# [SOLVED] Stock Photography and Peoples' houses



## tim19889 (Jan 24, 2010)

Hey guys just a quick question I was hoping you could help me out with. I'm thinking of taking some pictures of peoples' houses and their christmas displays and maybe submitting them as stock photos. Do I need any kind of permission from the home owners in order to do this or not?


----------



## Basementgeek (Feb 7, 2005)

*Re: Stock Photography and Peoples' houses*

As long it is viewed from a public street/road I would think you don't need permission. Make sure that there are no people in your picture, especially minors.

Google got a picture of my house and they never asked me.

BG

P.S. I assume you are not going to sell them.


----------



## zuluclayman (Dec 16, 2005)

*Re: Stock Photography and Peoples' houses*

a discussion on this here for USA - legality (and opinions on ethical considerations) varies on use of "street" photography (of both people and houses etc) - most countries have an arts law style organisation that publishes statements covering these sorts of issues.
The crux of it is often the term "commercial use" - in other words if you are going to make money from it then you have to be careful.
Having said all that Basementgeek's advice is good, but if someone were to confront you I would bow to their requests and delete the image unless they were willing to sign a release form.
Aggghhh - gone are the days of just snapping what takes your fancy - some government buildings, public sites in Australia (and some other countries) are protected by a "not for commercial use" photography ban - you have to apply for a permit to photograph them if you are going to sell or in any way make money from the image, Professional photographers held a rally in Sydney recently protesting about this. :sigh:


----------



## tim19889 (Jan 24, 2010)

*Re: Stock Photography and Peoples' houses*

Interesting...that sucks. Yes I was going to sell them, as I said they would be stock photos. I don't really think anyone around here would care if they saw me and I told them what I was doing, but just to be safe I won't do it now. Kinda dumb if you ask me though.


----------



## zuluclayman (Dec 16, 2005)

*Re: Stock Photography and Peoples' houses*

we live in an over-regulated world these days :sigh:


----------



## sobeit (Nov 11, 2007)

*Re: Stock Photography and Peoples' houses*

people dont care if you take pictures of their decorations, if you try to make money from them, that is another story.

Even google must take down streetview pictures if the owner requests it.

why dont you ask the owners for permission and share any profit.


----------



## tim19889 (Jan 24, 2010)

*Re: Stock Photography and Peoples' houses*

I don't think I'll make a lot of money on them honestly, it's more just for fun and if I make anything that's an added bonus. I'm really trying to get into IT now is what I want to do. In the course of two years I might make a total of $10 from 20 different house pictures lol. Don't think the owners would really care if I shared or not


----------



## Done_Fishin (Oct 10, 2006)

*Re: Stock Photography and Peoples' houses*

A few years back I saw a guy wandering around the shops asking if they wanted a photo taken and used for "Business Calendars" ..

apart from that idea though, you could always, after getting owners permission, just take photo's and give them an electronic copy. However I would advise a written agreement similar to that used by models, giving the photographer permission to use the material.


----------



## yustr (Sep 27, 2004)

*Re: Stock Photography and Peoples' houses*

I do not believe that making money from the photograph plays any part in the legality of taking a picture - just ask Jennifer Aniston. LINK

As far as what your rights are; basically, you can take a picture of a public or private place - from a public place when there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. See HERE

I wouldn't worry about it. Take your pics. Publish if you wish. Sell if you can. If approached and asked, be honest and offer a copy. If asked not to, move on to the next house.


----------



## TheAtheist (May 20, 2006)

*Re: Stock Photography and Peoples' houses*

Personally, i'd have no problem taking photos of peoples christmas decorations and even making money from it. If people put christmas decorations/lights up on public display, where you don't have to infringe private property, then I can't see people having a whole of recourse to be honest. - you might want to appease them, if they have a charity box, by putting something in there as a gesture. This is in the UK of course!!


----------



## tim19889 (Jan 24, 2010)

*Re: Stock Photography and Peoples' houses*

Well this is in a rural part of the USA, once in awhile I'll go for a walk at night and so I thought why not bring my camera and mini tripod along one night and get some pics of the Christmas displays? I can understand, though, that this could freak some people out if they see someone with a tripod and big camera shooting at their house...lol. I dunno if I will or not yet, still debating. Maybe I'll invest in some good night camo so no one will see me


----------



## Done_Fishin (Oct 10, 2006)

*Re: Stock Photography and Peoples' houses*

:lol: discretion is the better part of valour .. I can understand your unwillingness to be found pointing your camera at residential areas at the wrong time of night .. try getting out earlier .. :grin:


----------



## sailor86 (Feb 18, 2009)

*Re: Stock Photography and Peoples' houses*



Basementgeek said:


> As long it is viewed from a public street/road I would think you don't need permission. Make sure that there are no people in your picture, especially minors.
> 
> Google got a picture of my house and they never asked me.
> 
> ...


Crack me up. What's good for the Google is good for the gander.


----------



## SABL (Jul 4, 2008)

Google isn't the only one with a pic of your house......try your county auditor website......:laugh:. Not only can I get a pic of your house (by entering an address), I get the name of the owner. I say the photographer is covered and can snap away at his content.


----------



## sobeit (Nov 11, 2007)

google had to settle recently for trespassing for taking a picture of a private home. 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/212364/google_street_view_settlement_could_fuel_more_cases.html



> After a 2.5-year legal battle, Google this week was found guilty of trespassing on a Pennsylvania family's property to take photos of their property for its website.


----------



## Done_Fishin (Oct 10, 2006)

Quick call a lawyer !!!! :laugh:


----------



## DonaldG (Aug 23, 2007)

What worried me when I saw in La Jolla (San Diego) were the descrete (and not so descrete) signs planted in the from lawns proclaiming *"Armed Response"*

You shoot with a camera, they shoot back with a 10mm Glock.


----------

