As for permission to take the photo itself, that assumes that the property has rights which can be signed away. The property, the streetcar, does not have rights to publicity. Therefore, you are not violating the rights of the streetcar even if you were to start cranking out postcards of your photo.

If the farmer were to complain, remind him that you are on public land and that the streetcar is in clear view. Remind him that he is free to complain all he wants but you are well within your rights to take the photo. Do NOT take a photo of the farmer if he is complaining (you'd be within your rights to do so, but why smack the hornet's nest?)

If the streetcar were represented as a work of art, rather than just sitting there in it's original factory made state, it's copyright (as art) would lie with the creator of the work. Seeing as you've described it as "old beat-up" it is not a work of art but a thing on private land.

We are in danger of losing our rights as photographers if we do not stand up for those rights. If the last photographer to take a photo of that same streetcar had paid for the priviledge as well as gotten a signed release, then THAT photographer did more than was required for his/her rights and I would suggest he/she actually hurt our field of interest.

Bear in mind, this is a United States point of view. The rules are most certainly different in Canada.

[BillsBayou]

mostly it depends on if you're going to try and sell prints or profit from the shot in any way. If yes, then permission would be nice, even if you're on public property, while not legally required it's just the nice thing to do. From a strictly legal standpoint if you're on public property when you take the shot you're fine, if it's private property then you need permission.

You can sell prints of the photo. It's classified as fine art. It can also be classifed as editorial use. Things get sticky when you attempt to use the photo to promote a commercial venture. Something like "Don't let this happen to your streetcar. Come to Bill's Streetcar Repairs." In that case, consult an attorney.

As for "while not legally required it's just nice," I would take issue with the fact that you are confusing the public with what is actually legally required. Asking for permission when permission is not required sets a precedent for future photographic use.

[RichR]

Thanks for your advice guys. I did go back and didn't see anyone around, so I shot from the roadside.

A couple pics I snapped.

Cheers.

[Tapeman]

I own that streetcar and am going to sue you for $10,000,000.00

[timnosenzo]

I own that streetcar and am going to sue you for $10,000,000.00

:lol::lol:

Neat pics, like the second one--looks like a neat subject!

[BillsBayou]

The second shot is the better one. I like your contrast. It makes the rust and decay stand out.