Legality of selling photos taken by drone of privately-owned structures

[prb]

I am planning on selling greeting cards using some photos that I’ve taken by drone and am unclear on the legality of selling cards with images that show privately owned structures (mostly barns). My online research shows that it is perfectly legal to take photos of privately owned structures—both from the ground and in the air—while on public property (e.g., streets and roads), but I cannot find a definitive answer about whether I can sell the images. The most pointed advice I’ve seen online is that photos of privately owned structures cannot be used “for commercial purposes” such as in ads or brochures. (My purpose is to generate net profits to donate in full to local environmental and charitable organizations.)

I’m not concerned about the many landscape photos I’m taking of vineyards, fields, and hillsides, because while they are privately owned, they are not easily recognizable.

All advice and recommendations for expert sources will be appreciated!

 

[BSauce955]

I am planning on selling greeting cards using some photos that I’ve taken by drone and am unclear on the legality of selling cards with images that show privately owned structures (mostly barns). My online research shows that it is perfectly legal to take photos of privately owned structures—both from the ground and in the air—while on public property (e.g., streets and roads), but I cannot find a definitive answer about whether I can sell the images. The most pointed advice I’ve seen online is that photos of privately owned structures cannot be used “for commercial purposes” such as in ads or brochures. (My purpose is to generate net profits to donate in full to local environmental and charitable organizations.)

I’m not concerned about the many landscape photos I’m taking of vineyards, fields, and hillsides, because while they are privately owned, they are not easily recognizable.

All advice and recommendations for expert sources will be appreciated!

You'd need to have a Part 107 license.

 

[prb]

You'd need to have a Part 107 license.

Yes, thanks, and I do.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

This will be interesting.
It might require a proper attorneys input, with possibly states having differing laws on the subject.
I feel taking such photos of larger commercial type buildings would be no issue, but private property ?
It would very likely depend on the position of such a structure, in an otherwise empty paddock, or among the homestead buildings ?
That sort of privacy issue more than any identifiable issues.
Personally I would have thought, to get close enough to take a decent shot of a barn etc, you’d need to get fairly close, close enough to generally warrant asking for the “ok to take a photo of your wonderful barn”.
Good luck with the idea, loads of old buildings and farmhouses in rural areas that are very interesting to shoot.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Privacy laws differ from state to state so you may want to check those in your state of operation first. When it comes to 'homes' - privacy law has a lot to say about what you can and cannot do with a camera regardless of whether it is in the air or on the ground. But as far as buildings or structures in public areas - these becomes far less protected under privacy laws. Your best best is to contact an attorney.

 

[Dougcjohn]

I'd agree, if needing definitive legal response an attorney would be advised.
Generally, I'd say your good to go.

On a non-legal opinion, we've had our barns, cattle, livestock, machinery in action (planting / harvesting) and farmsteads photographed by multiple parties; including news sources, various nature magazines, and freelance photographers. Some were nice to ask the properties "owner name" to maybe include in credits although the majority didn't.

In casual, we discussed with a local "friend' Attorney and he basically indicated it's the same as essentially any privacy laws... comes down to "identification" of Subject in photograph & Intent. If you're not providing an address, precise location or signage that provides identification you're normally not required to obtain permission or rights to use photos in publication, internet, etc. If you indicate identification of subject, you "may" need to obtain permission. The "may" is loose.. Exp: Old Bridge, Barn or Water Stream on property and "identified" normally would not require permission; a rustic photo of aging Ft Porch with address on post of an active Farm Residence may be more likely to obtain permission... but likely not specific enough.

Similar to photographers on ground taking photos of action scenes, storm damage of homes and individuals within the photos, fire damage: close aerials of properties during or after fires, or more simply landscape photos of sunset/sunrise that include homes, barns, etc are not required to seek permission.
You may specify location as: photos from SW Dakota, or even stating "in a small town: Spearfish, SD", etc. You're not providing enough detail to identify the subject violating their privacy.

Other examples: The Amish Community attracts photographs, people often take photos of this society's homes, lifestyle, dress, buggy, etc. Some are used in publications, and doesn't require permission to exhibit,

If you've ever attended a State Fair or Photography Contest where hundreds of photos on are display, and categories: People, Places, etc. These don't have permission and are used in multiple publications.

All that said... if I take photos and I see parties on property... I normally take the effort to meet and ask if they'd mind. Normally if it's not a photo of them... they don't mind, often happy to have photos taken.
Applying consideration & thought... works best. Exp: I wouldn't photograph a KY Distilling Facility, especially aerial... might encounter a negative response.

 

[crlmjohnson]

I am planning on selling greeting cards using some photos that I’ve taken by drone and am unclear on the legality of selling cards with images that show privately owned structures (mostly barns). My online research shows that it is perfectly legal to take photos of privately owned structures—both from the ground and in the air—while on public property (e.g., streets and roads), but I cannot find a definitive answer about whether I can sell the images. The most pointed advice I’ve seen online is that photos of privately owned structures cannot be used “for commercial purposes” such as in ads or brochures. (My purpose is to generate net profits to donate in full to local environmental and charitable organizations.)

I’m not concerned about the many landscape photos I’m taking of vineyards, fields, and hillsides, because while they are privately owned, they are not easily recognizable.

All advice and recommendations for expert sources will be appreciated!

depends on the state, and local laws

 

[Ken-Mav-Mtl]

Privacy laws are generally adopted to protect "persons" and "data", not buildings. Google Earth provides unlimited and detailed photographic data of public and private properties.
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy for a structure or a place, as opposed to "persons".
There are exceptions, such as military sites (i.e. "Area 51"), which you cannot fly over, but we have all seen high power cameras taking photos from outside the perimeter.

 

[spsphotos]

As a photographer, I see nothing wrong with it legally. The law states that if it can be seen from public property then it's legal to photograph and you have the right to sell whatever you photograph. Just because it's taken from the air does not negate that fact. Since landowners don't own the air the same laws apply. I take pictures of people and private property all the time and sell images.

 

[orionshooter]

Privacy laws are generally adopted to protect "persons" and "data", not buildings. Google Earth provides unlimited and detailed photographic data of public and private properties.
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy for a structure or a place, as opposed to "persons".
There are exceptions, such as military sites (i.e. "Area 51"), which you cannot fly over, but we have all seen high power cameras taking photos from outside the perimeter.

A a retired civil litigator, I completely agree. The most common standard is whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. That would be an exceedingly difficult claim to make for a building.

When Google maps blocks out addresses on buildings/residences, it does so pursuant to corporate policy not legal mandate. There is no expectation of privacy in your posted address or the building on which the number is affixed especially if it is plainly visible to the naked eye from a public place. While human activities are entitled to greater protection, even those privacy claims are difficult to assert for activities occurring in plain view from public places.

I also agree prior consultation with a local attorney is well advised.

 

[1919Films]

I believe that if you are using images of fairly generic looking buildings and any artistic value in the images is due to your own talent, you should be fine. But if there are distinctive artistic and/or architectural details that make the building unique, then you should probably get permission. For example, you can't use images of the Chrysler Building without permission - it's copyrighted.

 

[orionshooter]

I believe that if you are using images of fairly generic looking buildings and any artistic value in the images is due to your own talent, you should be fine. But if there are distinctive artistic and/or architectural details that make the building unique, then you should probably get permission. For example, you can't use images of the Chrysler Building without permission - it's copyrighted.

You cannot copyright a building. It is a legal impossibility. You can obtain a copyright on the image of a building - but not the building.

An image you create of a building can only be copyrighted by the owner of the image - not the owner of the building.

 

[1919Films]

You cannot copyright a building. It is a legal impossibility. You can obtain a copyright on the image of a building - but not the building.

An image you create of a building can only be copyrighted by the owner of the image - not the owner of the building.

Recently, the Marvel game, “Spider-Man: Miles Morales” couldn’t show the Chrysler Building, even though it appears in the most recent movie, because it couldn’t acquire the rights to include the Chrysler Building from its new owners.

“Michael Lee, the founder of Lee Law, spoke to Game Informer and explained how the copyright process works in regards to buildings like the Chrysler Building.

“"If you have just a basic box of a building that looks like just a generic building, you can't go around and sue every building in Manhattan, and say, 'You have stolen my idea of what a building looks like,'" Lee said. "You can't protect the functionality of something, but you could protect the artistic parts of it. So when it comes to certain architecture, whether it has big spires at the top, or whether it has curved glass, whether you see something and you see that it's unique and different, that's absolutely protected by copyright. So in order to reproduce it in either another building or make a derivative work such as a T-shirt, a model, or even putting it in a video game, you need authorization from the copyright owner to reproduce the protected thing – which in this case could be the Chrysler Building."

Some buildings are works of art - plain and simple - and they are entitled to copyright protection, just like any other creative product.

 

[orionshooter]

Architectural works are protected by U.S. copyright law, specifically by 17 U.S. Code § 102(8). In fact, copyright law was officially changed in December 1990 in order to include these architectural copyrights. What does this mean for photographers who want the ability to make and sell architectural photos?

• The law does not apply to buildings created before December 1, 1990 (so architectural photos of such works can be taken and reproduced without permission).
• Except for buildings that cannot be viewed from a public space, the copyright owner of a post-1990 building (the architect, developer, or building owner) cannot prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the building. See 17 U.S. Code § 120, which covers the scope of exclusive rights in architectural works.

Therefore, photographers need to be concerned only when entering private property without permission to take a photo of a post-1990 building. Such photos may result in a claim of copyright infringement.

And that’s the status of federal copyright law. States are without power to enact their own based on federal preemption. Architectural drawings, plans and renderings are a different matter. But you CANNOT copyright a building. If that were not the case every tourist taking a snap of the Empire State Building would be a violator as would every postcard company selling images of the same.

 

[eEridani]

Reproducing the art - essentially copying the design or modeling it for a game can be protected against. But not a photograph taken from public spaces. The law is pretty clear on that.

How Copyright Law Applies to Photos of Buildings and Architecture

Photos of architecture are protected under U.S. copyright law, which gives the photographer has a distinct copyright from the architect.

www.nolo.com

 

[bmcelya]

PRB. You might consider calling the patents office. They are the experts. I have found them quite helpful in the past.

As for the flights, I would stay high and keep moving. There are some standard release forms for this type of photography. Things get complicated if there are identifiable persons in the scene. Get it writing if you can, and offer the landowner some pics of their property in return for cooperation.

Years ago I remember a guy who flew the neighborhood in a 182 and offered to sell prints door-to-door afterwards. He never asked permission to shoot.

 

[dmwfotos]

To this point it hasn't been mentioned that the drone is in federal airspace when taking the picture of the property.
Not sure how that impacts private property protection at a state level.

Over the years I've made aerial photographs of a lot of buildings from airplanes, helicopters and drones. I've Never been concerned about a release for commercial purposes unless there was a recognizable person in the image. And, realistically, that's not an issue give the size of the average person compared to the average building.

 

[DavidLee]

Yes, thanks, and I do.

if it can be seen by the public is can be used in art. it can not be used in commercial usage.

 

[LA 2020]

I am planning on selling greeting cards using some photos that I’ve taken by drone and am unclear on the legality of selling cards with images that show privately owned structures (mostly barns). My online research shows that it is perfectly legal to take photos of privately owned structures—both from the ground and in the air—while on public property (e.g., streets and roads), but I cannot find a definitive answer about whether I can sell the images. The most pointed advice I’ve seen online is that photos of privately owned structures cannot be used “for commercial purposes” such as in ads or brochures. (My purpose is to generate net profits to donate in full to local environmental and charitable organizations.)

I’m not concerned about the many landscape photos I’m taking of vineyards, fields, and hillsides, because while they are privately owned, they are not easily recognizable.

All advice and recommendations for expert sources will be appreciated!

Be sure you have an FAA part 107 license before doing anything commercial

 

[Dpixtion]

Question to this: according to FAA I’d need a part 107 to make money from anything I do with a drone…. So I go up to 235’ AGL And take a photo for my self. It fine, if I sale it I’d need 107.. however if I charter a aircraft or helicopter and take the photo from the door. And sold the image, I do not need a part 107…

I just don’t see the apples to apples difference.. drone photo sold needs part 107, from a aircraft out the door/window still sold the same image, no part 107…