I've just received an email with a petition from Change.org about proposed changes by the European Parliament to the so-called Freedom of Panorama, which allows anyone to publish photographs, documentary films and other works depicting public places without restriction. I was unaware that only some European countries currently have this right: Julia Reda has published an interesting map showing the various freedoms and restrictions that apply at the momentr. See: https://juliareda.eu/2015/06/fop-under-threat/
On 9th July the EP will be voting on an amendment which will take away current rights and mean that permission should be sought before anyone can publish and possibly sell a photo of a public building in any European Union state.
I sell some photographs online, including one image of the Atomium, which is a very unusual looking building here in Brussels. I received a "cease and desist" letter from a law firm in NY representing the Atomium. Of course I removed the photo when I researched it further to learn that someone owns the rights to any and all images of the Atomium. It wasn't important enough for me to risk legal action but it blew my mind!
So this is very interesting to me. I will definitely check it out and sign up. What is this world coming to?
@judithaltman I was wondering whether and how such laws would be policed - and now I know. I see Belgium is one of those red countries with no freedoms at all at the moment. Hopefully if enough of us can be made aware we might be able to do something about it.
@judithaltman The copyright protection of the Atomium is a bit notorious...mostly due to their strict enforcement of it. Their copyright notice does permit the taking photographs of the building for non-commercial (personal) purposes. I would assume because your photographs were for sale is the reason why you received the cease and desist. But generally speaking, any building that appears in an image recognizably that is not officially "public property" must have property release (quite similar to a model release) if the image will be used for any promotional purposes or financial gain. Other buildings will have security approach you and forbid you to take photos of it in the first place...and if you're standing on their property when informed it is fully within their right. (I've had this happen to me several times.) The frustrating part (and why this legislation is important) is that in this day and age it almost becomes impossible to ensure, once you have uploaded an image to the internet, that the image will under no circumstances ever be used for promotional or financial gain by either you or most importantly, someone else. And ultimately, the photographer becomes responsible for copyright infringements. Which I agree is rather unfair.
@dbj You are exactly right, the issue was that I was selling the image. Removal of the image for sale constituted compliance. And after researching it I certainly understand the law, but I still do not think that it is right. If something is publicly visible (vs the building being public property) then I think that its image should be public. If an architect doesn't want their building photographed, then they should screen it with trees or set it far enough back on a property. If an artist doesn't want a sculpture photographed and freely used, then put it in a building (museum, gallery) that is not public. You refer to model releases -- do street photographers get releases? Must they? Should they? I don't mean to sound like I am arguing with you. I just think that this issue raises so many interesting and challenging questions about freedom of expression and what the rights of public artists are. At some level, all art is derivative - photography might just be the most overt.
@judithaltman In the strictest sense, yes, a street photographer needs to get model releases from any recognizable subject if they intend to use the image for promotional purposes or for financial gain. Editorial purposes is technically ok, but the line between editorial and non-editorial can get really tricky. Obtaining verbal permission from the subject(s) does not constitute a model release. Which is why I never ask for permission - because in the end if you don't have a signed model release it doesn't matter whether you got verbal permission or not. Since I don't get model releases either, as a result any images I have from my street photography to date I could never sell. Or, if someone were to use one of my street photography images without permission for non-editorial purposes, technically I could be on the hook if any of the subjects were inclined to come after me. Since I don't ever plan to sell it I shoot away at will and don't bother asking permission and just accept the small unlikely risk that someone may use my photo without permission for non-editorial and that the subject would discover it and decide to do something about it. But any paid work that I do, I get both model and property releases just to "CYA" if you know what I mean. ;-)
I like to think of it this way: The rules about where and what you *can* shoot are different than what you *may* do with the image afterward given whether or not you have model and/or property releases. Of course I must add disclaimer my points have been biased toward USA laws as those are what I am familiar with.
I would agree with your point that while I see the point of the laws, like you, I also struggle with their practicality. A corporation (e.g. Coca-Cola) wouldn't want a photographer making good money off a photo of their building because the buyer may be purchasing it not for its art but rather it's content....the Coca-Cola logo & building because they are a Coca-Cola collector. But your point is also valid, people walk by that building every day and can look at it at will. So, what's so wrong about "providing a service for a fee" to those who cannot walk by it daily by taking a photo of it and selling it to them? Then there's the whole issue of brand association, etc where a building may be in the background but the owner of the building disagrees with the content or message of the photo so they reserve the right to deny use because they do not want their customers to assume they endorse said content or message.
Crazy crazy stuff. Now I'm starting to think about lawyer jokes. LOL!!!
@judithaltman - Interesting. So can one claim that you own the rights to any and all images of yourself and then sue any and all states for video taping and or photographing you while in public spaces? Certainly, you or I as living people, have more rights than a building.
@stillcrappysailor Yes, you absolutely can...which is why model releases exist. Of course to have a case you must 1) have not been presented with or declined to sign a model release, 2) the video or photograph is being used for non-editorial purposes, i.e. promotional or financial gain. So if you see yourself in the background of news footage you wouldn't have much of a case, but if you saw yourself in the background of a TV commercial (even if it filmed you in public space) or a printed advertisement, you most definitely have a case.
@dbj I thought the law was different in the US? I thought it was based on the expectation of privacy meaning if youre in your home or private property, youre out of bounds.
If youre in public then fair game. All the magazines and newspapers that follow celebraties etc shooting them on holiday / on beaches etc. They still print all these images right?
It actually still boils down to the fact that the rules about where and what you *can* shoot are different than what you *may* do with the image afterward given whether or not you have model and/or property releases.
Reasonable expectation of privacy actually applies to both private and public property and gets very messy in general. To keep it short, I'll say that generally speaking in practical terms, if you are standing on public property when you took the image, you don't have to worry about reasonable expectation of privacy - even if the subject is on private property or in their private home.
Now, once the picture has been taken we get into what can be done with it, and this is where the example of paparazzi is a good one. So, while paparazzi do sell their images to tabloids, the tabloids claim the images are used for editorial (i.e. informational and educational) purposes only. Editorial (information and educational) purposes are covered by our First Amendment Right for Freedom of Speech. So, that's how the paparazzi and tabloids get away with selling and publishing all their celebrity photos. If, however, the photo ever got used for a commercial purpose, then that photographer would probably get sued to oblivion.
So, generally speaking, in the US, (with some few and specific exceptions), if you are standing on public property you can take an image of anything and anyone your lens can see; be it or they on either public or private property. You can then print that image, hang it in a gallery, and even publish it as long as you could defend that it is being used for informational and educational purposes only. But if that same image gets used for any commercial or promotional purpose, then you've got some 'splaining to do Lucy! :) (If you do not have model and/or property releases.)
Since the line between editorial and commercial gets so messy in a courtroom, most draw the line with the price tag. If there's a price tag on the photo, then to "CYA" you best have model and property releases for the image regardless of where the image was made...even if both the photographer and the subject were both on public property when the image was made. On the other hand price tag isn't everything. As mentioned, paparazzi sell photos to tabloids and are fine; likewise I could donate to Coca-Cola a photo taken on the public street of someone - in a public place - drinking a coke while being splashed with a hose who then uses it in an magazine ad and the subject could sue me into bankruptcy for it. In the end, it all depends how the photo is used.
@dbj so basically clear as mud :)
I've heard that here in the UK, while a model release isnt technically required for publishing, more as asking for it because then they can onsell to US publications
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
So this is very interesting to me. I will definitely check it out and sign up. What is this world coming to?
I like to think of it this way: The rules about where and what you *can* shoot are different than what you *may* do with the image afterward given whether or not you have model and/or property releases. Of course I must add disclaimer my points have been biased toward USA laws as those are what I am familiar with.
I would agree with your point that while I see the point of the laws, like you, I also struggle with their practicality. A corporation (e.g. Coca-Cola) wouldn't want a photographer making good money off a photo of their building because the buyer may be purchasing it not for its art but rather it's content....the Coca-Cola logo & building because they are a Coca-Cola collector. But your point is also valid, people walk by that building every day and can look at it at will. So, what's so wrong about "providing a service for a fee" to those who cannot walk by it daily by taking a photo of it and selling it to them? Then there's the whole issue of brand association, etc where a building may be in the background but the owner of the building disagrees with the content or message of the photo so they reserve the right to deny use because they do not want their customers to assume they endorse said content or message.
Crazy crazy stuff. Now I'm starting to think about lawyer jokes. LOL!!!
Amateur Photographer is also running a campaign against this measure becoming law
If youre in public then fair game. All the magazines and newspapers that follow celebraties etc shooting them on holiday / on beaches etc. They still print all these images right?
It actually still boils down to the fact that the rules about where and what you *can* shoot are different than what you *may* do with the image afterward given whether or not you have model and/or property releases.
Reasonable expectation of privacy actually applies to both private and public property and gets very messy in general. To keep it short, I'll say that generally speaking in practical terms, if you are standing on public property when you took the image, you don't have to worry about reasonable expectation of privacy - even if the subject is on private property or in their private home.
Now, once the picture has been taken we get into what can be done with it, and this is where the example of paparazzi is a good one. So, while paparazzi do sell their images to tabloids, the tabloids claim the images are used for editorial (i.e. informational and educational) purposes only. Editorial (information and educational) purposes are covered by our First Amendment Right for Freedom of Speech. So, that's how the paparazzi and tabloids get away with selling and publishing all their celebrity photos. If, however, the photo ever got used for a commercial purpose, then that photographer would probably get sued to oblivion.
So, generally speaking, in the US, (with some few and specific exceptions), if you are standing on public property you can take an image of anything and anyone your lens can see; be it or they on either public or private property. You can then print that image, hang it in a gallery, and even publish it as long as you could defend that it is being used for informational and educational purposes only. But if that same image gets used for any commercial or promotional purpose, then you've got some 'splaining to do Lucy! :) (If you do not have model and/or property releases.)
Since the line between editorial and commercial gets so messy in a courtroom, most draw the line with the price tag. If there's a price tag on the photo, then to "CYA" you best have model and property releases for the image regardless of where the image was made...even if both the photographer and the subject were both on public property when the image was made. On the other hand price tag isn't everything. As mentioned, paparazzi sell photos to tabloids and are fine; likewise I could donate to Coca-Cola a photo taken on the public street of someone - in a public place - drinking a coke while being splashed with a hose who then uses it in an magazine ad and the subject could sue me into bankruptcy for it. In the end, it all depends how the photo is used.
I've heard that here in the UK, while a model release isnt technically required for publishing, more as asking for it because then they can onsell to US publications