Erwin van Beveren , Nov 02, 2009; 03:44 a.m.
One of my clients likes to have a portrait of her grandkids photographed in front of a fall backdrop, in my studio. Unfortunaly I don't have painted backdrops, but "just" 10 or so of the standard single or dual color muslins, seamless paper etc.
My first suggestion was to go to a local park with the kids, but this was not an option for the client, so I suggested the idea of pasting a fall backdrop photo in to the portrait of the grandkids.
I went to a local park and took some photos that I want to use as a backdrop. Now after reading some other postings in regard to copyright, I kind of am in doubt if it is not a copyright violation.
Now a couple of trees (created by nature) in a local public park is that considered property of the park, or not? (Copyright speaking)
A nice fabricated and maintained stairway or Arch Bridge for example; something not created by nature, in the same park, I understand is protected by copyright law.
It is now my intention to see if it is possible to create a few backdrops this way. And only to be used for family portraits, no commercial advertising etc.
Thanks in advance for responses.
PS yes I can invest on some more backdrops and props, but my budget tells me otherwise at this time.
Jerry Stillwell , Nov 02, 2009; 05:43 a.m.
Interesting question! First, I'm not an attorney, and most of the folks on these forums aren't attorneys either, so any advice you get here is probably worth exactly what you paid for it:). I do, however, have a basic understanding of copyright laws as they apply to photographers, so my 'opinion' is based on that understanding.
If the location you've selected includes elements which are identifiable as being associated with a particular location, you may need to work with the park and your own attorney to determine viability for commercial use. Note the use of the words *may need to*. For example, if the image is of the Joshua Tree, you might need to work out a commercial license (even though it's a work of nature, it's easily associated with its location). In other cases, it's not so much the trees themselves, as it is the surrounding area. However, a simple group of fall trees and leaves probably won't be an issue.
Please understand that if you are selling the images to clients, it's commercial use - regardless of whether or not the images are used in advertisements!
Justin Greene , Nov 02, 2009; 06:44 a.m.
What you're wanting to do is fine. You can take family pictures most anywhere you like in front of whatever, and sell them, so whether you shoot the background ahead of time or not doesn't really matter.
Steve Smith 
, Nov 02, 2009; 07:18 a.m.
It is a copyright infringement technically.... but only of your own photograph!
The initial photograph of the trees is not an infingement.
John MacPherson , Nov 02, 2009; 08:08 a.m.
It is in the UK! If you took the photo on National Trust property and used it as a part of your commercial work, it is very likely you will receive a stiff cease and desist letter from the NT. Google this and see how wide an effect this issue has had despite its dubious legality.
Steve Smith , Nov 02, 2009; 09:06 a.m.
It is in the UK! If you took the photo on National Trust property and used it as a part of your commercial work, it is very likely you will receive a stiff cease and desist letter from the NT
Yes but we're talking about the background to a family portrait that no one outside the family is going to see.
And anyway, I don't think the NT have a leg to stand on. Their cease and desist actions so far are only on images of buildings and I don't think they would risk bringing an actual case as I'm sure they would lose it.
Erwin van Beveren , Nov 02, 2009; 09:29 a.m.
Thanks for the responses. And I am in the USA, I should have mentioned that earlier, although my name is Dutch, as I am originaly from Holland. In between my opening post and this one I have made a few sample photos for the client to see. Personaly I like the "plain" studio ones better then the pasted backdrop ones, but I leave it up to the client to choose.
I did tell her before the shoot, it's not going to look as real as if they realy are at the park. Perhaps the pasted backdrop photos are convincing enough for a future location shoot?
I want to thank all posters again and the last response from mr. Steve Smith;
"Yes but we're talking about the background to a family portrait that no one outside the family is going to see"
is staying in my mind. No one is going to see it, but the family.
Craig Gillette , Nov 02, 2009; 12:47 p.m.
There is no copyright to the natural features of public parks in the US and it would be an unusual man-made feature that would have a copyright if considering things like bridges, etc. Even buildings have only limited protection under the circumstances you are proposing. If you poke around the Library of Congress copyright site, it will cover most of the concerns you have.
http://www.copyright.gov/
In particular you'd want to look to the law as it describes the things which are subject to copyright. "Original works of authorship" isn't going to include natural features. Copyright in architectural works doesn't preclude the taking and use of pictures of buildings in or visible from public places.
Gia Hillenbrand 
, Nov 02, 2009; 12:50 p.m.
You should be fine. If you really want to know, contact your local permits office, explain it to them. More than likely, you wont need anything.
In the case of a wedding, etc, thats a diiferent story. Some places need a permit 2-6 weeks in advance. (or more, like Central Park, NY NY). Even there though, the casual photos are taken so many times, it would be impossible to ticket. Cover your bases and call the local permit office, wouldnt hurt.
Erwin van Beveren , Nov 02, 2009; 09:35 p.m.
Thanks, the http://www.copyright.gov/ is added in my favorites and will be checked out shortly.
I also check the local permit office for info.
