Re: Photographs of homes

> Alicia Brillon <aliciab[_at_]ntserver1.photodisc.com> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, the copyright in architecture section referred to above only
> > covers one aspect of Pamela's question. Yes, under this section you can
> > take a photo of a house/building/structure which is visible from a
> > public street without the *architect's* permission and distribute, etc.
> > that photo. However, this does not mean that you can freely take photos
> > of a private home and distribute those photos without obtaining the
> > permission of the *owner of that home* to do so.

Paul Heald replied:
>
> I guess the next time I take a family photo in my front yard,
> I'll ask my neighbors if it's o.k. for their house to appear in the
> background of the picture.

If you intend to commercially exploit that photo (license a national bank to use it in their world-wide ad campaign) then it would be wise if you do get the neighbor's permission (or just crop it out of the photo). I bring up the commercially exploited aspect because Pamela B. Quigley originally wrote:

> > Is it all right to photograph private homes even if those photos
> > are going to be *sold* without the permission of the owner?"
(emphasis added).

> Hmmm . . . t.v. stations in California must have had to get a lot
> of permissions in order to film the flooded areas in the Sacramento
> valley because there were a lot of private homes shown in those reports.

no permission needed if you're covering a news event - you can use images of people, buildings, etc. without permission.

> Moviemakers must spend a lot of time getting photo clearance from
> all private homes that happen to be in the background of their
> movies. Those panoramic shots must be killers in terms of getting
> permissions.

depends on how recognizable the homes in the shot are - if it's truly a panoramic, no; if just a few homes are focused on, yes.

> Of course, maybe section 120 means what it says about taking
> pictures of architecture not being infringement, and no permission is
> needed.
>
> Sorry about the sarcasm, but I'm having a really bad day.

no problem - I'm in a good mood!

Alicia Brillon
<aliciab[_at_]ntserver1.photodisc.com> Received on Mon Feb 03 1997 - 15:03:15 GMT