Aerial Photography -Vs- Privacy Laws

[chris_m_atl]

I'm planning to expand my (rather small, but growing) business to encompass low altitude (helecopter) commercial photography. There are more than 400 businesses along a single strip of road that I'd like to start off photographing and selling the prints to the business owners.

I know that commercial photography doesn't violate any privacy laws since it's a public place, but I would like to also include residential photography.

If I were to photograph homes in a newly constructed neighborhood and try to sell prints to the homeowners, could they attempt to sue me or pursue any other means of violating their privacy by me having these photographs?

Ultimately, I would like to place the images on my website so the homeowners/business owners can purchase reprints & copies. Would I be required to enable a user id/password to access the images, or could I have them on the website for developers/investors/or other people interested in aerial photography of a given area to be able to access those images; so they can also purchase prints.

Lastly, do you think this could be a wise venture?


Thanks in Advance,

--Chris

[chris_m_atl]

Anyone?

[S.Horton]

I purchased a print of my first house taken from a small plane for $40 in the 90's, plus an on-the-spot frame for another $20 so, yeah, there's money in it.

They got the business because they stopped by in person with the print. It was cool.

I doubt that anyone is going to flip because you have the print, I'd only suggest you discard prints which happen to capture activity rated R or worse.

[ssim]

We will do farms unsolicited and then approach the owners. At least here there are not any issues with taking the shots. Trying to sell the images to people other than the owners can create an issue. If you are hesitant at all then I would seek advice from a lawyer to get you some peace of mind.

[HoRnYTuRbO]

cool idea, i seen someone use a RC helicopter to take pics of houses

[KirkHMB]

From a very liberal state, one court's opinion on aerial photography

http://www.californiacoastline.org/s...-decision.html

Brief highlight:
The court also firmly rejected Streisand’s request for an injunction to force the removal of a panoramic photographic frame that happens to include her sprawling blufftop estate from Adelman’s website, www.Californiacoastline.org.


Go wild, but I'm not implying that I'm a lawyer or know anything about the law, just passing on info of public interest.

[DC9]

The cost to rent a helicopter is going to eat into your profits vs. removing the screw on a C-172 window and shooting out the open window. The C-172 is going to be cheaper in the long run with no difference in the final product.

[mkuriger]

mapquest and google have pictures of your house online

[Longwatcher]

Since I used to deal with this issue - although I am not a lawyer - see lawyer for more accurate information.

The only people who can get in trouble for taking pictures from the air of people's homes is the military. They require special permission. Which is why during development we let the development contractors pick where to take images for tests, so the military is not the one to choose the location.

Meanwhile - there are some buildings that are protected by copyright, so if the image is focused on that building (as opposed to covering a block of buildings) you may have to have a release from the building owner/architect to sell the images.

Just what i know, again see lawyer for more accurate information.