None.  IMO.

None unless when the property was sold they also sold the copyrights to it as well.

Meaning if you bought it there would have been a clause added that you not only purchased the property but you also purchased the rights to it as well.

None unless when the property was sold they also sold the copyrights to it as well.

Meaning if you bought it there would have been a clause added that you not only purchased the property but you also purchased the rights to it as well.

No contract of sales of immovable property ever states that, yet the current owner always have that right (it is implied as being part of the rights to the property through common law). This is what makes this so interesting, because in normal legal terms the right had to be revoked explicitly by the seller who signed the property release and that also never happens.

None.  IMO.

Ditto, None, you have a signed contract, it doesn't revert when there's a new owner. You might want to look at Ex Post Facto for the answer?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto

Of course the OP isn't in the US so no one has to point that out, every time I answer a question. Thanks! 

Are we talking about a house exterior? If so, shouldn't it be the architect who has to sign the PR, in the same wise that you can't sign a PR for a car just because it's your car.
(I've never been asked for a PR for a house exterior.)

Quote from: ShadySue on January 21, 2013, 11:03

Are we talking about a house exterior? If so, shouldn't it be the architect who has to sign the PR, in the same wise that you can't sign a PR for a car just because it's your car.
(I've never been asked for a PR for a house exterior.)

Really? So I can drive down the road and take pictures of houses and sell it and the RF agencies does not ask PR's? Never tried it, so that is news to me!

IMO the architect designed the house under instruction of the owner, thus the design belongs to the owner who paid the architect to draw it (else the architect can sell the same design over and over).  If an architect has pre drawn up designs and you can pic one, the design belongs to him/her. No way though you would be able to know what the situation is by just driving past a house.

PS I had pictures of a group of holiday homes turned down and changed to editorial due to lack of PR's.

Of course, I only speak of iS, and I haven't uploaded any house exteriors for a while.
I was thinking more of estates, like the one I live in, where they are all built to a very limited number of designs, not the very posh kind. Yes, if a one-off, they do require a PR - I've read that in the forums.

But in fact, you have unearthed another problem. What if the original owner had commissioned an architect to custom-build a house, then sold it on (..and on ...) then you wanted to photograph the house. Who should sign then?

Sorry Charl you are really over thinking this. Every situation is different. Archetect or owner, including in some places, where you were standing when you took the shot.

But back to your first question.

You have a contract, with the owner and someone new can't change the rights "after the fact" just like criminal law, once something is legally concluded, someone can't go backwards and void it. If you have a properly authorized reproduction rights contract for an image, it's binding.

The words mean after the fact and that's the point. Criminal or civil. And it looks like you are safe.

South Africa

Section 35(3) of the South African Bill of Rights prohibits ex post facto criminal laws, except that acts which violated international law at the time they were committed may be prosecuted even if they were not illegal under national law at the time. It also prohibits retroactive increases of criminal punishments.

No it wasn't too academic, it was becoming metal masturbation. Someone answers and the next message is, well what if this. And someone answers and someone says, well what if that? It never ends. Turtles all the way down.

Since you studied law, you understand, there's always some grey area, beyond the obvious. So always the disclaimer, it depends. 

You did a fine job of answering your own question, eventually.

Ok, think I got the principle sorted out. It is like giving someone permission to walk over your property. The owner gave permission to take the pictures and sell it at the stage he/she was owner. The right to do so was given and taken up while he/she was owner. The fact that the pictures may be sold after the change of ownership is not seen as an infringement on the new owner's rights (you are not taking new pictures of the property).

After that things diverged into cars, and architectural rights. But depending on the type of house (this was about houses remember?) if it's a common ordinary design, yes the owner can authorize rights, it's their personal property. It's not like someone licensing a TRADEMARK item like a car. So the issue is getting even more mixed and confused.

Sticking to houses and structures, please. If it's plans were paid for my the owner and they own the rights. OK, if the design is owned by the architect, then now the owner doesn't own those rights. Depending on when it was built.  Artistic works of architecture applies to creative works, not a common garage, bungalow or cottage. It doesn't apply to public domain designs or structures.

Also in some cases: Copyright does not extend to "publication by way of photography, television or cinematographic films of works of art or architecture that are visible from public places"

The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990 (USA of course) changed the law from protecting only plans and drawing, to the actual design and artistic features. You can't copy a building anymore, even if you didn't use the plans. So consider this for photographers. Photos of buildings before 1990 you CAN use!

So it still depends on where and what and when. No one can answer the question except in general terms, because there isn't a single simple answer. Every case needs to be examined for a specific answer.

Homes are not personal property either they are real property.

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 23, 2013, 15:19

Sorry Charl you are really over thinking this. Every situation is different. Archetect or owner, including in some places, where you were standing when you took the shot.

But back to your first question.

You have a contract, with the owner and someone new can't change the rights "after the fact" just like criminal law, once something is legally concluded, someone can't go backwards and void it. If you have a properly authorized reproduction rights contract for an image, it's binding.

The words mean after the fact and that's the point. Criminal or civil. And it looks like you are safe.

South Africa

Section 35(3) of the South African Bill of Rights prohibits ex post facto criminal laws, except that acts which violated international law at the time they were committed may be prosecuted even if they were not illegal under national law at the time. It also prohibits retroactive increases of criminal punishments.

Actually I did not bring the issue up of the architect (although I find it a very interesting addition to the discussions here) and you can not "over think" a legal situation, that is why I spend 7 years studying ("thinking over") it. 

I found this specific aspect of the stock industry interesting, as I am now involved with it and the fact that you state "every situation is different" indicates clearly that there is no clear back and white line here. That normally makes for an interesting discussion topic, especially if it has been dished up as a clear cut case so far.

So sorry Racy, but if the topic is too academic for you, just don't participate.

(PS I have passed Latin as a subject  )