now, before you get all excited, it is a crap photo and it isn't the artistry they're after, it's the subject...
i've been taking photos of interesting vanity plates and one of them was this one... would have loved to get a better shot, but this was taken with my iphone while we were on the go, and it's the best i could do...
now someone has contacted me thru flickr with the following request:
"I'm finishing writing a book dealing with sci-fi, and I thought it would be kind of fun to include your "I'm Seven" License Plate photo. I have similar license images, however I kind of like yours a bit more. If I show you as photographer, might I possibly have exclusive unrestricted permission (all future world editions/languages/derivations/ads/covers), to sell it in my printed book as well as from the book site's down-loadable image bank? (agreeing is like a signature). Ownership of course would remain yours"
so... is this how it's done? and is there any liability coming to me as i (obviously) never got permission from the owner of the car to take this photo?
You don't need permission to take a shot in a public place :) As far as giving your permission, it's entirely your choice. Would be great to have your name out there if it's not already. Can you see any other use for the photo? and just how good is the book? Lot's to consider, but if it was me, amateur that I am I wouldn't mind the idea.
Aways nice to have your work published and widely seen. I guess it depends on how you feel about the photo. If you feel it isn't a good enough photo to represent your work then perhaps that is the deal breaker. Do what your heart tells you. Don't over think it. Go with your gut.
When I was yelled at and threatened with a legal action for taking a photograph of some horses in a field I deleted the images as requested by the ranting farm owner... I was concered for the safety of my camera. After I left there I stopped in the next small town to get coffee and spoke to the local Police Officer who was also in the line waiting to get coffee. He told me that if you are in a public place you can take an image of anything that is clearly visible BUT you are not able to make money from it unless you have permission to take the image. He suggested I check this out with a lawyer and the lawyer confirmed that if you are going to make a profit from an image of someone or someone's property you need to have their consent to take the image. The lawyer also indicated that this is different in pretty much every country and he indicated it was different in some states in the US. His advise... no matter where you are if you are going to take images either ask permission or seek legal advice to ensure that you are not breaking the law.
Well, this is a license plate...a government-issued identification of the car and driver. If you think about TV reality shows that show vehicles, they always blur out license plates. Even moreso than the owner of the car, I'd be inclined to check with an attorney or your BMV/DMV, local police, SOMEONE in a government-related/law-related position to the legality and liability or publishing someone's license plate. I know, I know...no one wants to deal with bureaucracy. But, you're better off erring on the good side of bureaucracy, unfortunately.
You could grant permission to use this image, and the author could end up using it in a book titled "People I've Seen Driving Drunk and Stealing Copper from Construction Sites and Their Stupid License Plates," and then your name would be attached to the photo.
Yes, the whole "I took the photo on a public street" stance exists, but people are very, very litigious these days. Protect yourself and your reputation.
It's a very complex subject and has been gone over on here before. In this case, I believe that yes, a release would be required from the owner of the vehicle for this image to be used commercially.
A good barometer is, can the photograph be used to identify the person, property, vehicle, etc., and in this case the answer is clearly yes -- had someone who had read the book seen, or saw, this vehicle, they would absolutely recognise it was the one from the book. Clearly in this case, even blurring the license plate is probably insufficient, as the artwork also is likely to be unique, at least on a car of that type and colour.
Note that it's not quite as simple as that -- for example, reading literally, you would expect that in order to commercially use a photograph of a city skyline you would need permission from every building owner. That's not the case as a skyline photo doesn't focus on a specific building -- if you take close-ups of a particular building however, you would need a property release from the owner.
Generally, photos involving people require a release for anyone identifiable, whereas photos involving property require a release if the property is the key subject of the photo.
Finally, I would note that, should you accept this person's request, as far as I'm aware, I don't believe you are liable, regardless of the above. You are not using the image commercially as you have given it away -- this would be the same as if you had simply licensed the photo under a creative commons license that allowed commercial use, in which case he could use it without even asking you. In this case it would be the writer and publisher who would be liable.
Note that I am not a lawyer, I just sell images through stock sites, so this should merely be taken as an indication as to where to focus your own investigation into the legalities.
(On a personal note, I wouldn't accept that request anyway without further information, such as the intended size of the photo, confirmation that it would not be used as the cover photo, license terms that will be enforced on those who download it from his 'image bank', and the expected size of the printed run. If this is anything larger than a self-published book from somewhere like Blurb, he should have a budget for images, as he will be profiting partly from your photo. Of course, should you make money from it, that may result in you again being partially liable)
first off, thank you so much for taking the time to reply... i really appreciate getting all thisb info and the varying perspectives...
Christine, Shannon, Alexis... it's good to know that the law is not as simple as it may appear on the surface (well, i know that generally anyway... but helpful to have the info for this type of situation)... on the one hand, i do feel as tho' whoever owns this car is wanting to be seen... i mean, trust me, you canNOT miss it... it's like standing up naked in the middle of a crowd yelling "pick me pick me!!!" ;p
but there's something about this that bothers me which is WHY does he want my image over the ones he already has... mine just doesn't seem publish-worthy, even as a lark...
i also am inclined to want to know more about the book... for the reasons noted by Shannon...
and in response to Cromwell's comment... y'well, i guess if you looked at flickr you might think this is representative of my "work" given that almost 1/3 of my photos are license plates, but dang, i sure would prefer otherwise!
I also take stock photo and agree with Alexis as what he outlined is the requirement that I need if I was to sell such an image.
If the photo was for noncommercial use then no problem, however as it is for commercial use and the subject in the photo is the subject in the photo I would suggest that you need a property release to be signed just in case the person own the car wants the money.
Just because there car it out there to be seen doesn't mean they don't want money for it... For example if you took a photo of Lady Gaga and then sold that commercially do you think she would be cool with it?
Now having said that if the book was along the lines of a newspaper editorial you don't need their permission if it was taken on a public street.
Now if it was me I would pass it up as it might not be worth the effort/risk of getting nothing for it... ;-)
@agima tx Brendan... i'm inclined to pass it up simply because it is not worth the aggravation for this particular photo... and it sounds like i may have an easy "out" in that i do not have a release, and can legitimately say i would not feel comfortable under the circumstances... frankly, the concept of being "published" in this way freaks the heck out of me... and as i would prefer not to be immortalized as the license plate stalker, this does not seem to me to be the right scenario for taking that big ol' leap of faith... :)
@agima "Just because there car it out there to be seen doesn't mean they don't want money for it... For example if you took a photo of Lady Gaga and then sold that commercially do you think she would be cool with it?"
Probably a silly question, but isn't this what the paparazzi does? People magazine and others? Not that that's reputable photography, there is a market for it and people do it.
@jjsooner True but the paparazzi do it under the editorial licence (i.e. news papers, magazines, current affairs, etc) and putting the image in a book would not come under that unless it is to be put forward as news.
As an example if you took that photo you could not alter the photo in such a way that it changes the original image intent and you could not use that photo in a story that was unrelated to the photo.
Another example would be if the paparazzi took a photo of Lady gaga getting out of a car and walking into a hotel in Canberra.
They could not go and sell that same photo to someone who was putting together a book of famous people getting out of cars entering hotels, nor could they use that same photo and put in one of their magazines saying Lady Gaga was in a different city at a different time doing something different.
And example is if they cropped the image so that you could not see where she was walking and said she was going into a plastic surgeon
they would find them selves in a little bit of trouble...
Now for the disclaimer: They have big pockets and at the end of they day you can do what you want if you can defend yourself in court. Just because they can not do something does not mean they do not do these things.
I know when I send of my editorial photos I have to state the date, location and a description of the events. I also have to tell them what changes if any I did to the original image and in some cases supply the original image.
okay. Story I heard on why it is important to book people to get those rights. A group made a cookbook and had artwork in
it. The agreement was that they could use artwork for all promotions, marketing and three printings. Well, when they went to print a fourth time, they got sued by the artist. So they need you to sell them that photo for unlimited use most likely per their publisher. You can keep rights to use the photo also and possibly sell it again or post it on your flikr page. But I would probably sell it and require your name and credit each time.
@brumbe tx Paula... i work with a number of lawyers, including one whose husband is an avid amateur photog... so, i'm hoping that a cup of coffee will buy me a few moments of wisdom :)
Wow, what an interesting conversation, who'd have thought it was such a minefield and a bit of a fizzer on the excitement of selling your first photograph but I guess its better to be safe than sorry.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
You could grant permission to use this image, and the author could end up using it in a book titled "People I've Seen Driving Drunk and Stealing Copper from Construction Sites and Their Stupid License Plates," and then your name would be attached to the photo.
Yes, the whole "I took the photo on a public street" stance exists, but people are very, very litigious these days. Protect yourself and your reputation.
A good barometer is, can the photograph be used to identify the person, property, vehicle, etc., and in this case the answer is clearly yes -- had someone who had read the book seen, or saw, this vehicle, they would absolutely recognise it was the one from the book. Clearly in this case, even blurring the license plate is probably insufficient, as the artwork also is likely to be unique, at least on a car of that type and colour.
Note that it's not quite as simple as that -- for example, reading literally, you would expect that in order to commercially use a photograph of a city skyline you would need permission from every building owner. That's not the case as a skyline photo doesn't focus on a specific building -- if you take close-ups of a particular building however, you would need a property release from the owner.
Generally, photos involving people require a release for anyone identifiable, whereas photos involving property require a release if the property is the key subject of the photo.
Finally, I would note that, should you accept this person's request, as far as I'm aware, I don't believe you are liable, regardless of the above. You are not using the image commercially as you have given it away -- this would be the same as if you had simply licensed the photo under a creative commons license that allowed commercial use, in which case he could use it without even asking you. In this case it would be the writer and publisher who would be liable.
Note that I am not a lawyer, I just sell images through stock sites, so this should merely be taken as an indication as to where to focus your own investigation into the legalities.
(On a personal note, I wouldn't accept that request anyway without further information, such as the intended size of the photo, confirmation that it would not be used as the cover photo, license terms that will be enforced on those who download it from his 'image bank', and the expected size of the printed run. If this is anything larger than a self-published book from somewhere like Blurb, he should have a budget for images, as he will be profiting partly from your photo. Of course, should you make money from it, that may result in you again being partially liable)
first off, thank you so much for taking the time to reply... i really appreciate getting all thisb info and the varying perspectives...
Christine, Shannon, Alexis... it's good to know that the law is not as simple as it may appear on the surface (well, i know that generally anyway... but helpful to have the info for this type of situation)... on the one hand, i do feel as tho' whoever owns this car is wanting to be seen... i mean, trust me, you canNOT miss it... it's like standing up naked in the middle of a crowd yelling "pick me pick me!!!" ;p
but there's something about this that bothers me which is WHY does he want my image over the ones he already has... mine just doesn't seem publish-worthy, even as a lark...
i also am inclined to want to know more about the book... for the reasons noted by Shannon...
and in response to Cromwell's comment... y'well, i guess if you looked at flickr you might think this is representative of my "work" given that almost 1/3 of my photos are license plates, but dang, i sure would prefer otherwise!
lots to think about... tx again!!!
I also take stock photo and agree with Alexis as what he outlined is the requirement that I need if I was to sell such an image.
If the photo was for noncommercial use then no problem, however as it is for commercial use and the subject in the photo is the subject in the photo I would suggest that you need a property release to be signed just in case the person own the car wants the money.
Just because there car it out there to be seen doesn't mean they don't want money for it... For example if you took a photo of Lady Gaga and then sold that commercially do you think she would be cool with it?
Now having said that if the book was along the lines of a newspaper editorial you don't need their permission if it was taken on a public street.
Now if it was me I would pass it up as it might not be worth the effort/risk of getting nothing for it... ;-)
Probably a silly question, but isn't this what the paparazzi does? People magazine and others? Not that that's reputable photography, there is a market for it and people do it.
As an example if you took that photo you could not alter the photo in such a way that it changes the original image intent and you could not use that photo in a story that was unrelated to the photo.
Another example would be if the paparazzi took a photo of Lady gaga getting out of a car and walking into a hotel in Canberra.
They could not go and sell that same photo to someone who was putting together a book of famous people getting out of cars entering hotels, nor could they use that same photo and put in one of their magazines saying Lady Gaga was in a different city at a different time doing something different.
And example is if they cropped the image so that you could not see where she was walking and said she was going into a plastic surgeon
they would find them selves in a little bit of trouble...
Now for the disclaimer: They have big pockets and at the end of they day you can do what you want if you can defend yourself in court. Just because they can not do something does not mean they do not do these things.
I know when I send of my editorial photos I have to state the date, location and a description of the events. I also have to tell them what changes if any I did to the original image and in some cases supply the original image.
Does that help?
it. The agreement was that they could use artwork for all promotions, marketing and three printings. Well, when they went to print a fourth time, they got sued by the artist. So they need you to sell them that photo for unlimited use most likely per their publisher. You can keep rights to use the photo also and possibly sell it again or post it on your flikr page. But I would probably sell it and require your name and credit each time.