titan1 Loc: SC Lowcountry

If a photographer takes a picture of someones private property "old homesite"and then sells it.....is this ok or can the photographer be stopped?

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

I think only if there is a "legal" note out there, that clearly forbids or put some "kinda' restrictions on taking pictures of said property!

titan1 Loc: SC Lowcountry

interesting...i hope some more folks chime in.

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

I see nothing wrong with selling it as long as it was taken from public property or if the photographer had permission to be on the private property.
Walt

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

This is a web site. It does not practice law. Try someone who does. You will have to pay for the information. It will be valid in court procedures. Information concerning law obtained here will not be valid in any court, other than public opinion.

RTR Loc: West Central Alabama

You don't provide enough information for a proper answer. But if you were in a public place when you took the photo and there are no identifiable people in the photo I believe you can do whatever you want with it.

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

While we don't practice law here, we sure do discuss it. Photographers rights have been the subject of many threads on the hog. The OP posed a valid question and deserves an answer if we can possibly help him.
Walt

titan1 Loc: SC Lowcountry

Thanks!! Yeah, I figured with all the pros here there would be some answers because I know this has been researched by many. I have already asked a few lawyers but they were unsure. This is something most lawyers never deal with.

titan1 Loc: SC Lowcountry

There were no people in the photo, just an old house. The photographer is selling the photos "they suck by the way :)" and the owner of the property is pissed. I am just curious if the owner has a leg to stand on.

amehta Loc: Boston

If the photo is done from public property, I am almost certain it is legal.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Titan, even if there were people in the foto, it wouldn't matter. You don't need to be a lawyer, to know generally what you can shoot, any more than you need to be a lawyer to know the speed limit and the repercussions for breaking it.
What confuses is the word,"commercial use". And selling art pics is NOT commercial use.
Commercial use is selling a pic to Nike, Ferrari, or Viagra, so that they can use it in an add. And without the proper release, you have nothing to worry about, because, nobody will touch it, no matter how good it is.
It doesn't matter how pi$$ed the owner is, nothing he can do.
I always say, when you need a release, you will know. Good luck. ;-)
SS

Searcher Loc: Kent, England

Does the law in the USA work on common sense principals? If a landscape shot is photographed, that photograph will in all probability contain images of privately owned property. Does that mean that if the scenario of private property likenesses cannot be sold without the owners permission, it is also illegal to sell that landscape?

The same would apply to an artist painting a landscape including (say) a cottage or other building.

LEGALDR Loc: Southern California

This response is not intended to be legal advice. No client relationship is intended to be created and this information is not intended to be read outside of the geographical borders of the State of California. Anyone relying on this information does so at his or her own personal and financial risk. Whew! Now that all of the BS is dispensed with............let's examine the question.

1. If the picture is only of the structure, I opine that there is no problem if taken from a location OFF of the property. Do not take pictures of areas where there would be a reasonable "expectation of privacy". Don't shoot into bedroom windows, bathrooms, etc. The photo is the property of the photographer and protected by copyright. (A whole other kettle of worms)
Now watch out for taking Images of copyrighted and otherwise protected buildings and turning around and selling them. Remember, architects and builders may also have rights in the images of buildings? The Eiffel Tower in Paris is a protected structure and commercial photography requires a license.

2. The method for stopping certain behavior short of a shotgun is an injunction. This requires an attorney or a wanna be attorney, time, court costs yada, yada, yada.

3. Just remember Hogs, as they used to say on the TV show Hill Street Blues, "be careful out there".

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

You will need a property release if you want to publish the work commercially. It is a matter of privacy. However, if it is used for editorial or educational use you probably don't need a release.

No one can stop an owner from bringing a frivolous lawsuit so it is best to ask permission and get a release.

Public buildings are another story, and there may be security reasons why you can/shouldn't take pictures of them.

This is a pretty cut and dry topic, and there are lots of opinions about this, mostly wrong.

This might help lend clarity

https://asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-model-releases.html#.U2CpKfldV8E

http://support.envato.com/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Article/View/196/60/when-do-i-need-a-model-or-property-release

Bobbee

Doesn't Google do this now?