Photographing private property?

[revi]

Of course you can physically photocopy a chapter from a book but there are laws against doing so, but can copyright enfringement be enforced if the copyright holder has no knowledge of your action?

And there is the catch: at least in the Netherlands, such copying would be legal, under 2 conditions:
- you make the copy yourself
- the copy is for personal use only (study, etc.)
And as far as I know, the same applies to books borrowed from a library... (note that I'm not a lawyer, so use at your own risk)

I know such copying would be illegal in several other countries (France afaik among them). So rules about copyright, "intellectual property" and privacy can differ widely in different jurisdictions.

[peter2108]

Some time ago I was involved (peripherally) in a shoot for a TV documentary that took place on Hampstead Heath (London). The cameraman was taking a group of people sat on the ground having a picnic. He had Kenwood House - which is on the Heath - in the background. Immediately a flunkey rushed out to tell the young lady who was managing the shoot that he was only permitted to take views which did not include Kenwood House. So everyone shufffled about a bit and he went round the other side a pointed the camera towards the Heath. Obviously you paid for varying degrees of licenses to shoot on Hampstead Heath. People photograph kenwood House all the time - the issues start I expect when you want to make money out of what you photograph.

-- Peter

[Shadowman]

The Mayor of New York City, Bloomberg had inititated plans that would require photographers to obtain a permit to shoot within the city limits. The plan was scuttled after numerous organizations protested the blatant attempt at gaining additional taxes under the guise of homeland security. In the Dan Heller website, which is actually a book he published, the author stated that certain entities who sell tickets to tourists to visit their premises, print directly on the ticket that photography is not permitted.

Some time ago I was involved (peripherally) in a shoot for a TV documentary that took place on Hampstead Heath (London). The cameraman was taking a group of people sat on the ground having a picnic. He had Kenwood House - which is on the Heath - in the background. Immediately a flunkey rushed out to tell the young lady who was managing the shoot that he was only permitted to take views which did not include Kenwood House. So everyone shufffled about a bit and he went round the other side a pointed the camera towards the Heath. Obviously you paid for varying degrees of licenses to shoot on Hampstead Heath. People photograph kenwood House all the time - the issues start I expect when you want to make money out of what you photograph.

-- Peter

[timo2]

Hypothetically, if someone were to take photos of scenery and landscape which included the private property of another person, (assuming the photographer is not on that property, but on a public road or something) is the photographer required to ask permission from the property owners before selling that photograph? Are there any rules about this in the United States?

You don’t sell a photograph, you licence it. In general, and very simply, whether or not a property/model release is required depends to some extent upon the license offered (Royalty Free or Rights Managed) and end usage; editorial usage generally doesn’t require released images but advertisings usage does.

This is a huge subject… try googling “Royalty Free or Rights Managed”

[Klickit]

You don’t sell a photograph, you licence it.

As far as I understand, this relates only to digital works. If a print is made, it is sold.

[timo2]

As far as I understand, this relates only to digital works. If a print is made, it is sold.

When you sell a print – whether it comes from digital or not - the buyer is not entitled to duplicate it and sell copies; ie the seller retains copyright in the image.

Although the buyer is getting a physical copy, that copy comes with terms and conditions; the terms and conditions of the license.

Unless of course you sell or give away your copyright. I know some photographers are happy to work for nothing (a by line) but if one of my images was being sold many times as a poster (say) and I wasn’t the one making money on each copy, I’d be rather miffed.

[Klickit]

When you sell a print – whether it comes from digital or not - the buyer is not entitled to duplicate it and sell copies; ie the seller retains copyright in the image.

Although the buyer is getting a physical copy, that copy comes with terms and conditions; the terms and conditions of the license.

Ah - yes, hadn't thought about that possibilty.

[neverhood311]

When you sell a print – whether it comes from digital or not - the buyer is not entitled to duplicate it and sell copies; ie the seller retains copyright in the image.

Although the buyer is getting a physical copy, that copy comes with terms and conditions; the terms and conditions of the license.

When you say "terms and conditions," does the photographer have to outline those to the buyer or are they just kinda generally known and accepted?

[revi]

When you say "terms and conditions," does the photographer have to outline those to the buyer or are they just kinda generally known and accepted?

I think either the photographer outlines the terms, or you get the generic set generally known as copyright laws.

[timo2]

When you say "terms and conditions," does the photographer have to outline those to the buyer or are they just kinda generally known and accepted?

Copyright provides for the basic protection of all creative works and it is assumed or generally accepted but to make it 100% clear there is no harm in informing buyers that your work is protected. You do that by adding the © symbol, date and name of the creator of the work; some also add ‘all rights reserved’.

If you wish to place further restrictions on the use of an image, then you would specify them in the license. For instance, maybe you have a picture of a family member and you don’t want that image used for certain purposes, say, metal health related issues, or drugs or whatever. Or you might want to restrict which territories an image can be used in.