The use of course photos?

[Doug_Feeney]

For those of you who have published books, design articles, etc., what is the law regarding the use of photos of golf courses?

1.  If the photo was taken by someone else, what permission is needed to use it in a magazine or something similar?  The most likely answer is to get the photographer's permission, but what of some of the famous photos we see - the one of Old Tom taken by AW Tillinghast for example?  I realize that is not a golf course photo, but you see my point.

2.  If I take the photo myself while playing the course do I have the rights to use it in a book, article etc.?  My initial thought is no, but then I think of all the pics of celebrities' homes I see in the supermarket tabloids, I assume without their permission.

Also, is there a distinction depending on whether the article is for profit or not?  For example, a paper submitted for a grade in a college course.

Please help me to remain an upstanding citizen for at least the next few days.

[ian]

My wife negotiates copyright in Canada for education. The laws are slightly different in each country, but she has explained this to me as follows:

1.  "If the photo was taken by someone else"

You would need the photographers permission, which usually involves a fee for the right to use that image once.

2.  "If I take the photo myself"

Then you have the right to publish it, (of note:) but it is unlikely you own a camera capable of providing a picture for a magazine.

A photo of a plan or a scan of an old photo, would require the owner of the origional to grant the right to publish the photo

For profit, or not, copyright still matters.


Of note: I have a large collection of photos, and with some of them I have specific instruction to not share them (from the club). While I have never understood a club's desire to stop the sharing of golf course photography (I do know it was due to advertisers using the clubs image to sell things like cars), I am obliged to respect their request.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Generally speaking golf clubs in the UK are happy to let you take pictures and to publish them, but not all.  I always check well in advance with the club secretary that I may take pictures.  I've only stumbled across one objector - Royal St George's - who wanted £100 per photograph taken (the fees donated to a charity).  I bought one in from a professional photographer.  But for several of the books I've done I've had to supply all the art work and if the complete fee is, say £4,000, I can't afford many professional photographs at anywhere between £150 and £200 a throw.  Mine are not professional quality photographs at all, but most are reproduced at something the size of a credit card so I get away with it.

I thought I might have a problem with The Belfry who wanted to vet every single word of the text.  (I managed to circumvent that one, as it happens).  But they couldn't have been more helpful about photographs.  They got one of their staff to drive me round in a buggy from hole to hole, holding up visitor play if necessary, for me to take as many pictures as I liked.  

Quite often if you ask a club for photos, pointing out that they must be free for this specific use and copyright-cleared, they will provide them.  Often they are ones taken for a brochure or prospectus and are worth using.  It's not always the case....

[Daryl "Turboe" Boe]

What I am hearing then is if you take the picture yourself, then you can sell the image or use it as you see fit.  Correct?

I have often wondered does the line get blurred if you have the the courses logo in the picture (ie a flag close enought to recognize) or what about somthing that is part of their logo (ie Merions wicker basket or harbor towns lighthouse in the background)?

Would that change the law as it pertained to your right to sell or use an image that you captured?

I have always wondered.

[Peter Galea]

If you take the photo yourself for publication you will need a "property release" from the owner, or officer of the club.
It is very similar to publishing the likeness of a person, for that you need a "model release".
Sample releases can be found online.

[Doug_Feeney]

Pete,

I can't imagine all those candid photos of movie and sports stars are accompanied by a "model release".  For a golf reference, there is no way Tiger approved of anyone publishing pics of his wedding.

I don't understand the distinction.  I imagine there is one between publishing a book or "informative" article and using someone's likeness or course photo in advertising.

[Peter Galea]

Doug, this is a complicated subject, that will reqiure some research on your part to become well versed in fair use, copyright law and personal and property rights regarding photography.

Public figures are fair game in some situations.
"Newspapers, magazines, or other sources of news/editorial can use images for editorial (news) usage without a model release."

If you are really interested, try http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html
You can also contact the Professional Photographer's Association. http://www.ppa.com
There are a number of books available at your local library which deal with the Business of Photography and the Law.

If you are publishing a book, I would advise you to contact your lawyer regarding the use of photographs, and the requirements for releases.

[Doug_Feeney]

Pete,

Great information, thank you!  It is much more complicated than I had at first imagined.  The photos are to be used for an online article - the users are charged for access to the site.  

I will look into at further through the links you posted.

[Paul_Turner]

Doug

If you visit a club, take some pics and then publish the photos, I doubt very much that they can do anything about it. It's unlikely too, that anyone will actually notice and be bothered to complain.

I never fathom clubs like Shadow Creek who ban cameras.  Is their authority so great that they even own the light!?

Mark

I gues the Belfry were concerned about any 'potato field' comments.

[Peter Galea]

Paul, no they don't own the light, but they do own the property. They may want to have some say about how the property is shown. Example: What if a "photographer" were to manipulate one of the scenes, and put a big phallic symbol next to one of the greens and publish that? Or, what if the photo was of poor quality and showed the course looking like a pasture? Not every photographer is a Joanne Dost or Mike Klemme.
If you use a photo of someone's personal property without a release, I guess there is not much they could do about it, but the attorney that represents them could. Then "your" attorney can start the clock for you.
What's the big deal, get a release. If your photos are that good, maybe they will buy some and hang them in the clubhouse.

[A_Clay_Man]

Peter, I have question about "them owning the property". If I pay a green fee, aren't they renting me the land, for a short period of time?

[Peter Galea]

Sure Adam, any club will "rent" you their 7 million dollar property for $100 green fees. That is...as long as you don't stand still for more than 2 minutes at a time, and vacate the premises after 4 hours.

[Doug Siebert]

Despite Congress ignoring common sense and the original intent of the founders and continuously increasing copyright terms every time Mickey Mouse is set to go public domain (it has been extended 11 times in the past 40 years or so) pretty much everything before about 1925 or so is no longer under copyright, at least in the US.  It shouldn't be that hard to find the exact date with a little googling.

[Doug_Feeney]

According to the University of North Carolina.  Anything before 1923 is fair game, after that it gets complicated!

DATE OF WORK / PROTECTED FROM TERM

Created 1-1-78 or after
When work is fixed in tangible medium of expression
Life + 70 years(or if work of corporate authorship, the shorter of 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation

Published before 1923
In public domain  

Published from 1923 - 63
When published with notice
28 years + could be renewed for 47 years, now extended by 20 years for a total renewal of 67 years. If not so renewed, now in public domain

Published from 1964 - 77
When published with notice
28 years for first term; now automatic extension of 67 years for second term

Created before 1-1-78 but not published 1-1-78, the effective date of the 1976 Act which eliminated common law copyright
Life + 70 years or 12-31-2002, whichever is greater

Created before 1-1-78 but published between then and 12-31-2002 1-1-78, the effective date of the 1976 Act which eliminated common law copyright
Life + 70 years or 12-31-2047 whichever is greater