# Release form question



## Dagwood56 (Feb 16, 2008)

I know that you need to get people to sign a release form if you plan to use their photos for publication etc., but what about structures?  If someone wanted to put together a book of barn photos for instance, would they need to have the property owner sign a release?


----------



## skieur (Feb 16, 2008)

Well, you cannot copyright structures and if there is no one in the photo then you cannot possibly be invading anyone's privacy either. You also cannot be defamming anyone through the photo unless everyone knows it's the mayor's barn and you intentionally made it look much worse and run down then it actually was, for example. So, there seem to be no laws that you could possibly be violating. I would tend not to identify the owner of the structure or its location (although location could be in general terms).

skieur


----------



## Chibamonkey (Feb 16, 2008)

I know you probably already do, and this is probably a moot point, but the one thing I would get is permission from the landowner to photograph the barn, or other rural structure, if for courtesy more than anything.

Our family owned an old barn that was photogenic, and of some local historic significance.  You would be surprised at the number of people that would just drive through the yard of the old homestead to look at, photgraph it, or go through it, taking wood or other items.  The property was posted as private property / no trespassing without written permission, and the barn was posted for no entry.  A contact name and number was provided.  In 20 years, we only received two requests to photograph the barn.

At one point, it got so bad that we were concerned about the liability and vandalism, and were advised by our insurance carrier to either destroy the building or securely fence it.  We elected to do the latter.  Unfortunately, the barn was destroyed in a windstorm several years ago.

I know that I am preaching to the choir, but always ask for permission.


----------



## Dagwood56 (Feb 16, 2008)

> You also cannot be defamming anyone through the photo unless everyone knows it's the mayor's barn and you intentionally made it look much worse and run down then it actually was, for example.


 
LOL - I know of a few people I'd like to do that to.  Thanks for the feedback Skieur.



> I know you probably already do, and this is probably a moot point, but the one thing I would get is permission from the landowner to photograph the barn, or other rural structure, if for courtesy more than anything.


 
I shoot mainly from the roadside, but if I ever had the need to go onto private property I would certainly ask permisson. The worst I've ever done is park in the very end of a dirveway [at the roads edge] so I could take the time to compose a shot.


----------



## Chibamonkey (Feb 16, 2008)

You might be surprised about how much access you could get if you did ask to go around the structure.  

Years ago in college, I asked a property owner if I could go on her land to shoot an old brick grain silo for an assignment, and she was more than accomodating, just wanted me to be careful.  I took a copies of some of the better exposures back to her a week later, and she was overjoyed.


----------



## Dagwood56 (Feb 16, 2008)

Chibamonkey -

There are three barns I want to shoot that would require me to ask permisson and I have always put off doing it; perhaps next time I'm in that area I will give it a try - all they can do is say no, right?


----------



## Alpha (Feb 16, 2008)

You need a property release for shooting a property _on_ the property.


----------



## skieur (Feb 16, 2008)

Alpha said:


> You need a property release for shooting a property _on_ the property.


 
Which law says that?  Quote the section.  You are not correct.

skieur


----------



## Alpha (Feb 16, 2008)

I have no clue. All I know is that every commercial shoot I've ever seen on private property had a release.


----------



## dipstick (Feb 16, 2008)

Alpha said:


> You need a property release for shooting a property _on_ the property.



You don't need a release for shooting it, but you might need it for publishing the photo.


----------



## Alpha (Feb 16, 2008)

Well the OP stated "use their photo for publication."

So I thought that part was obvious.


----------



## dipstick (Feb 16, 2008)

Alpha said:


> Well the OP stated "use their photo for publication."
> 
> So I thought that part was obvious.



Yes it was. Sorry... 

I do agree however that you do need a property release, at least for commercial usage.


----------



## Chibamonkey (Feb 16, 2008)

Dagwood56 said:


> Chibamonkey -
> 
> There are three barns I want to shoot that would require me to ask permisson and I have always put off doing it; perhaps next time I'm in that area I will give it a try - all they can do is say no, right?


 

One of the motto's that I live by.....what's the worst they can do?  If you do decide to publish any of the photos, I would get a release.  And I would also give the landowner copies of the prints that you want to publish.  Be upfront and honest.  Can't hurt.  

Good luck, and I hope you get the shots you want. :thumbup:


----------



## skieur (Feb 17, 2008)

Alpha said:


> I have no clue. All I know is that every commercial shoot I've ever seen on private property had a release.


 
There is a separation between advertising use which "represents" the location in a different manner and where releases may be advisable and strict publication use.  For example, taking a photo of a newly painted house and using it to advertise a particular brand or paint store would certainly be asking for trouble. On the other hand, a coffee table book on barns in the rural countryside is neutral.

For publication use, a release is not required. Whether some photographers go after one for extra "insurance" in their mind is of course their personal choice.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Feb 17, 2008)

dipstick said:


> Yes it was. Sorry...
> 
> I do agree however that you do need a property release, at least for commercial usage.


 
For advertising purposes ONLY.

skieur


----------



## Alpha (Feb 17, 2008)

skieur said:


> There is a separation between advertising use which "represents" the location in a different manner and where releases may be advisable and strict publication use.  For example, taking a photo of a newly painted house and using it to advertise a particular brand or paint store would certainly be asking for trouble. On the other hand, a coffee table book on barns in the rural countryside is neutral.
> 
> For publication use, a release is not required. Whether some photographers go after one for extra "insurance" in their mind is of course their personal choice.
> 
> skieur



This is generally true, but carries a number of exceptions. It is still possible for the owner of a mountain house to sue you for publishing a shot of their home. Just boils down to insurance I suppose.


----------



## Dagwood56 (Feb 17, 2008)

Alpha said:


> This is generally true, but carries a number of exceptions. It is still possible for the owner of a mountain house to sue you for publishing a shot of their home. Just boils down to insurance I suppose.


 
I wouldn't think it would be an issue unless the exact address of the barn[home] was published. Would it?


----------



## el_shorty (Feb 18, 2008)

This is from the Photo Attorney's website
*Know Your Rights and Limitations When You Photograph Property*
*Property Releases Revisited*
*Property Release Requirement Put to the Test*


----------



## skieur (Feb 18, 2008)

In terms of statues.  You can take a photo of a statute that is on permanent display in a public place which is defined by the US Supreme Court as a place to which the general public has access and use it as you see fit.

In general terms copying a photo infringes the copyright of the original photographer but taking photos does not infringe the copyright of other items.  An architectural design of a building may be copyrighted but copying means building a similar structure not taking a photo of it.  Infringement of Trademark law involves "passing off" as in copying the trademark and name of Coca Cola on to a bottle and then filling it with your own brown coloured concoction and passing it off as "real thing." This cannot be done with a photo.

The third article/case may revolve more around the trespass issue than the taking and using of the photo.  The usual scenario is that the photographer for example has gone onto private property through an open entrance and taken photos. In this example, if he is asked to leave the property and does so, he is not trespassing. 

In the case mentioned, if you enter a property that is signed against trespassing or totally fenced off, locked, etc.  then you are automatically trespassing as soon as you enter.  The usual journalistic right is that even when trespassing you are still allowed to take photos and use them.

What the plaintiffs are suggesting is that the photographer cannot benefit from the crime of trespassing. The counter argument is that the trespass was not criminal in nature and he benefited from his photographic skill.

skieur


----------



## el_shorty (Feb 18, 2008)

skieur said:


> You can take a photo and use it in any way you see fit of a statue on permanent display in a public place. That is written in the law.
> skieur



Yes, you're right about this, but she's refering to statues being display on private property

*"In general, if property is visible and can be photographed from a public place, you don't need a property release to use the image in any manner. This exclusion to copyright law includes buildings located on the property, but not statues or other items that may have separate copyrights."  Photo Attorney*


----------



## skieur (Feb 18, 2008)

el_shorty said:


> Yes, you're right about this, but she's refering to statues being display on private property
> 
> *"In general, if property is visible and can be photographed from a public place, you don't need a property release to use the image in any manner. This exclusion to copyright law includes buildings located on the property, but not statues or other items that may have separate copyrights." Photo Attorney*


 
US Supreme Court has defined a public place as a place to which the general public has access, NOT necessarily public property. (Disney versus Sony decision). So, the question becomes did the general public have access to view these statues on private property? If they did, then photos are legal as is use assuming they were on permanent display.

skieur


----------



## el_shorty (Feb 18, 2008)

skieur said:


> (Disney versus Sony decision)
> skieur



I've been trying to find any information about the "Disney versus Sony Decision" but I haven't been able to, all I could find was "The Betamax Decision." 
Can you please post a link, I would appreciate it.


----------

