Quick Question about releases!

[Janie]

Does anyone know if you need the owner of a car to sign a release if you photograph that car at a car show - if you want to use it for merchandise, such as a calendar? I know there are different uses of releases and times when you need one or not, but in this case, being public for display, i'm not sure!

[Janie]

Spoke to a lawyer friend of mine who said YES, I do need a release signed!
jane

Does anyone know if you need the owner of a car to sign a release if you photograph that car at a car show - if you want to use it for merchandise, such as a calendar? I know there are different uses of releases and times when you need one or not, but in this case, being public for display, i'm not sure!

[Speed]

Spoke to a lawyer friend of mine who said YES, I do need a release signed!
jane

If the owner isn't in the photo, or their license plate isn't in the photo, why would a release be necessary?

I'm just curiuos what their rational was.

[Janie]

If the owner isn't in the photo, or their license plate isn't in the photo, why would a release be necessary?

I'm just curiuos what their rational was.

If you are taking the photo for commercial reasons, you need the release; if for personal or editorial reasons, you can use a modified release saying it won't be used for commercial purposes. Now i'm trying to figure out what type of release to use - I have plenty of model releases, maybe a property release, although that is usually for real estate. It's also against the law to photograph a government building such as the Post Office!

[Speed]

If you are taking the photo for commercial reasons, you need the release; if for personal or editorial reasons, you can use a modified release saying it won't be used for commercial purposes. Now i'm trying to figure out what type of release to use - I have plenty of model releases, maybe a property release, although that is usually for real estate. It's also against the law to photograph a government building such as the Post Office!

It's also against the law to photograph a government building such as the Post Office!

I can't believe that! Is that a state or federal law?

Regardless, it is being violated everyday!!!

Hmmm, I guess photography is no longer considered a part of the first amendment. The NEA and the ACLU are going to love this!

[Ultra Magnus]

Hey, but feel good in the fact that "They" can take pictures of you whenever they want! Don't beleive the innocent reasons they have for putting video cameras on every intersection, and you think their spy satelites don't take pictures of your house too? I know that to be true because the city planners buy satelite photos of thier towns to do stuff like see if you've done any construction on your property w/o a permit along with other reasons!! My father-in-law worked for one of our local cities and brought home a picture of our hose one time.. Very intersting... And you know the smoking man is behind it all...

[Asylum Steve]

...take photographs of this guy's car. You only need a property release if you plan on PROFITING from photos of his car. Which is certainly the case here...

As for governemnt buildings, I don't know the letter of the law, but I do know much of the crackdown came after 9/11, and is meant to blanket protect against people of questionable character taking "recon" pics of potential government targets.

Yeah, it's a big bummer sometimes. In Chicago, they wouldn't let us take shots in Union Station, an absolutely gorgeous turn of the century (uh 20th, not 21st) architectual gem. What can you do?

BTW, the First Amendment is actually alive and well. Under the umbrella of reportage or journalism, there is virtually no limit to what you can photograph. Just have to jump through some hoops sometimes to get permission, that's all.

It's only when shooters try to use images for COMMERCIAL purposes that you run into trouble...

It's also against the law to photograph a government building such as the Post Office!

I can't believe that! Is that a state or federal law?

Regardless, it is being violated everyday!!!

Hmmm, I guess photography is no longer considered a part of the first amendment. The NEA and the ACLU are going to love this!

[Speed]

...take photographs of this guy's car. You only need a property release if you plan on PROFITING from photos of his car. Which is certainly the case here...

As for governemnt buildings, I don't know the letter of the law, but I do know much of the crackdown came after 9/11, and is meant to blanket protect against people of questionable character taking "recon" pics of potential government targets.

Yeah, it's a big bummer sometimes. In Chicago, they wouldn't let us take shots in Union Station, an absolutely gorgeous turn of the century (uh 20th, not 21st) architectual gem. What can you do?

BTW, the First Amendment is actually alive and well. Under the umbrella of reportage or journalism, there is virtually no limit to what you can photograph. Just have to jump through some hoops sometimes to get permission, that's all.

It's only when shooters try to use images for COMMERCIAL purposes that you run into trouble...

"much of the crackdown came after 9/11"...which is a logical thing to do.

I am relieved to know that you can still get permission to photograph government buildings. Can you imagine not being able to photograph the Washington Memorial? The Lincoln Memorial? The White House?

Then again, I live in a very rural county, in a fairly rural state. No one, and I mean NO ONE is going to fly as much as a Cessna into a building around here. At least not as a terrorist attack. To commit suicide maybe...but crashing into the Carteret County Courthouse is NOT going to incite fear in the hearts of folks in NY or LA.

We live in a country unlike any other. We enjoy freedoms others dream about. (When was the last time you heard about someone risking their life trying to get INTO Cuba, or China, or...?) Giving up freedoms for security is always a dangerous thing to do in my mind. That starts a slippery slope that never stops. It's a fine line to walk, and I would hate to outright lose our "inalienable rights".

Thanks for the clarification buddy! Now I need to find out if there are any restrictions in my neck of the woods.