Caitin Bre  wrote:
Does Google maps pay for permits or ask permissions?

Interesting point.

I believe the owners of whatever business can ask to have their identifying logo, signage, address, etc. blurred if they request it.  Dunno really.

They may have had their share of lawsuits about it already and just keep it quiet.  I know some "Private road" areas they do not put their camera car onto (I'm along one of them.  They just hit the main road even though they could drive in - not gated.).

ADKC Photography wrote:
I politely questioned why and was told that "professional photos" were not allowed without a permit.

It sounds like you did everything right.  I personally would have questioned the person right then and said I wasn't taking "professional photos."  That is...if I was just port building with no intention of selling the images.  Port building doesn't qualify as taking professional photos...even if you are paying a model to help.  Now then...if you were hired by the model...different story.  But unless you are making a living or serious income from photography, and you were on a paid job at the time at that hotel, you aren't really a "professional" photographer taking professional photos.   

If my explanation didn't work with the hired help, I would ask to speak to the manager and give him the same explanation...i.e., I'm staying here and just wanting to take a few photos of a friend.  I'd even leave out the usage part...like for Facebook. 

Models are very used to this kind of thing, so make sure you get your story straight ahead of time.  The thing is...from time to time you will be questioned.

If the hotel is completely out of bounds now...just go for a walk and snap a few here and there.  Like near the beach if you have access.  Just keep moving.

And this is key here:  You have two types of answers here.  Those coming from full-time professional photographers that obviously need to go through the right proceedures for professionals...and those that are serious hobbiests whose work might be pro-level, but are not in it for the money, and therefore aren't acting as "professional" photographers.

Caitin Bre  wrote:
Does Google maps pay for permits or ask permissions?

Depending where they are and the law yes. Also most of their shoots are public space not on private property.

SPierce Photography wrote:

Usually if there's private property involved, it's always best to ask first. Also, offer to send them some photos afterwards if they're interested. Some places will say yes, some no, but otherwise it just normally depends!

Most of the time it is pretty simple.   Send an email before you book asking that if I stay at the hotel, will I be able to take some shots around the property.   You almost always get a yes, at least in my experience.    Then just carry that email print out with you.

Yajhil Alvarez wrote:
The only way I can shoot now, without getting a permit, is to only use my camera and that's it so that's what I do now which sucks.  I wish I could at least use my reflector.

Depending on which way that huge building is facing, at some point during the day it is probably one huge, soft reflector.

Photographers Society  wrote:
All depends on which side of the bed they woke up on that morning.

I'm told with Napoleon it was his height too.

ADKC Photography wrote:
In the past I have been kicked out of places like parking garages, office buildings and parks (late at night) when doing street and architecture photography. Today though I was shooting outside at a hotel in Miami when a hotel staff member came up to me and my model and told me that we could not shoot on the hotel property. I politely questioned why and was told that "professional photos" were not allowed without a permit.

I am a guest at the hotel and just yesterday I shot with a model here and the staff were even giving us suggestions of places around the property to shoot. This afternoon not so much. I had several other shoots lined up for this week but now I feel like I should cancel them or move them somewhere off property. The problem is on short notice, I don't have another location.

Is this common for hotels to prohibit "professional photography" at their locations? I have been doing this for years with out ever having an issue.

Property liability is probably the #1 concern.

most employees don't give a shit what you do because if something goes wrong, they aren't going to get into trouble.

Security and managers are a different story.

Also, let's pretend they had ZERO problems with it.  What happens with 5 photographers and models show up?  Does this interfere with the guest experience?  I might think, "oh cool, a photoshoot"  Others might have different opinions and maybe not be too thrilled to have their "experience" tainted by distracting photoshoots.

hbutz New York wrote:
qft - there's ya problem.  If the property gives you permission to shoot and someone gets hurt it could open them up for litigation.  From experience, calling around to ask permission is often denied.  My SOP is to carry as little equipment as possible.  A tripod is a lightning rod for confrontation.  Try to look like an amateur. Don't wear a photography vest or related T-shirt and don't carry something which looks like a camera equipment bag.

FOR GOD'S SAKE!  Don't EVER Wear a "photography vest"!!!

Talk about a fashion faux pas!!

Caitin Bre  wrote:
Does Google maps pay for permits or ask permissions?

I don't think Google Maps sends staff to motels to take location photos.  People who upload photos for Google maps to use are giving them license to use those photos.

Vector One Photography wrote:
Multiple issues..... it's private property so you need the owners permission even to be there. As a guest that rents you get a place to sleep and to the free common features but that does not include commercial use of their property unless it's in your agreement with them.  In most states you need a property release, especially if the property is recognizable or has the logo in it. If you think they're protection, try screwing with Disney.

And the other issue, most employees don't care what you do but if their boss cares, then they tell you to stop.

Generally, there is no legal requirement for a property release.   Unlike people, property does not have rights to privacy and publicity.

You do need the owner's permission to be on private property, and their permission to take photos while you are on their property.   If you are photographing something protected by a trademark or copyright, then you may need a license from the trademark or copyright holder (who may not be the property owner).

For instance, if you shoot in a Wendy's restaurant, that particular location may be owned by a local businessman.  He may not have the authority to allow you to use Wendy's trademarks and Wendy's copyrighted materials.


Generally, you do not need permission to take photos of property in plain sight from a vantage point off the property.   This means you can stand in the street and take photos of a building.  it does not mean you can use a telephoto lens, and a ladder truck to get a view through a bathroom window of the owner changing.

You can stand in the street and shoot a photo of a Wendy's restaurant.  If you are inside the restaurant, you need the restaurant's permission.

Disney parks are private property, and you need their permission to shoot there.

While you don't need permission to shoot a picture of a trademark, there are restrictions on how you can use that trademark.  If you are shooting a model in a bathing suit, and the image includes the Wendy's next door, you don't need permission from Wendy's (just permission from the owner of the land you and she are standing on).

You will likely have an issue if you try to use those images to sell those bathing suits.  Wendy's will likely claim it is an improper use of their trademark, and the public may think that the bathing suites are sponsored by, produced by, or endorsed by Wendy's.

Even if you had permission of the owner of that particular Wendy's, you still would have trademark issues with the Wendy's corporation.


There are similar issues if you are photographing something that is copyrighted.  Perhaps it's a copyrighted character (i.e. Mickey Mouse), or the model is wearing a T-Shirt with a copyrighted image.  You generally need permission from the copyright holder in order to use their copyrighted work in your image (there are exceptions, but I am only providing generalizations).

There are also some issues if the design of a building is copyrighted, but that's another topic.


I am not suggesting that Property Releases are a bad idea.  They serve to document that you had permission to shoot on the property.  They also serve as a deterrent to the property owner complaining or involving lawyers.   I am merely suggesting that they are rarely required by law.

Gold Rush Studio wrote:

Broward County is the home to a lot of law enforcement who make shit up on the fly. Meaning that there is no such law.

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/

That's a website that started in reaction to the abuses of Broward County and there's a wealth of useful information on there about your 1st Amendment right to take pictures in public places. Educate yourself and start researching the photography policy of the places you're going to shoot and then print a copy of the policy and bring it with you on the shoot. If some low-rent jackass with a badge gives you crap that isn't in the policy then dial 911 and ask for help.

When cops make up shit about one thing, you know they make up shit about other stuff. So basically Broward County is the wildwest where the local sheriff could shoot you for any reason.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

Property liability is probably the #1 concern.

most employees don't give a shit what you do because if something goes wrong, they aren't going to get into trouble.

Security and managers are a different story.

Also, let's pretend they had ZERO problems with it.  What happens with 5 photographers and models show up?  Does this interfere with the guest experience?  I might think, "oh cool, a photoshoot"  Others might have different opinions and maybe not be too thrilled to have their "experience" tainted by distracting photoshoots.

Liability and greed.

Liability makes sense. If they are unaware of something happening it becomes difficult to sue them. If someone complains, and thus they are made aware, or if it is so obvious that they had to be aware, then their liability increases.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but knowledge of the law and still violating it makes for a pissy judge.

And in the USA and under certain circumstances also in Canada, you can trespass, injure yourself and still sue the owner of the property.
Ain't the law fun.

Greed is a whole other issue.

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/

There is a website that just pisses me off.  I have a little tolerance for government abuses.

Caitin Bre  wrote:
Does Google maps pay for permits or ask permissions?

LOL -- Google maps is totally unrelated.

It behooves the company or hotel to be on Google maps. Besides he could shoot with the hotel in the background as long as he was on public property. Google maps is from a satellite -- they don't need permission. lol.

JoshuaDavisPhotography wrote:
The manager, VP or someone else important was probably there so you got the book, so to speak. In Washington, DC most locations are arbitrarily off limits, so I got pretty used to scouting backup locations. You might want to do this also.

Depends on the property.  But if it's privately owned (i.e.: like a hotel), they have the right to say you can't shoot inside the space.

I'm not sure what the comment about DC is.  So much of DC is public space or public buildings.  You can't use a flash or tripod in most of the Smithsonians and in some art galleries but I've shot orchid exhibits (with a high ISO) in the SI NHM and Udvar-Hazy and most of the Hirshhorn.  It's true that police or security may come up to you if you're shooting some gvt. building and ask--but you're still within your right to shoot if you're in public space.  The only real limitations special to DC would be secure facilities (like if you were shooting the Air Show at Pax River...you have to go through some of the secure testing grounds and facilities to get to the public area...or if you were shooting the cryptographic museum at NSA and then turned your camera on the NSA Annex or security building.  Basically, the only other restrictions within DC are ones that are similar to the rest of the country...the ability of a shopping mall or hotel to tell you "this is our space and we say you can't shoot here" or you can't shoot victims at a crash or crime scene or you can't shoot the security screens at a TSA line.

Ed

Chicchowmein wrote:

LOL -- Google maps is totally unrelated.

It behooves the company or hotel to be on Google maps. Besides he could shoot with the hotel in the background as long as he was on public property. Google maps is from a satellite -- they don't need permission. lol.

Whether or not you believe it is in the hotel's best interest is irrelevant.   If you are on public property, the hotel does not have jurisdiction to prevent you from shooting.  If the images contain trademarked/copyrighted material, then the owners of that intellectual property may be able to place some limits on what you can do with those images.

Google earth uses a combination of satellite imagery, and image taken from cars driving down the road.  Neither of these are hotel property, hence the hotel has no say.

Google earth is starting to add some inside imagery allowing virtual walkthroughs of buildings.  To do this, they must shoot with their special cameras from inside the building.  In this case, they do need permission from the property owner.  The property owner has the right to withhold said permission, even if allowing the cameras would be in the best interest of the building.  (Keep in mind that when it comes to marketing, reasonable people can disagree on what constitutes "best interest").

Caitin Bre  wrote:
Does Google maps pay for permits or ask permissions?

No Google Maps is arguably Fair Use.

I'm referring to STREET VIEW...

KMP wrote:

No Google Maps is arguably Fair Use.

I'm referring to STREET VIEW...

"Fair Use" is a specific class of exceptions to general Copyright and Trademark law.

Property releases have little to do with Copyright/Trademark law.   If you want to incorporate Copyrighted or Trademarked material in your images, you should be investigating a "usage license".

With copyrighted material, you may need the license in order to take the picture (i.e. make a copy of the original).  With trademarks you can take the photo, but you may need a license in order to use the image in certain contexts.

DeanLautermilch wrote:
I'm in south Florida and  stopped wearing my camera vest and just carry a DSLR with a 50mm for outdoor shots and try and look like a tourist. If you walk around with all the gear you will draw a lot of attention.

There is always the chance someone will approach you and 'investigate' what you are doing. I just move on the next location for the shoot.

There are beaches here in Miami-Dade County where my friends and I have shot professionally, and no one has ever been asked for a permit.

My last shoot was 5 hours.  We had a crew of 5, plus two models, and lots of gear.  No one ever bothered us (although the police do tend to park nearby and watch the models work as they eat lunch in their car).

Michael Fryd wrote:

"Fair Use" is a specific class of exceptions to general Copyright and Trademark law.

Property releases have little to do with Copyright/Trademark law.   If you want to incorporate Copyrighted or Trademarked material in your images, you should be investigating a "usage license".

With copyrighted material, you may need the license in order to take the picture (i.e. make a copy of the original).  With trademarks you can take the photo, but you may need a license in order to use the image in certain contexts.

I understand that.. My point was that Google's Street View photographs buildings, both public and private and as far as I know,  are not required to ask permission.

KMP wrote:

I understand that.. My point was that Google's Street View photographs buildings, both public and private and as far as I know,  are not required to ask permission.

Yes.  No one is required to ask permission to photograph a building from public property.   Property releases are not required by US law.

Google is not a special case.

Michael Fryd wrote:
Yes.  No one is required to ask permission to photograph a building from public property.   Property releases are not required by US law.

Google is not a special case.

Buildings built on or after Dec 1, 1990 are eligible for copyright protection.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
Buildings built on or after Dec 1, 1990 are eligible for copyright protection.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf

Yes, and the copyright owner would typically be the architect who designed the building, not the building owner, nor the building's tenants.   Yet another case where a "property release" from the building owner or tenant, would be irrelevant. 

There is a “photographer’s exception” to a building’s copyright owner’s rights that permits the photography of buildings.    Generally photographing a copyrighted building is not an issue. See https://asmp.org/tutorials/photos-public-buildings.html.


Some buildings are covered with art (for instance the Headquarters of the National YoungArts Foundation has a prominent six story blue & white mural on the side).  Photographing these buildings can be an issue as the photos may include the art.