Using local photos on a website legally

[OBie]

I may or may not be able to get a clear answer on this, but here goes. I'm in NC by the way, in case any legal eagles from around here are listening in.

I manage a website for a real estate agent. Also a blog. I would like to use generic photos from the area to show people from other areas what it looks like here. Long term, I see photos of individual homes, or neighborhoods, downtown, area attractions, restaurants, etc. In the website forum that I participate in, someone (another realtor) said that they had put a photo of a building on their site and the building manager contacted him and asked him to remove it for legal purposes (or something like that).

What is the general rule here? Or is it so vague that it is nearly impossible to interperet? Will I get in trouble for putting a photo of a business on our website merely for educational purposes (as oppposed to using it for selling something)? Can I take a picture of the symphony performing in their outdoor venue without getting in trouble?

What does anyone know about this?

[Photo-John]

OBie-
I'm not a legal expert. But I have been immersed in photography and marketing business for a long time. I would say that this is a danger zone for you. I wouldn't use photos of properties without getting a signed release from the property owner. Since a real estate Web site is essentially a marketing / advertising tool, any photo you use is essentially advertising. If you were talking about an editorial publication or Web site, the rules would be different. You can pretty much use a photo of anything for news purposes without the owner's permission. But if it's for advertising, you need a release. I can see how what you're doing might be perceived as a gray area. However, it's what the property owner thinks that matters. If they don't like you using a photo of their property, they can sue you. If the real estate company is willing to defend themselves, then that's fine, too. It would be a civil and not a criminal complaint. No one will have to go to jail. But the real estate company, and maybe even you, might be required to pay damages.

If you really want to do this the safe thing to do is get signed releases from property owners. You might offer links to businesses if they want to be compensated. But I wouldn't just start photographing businesses and putting them up on a commercial Web site.

[OBie]

That makes sense. Certainly in reference to individual homes and businesses.

But what about things such as statues, or public art, or general photos where no one home is distinguishable? Do you think that would be OK?

We almost had a video produced a while back that was going to be a sort of 'virtual tour' of the city. Think that would have been a problem? (We didn't follow through with it due to the person at the other end).

[Ronnoco]

That makes sense. Certainly in reference to individual homes and businesses.

But what about things such as statues, or public art, or general photos where no one home is distinguishable? Do you think that would be OK?

We almost had a video produced a while back that was going to be a sort of 'virtual tour' of the city. Think that would have been a problem? (We didn't follow through with it due to the person at the other end).

Statues or art on permanent display in a public place are not subject to any copyright or other restrictions as to taking photos or using them.

I have taken photos of businesses and homes and had them published without releases and had no problems. However all cases are somewhat individual. Since you are involved with a real estate web site, any misinterpretation that the business in the photo is for sale would certainly be problematic. Shots of a city neighbourhood that included homes and businesses would probably be OK, as long as the viewer's attention was not centred on any one particular business or house. It does not have to be unidentifiable.

I have also produced a video of a city displaying the good, the bad and the ugly, and even shot in hotels etc. Again it is more a matter of how you shoot, frame, etc. and what elements you stress, that make it OK or legally problematic. You need to almost look at your shooting legally as well as photographically, but if you feel that you can defend your work, then the likehood is that you won't have to. This is assuming that you have a good sense of the law and the general intention and goals of legislation.

Bottom line is that if you are not portraying a very indentifiable person, home or community business in a positive fashion photographically, then you are possibly in a legally "tenuous" position.
If you are, then there is unlikely to be any problem.

Ronnoco

[OBie]

Thanks Ronnoco. The purpose of the photos is strictly to show what the area is like. Trying to keep things as general as possible. Not even using - This is a great neighborhood to live in! Realtors have to be so careful anyway, about what they say to clients (you can't say that a certain neighborhood has lots of kids, for example). I'm not a realtor, but anything I put on the site had better be legal by their standards, since I represent one.

Appreciate the input.