need opinion on advertising use of home photo

[Smiling JOe]

A simple written request, delivered certified mail, to the real estate company using the photo as an ad, asking for it to be removed and never used again without written permission, is in order, if the owner doesn't want it used.

 

[Matt J]

Unauthorized use IMO and there should be a whoopin!

Unless it's a "group" shot of the community or something similar, they shouldn't be using a photo of a house they aren't selling in an ad - especially w/o permission!

Permission and maybe a nominal fee is the norm in scooterbugland.

Capital city Crazytown.

that is a good question, maybe the person using the picture had assumed the permission was given. I know for a fact it is a recent photo of the house with new owners. so past permission would be moot.

Is this an interior shot of the home? If not I believe you're just setting precidence for the whole world to act like Seaside. If it's on a public street what stops anyone from standing in the street and taking a picture for "stock" photos?

 

[ckhagen]

If the photographer was allowed to be in the space to take the photo (inside) or if the location shot is visible from a public area, the ONLY person who owns any copyright is the photographer. So... if the photographer has given permission for the photo to be used, nothing has been violated. But, if the photo was yanked from somewhere and used without the photographers permission, then the photographer has the right to ask that it be removed.

 

[AAbsolute]

If the photographer was allowed to be in the space to take the photo (inside) or if the location shot is visible from a public area, the ONLY person who owns any copyright is the photographer. So... if the photographer has given permission for the photo to be used, nothing has been violated. But, if the photo was yanked from somewhere and used without the photographers permission, then the photographer has the right to ask that it be removed.

How would someone know if a photo is copyrighted with any markings?

 

[Matt J]

How would someone know if a photo is copyrighted with any markings?

It's generally the source, unless the picture is explicitly listed as public domain or free use it should be assumed that it is copyrighted.

 

[AAbsolute]

It's generally the source, unless the picture is explicitly listed as public domain or free use it should be assumed that it is copyrighted.

Now I feel like a jerk. Another builder was using a picture of a home I built and designed in his post card and I put him on notice that it was a copyrighted plan. I didn't take the photo though. I assume he or his marketing firm took the actual photo.

So it sounds like the copyright issue stays with the photo not the subject of the photo.

Thanks

 

[scooterbug44]

Someone taking a picture of a home w/o permission and using it in their advertising is fraudulent IMO.

If they didn't build it, design it, or decorate it, and don't own it or aren't under contract to sell it, why in the world would they be using a photograph of it?

 

[swantree]

it is an outside photo, I agree that in some cases, say a wide shot of Seaside would, in some cases, be used for adverts of say........sowal, but this is a specific shot of a specific home. it IMO, is very obvious where it is and if you are around any would see this house and recognize the picture. so, would it not be plausible that someone might assume the house was for sale even know it is not because it is being used in an ad for a real estate firm? i have helped in many a photo-shoot and there always seems to be strict guidelines for shooting a residence, even from the outside on the street.

 

[Matt J]

If we only had a real estate lawyer or the wife of one on this board.

 

[ckhagen]

If the home was visible from a public street (and the photo was taken from there), technically whoever took it and whoever is using it are not violating any laws. The owner could ask for them to remove it if they have a problem with it and complying would be the nice thing to do. But, nothing illegal or fraudulent has happened.

For instance, if I'm walking down a street and see a really cool house, I can snap a pic of it and I could technically sell it as a stock photo if chose to without asking for permission. Same thing applies to the buildings in Times Square or a store front on a boardwalk. I could then use those photos in, say, a brochure about the area.

Paparazzi fall under the same types of situations. As long as the celeb was visible from a public spot, they're fair game. I don't agree with the way they treat people, but it's completely legal unless they endanger them or falsely imprison them.

disclaimer: I'm a photographer, not a lawyer. There are several law offices that offer this info online and in other forms.