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

Copyright always remains with the original creator. Publishing doesn't change that. However, if you need to defend infringement in Federal Court (infringement is a Federal Offense), you will need proof of copyright/ownership, and the only thing that is valid is copyright registration with the US Copyright Office.

I am not sure where you got your information, but maybe you should care about what others say - especially copyright and intellectual rights attorneys. I think your opinion is poorly informed.

I am not sure what your response has to do with the OP's question, which has to do with permission to use an image possibly for promotional purposes, which is governed by a release agreement. That has nothing to do with ownership.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I'm going to assume it's not "work for hire" where you would not own the copyright (that should be avoided in most cases and is a different issue from the salability of the images).

Assuming you own the copyright and have the right to "sell the images", you typically shouldn't sell them outright. That implies you are transferring your copyright, which you should try to avoid at all costs!

There is no need to give up your copyright. Instead you "license usage" of your images to various types of buyers. Licensing is extremely flexible and can be tailored for a wide range of situations, so the buyer really shouldn't object. If they continue to "insist" on buying the copyright, quote them a 6 figure price and they are likely to re-consider licensing instead. You have no way of knowing the future value of an image. I know photographers who have earned many thousands of dollars from a single image, from re-licensing it to a number of different buyers over time.

Therefore, it's reasonable to ask an extremely high price if someone wants to purchase the copyright. Licensing should also limit the ability of a buyer to resell an image and the length of time they may use it. You can offer first right of reuse and non-competitive, regional restrictions or other terms if they are concerned about exclusivity in a competitive situation.

You need a "property release" for the images, if you intend to sell them for commercial purposes (which is what pays the best). They will be next to worthless without it. Properly released photos protect both the photographer and the licensee of the images. Most commercial buyers worth a damn won't use unreleased images because it exposes them to all sorts of possible problems down the road.

If the images are taken from a public right of way, you technically don't need a release for "fine art" or "journalistic" or "educational" uses. However, many journalistic users and some educational image buyers would much prefer, and more highly value images that are properly released. So, basically it's always a good idea to get a release, if at all possible.

If there are people prominently shown in any of the images, get model releases signed by them, too. People who are incidental and/or largely unrecognizable, releases aren't needed.

I ain't no lawyer and there have been several suggestions you consult one, which is a good idea. I'm just a photographer who sometimes has to deal with some of these issues. (It's a good thing to have to solve these "problems", because it implies a sale and some earnings generated by our work!)

It simply is not true that "once it's published, you no longer have any control over an image". Before it's published, you should register the image with the U.S. Copyright Office (or the same office in you country, if not in the U.S.) This puts it in their database which reputable buyers will search to see if an image is protected under copyright. Yes, it's possible someone might take it and use it without your permission. But, if they do and you become aware of it, you have much greater recourse if an image was properly registered prior to publication (in the U.S., you actually have 90 days after first publication, to register... if you forget).

You should also protect your image with a mark of some sort.... a signature or watermark. Once it's licensed for someone to use, that may not be possible. In some cases, you might get a photo credit adjacent to the images, if your request it. You also can embed copyright protections in a digital image. Yes, someone can remove these protections. If an image is registered, you can be awarded an additional $30,000 per instance, where someone removed the copyright protections and used the images without permission. I also keep my digital files small for proofing purposes and most online display... too small for most misuses. (700 to 800 pixels on the long side... not really big enough for printing or much of anything else).

In the U.S., unless you have "signed away" your copyright with a "work for hire" agreement... or are a salaried "staff photographer" where your employer owns the copyright... you are the copyright owner automatically. I have heard this is not the case in all countries. I don't know if it's true or not, but I've heard it's exactly the opposite in Italy.... it's automatically work for hire unless specified otherwise. So if you are not in the U.S., definitely research local laws regarding copyright. There may be some variation in what's needed and how property or model releases are handled, too.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I have found that most builders and or owners of new buildings what to show off the finished product. That is, after all, why the construction took place.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Are we, as photographers, allowed to sell any picture of anything we shoot without first obtaining the permission of the owner of "anything"? For example, a field of corn, or a church or a door or a cat?
Are we even legally allowed to shoot the picture in the first place? If we hang such a picture have we not obtained some advantage?

Silverrails

Would it be advisable to locate a "Photography Lawyer", specialized in all legal matters concerning a Photographer?
Not even sure that a "Photography Lawyer" is a specialty field of Law.
Will look forward to further advice and discussion concerning this subject.

Rick Bailey Loc: Fayetteville Arkansas

If it is in a photo you are going to sell, get a release.

Robby418 Loc: Brooklyn, New York

Morning Mr. Myers and thank you for sharing such an insightful and knowledgeable explanation. Looking forward to pursuing the avenues and sharing the outcome. Greatly appreciated!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

See a lawyer.
Using a building for financial gain unless you are the Architect or owner is generally opening you up for a lawsuit.
But as in everything else there are variables.

optic Loc: Southwestern United States

Risk versus reward. Almost anything we might decide to do in our lives will wind up being a crapshoot --and might involve laws and lawyers.

Dragonophile

Ask a lawyer is not foolproof advice sometimes. Lawyers disagree - which is one reason we are such a litigious nation. As one respondent suggested, if you go that route, try to find a lawyer very conversant with copyright issues rather than just the one who might specialize in divorce or injury or estate cases.

ButchS Loc: Spokane, WA

Not true. Any photo you take is automatically covered by Copyright, according to US law and international copyright. This is true even if you publish it somewhere. Unless you specifically sell all rights to someone else, which is rarely done for publishing. According to US copyright law, your copyright remains for the life of the author/artist plus 75 years.

That said, while the copyright is yours, you may need a model release for any recognizable persons, if you sell the photo for financial gain.

However, you may also need a property release...

“A property release is a legal release signed by the owner of property used in a photograph or video granting permission to use or publish the photograph or video in one form or another.” -Envato

“You don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a private building such as a church or a house. This “Photographer's exception” to the copyright-owner's rights applies only to buildings, a category which includes houses, office buildings, churches, gazebos, and garden pavilions.” -Envato

cascoly Loc: seattle

first, there are very few instances where you cannot take a picture (eg, certain areas at airports). except for those very specific instances, no one can stop you from TAKING a picture. problems arise depending on what you DO with that image.

to get a better idea of what's permissible to sell, go to one of the microstock agencies and see what they list as royalty free, and what is sold as editorial.

if you are producing hundreds or thousands of images, registering is more trouble than it's worth -. even if you finally get a judgment (not w/o costs), you are still responsible for collecting $ which is the most difficult step.

ButchS Loc: Spokane, WA

What a lot of copyright holders don't know is that you do not have to register every photo separately. You can combine a large number of images together and call them a "collection" or "anthology" and register them all under a single filing.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

You can take all the building photos of buildings that you want to.
You cross the line when you try selling the image because it ceased to be for personal use and becomes commercial.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

The OP is far too vague and cryptic and incomplete to enable a useful comment.