Property releases

[Dr Jekyll]

A friend suggested I could submit some of my more competent photos to Alamy for stock. Looking at their website it seems you need a release for any 'recognisable building' in the picture if the shot is to be used commercially. In practice this means practically every shot I've taken. How does this work for cityscapes with dozens of recognisable buildings?

[singlecoil]

I daresay Alamy want that, but it doesn't make sense. Any building that can be seen from public spaces can be photographed from those spaces and how the building owner feels about it is irrelevant.[

[Dr Jekyll]

Photographed, yes. The question is whether those pictures can be used commercially.

[singlecoil]

Dr Jekyll said:

Photographed, yes. The question is whether those pictures can be used commercially.

Well the copyright belongs to the photographer, the owner of the building has no expectation of privacy, so I really can't see why not. And what concern is it of the building owner if the photographer got paid for it or not?

[Dr Jekyll]

singlecoil said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Photographed, yes. The question is whether those pictures can be used commercially.

Well the copyright belongs to the photographer, the owner of the building has no expectation of privacy, so I really can't see why not. And what concern is it of the building owner if the photographer got paid for it or not?

What about releases for individuals photographed in public and whose images are used commercially? They may not be concerned whether the photographer got paid, but the photographer is in deep trouble if the picture is used in say, an advert, and there is no model release.

[singlecoil]

I think Alamy can still use your pictures of buildings as long as the uses don't include advertising or other commercial as opposed to editorial use (which don't need releases).

[RobDickinson]

Dr Jekyll said:

How does this work for cityscapes with dozens of recognisable buildings?

It depends on the relative impact to the image.

A London skyline photo will have many recognizable buildings but because they are all relatively small and not a major part of the image it just adds to the setting, whatever product or service is being sold with the image wont be related to the specific buildings seen in the photo.

If the building is a big part of the image and identifiable then that is where you get the problem, you need a release.

For example if you took a photo of a young happy couple holding a condom package with the skyline of London behind them = OK

If they happened to be on the steps of St Pauls and St Pauls made up the majority of the image you might get in trouble.

[silobass]

Upload the photos - they'll soon let you know if you need a release or not.

[RobDickinson]

Obviously understanding the legal liability is with you not the stock agency...

[Dr Jekyll]

RobDickinson said:

Dr Jekyll said:

How does this work for cityscapes with dozens of recognisable buildings?

It depends on the relative impact to the image.

A London skyline photo will have many recognizable buildings but because they are all relatively small and not a major part of the image it just adds to the setting, whatever product or service is being sold with the image wont be related to the specific buildings seen in the photo.

If the building is a big part of the image and identifiable then that is where you get the problem, you need a release.

For example if you took a photo of a young happy couple holding a condom package with the skyline of London behind them = OK

If they happened to be on the steps of St Pauls and St Pauls made up the majority of the image you might get in trouble.

Thanks, that's what I wanted to know.