Recently I have been getting lots of inquiries about images that I have on my blog and if they are for sale. The easy answer would be that everything is for sale, so I thought I could set up my own stock image library. Then as I was working out what I could put up and what not, it suddenly started to occur to me, what is really mine to sell.
Image taken from the street and I could sell this.
I know that I own the copyright on my images, but where is that line on what I can take and what I can sell. I know that if you take photos in any of the parklands in Victoria that are looked after by Parks Victoria then they won’t let you sell the photos. You can’t make money from their parks unless you pay them a lot more money. I don’t know if I agree with this or not, it seems a bit strange when the parks are owned by us, and we pay for the up keep of them. However, I can also understand it as well.
So if Parks Victoria have these rules what about other places.
If I pay my admission fee to get into Rippon Lea and take lots of photos, can I put those photos on my website and sell them? I would have to say no, I couldn’t. If you want to go there and take photos to sell, then you need to pay more money and pay the commercial photography rate to own the images and then you can do what you like with them.
I have never really thought about this before, it is my image, why can’t I sell it. So now I have to rethink all my images and what can I sell for my stock library.
If images are taken in what is referred to as public land then you own them and you can sell them. Images taken in the street are usually considered yours. Most of us know this. If you photograph a building from the street, then that image is yours, and I wouldn’t have any trouble selling it.
Image taken on a public path, so I can sell this image.
If I enter the building and take photos, then that is a whole new thing. We shouldn’t confuse being allowed to take photos with being allowed to also sell them. Public buildings are very different and the same rules don’t apply, at least that is the case in Australia. There are many buildings, that while they are considered public buildings, have restrictions on what you can and can’t do in them. Photography may be allowed, but you might not be allowed to sell them.
Public Building, but photography is really restricted, I don’t think I would be able to sell this image.
When you want to sell your photos, you are entering the world of commercial photography and you may need to start paying commercial rates so you can so you can do what you like with the images. This is where I am right now, and trying to work it all out.
I might be wrong here, but there are questions and I need to find the answers. I don’t want to get into trouble, or get sued for selling images that I don’t have the rights to sell. I need to start asking questions and finding out what I am allowed to sell and what I aren’t allowed to sell.
[…] my own stock library, and with this idea, some new problems have arisen, so please take a look at When Does it Belong to Me. It would be great if you could leave your comments there as […]
Thanks, Leanne, for bringing this up. These are things I will consider from now on as I am shooting photos. Since I mainly do it for myself, I might not ever have to worry about it, but I am glad that you reminded me that there are more things at stake than whether I want to put my images out there for sale or not! I am not sure what the rules are here in Arizona, USA, but I should research it.
Thanks so much!
– Jo
You are welcome Jo, I have to admit, that I feel the same, it is only because of a few things that have happened recently that I have started to wonder about this. Glad you found it useful, thank you Jo.
This may get you started on the right track.
http://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheets/info-sheet/street-photographers-rights/#headingh310
I have seen a lot of these, but they don’t always state anything about selling the images, I am starting to think it is best to contact the people who look after the property and find out from them. Thanks for the link.
It’s a very complex problem indeed, and one that I’ve dealt with on a small scale from a slightly different perspective. My angle is that of a visual artist who sometimes uses either subjects that might be under some restrictions as belonging to other people, or other artists’ photographs, as reference or even occasionally as pieces to be incorporated into collages and other artworks. The general legal copyright approach in the art world has long been a somewhat slippery one of percentages–how much one uses of the original and how much one alters the original being significant deciding factors–but honestly, these questions have always been difficult to make concrete enough for easy understanding or use. Of course one wants to give credit where credit’s due and to pay when it’s required, but so many images nowadays are incredibly hard to trace to their originators, and if one is making reference to rather than copying, or using what seems to be an infinitesimal portion of the original, it is mostly a judgement call from what I’ve read and seen.
I usually end up trying very hard to use only my own artworks and photography as source material, but if I’m trying for any reasons to create a work about an historical subject, one that I cannot gain access to because of distance or cost or danger, or one that is privately owned but widely famed, I still have to revisit the whole question. Would that it were obvious or easy! Thanks for bringing up the eternal question–there’s certainly always room for discussion and inquiry.
Kathryn
It certainly is a complex problem, and sounds like it is one you have come across, so hard to always know what you can and can’t do.
You are welcome Kathryn, and thank you.
I wouldn’t have guessed that you could’t sell photos shot in a public building. I like the idea of the stock photos that you are compiling!
I don’t know that you can’t George, but it is certainly something that needs be looked at I think. Thank you.
I would never have thought about these issues, but what a minefield!
It is a minefield, and one that I must admit I don’t know enough about, thanks Gypsy.
Considering how much Architecture and Public Buildings are part of your portfolio of work Leanne it would be great to find the definitive answers to your queries .
I really hope someone can untangle the red tape and give you a steer on this one .
I think a lot of it can still be part of my portfolio, I just need to make sure I don’t sell it, or if I want to sell it, then I go and pay the appropriate fees. The fees are not always that high, so probably worth it. Thanks
Leanne, thanks for highlighting this. I would never have even thought about it, just assuming that if I took the photo then it was mine to sell. Obviously not always. Definitely merits some research!
It does depend, but it is good to keep it in mind. Of course things taken of buildings outside and on streets are different, but it is something we need to think about. Thanks Elizabeth.
Very good topic, Leanne. I have no experience in this subject as I am an amateur only. But thanks for bringing up this issue, something that I need to learn more. :)
I think this is something that many of us have not considered or thought about. I just thought if you were allowed to take photos then you were allowed to sell them, right, apparently not. Thanks Inge.
I think it makes things hard for a photographer to earn an honest living by imposing such restrictions on what He/She can and can’t sell or even own. I think it comes down to people just being restrictive and greedy. I know some places may have restrictions in place for security etc and i can understand the reasons. But a public place should be just that “public” those who impose such rules really need to relax a little.
The way i see it if a photographer takes a stunning photo of a landscape , building , Subject etc, He/She is very well helping with promotion of the subject being photographed and should be allowed to make a small personal gain.
I guess at the end of the day its really up to the owners of subject in question.
It does make it hard, but it also means you have to do your research and find out what you can and can’t sell. I am sure not all public buildings are going to be like that, and some won’t care, but others will, and it doesn’t take much to find out, well it shouldn’t.
I think we have to remember that they need to make money too, that they can’t just open their doors and not expect people to pay, they take a lot to maintain them. Also, you have to consider how you would feel if say an organisation started making money from your images that they found on the internet, I know it isn’t exactly the same but there are similarities. I do think it is fair enough that if you are making money from their building that you pay something to them.
Thanks Dean.
Yes that is true,
But they have to also understand that when an image is uploaded to the internet it kind of becomes easy to exploit and steal.
Most people would be told , Yes you can use this image for your own personal use on your own website or blog etc. But whats stopping a random internet user from taking your image from you webpage or blog and using it themselves. Even google has a cache of images (and yes i know you can stop images from being cached by google and other similar sites), But what about all those novice photographers that know little about web design / management?
Its kind of a conundrum as soon as you upload an image to the internet even with copyright people will always try to steal or use images from their own use. Be it a desktop picture or something more sinister.
I hope you see meaning in my message its kind of a catch 22 i think.
Hey Dean, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say, I agree with all you have said above, but what I meant was that, these public buildings have to make a living too, so how is it any different to you making money from them, without paying for the right to use their building, than someone using one of your images and not paying for the right to do it.
I can understand why they want you to pay, if you going to make money from them, especially as, well here, government is decreasing more and more. It is such a tricky area and trying to work out what you can and can’t sell, it is all new to me. A lot of research to be done I think.
I can honestly say that none of this has ever occurred to me – perhaps because I live in the United States. Public and private lands are up for grabs as far as selling images are concerned – with the exception of if you are selling something and use the image to brand an object…but even then it is in legal murkiness.Thanks for another though-provoking piece Leanne.
This got me thinking, so I looked up our U.S. laws and specifically those of my state too. Complex, but basically if you sell your work, you need permits, insurance with the city and county named as insured, and so on. Especially for USA parks and recreation departments. http://www.photographybay.com/photography-laws/
I have to admit it has only just occurred to me because of an incident I had recently. Sounds like Tricia has done the research for you, and what she has said it great. Thanks
Hello Leanne. This was a great piece. As you know, I am trying to sell some of my photos here in the US as well. I believe that, as you say, taking a photo of a public building should be fine to sell, but there might–and I say might–be a law here in Los Angeles, that states something to the effect that if the building is recognizable, then you cannot sell the photo. However, if you take a photo of a part of a building, or one that cannot be recognized as a landmark, famous, etc., then it’s okay. So I won’t even think of putting any of those images up for sale. I will only sell what I know is legal: street photos, my own public photos, abstract photos, photos with model releases, etc.
The other question is how to ship them. For now, I plan to ship the photos in relatively inexpensive wooden or metal frames, or, as you suggested earlier, matted with cellophane. The buyer can decide if they want it framed or matted. Do you plan to sell your photos alone or with a frame or matte?
Here are the laws for Los Angeles, which I looked up since I live in CA too.
We are subject to needing permits, insurance, fees, etc. too.
http://www.photographybay.com/photography-laws/
It is strange and I haven’t done nearly enough research on it. I do need to do more. I think Tricia has found the answers for you and the relevant link, so that is probably a great place to start.
I haven’t ever sold a framed print, I would prefer not to. I sell prints, and I sell canvas prints, but for images in my stock library, I have always assumed they would be more digital images. The prints are shipping with lots of cardboard so they don’t bend.
All excellent questions. You might want to talk to a patent lawyer. Also, travel photographers in general seem to be well schooled in the legalities of their work, so maybe they can be of help. There are a lot of gray areas in there and our parks at least don’t require payment, but private homes? Privately owned businesses or just random people on the street? I’ve never been sure what that involves. Really good questions.
It is a very grey area, and I think it is probably best to contact the buildings and ask them what their policies on photography are, that is what I want to do. Can I sell the images, what restrictions they have them, etc. For some buildings you will have to pay an hourly rate, but then the images are yours to do with as you please, and that could be good. Thanks Marilyn.
Well done Leanne, you got us all thinking. In the USA we do need permits, insurance with the city and / or county named as the insured, etc. And then individual cities have their own municipal laws too. Basically if you sell your work, you need to know the laws. So now I have to study this! Our USA photo laws and then several counties laws are listed here if any of your U.S. readers are interested: http://www.photographybay.com/photography-laws/
Thank you so much Tricia, I really appreciate what you have done here, brilliant really. It is a tricky subject and one that is good to know. I need to do some research here in Australia about what I can sell and what I can’t. I know that some places want you to pay a commercial photography rate, and that is something I need to consider so I can use and sell the images as I please. Thanks again Tricia, I am so glad you did the research.
Here in the U.S.A. there may be restrictions to taking photos in public places. Some buildings, for example, do not allow even external photography. In many cases, even when taking pictures is allowed you, may not sell such photos as the item depicted may retain rights to their appearance (design). That is especially true if the images depict logos or other proprietary material.
If your photos contain recognizable people, you need releases from those people. If you photograph products, you will need releases as well. It gets especially sticky when photos are reproduced in books or magazines. For example: I wanted to reproduce a NASA photo showing the inside of a manned spacecraft, however it also showed a couple of astronauts – I could not obtain releases from them. I did get permission for specific photos of a camera – after much trouble and time. I had to “design and construct” my own camera for a cutaway view.
I have not gotten any complaints from flowers and insects – so far.
I think many of the laws you are talking about are very similar to what it is like here as well. It really all depends on what you are going to use the images for, even selling them, there are limitations on what you can sell them for.
It is so difficult, working it all out. I have decided that I will contact people directly and find out what I can and can’t sell.
So glad the flowers and insects haven’t complained, :) thanks Ludwig.
This is a very difficult area. I think you have captured the issues well – I have been thinking about these too. Easy enough if I approach a private owner of a building or property, much harder if it is a risk averse large organisation of some sort! If I get any fresh information I’ll post.
It is a difficult area and from what I can gather from the many people who have commented here, it is all very confusing and there are no easy answers. I think I will probably just approach different organisations and find out what their policies are, hopefully get some answers that way. Thank you Paul and it would be great if you let me know if you find out anything more.
In dealing with stock photography agencies here in Canada, they are very aware of the possibilities of litigation from not only people in photographers, models or not, as well as any owners of buildings or spaces that the shoot was done in i.e. backgrounds or the subject itself. When you submit to stock agencies, and if there are people and/or structures (both have to be recognizable) then they look for model and property releases and they have to stand up to legal scrutiny. If the releases are not legally written, the agency can refuse to take the photo or photo’s. They also look for logo’s or brands and upon accepting the images, will give it to an editor to “scrub” the images of any recognizable brands such as the Nike swoosh on a hat or shirt as well as any signage that is branded. These laws would apply to anyone gaining finical benefit from their work whether through a stock agency or a a private website.
It is quite a conundrum, it is something that I had not idea about and something that everyone should be aware of if they are going to sell photos. Thanks for all the ideas here.
Apart from countless glaring writing errors, including a missing ? from the title itself, one would have hoped that on “Australia’s leading professional photographer website” they might be able to answer this question, rather than list a bunch of scenarios and essentially end with “actually I don’t know. I should probably find that out”.
If you’re going to publish an article that poses a question (question mark or not), it’s probably worth at least attempting to answer it.
I am not quite sure how to take this comment, spam or someone being rude, I don’t quite know.
The post was done because it is something that I am curious about, and as it turns out, lots of people had lots of suggestions, so I have no problem with this post.
It’s not spam, nor rudeness. It’s a critical assessment of an article that poses question after question yet simply says ‘I’m not sure, I’d better find out’ to pretty much all of them. So find out!
The reader leaves none the wiser after reading through a stream of consciousness that never leads anywhere.
Perhaps a follow up article, where the actual rules for the area in which you live (Melbourne, I presume) are laid out would add some substance.
Your pictures are interesting but the comments have added a lot more than the article unfortunately. Looking forward to the follow up & good luck with the photography, that’s why we’re all here!
cheers
My brief was to generate discussion, I did that. Unfortunately it is a topic that is so difficult to give an absolute answer to, and the point was for people to think about this kind of thing, it was something that I had never really thought about, and I think each image I take from now on has to be treated very differently. There are going to be different responses to each building, or place you take photos of. You want a simple answer, there isn’t one. I think the comments have shown that. Some places you take photos in, you can do what you like with them, others, you can’t, and each one is going to have different requirements. The idea of the post was to get people to ask questions, and not to assume. I think I did that.
I am not going to give you answers to this, because I am not going to go and find out for every place in Melbourne what they will and won’t let you do. If you want to know, contact the owners or caretakers of the place you want to take photos of and find out what you can and can’t do with the photos. That is what I am going to do.
As I understand it, what you photograph legally is yours, and therefore, yours to sell.
Nobody can take your photos from you unless they break the law (e.g. child pornography). Guidelines for Australia can be found here http://tinyurl.com/lqfzm95
When selling images commercially, model releases have to be obtained for people in the shot, and when shooting inside public spaces you have to comply with their own rules.
I’d be very interested to know if commercial *exploitation* of photographers is being done by building owners and suchlike. Keep us posted!
You are right on some points, what you take does legally belong to you, but whether you have the right to sell it, that is the problem here.
No one can take your photos from you, that is true, you own the copyright on your photos.
It is the selling of the images that seems to be the problem, what you are selling them for etc. You do have comply with the rules of indoor spaces, but you also have to comply with other rules. If you take photos of land that belongs to Parks Victoria, then you can sell them, unless you have paid for a special license. It is so confusing.
I don’t think the buildings are exploiting photographers, my husband just gave me a great example, if someone came into your home, took photos of it and then made a lot of money from those photos, would you be happy with that? Interesting problem.
Thanks Tim.