Interior photography photobook legal requirements?

Hi, I’ve had the privilege of photographing some very nice oceanfront homes in my local area over the past few years. I want to create a photobook/coffee table book of these luxury interiors. Are there legal requirements to do this? For example; do I need permission from the builder, architect, interior designer, stager, homeowner etc? Does anyone know where I can get specific legal advice for this niche? I’ve searched quite a bit and it’s surprisingly hard to find information on this. Thanks in advance!

Did you include a property release in your contracts when doing any of the work?

If not, and if you plan to profit from the book, then it is very likely that you will need a release, from both the home owner and the architect or designer.

But, the rules are different everywhere in the world, including the means and likely hood of enforcement.
The only good advice you can get is from a patent or copyright lawyer/attorney
Most of them lawyers here will give you 30min free consultation, see if you can find something similar in your area?

I second the recommendation of hiring legal aid, especially if you’re planning on doing a large run of books sold online or through a visible retailer.

From a this-does-not-qualify-as-legal-advice-disclaimer perspective, I think the homeowner or property owner would usually get you covered in SoCal (privacy and good will can go long ways too) and getting the architect’s blessing on bigger projects would also allow you to cite them and give some gravitas to a particular property.

Featuring interior designers, stagers, etc, if it does not clutter your photo captions, could be great to build relationships, although I haven’t seen them in photo books before and that seems more like an industry magazine type of thing, which may or may not be what you’re going for!

If they’re KB homes or some other form of suburbanite housing developer with no dedicated architecture firm, I think it wouldn’t matter as much unless you’re hoping to drum up business from them.

Thank you both for your input. I really appreciate it. I’ll look into contacting a professional for legal advice. Each property is custom built and has a group of contributors attached to it. If I had to get approval from each party involved it would be quite a difficult task. I probably wouldn’t pursue it any further if this is the case.

In the US, property releases are needed when images are used for COMMERCIAL purposes...that is, to PROMOTE a business or service or event. Kepp in mind, this applies to photos YOU TAKE, and not the copyright belonging to others.

In a book such as the one you are considering, generally photos in that book are exempt from the need for a property release, just as they would be if you enlarged individual shots and sold them to be hung on someone's wall as decor. But there are some exceptions to this! One of the most notable...

"the Pebble Beach Co., which owns the Lone Cypress, and all the land around it, and which has registered the tree as its trademark, doesn't take kindly to folks using its tree for commercial purposes. A sign at the top of the stairs leading down to the tree reads, "Photographs or art renderings of the Lone Cypress for commercial or promotional purposes cannot be taken or created without written permission from Pebble Beach Company."

...just don''t try selling those photographs, or you risk the billion-dollar wrath of the Pebble Beach Co. And it''s not just photographs: The restrictions extend to paintings, sketches, and all other artistic renderings of the tree, as well. "An artist can paint the tree and hang it on their wall, but if they sell it, it becomes a problem," "

Thank for your input and feedback. This is helpful.

Wilt wrote in post #19111093
In the US, property releases are needed when images are used for COMMERCIAL purposes...that is, to PROMOTE a business or service or event. Kepp in mind, this applies to photos YOU TAKE, and not the copyright belonging to others.

In a book such as the one you are considering, generally photos in that book are exempt from the need for a property release, just as they would be if you enlarged individual shots and sold them to be hung on someone's wall as decor. But there are some exceptions to this! One of the most notable...

"the Pebble Beach Co., which owns the Lone Cypress, and all the land around it, and which has registered the tree as its trademark, doesn't take kindly to folks using its tree for commercial purposes. A sign at the top of the stairs leading down to the tree reads, "Photographs or art renderings of the Lone Cypress for commercial or promotional purposes cannot be taken or created without written permission from Pebble Beach Company."

...just don''t try selling those photographs, or you risk the billion-dollar wrath of the Pebble Beach Co. And it''s not just photographs: The restrictions extend to paintings, sketches, and all other artistic renderings of the tree, as well. "An artist can paint the tree and hang it on their wall, but if they sell it, it becomes a problem," "

Selling any photograph as art (directly or as part of a book)--even a photograph of a person--is not considered a "commercial purpose" and does not require a release. There was a whole US Supreme Court decision on that. And the US copyright law makes an explicit exception photographs of architecture from being considered an infringement of the architect's copyright.

But of course, see a lawyer.

Thank you very much! I appreciate your input and knowledge. Your answer gives me confidence and I’ll definitely seek out the appropriate legal help.

Wilt wrote in post #19111093
In the US, property releases are needed when images are used for COMMERCIAL purposes...that is, to PROMOTE a business or service or event. Kepp in mind, this applies to photos YOU TAKE, and not the copyright belonging to others.

In a book such as the one you are considering, generally photos in that book are exempt from the need for a property release, just as they would be if you enlarged individual shots and sold them to be hung on someone's wall as decor. But there are some exceptions to this! One of the most notable...

"the Pebble Beach Co., which owns the Lone Cypress, and all the land around it, and which has registered the tree as its trademark, doesn't take kindly to folks using its tree for commercial purposes. A sign at the top of the stairs leading down to the tree reads, "Photographs or art renderings of the Lone Cypress for commercial or promotional purposes cannot be taken or created without written permission from Pebble Beach Company."

...just don''t try selling those photographs, or you risk the billion-dollar wrath of the Pebble Beach Co. And it''s not just photographs: The restrictions extend to paintings, sketches, and all other artistic renderings of the tree, as well. "An artist can paint the tree and hang it on their wall, but if they sell it, it becomes a problem," "

Yep. Same with the Eiffel Tower... at night. The tower itself is old enough and the creator died long enough ago that it is now public domain. But not at night... https://petapixel.com …ffel-tower-night-illegal/

---------------

Now, this is my opinion of how copyright should be: If something is put out there for viewing by the human eye, then it's put out there for viewing by humans. Meaning it is fair game for photos, movies, and such. I'm sorry, it's out there, deal with it.

Copyright protection would be for making copies of something. Or using it for commercial promotion.

Take radios and music, for example. I'm ok with the radio station being required to pay a fee to play a song, but it should stop there. A business playing a radio station on a little boom box in the background should not have to pay a fee.

My ideal would upset a lot of people, I know.

photoguy6405 wrote in post #19168743
Yep. Same with the Eiffel Tower... at night. The tower itself is old enough and the creator died long enough ago that it is now public domain. But not at night... https://petapixel.com …ffel-tower-night-illegal/

---------------

Correction, however: Art for the sake of art is not considered a "commercial purpose" in US trademark law. You can sell the photograph to someone so that they can put it on their wall. Andy Warhol made a fortune doing that with trademarked items.

People who depend on their creations to pay their mortgage, that's all.

RDKirk wrote in post #19168793
Correction, however: Art for the sake of art is not considered a "commercial purpose" in US trademark law. You can sell the photograph to someone so that they can put it on their wall. Andy Warhol made a fortune doing that with trademarked items.

I read elsewhere many years ago the people who own the Eiffel Tower lighting copyright vigorously pursue every infringement they can. <shrug>

photoguy6405 wrote in post #19168795
I read elsewhere many years ago the people who own the Eiffel Tower lighting copyright vigorously pursue every infringement they can. <shrug>

Have to be careful to distinguish between copyright and trade mark, as well as between the laws of country.

In the US, a trade mark infringement requires "trading on someone else's mark." If there is no trading going on (that is, no commercial product or service being offered), it's not a trade mark violation. So Andy Warhol gets to sell giant paintings depicting Campbell Soup cans.

US copyright law explicitly denies that a picture of a structure is an infringement of the architect's copyright. Yet it upholds that a picture of a sculpture is an infringement of the sculptor's copyright. The US does not recognize copyright of a clothing designer's creation (because US copyright law defines clothing design as a "utilitarian function" and doesn't cover "utilitarian functions")...but France does.

photoguy6405 wrote in post #19168743
Take radios and music, for example. I'm ok with the radio station being required to pay a fee to play a song, but it should stop there. A business playing a radio station on a little boom box in the background should not have to pay a fee.

They most certainly pay a fee, they are using someone's else's work to enhance their business.

Whereas with a radio station they are often granted licenses to play music for no charge to promote the artist and get the artists name out to the public, whereas a business does nothing to promote the artist, they are just stealing the artists work to make their business more profitable.

And those business's who don't pay for licensing can end up with legal problems known as copyright infringement.

https://www.soundtrack​yourbrand.com …m_R26Us3DzWAaAl​JfEALw_wcB

MBR wrote in post #19169283
They most certainly pay a fee, they are using someone's else's work to enhance their business.

Whereas with a radio station they are often granted licenses to play music for no charge to promote the artist and get the artists name out to the public, whereas a business does nothing to promote the artist, they are just stealing the artists work to make their business more profitable.

And those business's who don't pay for licensing can end up with legal problems known as copyright infringement.

https://www.soundtrack​yourbrand.com …m_R26Us3DzWAaAl​JfEALw_wcB

Not necessarily.

If the music is being broadcast over the speaker system, yes, they are using it to enhance their business.

If it's just a person or two and they have a little radio on the counter behind them so they don't get bored, legally it's to enhance the business, but in the real world it's just so the two employees don't get bored. I mean, I've known a person who was an attendant at a laundromat get in trouble for having a personal radio. I'm sorry, I think that goes too far.

photoguy6405 wrote in post #19169414
Not necessarily.

If the music is being broadcast over the speaker system, yes, they are using it to enhance their business.

If it's just a person or two and they have a little radio on the counter behind them so they don't get bored, legally it's to enhance the business, but in the real world it's just so the two employees don't get bored. I mean, I've known a person who was an attendant at a laundromat get in trouble for having a personal radio. I'm sorry, I think that goes too far.

Trouble from whom? "Attendant...got in trouble" doesn't say anything about the propriety of the actual law.

Playing a radio without a performance license is permissible for businesses that are smaller than 2,000 square feet (or 3,750 square feet for eating or drinking establishments). If the business space is larger, the radio is permissible as long as it emits from fewer than six speakers. This radio exception does not, however, include streaming Internet music.

So...was that laundromat successfully sued for copyright infringement because of the attendant having a personal radio?