Do I need a property release?

I've read the sticky and I'm still confused.

A real estate company contacted me and wanted to buy some images I have. They will be used in a "waterfront living guide" which is just an article on their website talking about living in 8 or 10 small towns on the Chesapeake Bay.

For example, pictures of a local lighthouse. Lighthouse is on public property owned by the county. Do I need a release for the lighthouse? What about the beach that is next to it?

Another example, pictures of sailboats, fishing, or commercial boats out on the bay. Privately owned vessels. No registration numbers are visible and no people on the boats are recognizable. Do I need a release? What if a boat name is shown in a picture?

How about a local bridge during sunset?

I've read so many opinions across different sites my head is spinning.

Thanks

fordbjr wrote in post #18858119
I've read the sticky and I'm still confused.
A real estate company contacted me and wanted to buy some images I have. They will be used in a "waterfront living guide" which is just an article on their website talking about living in 8 or 10 small towns on the Chesapeake Bay.
For example, pictures of a local lighthouse. Lighthouse is on public property owned by the county. Do I need a release for the lighthouse? What about the beach that is next to it?
Another example, pictures of sailboats, fishing, or commercial boats out on the bay. Privately owned vessels. No registration numbers are visible and no people on the boats are recognizable. Do I need a release? What if a boat name is shown in a picture?
How about a local bridge during sunset?
I've read so many opinions across different sites my head is spinning.

.
Whether or not a release is needed is not your problem. . You don't even need to worry about a release at all because you aren't going to be the one publishing the photos.

It is the real estate company that will be publishing the photos, so they are the ones who need to worry about whether a release is needed or not.

Just make sure that in your agreement with the real estate company you clearly state that they will be responsible for acquiring any releases that may be necessary. . That's what I do when I sell usage licenses to various entities, and it has saved me a lot of hassle.

I don't know where this mindset has come from where people think that it is the photographer that is legally responsible/liable for securing releases.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18858289
.
Whether or not a release is needed is not your problem. . You don't even need to worry about a release at all because you aren't going to be the one publishing the photos.

It is the real estate company that will be publishing the photos, so they are the ones who need to worry about whether a release is needed or not.

Just make sure that in your agreement with the real estate company you clearly state that they will be responsible for acquiring any releases that may be necessary. . That's what I do when I sell usage licenses to various entities, and it has saved me a lot of hassle.

I don't know where this mindset has come from where people think that it is the photographer that is legally responsible/liable for securing releases.

.

This ^^^.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18858289
.
I don't know where this mindset has come from where people think that it is the photographer that is legally responsible/liable for securing releases.
.

It may be true that the client is responsible for rights. But the photographer is right there. A few years ago, I was contacted by an ad agency doing a job for Xerox. They wanted to use one of my photos of ice sailing in an advertising campaign. They were in California; I was local to the sailing club. Who's going to get the release?

For commercial shoots, yeah, let the client take care of it. For something more akin to stock photography, I think it falls to the photographer to get the release.

By the way, I took the shot with a 20D. The artist who used it marveled at the level of detail. So there you go.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18858289
.
Whether or not a release is needed is not your problem. . You don't even need to worry about a release at all because you aren't going to be the one publishing the photos.

It is the real estate company that will be publishing the photos, so they are the ones who need to worry about whether a release is needed or not.

Just make sure that in your agreement with the real estate company you clearly state that they will be responsible for acquiring any releases that may be necessary. . That's what I do when I sell usage licenses to various entities, and it has saved me a lot of hassle.

I don't know where this mindset has come from where people think that it is the photographer that is legally responsible/liable for securing releases.

.

I always put "Any/all releases are the resposibility of the client" It DOES save alot of hasseles!

joedlh wrote in post #18858306
For commercial shoots, yeah, let the client take care of it. For something more akin to stock photography, I think it falls to the photographer to get the release.

.
Yes, the client can require that the photographer get a release as a condition of the sale. . But it is not the legal requirement of the photographer to get a release, unless the photographer is the one publishing the image.

.

This sounds like the easiest and best way to do it.

I appreciate the replies.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18858326
Yes, the client can require that the photographer get a release as a condition of the sale.But it is not the legal requirement of the photographer to get a release, unless the photographer is the one publishing the image.

Actually there is no legal requirement to get a release AT ALL.

There is no law (state or federal) that requires releases for physical property. Property releases were actually licenses for the use of Intellectual Property (Trademarks) but someone got confused and thought they were for physical property (house, tree, car).

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18858786
Actually there is no legal requirement to get a release AT ALL.

There is no law (state or federal) that requires releases for physical property. Property releases were actually licenses for the use of Intellectual Property (Trademarks) but someone got confused and thought they were for physical property (house, tree, car).

This is true, which creates a certain degree of consideration of whether and when a property release is needed.

It's most advisable when the property can be easily and popularly connected to an individual, in which case it creeps close enough to a privacy issue that a judge would elect to consider the question.

At the other end is property that is nondescript or common enough that a reasonable person looking at the image would not agree that it's necessarily the property of the plaintiff.

This is, of course, not connected to the issue of getting permission to enter real property, which would be a trespass issues.

.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18858786
.
Actually there is no legal requirement to get a release AT ALL.

There is no law (state or federal) that requires releases for physical property. Property releases were actually licenses for the use of Intellectual Property (Trademarks) but someone got confused and thought they were for physical property (house, tree, car).
.

.
But there is the (viable) contention that physical objects ARE intellectual property.

The design of the car is intellectual property that belongs to the manufacturer (or the company that brands the car in cases where this is different than the manufacturer). . The design of the house is the design of the architect / builder (architects and builders are not always separate, different entities). . Some have claimed that the shape and form of a unique tree is intellectual property that belongs to the owner of that tree (the person who owns the land that the tree is on). . Many zoos and animal safari parks claim that the animals within their confines are their property and that they will pursue legal action if anyone publishes any photos of them without a release.

This is not people getting confused - rather, it is people vehemently protecting the things that they own from being able to be exploited by others for profit.

This is not ridiculous make-believe. . This is real stuff that has been a pressing matter in lawsuits and/or threatened lawsuits. . Just the thread of a lawsuit, no matter how frivolous, is a very serious concern that will keep any prudent entity from publishing an image without a release if there is any possibility whatsoever that someone claiming IP rights to any depicted object may threaten to sue.

Most rational people aren't only concerned with whether or not they break the law. . They are also concerned with making sure they don't do anything that might result in a suit being filed, even if that suit would be founded on flimsy ground. . No sane person wants to have to defend themselves in court, so they will conform to whatever the IP bullies say .... and rightly so.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18858901
.

.
But there is the (viable) contention that physical objects ARE intellectual property.

The design of the car is intellectual property that belongs to the manufacturer (or the company that brands the car in cases where this is different than the manufacturer). . The design of the house is the design of the architect / builder (architects and builders are not always separate, different entities). . Some have claimed that the shape and form of a unique tree is intellectual property that belongs to the owner of that tree (the person who owns the land that the tree is on). . Many zoos and animal safari parks claim that the animals within their confines are their property and that they will pursue legal action if anyone publishes any photos of them without a release.

This is not people getting confused - rather, it is people vehemently protecting the things that they own from being able to be exploited by others for profit.

This is not ridiculous make-believe. . This is real stuff that has been a pressing matter in lawsuits and/or threatened lawsuits. . Just the thread of a lawsuit, no matter how frivolous, is a very serious concern that will keep any prudent entity from publishing an image without a release if there is any possibility whatsoever that someone claiming IP rights to any depicted object may threaten to sue.

Most rational people aren't only concerned with whether or not they break the law. . They are also concerned with making sure they don't do anything that might result in a suit being filed, even if that suit would be founded on flimsy ground. . No sane person wants to have to defend themselves in court, so they will conform to whatever the IP bullies say .... and rightly so.

.

If the contention is that real property is intellectual property, then it is either copyrighted (which real property cannot be by definition) or it is trademarked and registered so...or it is not protected.

In the US, a photograph of a building is explicitly excluded by copyright law as an infringement of the copyright of the building design.