Short answer: yes.

The role of an advocate acting for the purchaser will typically include researching, amongst other things, any existing contracts which are in place and which relate to the property. The vendor also has a responsibility to disclose any existing contracts relating to the property. Anyone asking someone to sign a property release should make this clear to the person signing.

It may potentially not be the case in all countries. I only have experience of buying properties in two different countries.

Thanks Bunhill, what if the property owners dont inform the new owners (by mistake or just being forgetful)?

In an extreme case that could potentially depend upon whether the previous owner had specifically signed a document stating that no other contracts were in place (which may typically be part of what is signed when selling ). There could potentially be trouble. But all countries are different. A court or tribunal might equally decide that a property release was not significant enough to matter.

The owner signing a property release signs in their role as Owner. The contract remains valid even after someone else takes on the role of Owner. The same as company contracts remain valid even after new Directors and Executives are appointed.

Thanks! That clears things up.

If the property is a building like a house the owner doesn't count because whoever has the blueprints drawn up for the building is the only one who can sign a release, just because you own it doesn't mean you own the copyright to it.

No. I have no idea what country you are in. But this is not the case in any European country I have ever lived and it is not the case in the USA according to www.copyright.gov.

� 120 . Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works

(a) Pictorial Representations Permitted.�The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

The owner of a building is the person who would sign a property release. Not the architect. The point being that a property release in this context is a permission-thing rather than a copyright-thing. Therefore the copyright of the design is normally going to be irrelevant except where there are specific exceptions. Unlike the design of, say, furniture or cars.

Also see: https://asmp.org

Therefore if you are on the private property where that building is located it must be released from the Architect not the owner!

You are, simply, wrong. It is not a copyright issue.

But if you have any doubts then I would advise you to contact Getty directly, or whoever you are with.

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on April 27, 2015, 14:13

Therefore if you are on the private property where that building is located it must be released from the Architect not the owner!

You are, simply, wrong. It is not a copyright issue.

But if you have any doubts then I would advise you to contact Getty directly, or whoever you are with.

Man you must really be new at this!

You can not shoot and sell commercial images taken on private property without a release, what are you missing?

When you buy something you are not buying the copyright you are buying a product the copyright stays with the designer of the product.

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on April 27, 2015, 16:16

You can not shoot and sell commercial images taken on private property without a release, what are you missing?

Nobody is disputing this.

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on April 27, 2015, 16:16

When you buy something you are not buying the copyright you are buying a product the copyright stays with the designer of the product.

Nobody is disputing this. As you know.

Your argument above, the point we are addressing concerns buildings - houses specifically. Copyright is not typically the issue with houses. The issue is one of permission. (Sometime a Property Release covers copyright - sometimes a Property Release covers a different sort of permission - eg with houses).

You will find the information you need here:

Getty Images Contributor Community - Model and Property Releases

and also here:

asmp.org

If those links are not good enough for you then why not contact Getty directly or whoever you sell via.

Man I have more links concerning copyright then you can image.

Did you not read the ARCHITECTURE link from the Us copyright office?

An original design of a building created in any tangible medium of expression,
including a constructed building or architectural plans, models, or drawings, is
subject to copyright protection as an �architectural work� under section 102 of
the Copyright Act (title 17 of the
United States Code
), as amended on December
1, 1990. Protection extends to the overall form as well as the arrangement and
composition of spaces and elements in the design but does not include indi
vidual standard features or design elements that are functionally required.
The term �building� means structures that are habitable by humans and
intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and office build
ings and other permanent and stationary structures designed for human occu
pancy, including, but not limited to, churches, museums, gazebos, and garden
pavilions.

I don't need to check anything with any sites I am with I know and understand the copyright / trademark  issues.

And as many of us live furth of the US, here's the Law in the UK:

"In the UK, the following acts do not infringe the copyright in a building:
i) making a graphic work representing it
ii) taking a photograph or filming it
iii) broadcasting or including in a cable programme service a visual image of it

The copyright in a building may be infringed by copying the building as a whole, or constructing another building which incorporates any of the original artistic features protected by copyright."

http://www.dacs.org.uk/knowledge-base/factsheets/architectural-plans-and-buildings

Obviously that wouldn't necessarily obviate the need for a PR from the house owner, but it's nothing to do with the architect, or commissioning builder.

You are most pedantic. Learn to communicate with respect. I could learn so anyone can. Someone disagreeing with you doesn't mean that they attack you. I found my peace with ticktock and gbalex but you really grind my gears. Lol

This is getting silly and off track.

If you have a legal release and the owner changes, the release is still valid.

Imagine the world if every document was based on only the original person who signed it, and authorized the agreement. The courts would be flooded with people, every day, getting new papers for everything!