AdamLiptrot
newbie
Reged: 18/06/2009
Posts: 2
|
|
I took a photo of a movie being filmed (including one of the A-List cast) whilst on holiday last year. It was taking place in a train station in the US as we walked through.
I've now been approached to sell the image for a book. How do I stand legally? As it was a holiday snap I did not have a property release / permission to take commercial photos / any model releases. Can I sell it without fear of the station or the production company coming after me for damages etc?
|
Barney
Baht 'at
Reged: 16/12/2005
Posts: 11487
Loc: Harrogate, North Yorks
|
|
It all depends really. Firstly, if the usage is editorial then you don't usually need a model release form. Secondly, as you were on private property (train stations usually are) then there may be some restrictions to the landowners granting you access. You may wish to check the operating company's website.
If it were me, I would be inclined to go for it and get it published.
--------------------
"Wrong on so many different levels."
Blog - Contre Dour - Capturing the ordinary for posterity.
Flickr
|
Bettina
Kein Titel
Reged: 12/02/2004
Posts: 4763
Loc: London
|
|
A professional photographer wouldn't hesitate to sell the picture.
--------------------
Bettina
http://www.vibrantpictures.co.uk
Vibrant Pictures on Flickr, My Blog
|
AdamLiptrot
newbie
Reged: 18/06/2009
Posts: 2
|
|
I checked it out and I believe the station (South Station, Boston) is owned by the MBTA. Their policy allows personal photography, but requires a permit to be obtained in advance for commercial photos. And here's my problem - the photo was taken at the time as a personal shot, it's only now become commercial. Do you think I should contact MBTA for a retrospective permit, or are these permits just for managing number of photographers on site per day / disruption?
|
GlennH
stranger
Reged: 12/05/2005
Posts: 390
Loc: Colombes, France
|
|
If the picture is being used in a book it's editorial, and not commercial. I personally wouldn't give this a second thought, and would not seek a retrospective permit (which in some places could easily cost you more than you're likely to be paid for publication in a book).
Property owners that make these stipulations either a) want a slice of the cake, or b) don't want their property to be shown in an unfavourable light.
Neither motive really makes it worth pursuing legally when the publication is as innocuous and modestly paid as editorial usage typically is.
--------------------
Glenn
Edited by GlennH (18/06/2009 22:15)
|
benji
addict
Reged: 12/12/2006
Posts: 411
|
|
Quote:
If the picture is being used in a book it's editorial, and not commercial. I personally wouldn't give this a second thought, and would not seek a retrospective permit (which in some places could easily cost you more than you're likely to be paid for publication in a book).
Property owners that make these stipulations either a) want a slice of the cake, or b) don't want their property to be shown in an unfavourable light.
Neither motive really makes it worth pursuing legally when the publication is as innocuous and modestly paid as editorial usage typically is.
I would second that.
benji
--------------------
Benji BRISPN, CRISPS, SOTENVINEGA, CHIZENONIEN
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
