Do you need a property release to use photos of private property commercially in the U.S.?
Asked 4/5/2011
4 views
2 answers
0
I often hear that model releases are commonly needed for recognizable people in commercial use, but that property releases are less clear. For private property that is not trademarked and does not involve protected artwork or similar issues, has any U.S. court clearly ruled that a property release is required? I’m specifically asking about general private property, not trademark infringement involving famous buildings or logos.
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
15y ago
2 Answers
6
I've never seen a legal precedent in discussions of this topic on any photographic forums, as you say it's something that comes up a lot. The consensus seems to be that property doesn't have the same right to privacy for publicity that people do, with possible exceptions of trademarked items, artwork and the like.
Gray areas I've seen mentioned would be photographing a race horse and using the image commercially, or photographing a well-known person's home or other property and using the image in way that is defamatory.
According to the article below, no case law is known that covers this issue. That doesn't mean there won't be law suits, some dropped or settled out of court, but as for any rulings, I'm not aware of any
Originally by user4191. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user4191
15y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
There does not appear to be a clear, broadly established U.S. court precedent saying a general property release is required for ordinary private property. The common understanding reflected in the answers is that property does not have the same publicity rights that people do.
Important exceptions and gray areas include:
- trademarked designs or branding
- copyrighted artwork
- defamatory or misleading use, such as implying endorsement
- photos made while trespassing
One cited legal discussion suggests that if the photo was taken from a lawful location, the property owner may have little basis to stop commercial use merely because the property appears in the image. If the image was made while on the property without permission, trespass issues may apply, though that is separate from a general “property release” requirement.
So the practical takeaway is: for non-trademarked property photographed lawfully, a property release is often not clearly required, but the law is not settled enough to treat that as universal legal advice. For commercial campaigns, especially involving notable property, it’s safest to get permission or legal review.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI15y ago