pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Property release validity after owner transfer?  (Read 4953 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 27, 2015, 00:03 »
0
Out of curiosity. Are property releases still valid after owner transfer? Signature there would be previous owner's.


« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2015, 03:05 »
+3
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.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2015, 03:07 »
0
Thanks Bunhill, what if the property owners dont inform the new owners (by mistake or just being forgetful)?

« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2015, 03:25 »
+2
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.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2015, 03:37 by bunhill »

Semmick Photo

« Reply #4 on: April 27, 2015, 03:46 »
0
Cool beans, thanks !

« Reply #5 on: April 27, 2015, 06:15 »
0
Thanks! That clears things up.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #6 on: April 27, 2015, 12:26 »
-6
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.

Same with cars.

Same with furniture.

Etc.

« Reply #7 on: April 27, 2015, 13:16 »
+2
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.

Quote
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
« Last Edit: April 27, 2015, 13:28 by bunhill »

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #8 on: April 27, 2015, 14:13 »
-7
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.

Quote
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
If you are shooting it on the property then it must be released from the architect!!

Learn to read.

Quote
which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.


The designer of any building has the original blueprints and is the copyright holder in the US!!

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

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf

« Reply #9 on: April 27, 2015, 14:18 »
+3
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.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2015, 14:26 by bunhill »

« Reply #10 on: April 27, 2015, 15:53 »
0
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.

Same with cars.

Same with furniture.

Etc.

yes, you are right. if the image is of a structure,.. the building, the overpass connecting between two building eg of a hotel etc.. it is an IP issue, and the architect owns the rights, not the owner.
if you are shooting the inside where the design is not obvious, such as someone's home,
then it is the owner who signs the release.
even a hotel bedroom can have IP issues, eg the design of the bedsheets are recognizable and many times associated with a hotel or chain.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #11 on: April 27, 2015, 16:16 »
-6
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.

« Reply #12 on: April 27, 2015, 16:42 »
+1
You can not shoot and sell commercial images taken on private property without a release, what are you missing?


Nobody is disputing this.

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.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2015, 16:44 by bunhill »

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #13 on: April 27, 2015, 17:09 »
-4
You can not shoot and sell commercial images taken on private property without a release, what are you missing?


Nobody is disputing this.

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?

Quote
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.

« Reply #14 on: April 27, 2015, 17:13 »
+3
I don't need to check anything with any sites I am with I know and understand the copyright / trademark  issues.

Either you don't, or you're trolling. Or both.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #15 on: April 27, 2015, 17:17 »
+3
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.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2015, 17:20 by ShadySue »



Semmick Photo

« Reply #17 on: April 28, 2015, 02:50 »
+2
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

« Reply #18 on: April 28, 2015, 07:22 »
+7
You don't need a property release from an architect to shoot on private property.  You think all these business images online have architect signed releases?  Lol.  The architect hold copyright on the plans, which is why blueprints require releases. Private spaces just require permission to be there.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #19 on: April 28, 2015, 09:39 »
+4
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!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
11001 Views
Last post September 26, 2008, 16:15
by JC-SL
17 Replies
12724 Views
Last post August 17, 2010, 10:48
by Anyka
32 Replies
9276 Views
Last post March 31, 2015, 22:11
by ruxpriencdiam
3 Replies
5039 Views
Last post June 29, 2013, 12:43
by Ron
7 Replies
4513 Views
Last post September 16, 2013, 08:30
by gillian vann

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors