Hi,
I’m doing a web site for a tile contractor and he asked about the legalities of using photos of his work in clients’ homes on the site.
Strictly speaking, I believe he needs formal permission of the homeowner to do so. Now as far as I’m concerned, a verbal “OK” would be fine. There would be no names or addresses used, of course, and the owner would be shown the images first.
What are others doing on this? It’s one thing to have a bunch of photos of your work that you show a prospective client in person, but it’s another thing to publish them on the world wide web where anybody can see them. Seems to me there are two issues: a privacy/courtesy/professionalism issue, and a legal issue.
Just to complicate things more: if an architect or interior decorator designs the tile work, would we need their permission as well to publish images of the completed work?
Thanks for you thoughts on this–I’m curious what others are doing in this area.
Thanks,
Ed
Replies
Legally, I'm not honestly sure.
I think I've got the rights to display photos of my work.
But I get heaps more work - goood work - from verbal references than from any web or newspaper advertising. I wouldn't dream of invading a customer's privacy by showing the world what the interior of their house looks like without at least a verbal OK.
A discussion is in order with the clients in question. Many people will suprise you with being pleased and getting ego-gratification from knowing theirs is such nice work that you want to display and brag on it. Others will frown and turn away from the idea.
Since client satisfaction is the goal, it's ggood to know which kind of person they are. And the discussion can lead to more work with that client.
Excellence is its own reward!
Legally, I don't know. But we did have some landscape work done for us recently that found its way into the contractor's advertisement in a local ad magazine. On the one hand, he did good work, he's a nice guy, and he busted his butt for us, so I had no problem with it. On the other hand, I didn't really feel like I wanted pictures of my yard scattered around town - he got paid well, and it's my private property, you know?
Did I mention this to him? No. We have a decent working relationship going I'd rather not jeapordize, and there's no indication in the ad that would give you a location or owner, so I'm not concerned. But, we will be having more work done in the same area (much of it by a different contractor, who referred us to him for his specialty), and I will probably mention that I'd like him to ask before he uses any more pics. If there's a designer involved, a "installation by us, design by them" might work. That's free advertising for them.
I imagine that permission from the owner could be greatly dependent on how well the project went. FHB does exactly what you're asking about in every issue. Maybe you could e-mail them and ask. Asking a lawyer would probably also be a good idea. One that has experience with advertising law.
Froed
Hey, thanks for sharing your opinions and stories on this. Sounds like simply running it by the homeowner before actually using the image would be sufficient.
I would guess a lawyer would advise getting something in writing, but for this situation I think that might be overdoing it.
By the way, Froed, you might consider mentioning something to your landscaper guy. It won't jeopardize your relationship if you do it in a friendly, nonconfrontational way, and you'd be doing him a favor. It probably never even occurred to him that his use of photos of other people's homes for public display was potentially offensive (invasive?)
legally speaking, you should get permission from the home owner. If you want to be formal, use a "location" or "property" release.
I am assuming that you took the photos yourself. If not, make sure you have a copyright release with the photographer.
One suggestion - i always tell my clients to include a line in their contracts that gives them the right to take photos and use them for demonstrative purposes. If the client's customer or mine) balks, tell them there is a "x" $ fee added to the job. They usually back off and sign.
BTw - Architect and interior designer have no say unless you are showing their actual plans. that is all they can copyright. once again, professional courtesty dictates a call and a mention. Also consider splitting the cost of the photo work if you are having a pro shoot it.
Edited 1/19/2004 8:14:27 PM ET by pino
Pino:
"Legally speaking", you are very, very wrong about architects/designers only being able to copyright plans. The physical expression of a design itself is capable of being copyrighted. This was not always the case, but is now.
That said, not everything about a design is necessarily copyrightable, and a particular design may or may not have any copyrightable elements. But you may find yourself on the short end of the stick with your current understanding of copyright law as applied to architectural works.
Richard (an architect)
Edited 1/23/2004 12:27:30 PM ET by Richard
You are saying that an architect retains copyright of any photograph of their work, meaning a finished building? That would run counter to what i understood as a graphic designer. I am not necessarily disputing your claim, but I am curious when this change took effect.
Edited 1/23/2004 12:42:22 PM ET by pino
Edited 1/23/2004 12:43:04 PM ET by pino
This will explain things better than I can.
http://www.aepronet.org/pn/vol5-no2.html
Richard
Thank you. i will take a close read over the weekend.
I don't know,.. I just read through the The Architectural Works
Copyright Protection Act of 1990 and the part where Limitations on Exclusive Rights is described seems to say that the "publication of pictures" is okay.
One thing that this law protects that I guess was protected before is that you can't then use those photographs to build a copy of the design. You can't use them to build another piece of architecture which would be a derivitve work. Only the orignonal owner of the copyrighted design can do that.
As far a publishing photos of a work I think Pino is correct on this one.
View Image
ParadigmProjects.com | Paradigm-360.com | Mac4Construction.com
Not exactly. It says pictures taken of buildings "located in or visible from a public place." A photo taken from the street or other public area probably may be published without any restrictions, but the situation of a photo taken from private property, or an interior residential shot may be a completely different matter.
Further, if this image is being used for commercial marketing purposes for someone other than the copyright holder, then there may be other considerations and consequences.
Point is, you shouldn't ASSUME that just because you've got a camera, you've got unlimited publishing opportunities of any photo you take. It may be worth checking with an attorney, and probably getting a release from the copyright holder. I doubt most architects/designers would have a problem with this, but certainly not something you should just take for granted.
R.
Richard- "Point is, you shouldn't ASSUME that just because you've got a camera, you've got unlimited publishing opportunities of any photo you take. It may be worth checking with an attorney, and probably getting a release from the copyright holder. I doubt most architects/designers would have a problem with this, but certainly not something you should just take for granted.
Well I agree with you on that. The right shouldn't be taken for granted. Years ago I designed a huge exhibit with a lot pf painted mural backdrops in it. Months after is was all over I found out one of the scenic artists that worked as a muralist on the project was going to use photographs of the murals in her own marketing materials. I wanted to stop her from doing so but was told by my attorney that I wouldn't "really" be legally able to stop her outright. She had the right to show the world the work she was capable of; "mural painting" but wouldn't be crossing the line unless she was outright representing herself as the "designer". My lawyer called her anyway and what I was able to get was on each photo that came from that project it said in the lower right corner "Designed by J. Jerrald Hayes Paradigm Associates, Ltd.".
View Image
ParadigmProjects.com | Paradigm-360.com | Mac4Construction.com
I have a different theory ...
I built it ...
it's mine!
Mine to take as many damn pics as I want ...
I'm not showing off some archy's design .. or some designers material selections ...
I'm showing my work.
I'd be willing to take that to court.
JeffBuck Construction Pittsburgh,PA
Artistry in Carpentry
That's pretty much the way I always looked at it. If I did the work the pics ended up inmy pocket and sometimes in my brochure. Must be something in the water here in PA.Greg
Not just Jeff, but all. There's the legal side, and then there's the practical side. Speaking toward the practical side, seems there's benefit to sharing credit in all possible ways. We're working on that association thing I mentioned the other month. Gonna collect and display pix of every thin-shell concrete project we can locate. For each one, we're gonna credit as many people as were involved as possible. I wanna be listed as designer for those I designed, and I want builder listed for those they built. If someone goes looking for something built by John Doe's Domes ("does domes", get it?!), then I want them to see that his nicest stuff was designed by me, or looks at my stuff and sees the best examples were built by John.
If you share credit, it comes back multi-fold.
So, when I post pix of the as-built thing I designed, I always ask the builder and owner, and give credit. I hope for the same courtesy. If it's not extended, then it won't be offered again.
I also think that listing the designer (or whomever is appropriate) on photos of stuff you built shows that a) you're a generous person willing to share credit, and b) you're able to execute designs from a variety of sources. Each of these seem to be a good selling point, if rather subtle. I know that I try to make a big deal out of the fact that a good variety of builders like working with my designs.
That's not a comment on the legalities though.
As a homeowner/client, I'd look at it exactly as you do. If somebody wants to use pictures of the work they do for me to sell their services, then they'll be doing their best. I'd jump at the chance to sign off on that.
-- J.S.
I've looked into this issue extensively from the photographer's point of view. There's no easy answer, as with many things in law.
The owners of the Transamerica (pyramid) Building in San Francisco are well known for agressively pursuing people who sell photos of their building. If you shoot a photo of the SF skyline and the pyramid is somewhere in there with all the other buildings, you're probably safe. If you shoot a photo of the pyramid up close and prominently featured, and then sell the poster of it titled 'Transamerica Pyramid', they'll own you for the rest of your life. The building is construed to be an integral part of their corporate image, and they don't want you to appropriate it for your own profit. Now, if you took that photo and showed it in a gallery as fine art not for sale, they would have a harder case, but they'd probably still sue you and as in most things legal, he with the most money and the best-dressed lawyers hurts the other guy.
The owners of the famous Cypress tree on the 17-mile drive near Pebble Beach have a similar approach to their tree. Take and publish a commercial photo of it and get sued. They have signs around it saying so. Poster photogs and publishers beware. The tree is construed to be closely associated with their business, and they want the sole right to exploit the image of the tree. They've asserted their right to do so in court and been upheld.
In the case of a job you built, designed by someone else, you could probably defensibly publish a photo of it in a brochure, but the brochure better not list you as a design-build contractor and gloss over the fact that you did not do the design. If your use of an image of their work hurts their ability to profit from their own work, beware. If it's Joe Architect from Anytown USA and his work (kitchen remodels using stock cabinets, etc.) is not particularly recognizable and unique, he'd have a hard time demonstrating in court that your use of a photo of it, showing it as a project you built, was hurting his business or usurping his talent. If it's Frank Gehry and you don't credit him and get a release, you will get a spanking if he feels like giving you one.
Giving credit is probably the easiest and smartest thing to do. And as we all know, anyone can sue anyone for anything. Just the sight of a lawyer is enough to make a lot of people cave in and pull photos out of their brochures.
I'm not a lawyer. My advice is worth what you paid me for it.
Jerrald:
I had a somewhat similar situation years ago. I designed an upscale kitchen in San Francisco that was pretty hot. The international cabinet company (based in Japan) sent in a photographer and photographed that kitchen and used it in their catalog, without any credit. (Or even a thank you, I might add. I just happened to hear about it from my client.) Back then, I didn't have any recourse, but today, with the change in copyright laws, I might.
R.