Re: [Leica] Permission to Photograph Property?

[Jim Brick <jim@brick.org>]

At 02:20 AM 12/4/97 -0600, you wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I'm considering a project photographing points of interest around the
>county where I live.  This would include historic buildings that could
>be places that are set up as museums as well as some that are private
>residences.  Since these photos are possibly for publication I'm
>wondering what the legal aspects of selling an image of someone's
>property are.  In most cases I would think that asking permission to
>photograph a person's house would at least be a courtesy, but is there
>anything legal involved particularly if the shot is just taken from the
>road?  Would something like a model release be in order?  These would
>most likely end up in a book rather than a periodical, does that make a
>difference?  
>
>I would probably be using a 5x7 camera and some Leicas.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Colin

Colin,

There are two main uses of photography. Advertising/commercial and editorial.

In advertising photography, the photography is used to sell a product. In
all cases, privately owned, copyrighted, or trademarked property as well as
recognizable people, needs a release.

Editorial photography is photography used to illustrate something. Not sell
something. For instance, a book called "San Francisco" can contain pictures
of anything photographable in SF. From the privately owned Trans-America
building to the famous privately owned Victorian houses. These photographs
are illustrating a book on San Francisco. It's editorial use.

The Rock & Roll hall of fame is a little different. That picture was made
into a poster. The poster IS the picture of the Rock & Roll Hall of fame.
The picture sells the poster. The R&R HOF is a privately owned building and
trademarked. To use a trademarked building as a point of sale, a release is
probably needed. People can get the impression that the poster is produced
by the R&R HOF. Trademark protects against this. If that VERY SAME
PHOTOGRAPH were used in a book, perhaps called "Famous Buildings of
Cleveland", no release would be needed. Its use would be editorial.

It's not always as simple as it looks. A poster cuts a fine line between
editorial, advertising, and possible trademark violation. However... the
jury is still out for the R&R HOF. Appeals are still pending.

Pure editorial use in a book, is pure editorial use. It is pretty cut and
dry. And safe.

My wife and I publish regional scenic books. Carmel, Monterey, & Pacific
Grove. San Francisco. Napa Valley Wine Country (in the making). We have
pictures of people, private places, and private things, but no releases.
The use of the photographs is purely editorial.

Jim