According to the good folks at Petapixel.com, the current Miss Universe faces hefty fines and a possible jail sentence for an unsanctioned photo shoot, shot at the Taj Mahal. Read their article here.
Looks like they were promoting and/or advertising a shoe brand.
Real Estate brokers are fond of stating that, “The first three rules of real estate are: location, location, location”. “All politics is local” is the mantra of many Political Scientists.
Here at The Copyright Zone we repeat until we’re “blue in the face” (see our photo on the top of the page) to “Always, always get a release”. Model releases and location or property releases, whenever possible. Get those releases (plural).
So here is a perfect example as to why people who continually insist that property releases are “not needed” and that “no one has ever been successfully sued for not having a property release” haven’t learned that, as we like to say to, “Get those gosh darn releases, dagnabbit!!” (BTW – Dagnabbit is either a small suburb of Mumbai or something Gabby Hayes mutters in old Roy Rogers westerns. Take your pick.)
In India – as in many other locales both in the USA and abroad – they are very serious about their cultural heritage locations. A simple piece of paper, a release, getting permission of the locals, both shows respect and does the trick.
With release(s), location shoot, no problem.
No release(s), no location shoot, no problems.
No release(s), a location shoot, uh oh, big problems.
You’re looking at possibly TWO years in prison in India in this situation. It seems unlikely they would impose that with Miss Universe, but even just the threat of such a sentence gives Jack the runs. While we simply can’t compute the value of the negative publicity and/or lost sales that the client may suffer, Ed is busy estimating the amount of legal and other expenses the sponsors of the shoot have paid and will pay in the future. A photographer when faced with doing a shoot like this without the necessary releases could be a big hero to the client by warning them of the consequences of going forward without proper paperwork. Everybody, including clients, loves a hero.
#1 by Matt Timmons on October 13, 2013 - 5:23 pm
The fine is only $1,600 bucks?? That’s cheaper than obtaining a legitimate commercial release. And I agree that it’s pretty unlikely India will even try the 2 year prison threat. How hard can extradition of a Miss Universe be, right? Talk about bad press (for India). The producers probably tried to obtain a legit release, were denied, and upon discovering the very affordable fine, said, “Let’s go that route.” Badabing badaboom, cheap Taj Mahal location shoot. Then, “Oh, we’re sorry. We didn’t mean any disrespect…” blah blah yea yea. $1600 bucks later, Bobs’ your uncle and all’s well that ends well.
#2 by ken on October 16, 2013 - 9:39 pm
Notable locations, even US National Parks, often require releases. Strange as it may seem, the US Gov. gets touchy about certain trees like Gen. Sherman being used in advertising. Maybe the US government can copyright a tree or maybe they can’t. Finding out if they have the authority in a court of law might be a rather expensive lesson. A few minutes of homework online could save thousands of dollars.
I’ve found loads of information about shooting commercially on public lands from the location’s website. You will nearly always have to apply for a permit, show proof of insurance and pay for a ranger or other supervisor. For private property, I would always make sure I had written permission if the subject of the shoot was other than the owner. In the process of applying for permits or permission, the question of whether location releases are required will be covered or you will be in contact with somebody able to answer those questions.
I understand that the Taj Mahal isn’t available for commercial shoots. The producer should have known this, found out while seeking permission/permits or shouldn’t be allowed out in public.
If I want to shoot on the beach in SoCal, I wouldn’t use more than myself and the model unless I obtained the proper permits. The police in locations like Santa Monica are well versed in what it required for photographers and cinematographers to film in public. They can write up chapter and verse from memory on that “Notice to appear” or ticket with no problem.
#3 by Don Long on October 19, 2013 - 10:40 am
A permit to shoot in a National Park is not the same thing as a property release. Who would be the owner of the National Park?
#4 by Edward C. Greenberg on October 22, 2013 - 1:44 pm
The National Park Service is the Federal agency which has the major responsibility to administer the national parks and national forests which owned by the United States government. Many other federal and state agencies may assist, work with etc. the National Park Service on given issues like law enforcement, rescues, land use planning, re-foresting etc.