William Kious wrote:
Dan Heller takes the CYA approach, which I agree with.

I happen to agree with his approach as well.  There are many here on the forums that do not.  I didn't post it though to prove a point or establish the truth, I posted it because it was articulate and readable.

So much of what I read online includes combinations of truth, myth and misinformation all wrapped up in the guise of infallable knowledge.  One thing Heller makes clear is that there is a lot of misinformation and that some things are subject to interpretation.

He also advocates a concept that I have long endorsed.  The law, and particularly this law, is made up of a lot of grey areas.  When one recognizes that there are often no clear answers to so many of these questions, one can set practices based on the level of risk he wants to take.

Obviously, the most conservative approach is the safest approach.  On the other hand, one can be overly cautious so it is all a question of balance.

In the end though, a proper release eliminates the need to speculate about any of these things.

Thanks for the good comments.

Monsante Bey wrote:
I had some idiot tell me I needed a property release to sell photos. I just looked at him like he was what he was.

Actually, you do need a property release if you take a photo of a single clearly identified building, and want to use it for commercial use. However, you do not need a property release if you take a photo of a group of buildings, a neighborhood, or a city skyline. It is only relevant if it is a single building by itself.

You also need to worry about trademark violation if you take a photo of a Macy's storefront, for example, and use it for commercial use. Again, this is only relevant for a photo of a single storefront, not a whole block of storefronts.