breal101 wrote in post #16110389
Some of what Dan said isn't true in all cases, it depends on the language of the real estate sales contract. For instance, if the mineral rights were sold on a property, rights of way were granted, etc. the contract can state that these are valid for all future owners of the property.
There are exceptions to every rule but they are exceptions, not the rule. Governments around the world put in place specific legislation in relation to mineral rights due to their massive economic importance and the substantial financial damage that rights holders would suffer in the event that they were blocked from accessing those minerals. There are currently no such laws in place for other types of property and it would make no sense to enact them. A single rights license for mineral rights will generate millions of dollars in tax revenue and billions of dollars for the company involved. The license fees on the use of an image of a house would generate a minimal (if any) tax income and hundreds or at most thousands of dollars for the owner. The cost of enacting such legislation would outweigh any economic benefit and that doesn't factor in the unreasonable burden that the creation of property image rights would impose on businesses (listed in point 3 below).
He is basing his advice on a single decision in a court in California, if you aren't in California there is no reason to believe that it will have any validity in your state.
1. No, I'm basing my advise on the fact there is no federal or state law (in any state) that requires such a release. You're advising the OP not to do something legal because, at some unknown point in the future, someone, somewhere may sue and at that time a judge may rule in their favour. On that basis we should all stop taking photographs in case the law changes some day.
2. I posted details of one case because its the only one to come to court. I view the fact that people aren't being sued over this in other states to be a good thing. Currently more people are being sued for (allegedly) taking bad wedding photos.
3. If/when this matter does come to court again the court will have to balance one individuals rights against the rights of many. The creation of property image rights (where none currently exist) would make it effectively impossible to use a photograph or video of a town or city for marketing purposes. I just Googled "London skyline" and picked an image at random. It contained at least 17 buildings, one ship, a railway bridge and a crane. Those were just the identifiable properties which you would need to trace the owners of and get a release; which of course you are going to have to pay for. You need their permission to use the image so you can bet they are going to want to be paid (and it needs to be enough to more than cover the cost of their expensive corporate/property lawyers). So say $1000 per property - your photo now costs $20,000 plus the cost of the usage license from the photographer themselves. And for what? You haven't invaded anyone's privacy - they built giant showy tower blocks specifically to get noticed. You haven't done them any actual harm by using the image that they would need to compensated for - and all of this so that you and I can stop people using a photo of our house or car, which we may sell next year or the year after and have no further association with.