Understand... using others material... yep, that makes a difference.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
Legality of selling photos taken by drone of privately-owned structures
- Thread starter prb
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2020
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reactions
- 896
- Age
- 43
- Location
- Grand Rapids, MI
- Site
- karlblessing.com
Far as selling. If we're talking commercial usage, then just like a person you would need a property release (like you would need a model release) to use their likeness in a commercial fashion (stock use, advertising, etc). The main exception I've seen has been mainly for artwork, journalism, or if it was not the primary subject (just happens to be part of a cityscape for example).
So you could take the picture but how you use the property's likeness after that is a different matter.
So you could take the picture but how you use the property's likeness after that is a different matter.
Mavic Merrick
Well-Known Member
Mavic Merrick
Well-Known Member
I would say if the barn is up close and the main subject of the picture than be super careful, if the barn is in the distance than I wouldn’t be too worried about it.
vsasolutions
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2020
- Messages
- 100
- Reactions
- 83
- Age
- 58
- Location
- St. Augustine Beach
- Site
- vsasolutions.com
Adobe Stock has a great guide on property and model releases with examples. May not be clear cut and will need to evaluate each piece of media.
I'm pretty sure that most of that is Adobe being extra cautious.
If it's in public or viewable from a public space it does not require a release as ANYONE can see it.
Very few public works are copyrighted and even then there is controversy - Chicago's "The Bean" is a good example. They tried to restrict photography but the courts shut them down. That said it IS copyrighted and as such could not be used commercially without permission and a lot of money changing hands. Most buildings such as the Empire State Building have long since expired as copyrighted or whatever. They CAN restrict you on their property.
Before you argue, consider this; You take a image of the NYC skyline at sunset with the Brooklyn bridge in the foreground reflecting the city. You seriously think that you need a property release for every single identifiable building in that image to put in on a calendar or postcard?
anotherlab
Well-Known Member
You can legally take a picture of private property from a public place.
To sell that picture commercially would require a written property release from the property owner if that property is recognizable or the picture contains private information about the property owner (vehicles, pets, people, signs, etc).
A skyline photograph wouldn't apply because the individual properties are not the primary focus.
There are journalistic and artistic exceptions. And jurisdiction is local. What is legal in the US, like selling a picture of The Bean, would be illegal in the EU. You can not sell a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night without a release because of copyright restrictions.
Government is prone to ignoring teh actual laws in order to serve their agenda. France decided that commercial images of teh Eiffel Tower were too lucrative to allow for free. This in spite of the fact copyright - even by international or Disney standards has long since expired.
The Bean is in fact still under copyright.
The University of Texas, Austin has an army of lawyers ready to sue anyone into oblivion if they make a commercial image of their clock tower. This is a public university and a clock tower that is over 70 years old and not under any copyright.
So it should be legal but it isn't in many cases. Such is teh world we live in.
A great reference that I consider required reading for photographers is Bert Krages "Photographers Rights". He's a lawyer and makes a living doing this. He does NOT cover commercial use which is a very broad field since a calendar, greeting card or advertisements are different beasts.
anotherlab
Well-Known Member
Commercial images of the Eiffel Tower are in fact legal and no laws are being ignored. The copyright restriction is not on Eiffel Tower itself, but on the lights that illuminate it at night. The lights are considered to be a piece of art and the copyright for the art installation is held by the artist, Pierre Bideau. This is why you can take pictures of the Eiffel Tower during the day and use those pictures commercially. It's only at night that you are required to obtain a license from the Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel to take pictures for commercial use.
The light installation was installed in 1985 and the copyright for the installation does not ignore the law or required a special exemption from the French government.
A few things there. Part 107 has nothing to do with photography per se. It has to do with the purpose of the flight at the time it's made. So, if you're going to take a photo with your drone with the intent of selling that photo, you would need a Part 107 license because the flight was commercial. However, let's say you have some photos you took during recreational flights, and you later decide to sell those photos. Under the current rules, that should be permissible. Keep in mind, the FAA could still come after you if you're clearly abusing the recreational exemption. If you're selling a ton of photos and footage and try to claim "oh, it's OK, it was all recreational at the time" that's not going to hold up.
As for the comparison, I get it, but there is a key difference: You're not piloting the manned aircraft. Also, to be clear, it's not just making money with your drone. It's anything that is beyond flying purely for enjoyment. That means if you take footage for a school yearbook or church website, you need a Part 107. I have a brief FAQ on my website that explains some of this (more directed at business owners).
Good luck!
Similar threads
