lauraflora

OK, I asked previously about selling photos of a private house, and you folks had great answers about that. (ie, not a good idea, due to privacy, etc., rights of the owner.)
This question, to which the answer seems obvious, but I'm just asking to be sure, is: What about photos of buildings in a town? These are probably in the public domain, since they are in a public place. Are there any restrictions on that? (I don't think so.) I have many photos I took in Britain, both England and Scotland - some in the villages in the shopping districts, and some of castles. (Most recently in Dollar Glen, Scotland.)

Would castle photos be, perhaps, different than village photos? Some castles are privately owned, some belong to the National Trust or British Heritage. Can one capitalize (earn $) on photos of either of these types of castles? Perhaps I should contact those organizations to ask.

Then, again, on the village photos - I have one I took of a giant ice cream cone outside of an ice cream shop in, I think it was, Calendar, Scotland. Could I sell a photo of that? I'm sure it was a one of a kind - meaning not a chain of stores, like Baskin Robbins. Which would mean the giant cone would be unique to that store and its owner.

I would like to sell some of my photos - somewhere. But I don't want to get into trouble. The thing is I love buildings as subjects for photos. I have some that I cropped and used just the window, or some that are reflections of part of a building in a window - so these are not blatantly recognizable as to which building they are (those are in Salt Lake City.) Sometimes I go for the colour of something - those I was after red on the trim. So those are alright. But some of the other building shots I question. I'm sure my Sears Tower shots are OK, too.

Any comments or suggestions? Thanks!

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

If the sign, in this case the ice cream cone, is clearly the subject of the image and is a registered trademark, or copyrighted image, you definitely need a release. If it is incidental in a scene shot you will not.

As far as a castle? I did a photo tour assignment in Germany in 2000 in which I took all the photos for a tourist guidebook. The Publisher had to pre-arrange releases from each of the castles we were going to shoot because it was for a commercial venture. It took 6 months to obtain all the releases in time for the April shoot date. The releases all had to come from the German government.

Images of Yellowstone Park that are sold commercially are subject to permit requirements under the national parks written regulations. IE; it is illegal to commercial profit from the park system in any way. But unless those images are sold within the parks boundaries, the law is almost never enforced and images are free to take and sell by anyone. You even have to obtain a special commercial permit to drive a commercial vehicle through the park, even if it meets all load restriction requirements. A simple gate pass will not work because you are "profitting" by taking that load through the park. Even UPS and FedEx have to obtain these permits to make deliveries inside the parks boundaries.

shutterfly Loc: Indiana

Interesting and enlightening information

photo guy Loc: Chippewa Falls, WI

Very interesting. I just learned something by reading this posting. I know there are certain buildings and landmarks in my town / city that probably would require releases as they are major tourist attractions but privately owned but open to the public.

Danilo Loc: Las Vegas

People from all over the world photograph buildings and signage, logos and trademarks, everyday and night in the town I live in. Many sell them and publish them without restraint.
I feel certain, however, that if I photographed one of these buildings and published it with the caption "DO NOT Patronize This Establishment" I'd have Guido or Vinnie knocking on my door!

photo guy Loc: Chippewa Falls, WI

There is 1 building in town that I would have no problem to photograph since I know the owner and his family and since my family has been doing business with them for over 30 years.

Dave K

For what it's worth, Fotolia.com, a stock photo agency, requires signed releases for all identifiable people or property, period. The release for property must be signed by the property owner or an authorized official of the owning entity (corporate officer, public property administrator, etc.). I personally think it's a wise precaution to obtain signed releases for anything you might want to offer commercially, especially in this highly litigious society. An exception might be made for breaking news, but even that can be limited - what, exactly, constitutes breaking news? For instance, Photo Guy is an official fire department photographer. As such, he may legally shoot and sell images of anything directly related to the fire - structures in flames, rescue efforts, and on and on - however, he will probably be called to task if he were to, say, take photos of that cute blonde bystander (one who was not involved in the actual fire suppression efforts) and sell same to some non-fire magazine (People, for instance)or even to publish it online, without first obtaining her consent.

I'm not a lawyer, but as a former newspaper reporter I have had reason to study this particular area. Again, all of you know how sue-happy people are today, so it just makes sense to protect yourself as much as you can.

You're, of course, welcome to disagree, but I wanted to add my two-cents worth to the conversation.

Dave K

Whedbee Loc: Alaska

In the US if the building was built after 1990 the building image is under copywriter. Prior to that shoot away. You might google that to make sure but that is what I remember.

photo guy Loc: Chippewa Falls, WI

Thanks for the info. I talked to the local business owner who my family has done business with for over 30 years back in the fall after his business was designated a local historical landmark and the family put up a new photo display inside to celebrate and was given the go ahead to take some photos. I told him I will wait until spring so I can get some nice photos outside first before inside.

lauraflora

Thank you so much for your info. Since I do not want to cause any trouble for myself, due to ignorance of laws / regulations about these things, I appreciate your advice. That is, of course, why I posted this question. We can all learn from each other. Thanks!

lauraflora

Thank you for your specific info about this. I guess I will have to re-think my subject matter when taking photos.

lauraflora

But here's another question. Dave K. says in his reply that Fotolia.com requires releases for photos of all IDENTIFIABLE people or property. What about UN-IDENTIFIABLE? For instance, my aforementioned reflection of part of a building in the window of another building (meaning neither are of the whole buildings, and thus are not identifiable) or photos of people from the back, where one does not see their faces, or sees only a silhouette. I have many of these.

Dave K

Generally speaking, I believe you're safe if the subject truly is unidentifiable. I say that because, as you know, some structures are readily identifiable, even in reflections or silhouette - the Washington Monument, White House, and Empire State Building all come readily to mind here. So are some people, either because of celebrity or physical features. Those would be the only cautionary notes, I believe.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I've done some extensive reading into privacy laws and, even in our current "transparent" society, there are still a few things that are protected.

Dave K

lauraflora

Thank you, Dave. That makes sense.

Glenn K

See this for additional info:
http://asmp.org/tutorials/photos-public-buildings.html

Note, however, that some buildings are trademarked. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame bldg is an example. You can take a picture of it for your personal collection. But if you market your image (without a license from the R&RHoF -- which you won't get) then you'll be in their crosshairs.