i read the "when do i need a release" post, but what about landscape type work?

livestock, personal property such as barns or homes, guy on a tractor that you can't see, etc.

i've been working with some local farm groups, sometimes paid, sometimes just messing around while on a farm tour with my kids. Often times folks love my work and want to use it in their marketing efforts.

I understand the implications when people are present in the image.

But what about other types of images?

Do I have any obligation to gain permission to use these images any way that I please?

i'm based the US, North Carolina specifically.


and yes i read this part of the sticky post too:

its a called property release and i honestly dont know at what point one is required, i dont sell my landscape work commercially.

http://asmp.org …ns-about-releases.html#q5

thanks folks.

often just knowing the proper term goes a long way. if anyone has any more to add, please do.

cheers!

Despite what the ASMP said there is no law that requires a "property release" for physical property. (Trademarks are a different matter).

This blog post links to details of two cases http://www.photoattorn​ey.com/?p=1561 - both in favour of the photographer.

Some people recommend getting one if possible in order to avoid the possibility of a law suit because anyone can sue for anything these days.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #15946151
Some people recommend getting one if possible in order to avoid the possibility of a law suit because anyone can sue for anything these days.

yep and a lawyer may take it on a contingency basis and you are forced to defend it. They really need to fix that, you'd see a lot less frivolous suits.

anyway, rant over.

My personal belief is - if an architectural design has no copyright - you can use it for commercial purposes.

Dmitriy wrote in post #15949969
My personal belief is - if an architectural design has no copyright - you can use it for commercial purposes.

Architectural designs are copyrighted automatically, just as photographs are, but in the US photographers have a "pass" written into the law that allows them to be used in photographs without it being considered infringement.

However, owners of famous buildings often trademark several views of their buildings (for instance, Disney has trademarked every view of the "Fantasyland" castle), and that's a wholly different law.

Only after 1989, everything else (besides trade marked ones) is a public domain.

For non-commercial use only, if I'm not mistaken.

HE's GONE.... Shot you describe of NC country side don't need release...... PERIOD.... Its like taking a cross country trip and asking every mayor of each town you will pass through for permission... You can do it... But not necessary...

RD Kirk....
"Architectural designs are copyrighted automatically, just as photographs are, but in the US photographers have a "pass" written into the law that allows them to be used in photographs without it being considered infringement.

However, owners of famous buildings often trademark several views of their buildings (for instance, Disney has trademarked every view of the "Fantasyland" castle), and that's a wholly different law."

No pass written in to US law.. Check out the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame case.... As others mentioned. If its a big expensive building or structure, you should look at it carefully... Law varies with time of creation of the building......

Famous Buildings .... You don't TRADEMARK VIEWS..... The BUILDING is a TRADEMARK of the owners, the TRUMP TOWER is a trademark of TRUMP (and his hair)... Not copyrighted but protected by its use in TRADE, a similar but different concept than copyright.

Disney.... WOW... Way out there.... Try this.... The castle (for example) is on private property and they can limit what you do with photos (personal use only for example). The Castle is a 3 dimensional rendition of a VERY copyrighted and trademarked work, There are no "several views". Shoot the castle, sell a poster and see how fast Disney has a letter in your mailbox. Protecting intellectual property is important to them since its the center of their business.......

Mark H

P51Mstg wrote in post #15956299
RD Kirk....
"Architectural designs are copyrighted automatically, just as photographs are, but in the US photographers have a "pass" written into the law that allows them to be used in photographs without it being considered infringement.

However, owners of famous buildings often trademark several views of their buildings (for instance, Disney has trademarked every view of the "Fantasyland" castle), and that's a wholly different law."

No pass written in to US law.. Check out the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame case.... As others mentioned. If its a big expensive building or structure, you should look at it carefully... Law varies with time of creation of the building......

I'm not sure of your point there. The photographer won the Hall of Fame case because the Hall of Fame had not specifically established the design of the building as a trademark...not because it could not be.

Sorry, but a view can be registered as a trademark.

That's what I said.

RDKirk wrote in post #15958410

P51Mstg wrote in post #15956299
Famous Buildings .... You don't TRADEMARK VIEWS..... The BUILDING is a TRADEMARK of the owners, the TRUMP TOWER is a trademark of TRUMP (and his hair)... Not copyrighted but protected by its use in TRADE, a similar but different concept than copyright.

Sorry, but a view can be registered as a trademark.

Exactly, the clue is in the name, Trademark - a mark (word, icon or image) used for trade.

When you sell Golden Gate Toffees you don't put the actual bridge on every tin you sell. You put a photograph or a visual representation of the bridge (or just the words) on the tin and that mark is what you register.

RDKIRK.... Sorry the photographer LOST the RRHOF case........ BIG LOSS......

One of the better blurbs on the web about it...
http://law.wustl.edu/j​ournal/2/p517spence.pd​f

Lot of other crap on the web about RRHOF, speculative stuff, etc written when it was in progress. Need to separate fact from opinion....

VIEWS can be trademarked, but you don't protect a building by taking pictures from all angles. Thats so stupid it isn't funny.... Disney didn't protect Mickey Mouse by making every possible drawing of him........

There is a reason I went to lawschool 28 years ago... I didn't do Intellectual Property Law, but its something I've followed since its somewhat interesting. Getting legal advice from here is a waste of time. Similarly going to see the lawyer that got your friend out of jail on a DUI charge isn't going to get you a lot of help in IP law. Most "Law for Photographers" books are crap. In a small way, law is like photography, you have to consider many factors, light, reflections, shutter speed, ISO, depth of field, motion, framing, background, etc...... If you write a book that says, "set camera to GREEN BOX and shoot" and that will take care of all your problems, you are ignoring factors that will influence the outcome. Its like nurses and paralegals, they all think because they worked in an office or hospital, they are doctors and lawyers. They aren't, not even close.


Mark H