Advice on editorial/commercial use of NYC images

[Paolo]

Hello,
A friend asked me to take pictures of touristic attractions in New York. He said that the use will be both editorial and commercial.

I understand that several NYC buildings/attractions are protected by intellectual property (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/contributor-resources/legal/stock-photo-restrictions/).

Since, in the contract proposed by my friend, the photographer is the only responsible for the content of the images, should I protect myself by:

1. Remove all images which have a building protected by intellectual property as the main subject? (I believe that cityscapes are ok), or:
2. Ask for permission to each building?

I did some research but could not find a definitive answer. It seems that things are a bit fuzzy and I just want to avoid ending up in court...

Thanks!

 

[Mikehit]

This is such a tricky area because there is relatively little case law to rely on and there is a lot of grade 1 BS spouted by people who pretend to be legal copyright experts and things become 'fact' by no other reason than they are repeated so often.

Strictly, the liability is with the end user (such as magazine) but they pass this on to the photographer and many stock libraries or publications ask for disclaimers/releases not because they are required but because they may be required and fighting a case after the fact is just too awkward.
I am in UK where things work quite differently but my non-legal view is to do just as you are suggesting - if the building forms the main part of the image, find out who to contact to get a image release signed and if you can't get one highlight this to your friend and give them the choice.

 

[Orangutan]

Hello,
A friend asked me to take pictures of touristic attractions in New York. He said that the use will be both editorial and commercial.

I understand that several NYC buildings/attractions are protected by intellectual property (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/contributor-resources/legal/stock-photo-restrictions/).

Since, in the contract proposed by my friend, the photographer is the only responsible for the content of the images, should I protect myself by:

1. Remove all images which have a building protected by intellectual property as the main subject? (I believe that cityscapes are ok), or:
2. Ask for permission to each building?

I did some research but could not find a definitive answer. It seems that things are a bit fuzzy and I just want to avoid ending up in court...

Thanks!

There are books on this subject, search Amazon for photography law.

(edit) NEVER NEVER NEVER take legal advice from people on the Internet. They may give you clues as to where to look for advice, but your decision should not ever rest on "the Internet told me..."

 

[Don Haines]

Find a lawyer who specializes in this sort of thing......

As to internet legal advice, you get what you pay for......

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

ll of the references to photography for commercial use seem to apply to interiors of buildings, particularly objects of art in museums. Unlike UK, you can take commercial photos of any building as long as its shot from a public place. A call to NYC authorities can verify that. Once you leave public property and step onto or inside private property, the owner sets the requirements.

Getting a permit to film a movie is a totally different thing, since it involves blocking off streets, and a huge amount of impact to the area being filmed.

 

[Paolo]

Thanks everyone for the tips. It seems that a lawyer is the way to go...


One follow-up question on contracts. Is it normal that the whole liability is with the photographer, up to the point of being responsible for paying any demage and legal fees for the company I am signing the contract with, in case it is brought to court for an image I provided? It is my first contract and, while I understand where it is coming from, it looks a bit scary...


Thanks

 

[Orangutan]

One follow-up question on contracts. Is it normal that the whole liability is with the photographer, up to the point of being responsible for paying any demage and legal fees for the company I am signing the contract with, in case it is brought to court for an image I provided? It is my first contract and, while I understand where it is coming from, it looks a bit scary...

It is scary. I'm not a pro, but if it were me I'd say no. A lawyer will often (always?) try to put that language in the contract on behalf of their client because it's their job to protect their client. I would agree to those terms only if:

• I had good understanding of what I was getting myself into
• My competent lawyer said it was OK
• I was being paid a significant premium to carry the risk
• I had insurance to cover my risk

Best,
O

 

[Mikehit]

Thanks everyone for the tips. It seems that a lawyer is the way to go...


One follow-up question on contracts. Is it normal that the whole liability is with the photographer, up to the point of being responsible for paying any demage and legal fees for the company I am signing the contract with, in case it is brought to court for an image I provided? It is my first contract and, while I understand where it is coming from, it looks a bit scary...


Thanks

From what little I know if it, it is normal.

Think of it like this: if you are a photo library receiving hundreds of images a day do you really want to be responsible for chasing photo releases of anyone (or any building) in the photo and finding who to pay for any fees? Nope, you put that responsibility on the photographer who is there at the time.
And that approach has now entered into contract. Although the photographer is not the one who needs it (there is no restriction that I am aware of of actually taking a photo if you are on public land), the end user puts the responsibility in the photographer's lap. It saves them time and money.

If there is any court case the rights holder will sue the end user (your client) but that will not do your reputation any good.