# photo usage rights



## shifter (Dec 5, 2011)

I have captured some images on the property of a privately owned public utility.  I had assumed I was on public land but was not.  The utility now claims that I have no commercial usage rights to the imagery.  Is there any chance in hell I could legally retain full usage rights of this imagery.  I have spoken to one lawyer whom says its unlikely.  I was wondering if anyone has any hints on securing usage rights.
Thanks. Nick


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 5, 2011)

Welcome to the forum.

You'll likely get more pertinent information from the lawyer, than a bunch of strangers on an internet forum.

From what I understand,  you should still have full rights to your images.  But part of the issue is what you intend to use them for.  For example, if you only use them for editorial purposes, they may fall under 'fair use'.  This can include selling prints and/or some types of publishing.  But actual commercial use may be another issue...maybe not for you, but for whomever publishes the images...so in that case, they may be hard for you to sell if you don't have written permission to use the photos.  And of course, if there are any recognizable trademarks (or recognizable people) that may play a factor as well.

But as far as I understand...if you have taken the images, they are yours....even if you were on private property.  They may have a case to charge you with trespassing, and it doesn't sound like you continued to take photos after being told not to....so I don't think they have a claim to any image rights.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 5, 2011)

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television.  I do not live in the US.  Okay, disclaimers aside, I think a lot will depend on the circumstances.  Were you physically standing on the utility's property when you took the images?  Is the subject matter something that would also be visible from public land?  What are you intentions for the image?  I suspect that they probably don't have much of a claim against your image unless it was a totally unique subject and something that could only have be catured from private property, BUT... they're a big company and they have deeper pockets, so, even if you have all the laws on your side, they could, and possibly would make life expensive and unpleasant.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Dec 5, 2011)

I think BigMike covered it pretty well. The main issue would be if there are any trademark issues or any sensetive images that can be argued that you invaded privacy when trespassing and did not have permission to use those images. If its simply that you were on their property and shot something that could have been seen from the road, that is not a trademark ( logo, name etc ) then I would think you could probably argue your case.  For instance, if you crossed some invisible property line when taking pictures of some sort of utility accident or disaster.  They do NOT own your images though. You retain copyright regardless of what they say. They cannot revoke that. You created the image, you own the copyright. You can definitely use the images for editorial purposes as well.


----------



## KmH (Dec 5, 2011)

At this point you own the copyrights to the photos you made.

Where you were standing when you made the photos is now moot.

Did you consult with an intellectual rights attorney?

Many companies make loud noises claiming rights they don't actually have, but they also usually have the financial means to litigate until the other party is financially forced to give up and concede.

You don't mention how you envision using these images you made.


----------



## MLeeK (Dec 5, 2011)

You have already spoken to a lawyer. It's highly unlikely that we can give you better advice. And if you were to run with any half baked advice we gave what would your defense be? A bunch of people on the internet said it's OK? Obviously not! 
If you don't like the advice that the lawyer you spoke with gave you are totally entitled to a second opinion or a third or a fourth... However getting it from a forum full of photographers instead of a forum full of intellectual lawyers is kind of useless.
Sorry, my friend, but I think the lawyer is correct anyway!


----------



## KmH (Dec 5, 2011)

All lawyers don't know all the law. Not all lawyers are good lawyers.

Intellectual property and publication law is a specialty.


----------



## photo guy (Dec 18, 2011)

If you don't like the 1st lawyer's answer, get another lawyer's opinion


----------



## orljustin (Dec 19, 2011)

shifter said:


> I have captured some images on the property of a privately owned public utility.  I had assumed I was on public land but was not.  The utility now claims that I have no commercial usage rights to the imagery.  Is there any chance in hell I could legally retain full usage rights of this imagery.  I have spoken to one lawyer whom says its unlikely.  I was wondering if anyone has any hints on securing usage rights.
> Thanks. Nick



Where you were does not matter.  You know how paparazzi are always where they aren't supposed to be, and they license their image just fine.  Since the time of trespass has passed, there is nothing they can do about it.  Whether you can license them for commercial or editorial depends on the content.


----------



## KmH (Dec 19, 2011)

A lot of the paparazzi images are used editorially, whcich usually doe not require a release for any people or property in the images.

Paprazzi in states like California and New York have to be familiar with those states 'right of publicity' statutes.

I don't get why some members don't show their approximate geographical location in their profiles, or use a useless, goofy word/phrase.


----------



## bennielou (Dec 19, 2011)

Sometimes my brain wants to explode because of some of the advice given here.  It really does.

You talked to a lawyer, but now you want to hear from a bunch of people who hang out on the internet?  

My advice is to listen to someone who knows the law.


----------



## skieur (Dec 19, 2011)

KmH said:


> All lawyers don't know all the law. Not all lawyers are good lawyers.
> 
> Intellectual property and publication law is a specialty.



A very basic point that is too often forgotten.

skieur


----------



## BAphotos (Dec 19, 2011)

As many have said, speak with a lawyer who has some specialization in this field.  Also, here's a book that probably has more accurate information about this subject than what you're likely to find on here: http://www.amazon.com/Legal-Guide-Visual-Artist-Crawford/dp/1581150032

Intellectual property laws can be very confusing and something lawyers spend years learning... so asking a bunch of photographers about it is not such a great source of advise.


----------



## radiorickm (Dec 19, 2011)

There are a couple of interesting points in the OP's post.

First, the Utility COmpany and the lawyer agree the OP may have no "COMMERIAL" rights to the photos. This brings in the question of what did the OP plan on doing with the photos anyway? What was the intent and can the photos be taken somewhere with the same results.

The second things, is what are they actually objecting to? If you have the bosse's girlfriend's car parked next to his, I can understand his reluctance to have the picture published commercially (LOL). Is there some item that they object to, that could be photo-shopped out? IS there any negotian here?

The third thing, is there are laws that say you can not legally profit from the results of a criminal act (keeps prisoners from writing books and making millions); but in all actuality it may apply and they could get an order from the court to not use the images.

So, once again, what was the puprose of the images, and is it a fight worth fighting on your behalf???

Good Luck


----------



## unpopular (Dec 19, 2011)

I also wonder what the image is and why they want to stonewall commercial rights to it. I am curious if the image has any significant commercial value, or if this is an attempt to scare the photographer into thinking he has no journalistic or other rights regarding the image.

Does the image depict any sensitive information, such as health, safety or environmental hazards?


----------



## etnad0 (Dec 19, 2011)

The problem with people that keep giving you examples of the paparazzi is that they take pictures of FAMOUS people that have no expectation of privacy since they are public figures. Unless you were taking pics of someone famous at the location or a tourist destination, you may want to listen to the lawyer.


----------



## MTVision (Dec 19, 2011)

etnad0 said:
			
		

> The problem with people that keep giving you examples of the paparazzi is that they take pictures of FAMOUS people that have no expectation of privacy since they are public figures. Unless you were taking pics of someone famous at the location or a tourist destination, you may want to listen to the lawyer.



In the US you can take a picture of anyone in a public place. It's public and there is no expectation of privacy. 

There aren't any laws (that i'm aware of) that say its ok to take pictures of famous people but you can't take pictures of people who aren't famous.


----------



## skieur (Dec 19, 2011)

radiorickm said:


> There are a couple of interesting points in the OP's post.
> 
> The third thing, is there are laws that say you can not legally profit from the results of a criminal act (keeps prisoners from writing books and making millions); but in all actuality it may apply and they could get an order from the court to not use the images.
> 
> ...



That third thing did not go over well with a judge in New York.  The judge pointed out to the prosecution that taking pictures was NOT a criminal act so he could legally profit from it.  

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Dec 19, 2011)

MTVision said:


> etnad0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Unless it is being used to endorse a product, which as I understand it is what "commercial use" is specifically.

There are so many problems with this thread and the paparazzi analogy, it's not even worth commenting on. But just because the OP does not have _commercial_ rights, does not mean he or she doesn't have _any_ rights.


----------

