Re: Selling Stock Photography No Such Thing as Property Rights?

It is especially interesting with respect to Google's photography, but it concerns us too.

A Dutch photographer told me you now need permission from the architect to photograph a house.

In Britain and I think Italy and Germany, photographers are seen by authorities as "security risks".

Australia and New Zealand are trying to charge photographers a fee for taking photos in public places.

It is not getting easier.

On 28-Sep-2010 12:46 AM, Fred wrote:

 

This is a very interesting case and unless you are already well versed in such issues I highly recommend that you read this article:

http://www.propertyintangible.com/2010/08/houses-right-of-publicity.html

or...

http://tiny.cc/1lkgw

You may have a right to own and do with what you wish with your property but the property itself does not have rights similar to what a person has.

Most of us, if we are wise, will always get property releases when we photograph a house or other such property even though they are likely worthless in a court of law. Why? Because you do not want to be sued, that's why.

Getting a release is smart on several levels:

1. It makes it likely that the present owner of the property will not sue you because he believes he gave you the right to photograph his property, even though no such right exists.

2. I may be valuable as evidence in court to show that you acted in good faith.

3. It may be useful in convincing the future property owner that you acted in good faith.

4. Stock photography agencies may require property releases for certain types of property.

5. A buyer may not be willing to purchase a license unless a property release is available.

6. It's a simple act of good faith and that is just a good way to do business and to live life, IMO.

Fred Voetsch

Group Moderator - Selling Stock Photography
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/selling_stock_photography/

Owner - Acclaim Images
http://www.acclaimimages.com/