The issue is not the right to take photographs, Peter. The issue is the right to commercial gain from someone else's property. To legally sell photos of someone property you need to obtain a Property Release, just as to sell photos of them you need a Model Release (I use the same simple form for both, see sample below). Why is that hard to understand?
SAMPLE (Note this is probably not adequate for nudes, or if big money is involved): -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PHOTO RELEASE I, ___________________________________, hereby give PHOTOGRAPHER'S NAME, and his assignees permission to use photographs of me, and/or my property, taken by him, for any lawful purpose. SIGNATURE: _______________________________ DATE:_______________ (Parent or guardian must also sign if under 18 years of age.) ADDRESS:_______________________________________________________________________ PHONE: ______________________ E-MAIL:__________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --graywolf P. J. Alling wrote: > This just so completely confuses copyright and trademark infringement > with a bit of the we can control everything cant the Dixie Plantation > has for the basis of their suit that it's just scary. It seems we > photographers are already paying for this. > > graywolf wrote: >> Well, as to the legality, one does not have the right to sell images of >> someone >> else's clearly identifiable property without their permission. One does have >> the >> right to take the photos, without violating any laws of trespass, it is >> selling >> the images that is questionable. One would assume that the right to the >> income >> from ones own property is clear, otherwise I want every one on the list to >> send >> me rent. regardless of who owns the property they live on <GRIN>. >> >> >> Jack Davis wrote: >> >>> Mr Ham had no right to do what he did. "Private" property rights should >>> always be respected especially when privacy is to be compromised by >>> being held up to the world to see. >>> "Privacy" and "security" are too closely related these days. >>> That being said, I'm somewhat ambivalent about being restricted from >>> taking pictures of something which is on private property, but from a >>> public property position. >>> >>> Jack >>> --- Rebekah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Just found this interesting, what do you guys think? >>>> >>>> http://www.thestate.com/local/story/190126.html >>>> >>>> rg2 >>>> -- >>>> "the subject of a photograph is far less important than its >>>> composition" >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >>>> and follow the directions. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________________________________ >>> Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. >>> Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. >>> http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469 >>> >>> >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
