OK, I did a little reading and I hate to say it, there are such things as
releases for buildings. However, any release, either for a person or a
building, is only relavent once the image is used for some commercial
purpose.
I'm still not completely clear on this, but it appears that a film permit is
usually required for commercial photography from the town or other
government authority before any pictures can be taken. A release (either for
a person or a building) is only required if an image is used for commercial
and not editorial purposes. A release is a legal document that basically
gives permission to a person (not necessarily the photographer) to make
money off of the image, usually for specific uses. A release is not required
in order to take a picture, since it can be obtained later, or not at all if
it is not used for commercial purposes.
All of this doesn't have a thing to do with copyright.
I'm sure there are some pros on here that know a ton more about releases and
permits than I do.
But, the one clear way out of this is infamous the "work for hire" contract.
Under this type of contract, the photog doesn't own the negatives and
therefore looses control over how they are used. Since it is the
responsibility of the end user of the image (the advertising company, etc.)
to obtain any and all releases, the photographer cannot be held liable for
any inappropriate use. At least that's the way I read all of this. So the
dreaded "work for hire" contract seems to be a way to reduce the risk and
liability of shooting people and buildings.
Be seeing you.
Dirk Wright
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|