Property Release ( when is needed?)

[takestock]

Can anyone define the "when is" and "when is not needed"

For example if you are taking a private home but not standing on their property - you don't need a release. Am I right on this?

It seems some sites will accept without while others reject!

[Waldo4]

I did a lot of digging on this because I take a lot of architecture shots (there is no good single source that I have found, this is kind of a hodgepodge of what I have learned and the rules that I follow):

Basically the gist of what I understand (the way it should be in an ideal world, not always followed though, some sites are stricter than others, but these rules will always be acceptable because legally it is acceptable, as well as morally):

Buildings that need a release are:
1) Privately owned
2) Recognizable
3) Not part of a greater skyline

Exemptions are:
1) Publicly owned buildings that do not specifically prohibit photography
2) Details of buildings that are not recognizable (common to many structures), and taken while on public property
3) Part of a cityscape skyline shot where the skyline of the city and not the building in particular is the subject.

Fuzzy detail:
An interior detail shot that isn't recognizable of a private building may be acceptable without a release, but in many places actually taking the shot is illegal without the owners permission (trespassing).  For snapshots of friends nobody really cares, but many (most) places object when you walk in with a big SLR and start snapping away at the building, and it is well within their right to call up the cops and have you arrested.   Taking architecture shots is tough legally, you have to be perfectly clear on your legal rights, even then prepared to be hassled by rent-a-cops and police constantly (the true cops generally know the laws decently and are friendly if you are (and forgiving), there are exceptions though).  Just remember that only a judge can legally force you to erase a shot from a card.

While it is perfectly legal to take and publish photos of many buildings, taken from public space, owners may object to the sales on a stock site so many sites go above and beyond the law and require a release.  In particular are residential properties.  Whereas a large multiuse building will be accepted by many sites without a release, almost all will reject homes without one.  Morally it is kinda rude to take pictures of a house and sell them without the owners knowledge.  The same should apply to larger buildings.  IMO when the building itself is the subject (not a small part of the building) and it is not a publicly owned building, a release should be sought. 

One exception to the detail rule though is architecturally famous buildings that are privately owned.  The Chrysler building is a prime example, though here where I live in Atlanta there are two quite famous hotels that I would consider to be off limits without a release, even tiny little details (I've got a ton of spectacular shots, but won't be uploading any, though I might seek a release with one eventually). 

[mantonino]

a release is needed pretty much anytime you upload to StockXpert too. lol

[vonkara]

Last week I have a picture accepted everywhere that I taken at a beach volleyball championship. I cropped the shot to show only the hip and it was accepted. I think that for property release you need this anyway all the time that there's a house in the picture who make more than 50-60% of the image... But I don't think you can be outside of the property and take the picture for selling like you say

[litifeta]

I do a lot of interiors. Getting permission is one thing, getting the owner to sign a property release is something very different, and most will not do it.

SO. What I do is to remove the art etc from walls, and replace it with my own.

RECOGNIZABLE I think is the key. Do not take photos of people's personal belongings.

I actually think one of the main reasons for this is security. When you do Real Estate photography you do not want to be broadcasting an inventory of good stuff to pinch for thieves.

[snurder]

Here is a related link for you

http://www.imagecatalog.com/copyright_and_trademark.php

Here is an excerpt

"Mississippi, Delta Queen and Natchez Paddle Steamers
Mississippi, Delta Queen and Natchez paddle steamers are a long obsolete technology. Some paddle steamers still operate on the Mississippi River and a property release is required for their use in commercial photography.

Olympic Logo, Torch and Athletes
All Olympic Logos, Torch, and Athletes are trademarked designs and require a special property release to use in commercial photography."

I included the boats as an example because it's something not a lot would think about. I don't think logo removal will work here. The pics must be editorial if submitted.

And included the Olympic Torch because of its currency. Again, pics can be editorial only.

Imagecatalog site - I have no affiliations nor can I make any recommendations about this site - just have the link bookmarked for info. Actually I remember seeing a list like this quite awhile ago on istock I think, so maybe it's pilferred. Can't say for sure.