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

[Deleted member 137163]

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.

Attorney is a good idea but I have a better idea...Ask permission (get it in writing), explain the charity purpose and finally offer a copy or copies of the photo(s). The "get it in writing" is important. I believe these steps keeps the Attorney out. We get hung up on privacy laws when in reality you can ask permission and be done with it.

 

[Deleted member 137163]

You need the 107 because you are [commercially] operating the drone. The pilot of your chartered aircraft is, presumably, commercially licensed to be providing/selling that service.

With the drone you are both pilot and photographer. In your contrast example you are just the photographer.

OP stated he has his 107.

 

[spsphotos]

Pretty much if it's pre-1990 building...you have every right to photograph and sell images. Also, if the building happens to be part of a larger group of buildings that also makes a difference, or if it's copyrighted (Effiel Tower at night) or a sensitive installation (prison, military, infrastructure).

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

 

[Deleted member 137163]

Although the thread covered a wide array of thoughts from photos to video and Hollywood movies the OP, in my opinion, had a finite question about stills, mostly of barns, for sale as a charity fundraiser. In this case they are he is using the barn at 123 Main St, Anytown, 456 Country Road, Anytown and more. Extremely easy to get addresses online and honestly phone #s. Skip all the hype and questions of legalities and in this particular case get permission (written). If you get an upset person be a good drone diplomat and do not use it. I think, as I posted above, you may likely get a good response based on your polite approach. It is for charity and the owner be ok with that, As I also said above, offer to email the owner a copy of the photo. He/she would probably be thrilled.

Before I get "Oh ya but....I can use.....viewable from the road.....blah blah.... "I do get it." Sometimes, as in this scenario, there is no need to fight. A little courtesy and polite approach (not the current norm in the US unfortunately) it may just work "in the OPs original situation." Yes, there are other valid points for other scenarios. No law book needed for this one.

The part 107 question was answered by the OP early on. "He" understood he needed the 107 because of his intent on the flights. It is not a 107 question as the OP is educated as to the requirement.

 

[spsphotos]

Although the thread covered a wide array of thoughts from photos to video and Hollywood movies the OP, in my opinion, had a finite question about stills, mostly of barns, for sale as a charity fundraiser. In this case they are he is using the barn at 123 Main St, Anytown, 456 Country Road, Anytown and more. Extremely easy to get addresses online and honestly phone #s. Skip all the hype and questions of legalities and in this particular case get permission (written). If you get an upset person be a good drone diplomat and do not use it. I think, as I posted above, you may likely get a good response based on your polite approach. It is for charity and the owner be ok with that, As I also said above, offer to email the owner a copy of the photo. He/she would probably be thrilled.

Before I get "Oh ya but....I can use.....viewable from the road.....blah blah.... "I do get it." Sometimes, as in this scenario, there is no need to fight. A little courtesy and polite approach (not the current norm in the US unfortunately) it may just work "in the OPs original situation." Yes, there are other valid points for other scenarios. No law book needed for this one.

The part 107 question was answered by the OP early on. "He" understood he needed the 107 because of his intent on the flights. It is not a 107 question as the OP is educated as to the requirement.

You are making the assumption that you can even find the owner of a building. Or the work involved in doing so. It's not an easy task sometimes.

 

[eric32]

You need nothing. Take off from public property, have your part 107, fly safely, obey all FAA rules, and shoot away. That's all you need. Do you think the helicopter photographers for the Las Vegas strip or any other spot in the country get permission from the building owners to sell their photos? There are some replies here that are way over thinking this. Photography in public, especially from a safe distance in the air, is fair game. Been doing this for 20 years in photography, most recently drones. That said, assume whatever risk you feel you can win in court. Its 2022, and people are entitled whiney babies about everything these days.

 

[eric32]

Although the thread covered a wide array of thoughts from photos to video and Hollywood movies the OP, in my opinion, had a finite question about stills, mostly of barns, for sale as a charity fundraiser. In this case they are he is using the barn at 123 Main St, Anytown, 456 Country Road, Anytown and more. Extremely easy to get addresses online and honestly phone #s. Skip all the hype and questions of legalities and in this particular case get permission (written). If you get an upset person be a good drone diplomat and do not use it. I think, as I posted above, you may likely get a good response based on your polite approach. It is for charity and the owner be ok with that, As I also said above, offer to email the owner a copy of the photo. He/she would probably be thrilled.

Before I get "Oh ya but....I can use.....viewable from the road.....blah blah.... "I do get it." Sometimes, as in this scenario, there is no need to fight. A little courtesy and polite approach (not the current norm in the US unfortunately) it may just work "in the OPs original situation." Yes, there are other valid points for other scenarios. No law book needed for this one.

The part 107 question was answered by the OP early on. "He" understood he needed the 107 because of his intent on the flights. It is not a 107 question as the OP is educated as to the requirement.

Sure. There is never a reason to be discourteous. If you're flying close enough for them to see you and confront you, thats' probably your first problem. One of the first things I learned is to get in, get what you need, and get out. Plan. Don't cause a scene, and be an air ninja, safely. If anyone confronts you, politely explain that you're legally flying a mission, you're FAA Licensed, and go about your business. You are in no way required to identify yourself to anyone, as long as you are on public land, unless its law enforcement or some other agency with powers of arrest. Otherwise, you have rights too. If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

 

[Deleted member 137163]

Offered old fashioned courtesy into the OP's simple hometown charity project. I so stated there are other valid points and scenarios. My comments were for a simple local charity purpose that the OP stated and not "The Strip in Vegas!" I kept all comments to the OP's scenario only. I acknowledged there are many scenarios that this approach is not needed or possible...I get it.

I get the entitled whiny babies comment. That is even more reason to be decent and respectful "in the OPs" scenario.

 

[eric32]

You know what they say, "Even if you win, you still lose". Only the lawyers win in lawsuits. You win and still have to pay a fat bill. lol.

 

[Deleted member 137163]

You know what they say, "Even if you win, you still lose". Only the lawyers win in lawsuits. You win and still have to pay a fat bill. lol.

Funny how a flat medium can throw off thoughts. My thoughts were based on my relatively small town atmosphere and yes there are barns as the OP is mentioning. I got in the mindset of "Gee if I am selling postcards to benefit a charity and using local citizens barns then I should discuss it with them." I guess I felt the OP was doing a similar thing. Eric32 did summarize it well in #66.

 

[eric32]

Yeah for sure. I grew up in a small town in Pennsylvania. I really should have stated that I was commenting purely from a legality standpoint. What you said definitely has weight in the situation.

 

[Deleted member 137163]

Yeah for sure. I grew up in a small town in Pennsylvania. I really should have stated that I was commenting purely from a legality standpoint. What you said definitely has weight in the situation.

Thanks Eric

 

[ArnieZiffel]

Not a legal expert by any means, but consider the case of a TV news operation (or online news site, or whatever). These entities take footage and photos of privately owned property every day, and they operate a profit-based enterprise, by selling advertising time/space within their programming/content, and you can bet they aren't asking permission or getting signed releases (at least not for footage captured from a public space). Just food for thought.

 

[prb]

Not a legal expert by any means, but consider the case of a TV news operation (or online news site, or whatever). These entities take footage and photos of privately owned property every day, and they operate a profit-based enterprise, by selling advertising time/space within their programming/content, and you can bet they aren't asking permission or getting signed releases (at least not for footage captured from a public space). Just food for thought.

The difference, I think, is that an image with a barn as its primary focus is using the barn owner’s property to make money, while a tv station’s images of buildings are almost always of the background to an event.

The most authoritative comment in this thread is a reference to a 1990 (I think) copyright law.

 

[subliminal00]

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…

You’re not in control of the helicopter, that’s the key difference.

 

[cmj0929]

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!

if it can be seen from public property its prob fine

 

[deanbush]

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!

I know that this is an old post, but just for the record, I would like to drop this important information that I got from yourphotoadvisor.com regarding the selling of photographs of private property. It is as follows: Is it legal to sell photos of someone else’s property? Yes, it is legal to sell photos of someone else’s property. However, you need to be careful about where you are snapping the photo as well as what is shown in the picture. When selling for commercial purposes, you must also have a property release form signed, and in some cases, a model release contract signed, too.

 

[Brojon]

Not a legal expert by any means, but consider the case of a TV news operation (or online news site, or whatever). These entities take footage and photos of privately owned property every day, and they operate a profit-based enterprise, by selling advertising time/space within their programming/content, and you can bet they aren't asking permission or getting signed releases (at least not for footage captured from a public space). Just food for thought.

Heck, here locally they've caught the TV and paper using drone footage without even asking.
A couple of the guys with 107's have taken them to court. They still do what they think they can get away with which frequently is a public mea culpa while leaving the pilfered footage up.

 

[Dougcjohn]

Heck, here locally they've caught the TV and paper using drone footage without even asking.
A couple of the guys with 107's have taken them to court. They still do what they think they can get away with which frequently is a public mea culpa while leaving the pilfered footage up.

Interesting, for my understanding... It's Not the Parties (Owners) of Properties photographed but "other, possibly competitors" PT107 Flyers are pursing legal channels as a non-associated party to the incident?

Under what grounds? Witnessing / observing an act they question if legal... when it may be within legal & allowable actions? Are they attempting to sue the Media company for illegal operations, without any City, St or FAA charges / fines?

I'd be interested to hear how this turns out.
Thanks for sharing.

 

[Brojon]

Interesting, for my understanding... It's Not the Parties (Owners) of Properties photographed but "other, possibly competitors" PT107 Flyers are pursing legal channels as a non-associated party to the incident?

Under what grounds? Witnessing / observing an act they question if legal... when it may be within legal & allowable actions? Are they attempting to sue the Media company for illegal operations, without any City, St or FAA charges / fines?

I'd be interested to hear how this turns out.
Thanks for sharing.

Sorry I wasn't clear - the stations and paper used drone footage without the creators permission.
Normally that's called stealing.
Nobody to my knowledge has been sued for taking images of anything visible from public property.
This is a long standing photography issue and is covered by a lawyer named Krages in his "Photographers Legal Rights" pamphlet which I highly encourage everyone to have a printed copy for "interested parties".
This is US law and may or may not apply elsewhere.
One example is the famous sculpture "The Bean" which resides in a public area. First the city tried to prohibit photography claiming copyright. Then they tried to charge fees. The courts set matters straight and now you can take all the images you wish.

Chicago's Bean sculpture is free to photograph, at last

Back in February, I blogged about the Bean, a mirrored statue in Chicago's Millennium Park. The $270 million park was built with public funds, and then the Bean was donated…

boingboing.net

Bert P. Krages - Attorney at Law

www.krages.com