I would agree as well. If you are unsure, seek permission. However, if you are in public and it's just a house and no one's house in particular and maybe there are several houses shown, not so much. The problem comes in the commercialization and where you are promoting and advertising and while that doesn't mean every single piece of property that someone owns is covered (like their car and their computer and their bike and their watch, etc), something this is more personalized like a home (as opposed to an apartment front door) may require further scrutiny. Plenty of stock photos available, I would check into those.
Cafguy has a careful approach to this. You can do it yourself and don’t really need a lawyer in the US, else it depends on the public photography laws of your country. I sell images on two stock sites and there are legally binding property release forms available all over the web and on stock agency websites- Alamy has one you could use for reference for personal use.
By that standard, there should be no video of Luigi Mangione. I doubt he would sign a release.
agreed which is exactly why there are exceptions to these different rules that are often mentioned by cafguy. he appears to know all the strict rules but when you are in California, you seem to operate on the "zero tolerance" or "no exceptions" level and therefore often forget to mention what we in the rest of the free states already know. if it is in the public interest and it promotes the welfare of the general public (as noted in the Constitution) then there is nothing that is going to protect a private person or property. In this country, the press is free and they have wide and unfethered berth (and the people are the press). if they find Luigi childhood home, they will take pictures of it inside and outside all day long and you will see those pictures posted in newspapers, on the news programs, in magazines....literally everywhere whether it generates revenue or not and nobody will ask him for permission because they don't need it. that is the exception.
Not exactly BUT you wont see his image selling soap on T.V. unless he agrees to it.
Tony, you are right about photography in public (at least here in the US) but consider this- we are going to use your likeness for our blue pill ad. We’ll use the photo we took of you out in front of your house, and as both of us were in public, we won’t need any permission and will not be giving you any payments.
And if the law was never debated we would not have courts. Seeing as how a ED ad and drone photography are rather different though, I do not think anyone is taking that case.
