 |
|
|
UER Store
|
|
order your copy of Access All Areas today!
|
|
|
|
Activity
|
|
671 online
Server Time:
2024-05-14 03:37:34
|
|
|
 Benjammer
  
 |  |  | Legal Question
< on 4/18/2006 1:54 AM >
|  | | | Just wondering if making photos of an abandoned place available for sale would be illigal.
I'm from Canada.
Is it not a good idea?
I guess if you cannot identify the place from the photos it should be ok,
I like macro (see the lock picture) :)
|
|
SyberCat
| | Re: Legal Question
<Reply # 1 on 4/19/2006 12:17 AM >
|  | | | I would imagine that the macro photos would be okay, because nobody would be able to tell where they came from. They could be on your own property for all anyone knows.
Now, I'm not a lawyer or anything, but I think pictures of whole buildings are okay too, as long as you weren't trespassing. If you were trespassing, and the owner sees the pictures and can prove that that's his property, then you might have a problem.
|
|
Core
Location: MI
Gender: Male
Warning: Some side effects may occur
| | | Re: Legal Question
<Reply # 2 on 4/20/2006 3:09 PM >
| | | | Once the statute of limitations runs out you're good to go. It's a year here in Michigan so no one can charge me with trespassing even if they can prove it was me. Theft however is a different story, if they think you stole something the statute of limitations is probably longer and they can still press charges.
Exercise some common sense with your pics but I think you should be problem free.
|
|
lopix
  
Location: Ontario
Gender: Male
I survive on the poison you're feeding me
| | | Re: Legal Question
<Reply # 3 on 4/20/2006 3:33 PM >
| | | | I am one of a bunch that I know of who have displayed their photos in galleries and offered them for sale. Never a problem at all... Heck, 6 of us are even putting our pix in Contact this year, in Toronto. Wouldn't worry about it...
I'm not angry - just focused :: No human opinion is higher than the truth
http://www.lopix.com :: http://www.dkphotogroup.com |
|
Benjammer
| | | Re: Legal Question
<Reply # 4 on 4/21/2006 4:18 AM >
| | | | Whatcha mean pics in contact? IN Toronto? 
|
|
Benjammer
| | | Re: Legal Question
<Reply # 5 on 4/23/2006 2:00 AM >
| | | | Nevermind I Think i get it now :p
|
|
res_novae
Location: NoVA
Gender: Male
| |  | Re: Legal Question
<Reply # 6 on 4/23/2006 11:24 AM >
| | | | Just say you have a Camera with X-Ray vision. It's Superman's Cousin :-p
|
|
SeeThirty
Location: Indialantic, Florida
Gender: Male
| |  |  | | Re: Legal Question
<Reply # 7 on 4/23/2006 1:57 PM >
| | | | If I remember correctly, from a legal standpoint, you MUST legally obtain a release form when taking a person's photograph. Even if someone says yes to you verbally, they can still change their mind later and you're screwed because you didn't obtain their signature on a release.
As this pertains to property rather than persons, I'm not sure. I'd be more worried about the pictures serving as physical proof of trespassing, or possibly B&E. "Oh so you weren't trespassing? Then how did you manage to take these interior photos of a property you weren't given permission to enter?"
Photographing someone's personal effects and small property can logically lead to prosecution related to stalking laws, but I really don't know if this can be the same for land or buildings.
I guess we won't know until someone gets put on trial for taking the pictures.
12/17/2007 (somewhere in AvChat)
[10:29:47] <Lexi> Personally I don't really like her music
[10:29:50] <Lexi> But goddamn [10:29:59] <Lexi> I'd lick her dry. |
|
ngamer007
Location: Upstate NY
Gender: Male
Time for some thrilling heroics.
| | Re: Legal Question
<Reply # 8 on 4/23/2006 4:08 PM >
| | | | Yeah, I'm not sure. People take pictures of buildings all the time though for all sorts of reasons.
|
|
blackhawk
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: Mission Control
UER newbie
| | | Re: Legal Question
<Reply # 9 on 4/23/2006 4:28 PM >
| | | | Posted by SeeThirty
If I remember correctly, from a legal standpoint, you MUST legally obtain a release form when taking a person's photograph. Even if someone says yes to you verbally, they can still change their mind later and you're screwed because you didn't obtain their signature on a release.
As this pertains to property rather than persons, I'm not sure. I'd be more worried about the pictures serving as physical proof of trespassing, or possibly B&E. "Oh so you weren't trespassing? Then how did you manage to take these interior photos of a property you weren't given permission to enter?"
Photographing someone's personal effects and small property can logically lead to prosecution related to stalking laws, but I really don't know if this can be the same for land or buildings.
I guess we won't know until someone gets put on trial for taking the pictures.
|
If your in a public place were one has no expectation of privacy, it is perfectly legal to take someone's picture without their permission. I believe they have no legal recourse what so ever. Assuming of coarse your not stalking the person.
Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.
|
|
-MisfitStyle-
  
| | Re: Legal Question
<Reply # 10 on 4/23/2006 8:39 PM >
| | | | Posted by blackhawk
If your in a public place were one has no expectation of privacy, it is perfectly legal to take someone's picture without their permission. I believe they have no legal recourse what so ever. Assuming of coarse your not stalking the person.
|
True, according to most laws, however that all changes once you want to use their image in a public or commercial fashion. You cannot take a photo of anyone on the street and then use it in an ad without their permission.
"I feel like I just got in a battle of wits with some kid in a helmet I found licking a window."
Need help? Please use the Contact a Mod forum — I'm slow to see PMs. |
|
blackhawk
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: Mission Control
UER newbie
| | | Re: Legal Question
<Reply # 11 on 4/23/2006 8:52 PM >
| | | | Posted by -MisfitStyle-
True, according to most laws, however that all changes once you want to use their image in a public or commercial fashion. You cannot take a photo of anyone on the street and then use it in an ad without their permission.
|
Does that mean if you "single" them out, what if they are one of the dozens in the background in an ad. Can you show the legal statue for this? The news media does this constantly with no releases.
Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.
|
|
blackhawk
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: Mission Control
UER newbie
| | | Re: Legal Question
<Reply # 12 on 4/23/2006 9:14 PM >
| | | | Copied from this site: http://www.asmp.or.../releases/FAQ1.php">http://www.asmp.or.../releases/FAQ1.php
Q: How do I know when I need a model release?
A: The answer to this question can be reached by asking a series of questions about the subject and the use of the photograph. A model release is needed from each person whose likeness appears in a photograph that is used for advertising or trade (business) purposes when the person is identifiable. Look at the photograph and the person(s) in it and ask these questions:
1. Could the person in the photograph be recognized by anyone? Be warned: It is very easy for a person to show in court that he or she is recognizable.
If the answer to question #1 is No, then you do not need a release.
2. Is the photograph to be used for an advertisement? (In law, “advertisement” is broadly defined.)
3. Is the photograph going to be used for commercial business purposes, like a brochure, calendar, poster, web site or other use that is intended to enhance a business interest?
If the answers to question #2 and question #3 are both No, then you do not need a release.
Otherwise, the answer is that you do need a model release.
Q: What is the legal age for signing releases?
A: Eighteen is generally legal age across the USA. However, it is an individual state determination, and we do not have the legal stats on each state. If you want to know the answer for any state, we suggest that you call the state attorney general, state solicitor’s office, or whatever your state calls its legal arm. You can also call local attorneys, as they could not pass the bar exam in their state without knowing the answer to that question.
A safe course is to use ASMP’s recommended release forms. You are well protected because we use the words “of full age,” which covers you in any state. (“Full age” and “legal age” mean the same thing in legal jargon. “Full” allows you to keep the word “legal” off the paper. Some folks fear the word legal when they see it on paper.)
When the subject is not of legal age, you must get the signature of at least one parent or legal guardian on the release. Getting the signatures of both parents is better, so that one can not seek to rescind the consent of the other.
Q: What are the differences between having a photograph appear in an ad and in a magazine’s editorial pages?
A: The two differences are the need for model releases (see an earlier answer) and money. Generally, photographs used for advertising are worth substantially more money to everyone involved than photographs used for editorial purposes.
Q: If I photograph a large group of people and plan to sell the picture, would I need model releases from every person?
A: If you just want to sell fine art prints, or even posters, you should be OK without releases. If you license the picture for use in a book, you should be OK without any releases as long as you don’t allow the publisher to put the photo on the cover of the book or use it in promotional materials.
But if you put it on coffee mugs or allow its use in any way that would be considered purposes of trade or advertising, you are probably going to be liable for the invasion someone’s right of privacy unless you have gotten releases from every person who is recognizable in the photo. A bank once made a photo of about 300 of its own employees standing in one of its lobbies. When the picture ran in an ad campaign, some of the employees sued the bank, and won.
Q: If I photograph a clown in the circus and the picture appears in a magazine, can the clown sue me for depicting his trade dress without permission?
A: If the photo appears as an editorial illustration, rather than an advertisement, he could sue you, but he probably would not win. Just like trademarks, trade dress can be shown in photographs as long as the use does not create confusion in the mind of the public as to the origin or ownership of the trade dress and the usage doesn’t damage the value of the trade dress.
“Trade dress” is like a trademark, in that it is unique or distinctive and helps to create a business identity for the clown. (The term is actually quite broad; the feminine shape of a Coke bottle is protected as trade dress.) To learn more about trade and related marks, go here.
Q: How do I know when I need a property release?
A: The answer to this question can be reached by asking a series of questions about the subject and use of the photograph. A property release is advisable and may be needed from each property owner whose property appears in a photograph that is used for advertising or trade (business) purposes when the property owner is clearly identifiable by the property. (Note that the owner can be a corporation as well as an individual.)
Look at the photograph and the property in it, and ask these questions:
1. Could the owner of the property in the photograph be identified by anyone just by looking at the photograph of the property?
If the answer to question #1 is No, then you do not need a release.
2. Is the photograph to be used for an advertisement? (In law, “advertisement” is very broadly defined.)
3. Is the photograph going to be used for commercial purposes, like a brochure, calendar, poster, web site or other use that is intended to enhance a business interest?
If the answers to question #2 and question #3 are both No, then you do not need a release.
Otherwise, you do need a release.
When doing this analysis, remember that a property can include, or even be, a trademark. Depending on the details, use of another’s trademark without permission may be a violation or dilution of the mark. For example, if you photograph a building with the logo of ASMP on it, you have to have permission to use it for advertising or trade purposes. Why? because the logo is the property of ASMP. What about the building the logo is displayed on? This is more complicated question. To learn more about trade and related marks, go here.
Q: Can a property owner prevent me from taking pictures of his building, car, etc. from the outside? From the inside?
A: If you are taking the picture from a public place, and the subject is visible from that place, the owner does not have a legal right to prevent you from making photographs (although you could end up with broken equipment or anatomy). The answer is different if you are taking the picture inside (or on) private property. There, the owner gets to make the rules, and if he/she/it says no photos, then you can’t take photos.
Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.
|
|
blackoutangel00
Location: the other side
Gender: Male
| | | Re: Legal Question
<Reply # 13 on 5/4/2006 1:12 AM >
| | | | i'm curious about this subject as well. blackhawk, thanks for the info. i know several photography contests (like smithsonian and national geographic's) require that you have a release for photos taken on private property, and i assume if they require that, it's for a reason.
all i know is, i hope i never find out the hard way. i am selling photos on my website but seeing as anything i sell (to date: $0.00) would just go to getting better camera equipment, gas, and lodging for trips, and maintenance for the web site, i don't really make any profit from it. in fact, i'd say as a business i am probably $2,000-$3,000 behind at least. but my whole purpose is to preserve these sites through photography and their histories, not to make cash. i suppose you could argue with all that but i hope you won't bother (don't you have better things to do?)
back to the point though: i think someone could sue or prosecute you, as they could if you're on the property in the first place. it's a calculated risk.
and since we're on the subject, does anyone actually have a copy of the waivers one would need to get signed? i'd be forever grateful if i could get a copy of one.
well, best of luck to those of you who are trying to profit on your work. we all need it. i'll do as i always do when i enter a place i technically shouldn't be, and say a prayer for invisibility, that the powers that be will hide me from the eyes of those who would do me harm. same for all of you and your endeavors.
blackoutangel
abandonedamerica.org
abandonedamerica.us - the end is only the beginning
|
|
|
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 218 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 741630571 pages have been generated.
|
|
