Possibly a Stupid question about model releases?

[Mandy73]

Ok may be a stupid question but.....

Say I had a smugmug account that I was selling images on eg photo of the Taj Mahal, would I need a model/building release to be able to sell the image?

I know I would if it was a stock agency but wondered if the same rules applied for your own portfolio?

Thanks for any help...

[ChrisAdval]

Originally Posted by Mandy73

Ok may be a stupid question but.....

Say I had a smugmug account that I was selling images on eg photo of the Taj Mahal, would I need a model/building release to be able to sell the image?

I know I would if it was a stock agency but wondered if the same rules applied for your own portfolio?

Thanks for any help...

I'm not a lawyer, but laws on copyrights, patents, property/model releases, trademarks, etc... differ country to country especially if you shot the photo in a country you're not selling in... it can get very complicated but I'm assuming (just assuming) the Taj Mahal would fall under public domain since its popularity is very high and if its public property (don't know if it is) then it should be fine especially if you're a resident. But why bother honestly in my opinion there are billions of different Taj Mahal photos out there and I'm sure most of them look exactly alike even though it was shot by different people.

[andrewdt]

My understanding has always been that if I am in a public place (ie: standing on public property) then I don't have to worry about any implications with subject material (people or buildings). Of course it is best to have a model release with people as it is so easy, but if I take a photo of a recognisable landmark/building that is privately owned from out on the public street then I am ok.

BUT that is the way I have thought it through - am I wrong?

[ArmySoldier777]

Originally Posted by andrewdt

My understanding has always been that if I am in a public place (ie: standing on public property) then I don't have to worry about any implications with subject material (people or buildings). Of course it is best to have a model release with people as it is so easy, but if I take a photo of a recognisable landmark/building that is privately owned from out on the public street then I am ok.

BUT that is the way I have thought it through - am I wrong?

I know that, atleast in my state, you're right. I spoke with a couple of lawyers on the matter. But as Chris said, laws differ on a huge level from country to country. In my state, if I'm on public property, I can take a picture of any building or any person and use the photo how I see fit. That includes selling the image without model releases from the people. But as andrew said, it's always good to have that model release as a fallback. But that doesn't mean the laws in your location are going to be anything like that.

[dakwegmo]

Originally Posted by ArmySoldier777

In my state, if I'm on public property, I can take a picture of any building or any person and use the photo how I see fit.

That's not entirely true. You still need a model release for commercial use, otherwise, you can publish or sell the image however you want.

[ChrisAdval]

Originally Posted by andrewdt

My understanding has always been that if I am in a public place (ie: standing on public property) then I don't have to worry about any implications with subject material (people or buildings). Of course it is best to have a model release with people as it is so easy, but if I take a photo of a recognisable landmark/building that is privately owned from out on the public street then I am ok.

BUT that is the way I have thought it through - am I wrong?

if the property is private and uniquely designed or recognized you may not sell the photo unless its under public domain, i.e. some architectural buildings are patented by their unique design of the building, but if that design is built on so many locations around the world its really hard to prove mischief on your end... I always shoot models in public/private properties but try to not have a unique background unless I have a property release signed. Most landmarks that attract tourists from what I notice become public domain at least here in the U.S. so its no big deal if you sell it because billions of others are doing do as well.

[ArmySoldier777]

Originally Posted by dakwegmo

That's not entirely true. You still need a model release for commercial use, otherwise, you can publish or sell the image however you want.

True. Commercial use was never even something I think about, so it didn't even occur to me to mention it lol, good catch.

[Mandy73]

Thanks Guys,

I didn't really want to take a photo of the Taj Majal it was just the first example that popped into my head?

That's really interesting information... I can think of one photo I took of a lighthouse that is privately owned but on a public beach, it's quite a known landmark in the area and gets photographed lots.

So I think I need to clarify the law here in the UK to see what it is I'm allowed to do with the photo and others like it?

Not sure where to start so I better get digging...

[JFSanders]

Copyright law is a vast black hole and to go into it would be like becoming Alice to the nth power. There are blogs out there written by copyright attorneys if you can find one that is based in the UK then that is where I would start to get the basic understanding and to decide which questions I would ask an attorney.

[Mandy73]

Yes I agree I haven't wanted to delve into copyright law before which is probably why I'm asking this question here (instead of a lawyer).

But if I want to tackle my portfolio properly then I'll have to sort it out?

Thanks for the advice!