Author Topic: Do you need a release form for federal, state, local government property? (Read 5704 times)

vossphoto · « **on:** June 04, 2013, 00:47 »

Hi

Could anyone clarify or lead me to more info on shooting government property, Do you need a release form for government printed material / signage etc.
thank you!

JPSDK · « **Reply #1 on:** June 04, 2013, 01:26 »

Depends on the government.
Infrastructure, buildings and roadsigns is one thing.
Publications is another.

Shutterstock wanted property releases for Danish bridges (which are public)... so I got such a release. The authorities were very helpfull and were quite amused by the clash of cultures.... in the mere thought that public property should be released before photographing.

vossphoto · « **Reply #2 on:** June 04, 2013, 09:48 »

"Shutterstock wanted property releases for Danish bridges (which are public)... so I got such a release."

Your persistence is commendable. Personally, I think most photographers wouldn't have gone through the extra effort to obtain a release form.With that in mind, I would guess many photographers, especially while visiting a distant area shoot first and either don't submit the images that might have release issues or submit them as editorial images. I just don't see that the extra effort to obtain a release form is worth it, in most cases.

On to publications - Recently I uploaded a image of a small area of a IRS form. Some accepted it other didn't. When a agency refused it, they cited compositional issues, not that it needed a release form. I did notice while IStock didn't have one image of a 1040 IRS form, DREAMSTIME had close to 800. I guess a lot is dependent on the agency your submitting to and their policies.

Thank you

Poncke v2 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 04, 2013, 09:55 »

I also believe military and police and other G.I. persons can be submitted without model release

tab62 · « **Reply #4 on:** June 04, 2013, 10:04 »

In the USA if you shoot from a public location - ie the Whitehouse from the park- you're okay. But a word of caution- we recently arrested a photographer while he was taking night photos of our federal courthouse in Seattle, WA. There are concerns that he might be a terrorist and planning an attack. We released him after they did a full background check and found out he worked for some local news paper.

He probably no longer works for the paper since they are going to replace the photographers with iPhones anyway (Joke from the Chicago News String)...

JPSDK · « **Reply #5 on:** June 04, 2013, 10:33 »

Quote from: vossphoto on June 04, 2013, 09:48

"Shutterstock wanted property releases for Danish bridges (which are public)... so I got such a release."

Your persistence is commendable. Personally, I think most photographers wouldn't have gone through the extra effort to obtain a release form.With that in mind, I would guess many photographers, especially while visiting a distant area shoot first and either don't submit the images that might have release issues or submit them as editorial images. I just don't see that the extra effort to obtain a release form is worth it, in most cases.

On to publications - Recently I uploaded a image of a small area of a IRS form. Some accepted it other didn't. When a agency refused it, they cited compositional issues, not that it needed a release form. I did notice while IStock didn't have one image of a 1040 IRS form, DREAMSTIME had close to 800. I guess a lot is dependent on the agency your submitting to and their policies.

Thank you

I did it because I was tired of the agencies politics.
I wanted to dismantle that one and for all. I got a property release for " All publicly owned Danish infrastructure". So we wont have more of that PR harressment.
I got it so it could be availabe for others also.
http://www.naturephotos.dk/ForumPics/3_130110095322.jpg

tickstock · « **Reply #6 on:** June 04, 2013, 10:37 »

JPSDK · « **Reply #7 on:** June 04, 2013, 10:44 »

No. he can draw and design all he wants, but he signed the rights over to the public.
He can still promote his product: it was me who built this. Which he did.
But as well as the public can drive across the bridges, they can also lean onto them or photograph them.
They are there in the landscape. For us all to use and eventually earn money on, be that by moving goods across, or selling the smell or photographs of them.

The observant reader will note the wording in the PR release.
It allows any public infrastructure in The Kingdom of Denmark to be photographed and redistributed.
The Kingdom of Denmark is: Denmark, the Faroe islands and Greenland.
So go ahead and photograph habors and roadsigns in Greenland.

Poncke v2 · « **Reply #8 on:** June 04, 2013, 10:55 »

I believe that something paid with tax $$$ is allowed to be photographed and sold

tickstock · « **Reply #9 on:** June 04, 2013, 10:59 »

tickstock · « **Reply #10 on:** June 04, 2013, 11:03 »

Poncke v2 · « **Reply #11 on:** June 04, 2013, 11:09 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 04, 2013, 10:59

Quote from: Poncke v2 on June 04, 2013, 10:55
I believe that something paid with tax $$$ is allowed to be photographed and sold

Pretty much everything can be photographed and sold as art, I think we're talking about commercial and editorial RF here. Just because the tax dollars buy a Ford car doesn't mean you can take pictures of the logo and license it as commercial RF. Even camouflage can be protected http://wiki.gettyimages.com/camouflage-military-hunter-etc/

I am talking as much commercial and RF as you are, this is after all the microstock forum. A bridge is paid for with tax dollars. I dont mean a Ford car purchased with gov budget for a president. The Ford car wasnt made with tax dollars (although some would beg to differ)

tickstock · « **Reply #12 on:** June 04, 2013, 11:19 »

JPSDK · « **Reply #13 on:** June 04, 2013, 11:22 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 04, 2013, 11:03

Quote from: JPSDK on June 04, 2013, 10:44
No. he can draw and design all he wants, but he signed the rights over to the public.
Ok, if the architecture firm signed away all their rights. Are you saying all publicly funded works (statues, buildings, art, bridges, etc..) are in the public domain in Denmark?

NO, It is different. We do not have the same mindset.
If someone builds a bridge, its a good thing that we can benifit in many ways, such as trade, urban development and communications.
it is not always possible to predict what kind of benifits a bridge will have, it can be more or less. The mackerels might not want to cross under it and such the fishemen will complain. On the other hand, the Swedes can more easily transport their bofors cannons down south. They will endorse it.
There are oppertunities when you change the landscape with a bridge.
In our world a bridge is for the common benifit. Everybody is allowed to benifit in the way they can. Drive over with your goods, or sail under.

Lawyers and other parasites...
They can try.
But they make no sence, they are not producing any value. On the contrary. Which is why any mentally sound person tries to avoid them.

Poncke v2 · « **Reply #14 on:** June 04, 2013, 11:24 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 04, 2013, 11:19

Quote from: Poncke v2 on June 04, 2013, 11:09
Quote from: tickstock on June 04, 2013, 10:59
Quote from: Poncke v2 on June 04, 2013, 10:55
I believe that something paid with tax $$$ is allowed to be photographed and sold

Pretty much everything can be photographed and sold as art, I think we're talking about commercial and editorial RF here. Just because the tax dollars buy a Ford car doesn't mean you can take pictures of the logo and license it as commercial RF. Even camouflage can be protected http://wiki.gettyimages.com/camouflage-military-hunter-etc/
I am talking as much commercial and RF as you are, this is after all the microstock forum. A bridge is paid for with tax dollars. I dont mean a Ford car purchased with gov budget for a president. The Ford car wasnt made with tax dollars (although some would beg to differ)

Well that's a bit different than what you said, some cars are paid for with tax $$$.
Anzac Bridge http://wiki.gettyimages.com/anzac-bridge-australia/
Pont de L’Ile de Re http://wiki.gettyimages.com/pont-de-lile-de-re/
US military insignias http://wiki.gettyimages.com/insignias-u-s-military-police-firemen-etc/

There is always exception to the rule, but I am surprised none the less. 80 million dollar of tax dollars and its not allowed to take commercial photos.

tickstock · « **Reply #15 on:** June 04, 2013, 11:28 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #16 on:** June 05, 2013, 17:44 »

Quote from: Poncke v2 on June 04, 2013, 10:55

I believe that something paid with tax $$$ is allowed to be photographed and sold

I'm sure that depends from country to country.
But in any case, each agency will set rules for themselves; iS won't take e.g. publicly-funded statues unless you can establish that the designer has been dead the requisite number of years (70 in the UK).
Just like apparently (I've radon msg) SS won't take certain buildings that iStock accepts.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Do you need a release form for federal, state, local government property? (Read 5704 times)

vossphoto

JPSDK

vossphoto

Poncke v2

tab62

JPSDK

tickstock

JPSDK

Poncke v2

tickstock

tickstock

Poncke v2

tickstock

JPSDK

Poncke v2

tickstock

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors