Stock Photography

[JoeKitchen]

Its funny you should mention that lawsuit and that he got sued for copyright infringement.  This past friday I attended a copyright seminar offered by the ASMP and in the copyright act of 1976 it states (not word for word) that a photography of a 3 dimensional object is not a violation of the 3-D creator's copyright and that the photographer owns the copyright to the image.  Did he win or loose, or just settle?  I can image that a federal lawsuit would be pretty expensive to defend.  

But getting back to Jon's point, how do you get property releases for jobs when you where not commissioned by the land owner?  I would love to be able to sell images from commissioned jobs, but I usually never work for the land owner, especially on private residences.

[pixjohn]

The photographer did get sued, but you did not mention he WON. There is no case president against any photographer or film production shooting from public property. The Flatiron building in New York also sued stating the building was trademarked, I believe they also lost. Look up the blog http://www.photoattorney.com/ and property release.  ( Blog Post   ) My contract has a property release for all projects I shoot, but I am shooting on the property.

Ok, I'll put it simply. He was making money from the images of their building. As I recall, the photographer simply got some great shots of the building from quite some distance (public viewpoint) at dusk in particular, made posters, postcards, etc. and privately marketed the images. It's a cool building, they were nice shots. He treated them as stock to make an income, on his own. He got seriously sued for copyright infringement. This was the first case of this type and caused quite a stir. I believe ASMP got involved with this one.

[JonathanBenoit]

The photographer did get sued, but you did not mention he WON. There is no case president against any photographer or film production shooting from public property. The Flatiron building in New York also sued stating the building was trademarked, I believe they also lost. Look up the blog http://www.photoattorney.com/ and property release.  ( Blog Post   ) My contract has a property release for all projects I shoot, but I am shooting on the property.

This is what I thought. I know stock agencies almost always require it to save their butts for any future law changes, but I'd rather sell my own architectural images than have getty, or even corbis handle them.
Do you have separate paperwork for the property release, or is it just an additional line or two in the contract?

JB

[rsmphoto]

The photographer did get sued, but you did not mention he WON. There is no case president against any photographer or film production shooting from public property. The Flatiron building in New York also sued stating the building was trademarked, I believe they also lost. Look up the blog http://www.photoattorney.com/ and property release.  ( Blog Post   ) My contract has a property release for all projects I shoot, but I am shooting on the property.

Pixjohn,

That goes without saying. Can you imagine all the paperwork we'd be trotting out at each shoot if they had won? All of us in the arch photo world would be working much, much differently if that case had been won. And we'd all be daily reciting that legal decision as a rueful mantra. Whether the case was won or lost was not what I was driving at. I was pointing out that thanks to the legal profession, people/corporations are trending toward viewing images of their property (especially iconic ones such as the Flatiron Bldg.) as proprietary, even if shot from a public viewpoint. I mention it more as a cautionary tale, outlining the fact that some have already attempted to sue even when there is no precedent, merely because they have deep pockets. My experience is that this "guarding" of private property images has slowly come increasingly into my discussions with clients, and will likely continue to do so. Anyway, as they say, "forewarned is forearmed."

A separate property release would be best. ASMP has them available if you're a member.

Here's a quote from their site that might prove helpful and finishes by reinforcing why I told my tale of Cleveland,

"Conversion. ... there is an offense called conversion, which means that you used another’s property to your own personal gain without the owner’s permission. It is a bit like copyright infringement, which covers intangible property, except it covers tangible property. If I rent out your house while you are away without your permission, I have converted it to my personal gain. That is conversion. The question is this: Is it conversion if I rent out a picture of your house for an advertisement without your permission? The picture of your house is not your tangible property. Is the photo of the house the equivalent of the house (at least for these purposes)?
 
We know of no case that has ever settled those kinds of questions. ASMP advises that property releases be acquired whenever possible because we don’t want to see you be the test case."