Selling pictures of private property
- Thread starter Rick M
- Start date
I find it hard to believe that every photo of the NY skyline or of a busy freeway or the homes in Beverly Hills would be technically illegal. Not being a lawyer I can't comment about the law but it was told to me that whatever you do in public is just that, public. And if you can see it from a street or walkway that you can legally be on then it is in the public domain. And same with people. Take the paparazzi for instance. Do you think they need permission to photograph their subjects? The only time the paparazzi gets in trouble is when they take photos in a non-public place.
Sir it is common sense. If you have any reservations about anything then just go talk to the owner. It is that simple. Now if someone were to appear at my gate and my gate is always closed btw because of horses and they started taking pictures of my house with a long lens I would be like WTF? Now if it were a teenage girl shooting a few snaps of the horses I would be like isn't that cool... see what I mean. No trouble just ask. Or if you are a teenage girl shooting the horses (or the deer, or the Christmas lights...hahaha) that is ok with me you don't have to ask...LOL
BTW if you ever shoot at my house I hope you make a good one that makes money...more power to you sir.
BTW if you ever shoot at my house I hope you make a good one that makes money...more power to you sir.
Last edited:
Just-Clayton
Senior Member
It's a tough issue. When I had a picture blown up for a customer last year, A lawyer friend of hers said I could not make money off said picture, But, also she mis-undertood him. I actually talked to the same lawyer by accident and was explaining my problem to him. He said that I could make a profit with the picture but, I couldn't use the companies name to gain fame and fortune. Like I need to use a big company like that to make a profit. I still got a release form from the company to be safe.
AxeMan - Rick S.
Senior Member
Laws can be different from country to country state to state, county to county and town to town.
As a general rule of thumb I go by this "Guideline"
Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photographer's Rights Page
As I understand it as long as your on public property (sidewalk) and your photographing a house, as long as you don't invade their privacy (I.E. using a zoom lens to photograph though a window at something or someone inside) it's fair game.
I would say if someone's house is in one of your shots it's ok, but when in doubt, ask, the worse they can say is no.
BWDIK
As a general rule of thumb I go by this "Guideline"
Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photographer's Rights Page
As I understand it as long as your on public property (sidewalk) and your photographing a house, as long as you don't invade their privacy (I.E. using a zoom lens to photograph though a window at something or someone inside) it's fair game.
I would say if someone's house is in one of your shots it's ok, but when in doubt, ask, the worse they can say is no.
BWDIK
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Nice link. I might just tuck a copy of that away in my bag. But given that it's 9 years old, who knows what homeland security regulations have since been passed that make taking photographs in public more difficult.
AxeMan - Rick S.
Senior Member
It may be old but he also has a book out.
Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images (Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights & Liabilities of): Bert P. Krages Esq.: 9781608954759: Amazon.com: Books
I don't know the publishing date on the book, it could be old too
You Google Photographer’s Rights and Bert's name comes up quite a bit. With everything taken with a grain of salt some interesting reads on a Google search will give you a basic idea what you can and can not do. Before and after 9/11 and Homeland Security.
I am not a Lawyer and I'm not telling anyone what they can and cannot do. These are only guideline I follow. What you do is up to you.
To my friends outside of the USA. Most everything I'm linking and talking about pertains to the United States. Please check with your countries laws.
Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images (Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights & Liabilities of): Bert P. Krages Esq.: 9781608954759: Amazon.com: Books
I don't know the publishing date on the book, it could be old too
You Google Photographer’s Rights and Bert's name comes up quite a bit. With everything taken with a grain of salt some interesting reads on a Google search will give you a basic idea what you can and can not do. Before and after 9/11 and Homeland Security.
I am not a Lawyer and I'm not telling anyone what they can and cannot do. These are only guideline I follow. What you do is up to you.
To my friends outside of the USA. Most everything I'm linking and talking about pertains to the United States. Please check with your countries laws.
Andrew Kantor has written for USAToday. Here are a couple of his articles:
USATODAY.com - New digital camera? Know how, where you can use it
Misinformation about your photography rights continues to spread - USATODAY.com
They are somewhat dated, but it looks like he's tried to keep a summation somewhat updated. He has a link to it at the end of the second article, but it didn't work for me. Here's one that did:
http://www.andrewkantor.com/legalrights/Legal_Rights_of_Photographers.pdf
USATODAY.com - New digital camera? Know how, where you can use it
Misinformation about your photography rights continues to spread - USATODAY.com
They are somewhat dated, but it looks like he's tried to keep a summation somewhat updated. He has a link to it at the end of the second article, but it didn't work for me. Here's one that did:
http://www.andrewkantor.com/legalrights/Legal_Rights_of_Photographers.pdf
It is important to know your rights as a photographer. But, it certainly depends on what you want to photograph. I shoot landscapes and wild animals. I have no interest in photographing adults or children in any public place. If I had children and someone was taking a photo of my child I would certainly want to know why. This is just the world we live in now.
RockyNH_RIP
Senior Member
Rick, thanks for throwing the topic out there... and thanks for all the info from those who responded! Great info everyone... Lots of reading for today!
Pat in NH
Pat in NH
believe it is mostly common sense, but as stated varies by country and even site.
My gosh, almost every New England Calender, etc would have to be taken off the market. I treat it that if I am inan Urban setting, then the buildings, bridges and such are fair game.
And if you are in Time's square, well people are just there. Brooklyn Bridge, again, open public area.
but, zooming into people, it just gets complicated. I might take a picture for porfolio, but I would not market the picture without some
form of permission.
but, I know of pictures used in magazines that did not get permisssion.
There also famous places that copyright themselves, and state that while you can take a picture, don't try to sell it. The Eifel Tower in Paris is one of those places.
so,, seems again to be a hodge podge of rules that one has to have common sense..
and on NYC,, do visit, its a fantastic photo op.
My gosh, almost every New England Calender, etc would have to be taken off the market. I treat it that if I am inan Urban setting, then the buildings, bridges and such are fair game.
And if you are in Time's square, well people are just there. Brooklyn Bridge, again, open public area.
but, zooming into people, it just gets complicated. I might take a picture for porfolio, but I would not market the picture without some
form of permission.
but, I know of pictures used in magazines that did not get permisssion.
There also famous places that copyright themselves, and state that while you can take a picture, don't try to sell it. The Eifel Tower in Paris is one of those places.
so,, seems again to be a hodge podge of rules that one has to have common sense..
and on NYC,, do visit, its a fantastic photo op.
Take a look at this -
http://www.cob.org/documents/mayor/eob/legal-rights-of-photographers.pdf
The logic is simple: If you can see it, you can photograph it. If it requires extraordinary means to see (e.g., using a
telephoto lens, or trespassing on property not open to the public such as a private office), then you may not be
able to photograph it legally.
http://www.cob.org/documents/mayor/eob/legal-rights-of-photographers.pdf
The logic is simple: If you can see it, you can photograph it. If it requires extraordinary means to see (e.g., using a
telephoto lens, or trespassing on property not open to the public such as a private office), then you may not be
able to photograph it legally.
Last edited:
An Example
A photographer goes to a local mall, camera in hand, without informing the mall that he would be there.
He shoots some people walking around and some of the store displays. This is legal. He shoots some of the kids
playing in the little playground the mall has set up. This is legal.
In a drugstore, a woman gets a prescription and stands in a corner to read the instructions. The photographer uses
a zoom lens and gets a nice, tight shot of her reading the paperwork, in which you can see that it’s a bottle of
Prozac. Taking this shot is illegal because the woman, standing in the corner, has an expectation of privacy.
While in the food court, a mall security guard spies the photographer and asks him to stop shooting. The
photographer refuses and continues taking pictures. Taking these pictures is legal.
Angry, the security guard orders the photographer to leave the premises. The photographer refuses. He is now
trespassing. He continues to take photos, including of the security guard. Taking these pictures is legal.
The guard then escorts the photographer to the mall offices, where he is asked to wait. While there, he walks
around a bit and takes photographs of people working in their offices doing company business. Taking these
pictures may not be legal as the people in those offices have an expectation of privacy.
The mall manager informs the photographer that he is banned from the premises and demands that he turn over
his film or digital media. The photographer refuses. The manager then demands that he not publish any of the
photos he took in the mall and has him escorted from the premises.
The photographer publishes many of the photos he took, despite the manager’s demand. This is legal. He
publishes photos of the kids playing in the playground, although he didn’t ask their parents’ permission. This is
legal as they had no expectation of privacy.
He publishes the photograph of the woman examining her Prozac prescription. The photographer risks a lawsuit
as this reveals private facts about the woman that have no news value and that a reasonable person would not
want revealed.
He publishes the photos of the mall office, and of the people working there — none show what they are working
on, or any private or embarrassing information. The risk of a lawsuit is minimal even though taking the photos
themselves may not have been.
He adds a caption to one of the office-worker photos, “Roger McMurty of the Lone Pine Mall works on his
résumé one Thursday afternoon.” The photographer risks a lawsuit as this portrays McMurty in a false light —
implying that he is looking for a job and doing personal work on company time.
Another of the office-worker photos shows a woman facing front and pointing to a chart. The photographer sells
this to a stock-photo house which will then resell it. This may not be legal as it may misappropriate the woman’s
image.
The next day, the photographer returns to the mall despite being banned and takes more general pictures. Being
there is illegal; he’s trespassing. But taking the photographs is not, as long as he is not violating anyone’s
privacy. He is caught by security and escorted from the building. He publishes the photos he took. This is legal.
A photographer goes to a local mall, camera in hand, without informing the mall that he would be there.
He shoots some people walking around and some of the store displays. This is legal. He shoots some of the kids
playing in the little playground the mall has set up. This is legal.
In a drugstore, a woman gets a prescription and stands in a corner to read the instructions. The photographer uses
a zoom lens and gets a nice, tight shot of her reading the paperwork, in which you can see that it’s a bottle of
Prozac. Taking this shot is illegal because the woman, standing in the corner, has an expectation of privacy.
While in the food court, a mall security guard spies the photographer and asks him to stop shooting. The
photographer refuses and continues taking pictures. Taking these pictures is legal.
Angry, the security guard orders the photographer to leave the premises. The photographer refuses. He is now
trespassing. He continues to take photos, including of the security guard. Taking these pictures is legal.
The guard then escorts the photographer to the mall offices, where he is asked to wait. While there, he walks
around a bit and takes photographs of people working in their offices doing company business. Taking these
pictures may not be legal as the people in those offices have an expectation of privacy.
The mall manager informs the photographer that he is banned from the premises and demands that he turn over
his film or digital media. The photographer refuses. The manager then demands that he not publish any of the
photos he took in the mall and has him escorted from the premises.
The photographer publishes many of the photos he took, despite the manager’s demand. This is legal. He
publishes photos of the kids playing in the playground, although he didn’t ask their parents’ permission. This is
legal as they had no expectation of privacy.
He publishes the photograph of the woman examining her Prozac prescription. The photographer risks a lawsuit
as this reveals private facts about the woman that have no news value and that a reasonable person would not
want revealed.
He publishes the photos of the mall office, and of the people working there — none show what they are working
on, or any private or embarrassing information. The risk of a lawsuit is minimal even though taking the photos
themselves may not have been.
He adds a caption to one of the office-worker photos, “Roger McMurty of the Lone Pine Mall works on his
résumé one Thursday afternoon.” The photographer risks a lawsuit as this portrays McMurty in a false light —
implying that he is looking for a job and doing personal work on company time.
Another of the office-worker photos shows a woman facing front and pointing to a chart. The photographer sells
this to a stock-photo house which will then resell it. This may not be legal as it may misappropriate the woman’s
image.
The next day, the photographer returns to the mall despite being banned and takes more general pictures. Being
there is illegal; he’s trespassing. But taking the photographs is not, as long as he is not violating anyone’s
privacy. He is caught by security and escorted from the building. He publishes the photos he took. This is legal.
If taking pics of people's houses was illegal from a public space... Google would get it's b-side sued to somewhere and back, and then back again for good measure!!
Of course, Google doesn't sell it's streetview pics (does it?), so not a brilliant example, but it shows that taking the pic is not necessarily illegal.
As mentioned, if you were to zoom through a window to get a pic of the local eye candy, heck you'll be in trouble as that's invasion of privacy. Selling it = even worse :|
Of course, Google doesn't sell it's streetview pics (does it?), so not a brilliant example, but it shows that taking the pic is not necessarily illegal.
As mentioned, if you were to zoom through a window to get a pic of the local eye candy, heck you'll be in trouble as that's invasion of privacy. Selling it = even worse :|
It's an excellent example. However, I'd disagree in the two cases where the photographer was trespassing. Assuming the guard and the mall manager had the authority to direct him to leave, or ban him, I believe he no longer is within his rights to photograph from what is now, to him, non-public access property.
BWTHDIK