WHO OWNS THE PICTURES FOR A SALES CAMPAIGN

A landowner can refuse permission for photos prior to them being taken. There is no suchb thing as a photo right other than commercial use. Commercial use is complex....For a sales campaign you need to have given rights or it remains with landowner if they are taken onsite but when you consent to access its a free for all. You need to assert another right but likely cant. Taken on street there is no right. You have given consent. No rights. You gave consent when the photo was taken

I take landscape aerial photos and am constantly hassled by idiots who think i cant include them in a photo or their property . I can. Ask Google Maps.

4020 Φ NSW Photographer's Rights

 

(Disclosure, i am a professional real estate photographer)

Yes this comes up all the time but generally the photographer owns the photos (the copyright) and can do whatever they like with them, (depends on the agreement with the agency) unless it is an in house photographer then the agency owns the copyright.

Generally speaking you are only paying for the rights/license to use them in that campaign with that agent. Nothing more. In the digital age its all about paying for the usage not the actual product. Hard for people to get their heads around as they think they physically own the photos of their house. Because you can then make a million copies of these photos and then on sell this, why would i give you that right. Like any itunes track, you buy the rights/license to listen but not to copy and on sell for profit, or to keep anyone else from listening. Some of the above posts have been spot on, some not.

 

Wedding photos are another example......you paid for them but do you get the negatives/files or does the photographer retain the rights to them?

 

The owner of the property owns the photos if they paid for them, but we all use them because they are freely available on the internet and we just can

Gratitude to the person who initially paid for the photography

 

Wrong and wrong

 

Don't do weddings so not really qualified to answer i remember reading it is actually different to property because you have a direct contract with the photographer (generally) and its of a personal not commercial subject therefore the usage in the eyes of a court may change. Unsure though.

 

I think you are correct with the above, well explained.

As an event photographer for around 40 years now, copyright ownership comes up every now and then. It is a very confusing subject.
Ownership can depend on so many things, the contract, if and when they are paid for, even who decides what picture should be taken, and how. I just claimed I had copyright and no one really put up much of a fight. Who knows who would win if it came down to a court case.

I heard Kodak are coming out with some new currency that will somehow work out copyright ownership for online photos. That will be interesting.

 

You can do one of two things:

1. Write a letter of demand requesting your photographs back, compensation and that they cease using your photographs. If they claim they have rights to the photographs, ask for supporting evidence. If unsuccessful, go to no. 2.

2. Pay $5000 in trust for a lawyer (IP specific) to provide you initial advice. If no prospects, your damage is $5,000.
If you have prospects, place another $10,000 to bring this matter in the SC by commencing proceedings in the intellectual property list. If you win, you seek orders for compensation and photographs (digital) handed back to you. You also help to bring clarity again in this context. A day's hearing might be sufficient, that's another $20,000 including preparation. If you lose, you are liable for costs of RE and photographer, say around $50,000.

The court is a forum for dispute but your claim for damages would be insignificant, if I may say so. The question is what damages have you suffered if the case is decided in your favour? If you are claiming that RE is earning income from you (unjust enrichment) what is that in monetary terms? Do people buy the property based on the photographs they saw online? Is it true that purchasers do not inspect properties anymore? @KayTea ?

I don't know the answer. If you wish to assert your position, you will need to ask some questions and act accordingly.

 

Sale of a home isnt a commercial use of the pictures. Its not an artistic photo either. No copyright.
And its a house. So s66 applies COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 66 Buildings and models of buildings

You allowed them to take a photo. You have no "rights".

Consumer Law rights relating to passing off may be easily actioned. Or unfair provisions if they have used the house image .. ACCC may even do the work for you.

The issue of images is emotive and often lacks legal basis. At least in Australia. Most people are stunned when they find that ANYONE can take their photo, their kids photo on the street and there is NOTHING you can do. Any physical efforts could be assault. Even if the kids are in the front yard. Ask Nicole Kidman who has successively lost cases trying to limit papz taking photos. At best you can ask the person to delete it - And they can refuse. Police cant do jack

Have you spoken to Google about your home being on Google maps, Google Earth and street view ? Same issue. As well as numerous public access map images. NSA and other agency satellite images etc

 

I think your legal analysis is way off here.

 

Again it depends on your agreement with the photographer.

For my son’s wedding he employed a photographer to take the photos and supply him with all the original digital photos which he then owned and arranged his own printing of chosen images.

Other photographers offered a package whereby they take the photos and any album or prints have to be ordered through them (often at a high price), you never get the original images.
Marg

 

This section of copyright law applies to the actual building. You own the building. I take a photo of it. You cannot stop me (so long as I am not trespassing) nor do I need your permission.

BUT, I own the photo I take. That photo is subject to copyright which is owned by me. I can sell it to anyone I like without any consultation with you, nor do you have any right to the income I may derive from MY image of YOUR building.
Marg

 

This is almost up there with the guy who wouldn't let the valuer in after he sold. Almost.

 

@Marg4000 - the photographer still holds the (c) in this instance and can dictate how the photo is used.