Does anyone know a good source for quality photos of people that can be used in renderings? I can Photoshop them out of the background if need be. In school and at my last job, I was using my own PC, had a collection of people that I always used as single colored ghosts. For this project, they want photos of people. It's for a music hall at a church. So I need people in nice clothes, people playing stringed instruments, and priests. Hilariously, when I looked up priest on Google image search, I got mug shots. Tried Google and Corbis. Photos are either too small or too low quality to be used as photos (not ghosted). Or they are 'artsy', cropped, weird lighting, mug shots or Judas Priest. Sources?
I would try http://www.istockphoto.com/index.php but they charge per image. I have had luck finding specific people I needed for my renderings and many of them have clean backgrounds to edit out.
Aside from that I would agree with Ovalle, RPC conent is amazing although very expensive.
Are you wearing skinny jeans, black glasses, and eating a Trader Joes organic vegetarian microwave burrito while you typed that? Because it sounds like a really hipster-snark comment. Right oh, I'll run out to a black tie orchestral even and take some studio lighted shots right away!
If someone legally ownes or has purchased images, then is sharing them with another person violating copyright laws? I don't know much about these things...
While taking pictures from a right-of-way is perfectly legal... taking pictures of people without the expressed written consent is illegal, even if they are on public property! Especially for commercial non-journalistic, non-art purposes.
The only way to really skirt this is to take pictures of people in front of courthouses or city hall... and hope to jesus/allah/moses that they are public servants!
Ambient light seems to have disappeared, however these guys seem to be reselling their peeps, as well as a whole bunch of other collections I recognize...
Can anyone actually substantiate these claims of lawsuits regarding the use of people in architectural renderings?
I'm really just curious, not trying to make an argument.
I use people others collected and clipped as well as photos I took and clipped and images I collected from who knows where but often show up here and there in other firms renderings. I use them at work, sometimes 'greyed/whited out' and sometimes as straight images.
"AddThis
The Law for Photographers:
Do I Need Permission?
An Introduction to the
Legal Aspects of Travel Photography
By Dianne Brinson,
a copyright attorney,
for PhotoSecrets
Before you take that photo, you may need permission for the following: Photographing buildings, works of art, or other copyrighted items; Photographing people; Photographing on public or private property. In this short article, attorney Dianne Brinson briefly discusses when permission may be required.
Copyright
Under current U.S. law, copyright protection arises automatically when an "original work of authorship" is "fixed in a tangible medium of expression". A work is "original" in the copyright sense if it owes its origin to the author. For example, a photograph of Yosemite's Bridalveil Fall is original so long as it was created by the photographer, even if it's the zillionth photo to be taken of that scene. Only minimal creativity is required to meet the originality requirement, no artistic merit or beauty is required.
Works of art - sculptures, paintings, and even toys - are protectable by copyright. Furthermore, buildings created on or after December 1, 1990 are protected by copyright. A copyright owner has the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted work, and photographing a copyrighted work is considered a way of reproducing it. Thus, you may need permission to photograph a building or an art work.
Learn more with:
Copyright
Here are some guidelines:
Buildings
Only buildings created after December 1, 1990 are protected by copyright. Fortunately for photographers, the copyright in an architectural work does not include the right to prevent others from making and distributing photos of the constructed building, if the building is located in a public place or is visible from a public place. So you don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a public building. You don't need permission to photograph a public building from inside the building (although you may need permission to photograph separately-owned decorative objects in the building, such as a statue). You don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a private building such as a church or a house.
This "photographer's exception" to the copyright-owner's rights applies only to buildings, a category which includes houses, office buildings, churches, gazebos, and garden pavilions. The exception does not apply to monuments (protectable as "sculptural works") or other copyrighted works, such as statues and paintings.
Art
You may need permission to photograph a copyrighted work of art, for example, a statue in a public park, or a painting in a private collection or art museum. And getting permission can be tricky, because, according to copyright law, you need permission from the copyright owner, not from the owner of the work of art itself. In copyright law, ownership of the copyright in a work is distinct from ownership of the copy (the tangible item).
For example, suppose that you are taking photographs of a painting in an art collector's private home collection. The art collector probably does not not own the copyright in the painting, the artist does. Unless your photograph of the painting is "fair use" (discussed later) you need permission from the artist.
When You Don't Need Permission
You don't need permission to photograph a work that is not protected by copyright (in "the public domain"). Works fall into the public domain for several reasons, one of which is expiration of the copyright term. In 1997, works created before January 1, 1922 are in the public domain. Also, works created by federal government officers and employees as part of their official duties are not protected by copyright. (This rule does not apply to works created by state or local government officers and employees).
You don't need permission to use a copyrighted work in two circumstances: (1) if you are only copying facts or ideas from the work; or (2) if your use is "fair use".
You are free to copy facts from a protected work or to copy ideas from a protected work. The copyright on a work does not extend to the work's facts. This is because copyright protection is limited to original works of authorship, and no one can claim originality or authorship for facts. Anyone can use ideas.
Fair Use
It may be that your photograph is "fair use" of the art works you photograph. If so, you don't need permission. Whether a use of a copyrighted work is fair use is decided on a case-by-case basis by considering the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect on the potential market for or value of the protected work.
There is no simple rule to determine when an unauthorized use is "fair use". You are more likely to be able to rely on fair use for photographing copyrighted items if your work serves a traditional fair use purpose (educational, research, news reporting, criticism, or public interest). Fair use is always subject to interpretation.
Learn more with:
Fair Use
Publicity and Privacy Rights of Individuals
You may need permission to photograph people due to state laws giving individuals privacy and publicity rights.
Most states in the US recognize that individuals have a right of privacy. The right of privacy gives an individual a legal claim against someone who intrudes on the individual's physical solitude or seclusion, and against those who publicly disclose private facts. Unless you have permission, avoid publishing or distributing any photo of an individual that reveals private facts about the individual (particularly if revealing those private facts might embarrass the individual).
Almost half the states in the US recognize that individuals have a right of publicity. The right of publicity gives an individual a legal claim against one who uses the individual's name, face, image, or voice for commercial benefit without obtaining permission. In case you are wondering how the news media handle this, newspapers and news magazines have a "fair use" privilege to publish names or images in connection with reporting a newsworthy event.
Be particularly careful about celebrities. Using a photograph of a celebrity for your own commercial gain - for example, posting a photo you took of Clint Eastwood on your business's marketing material or Web site - is asking for a lawsuit, even if you took the photograph when you ran into Clint on a public street.
Commercial photographers avoid right of publicity/privacy lawsuits by obtaining photographic releases from people shown in the their shots. If you are considering selling your photos or using them on your Web site, you may want to do the same. The Multimedia Law and Business Handbook contains a sample release. Experienced performers and models are accustomed to signing these releases."
Almost half the states in the US recognize that individuals have a right of publicity. The right of publicity gives an individual a legal claim against one who uses the individual's name, face, image, or voice for commercial benefit without obtaining permission. In case you are wondering how the news media handle this, newspapers and news magazines have a "fair use" privilege to publish names or images in connection with reporting a newsworthy event.
I am surprised there aren't more lawsuits. Most renderings from an arch office (not pro rendering) you seen obviously illegal images (fashion images, etc.) used all the time, then the client takes the rendering and it gets published, thereby taking what would be a harmless 'show the client' to a blatant copyright infringement.
Not yet-- however, I thought about how I could garner some publicity and notoriety by organizing a class action lawsuit.
But even if I were to do such a thing, each individual in the photographs would have to evoke the right (or a legal guardian or someone with power of attorney or someone handling an estate) that right.
However, I don't think that would help me at all land a job if I got everyone to sue everyone in the architectural world.
The only reason I know anything about this is that a kid I know who I absolutely hate tried selling a picture of me and some friends that was candidly taken... so, we made him destroy his photograph at an art gallery because he was trying to sell it for profit.
It happens quiet frequently with professional models (and they are bitches about it). Then again models get paid to do exactly that... model. I haven't seen anyone in the general public get sued over it.
You could always do the black tape over the eys thing could you? Photoshop black boxes over the eyse of every person in your renderings..If I was still in school I'd go for it..seriously.
Trace has a point. Just look at the Obama weatherproof ad that the weatherproof garment company billboard in Times Square, NY did. They took a harmless photograph of the president styling the jacket in China and used it for commercial purposes without him endorsing the product. So if you cut out images of people online, at least blur their faces or something so it doesn’t come back and bite you in the a**.
People for renderings
Does anyone know a good source for quality photos of people that can be used in renderings? I can Photoshop them out of the background if need be. In school and at my last job, I was using my own PC, had a collection of people that I always used as single colored ghosts. For this project, they want photos of people. It's for a music hall at a church. So I need people in nice clothes, people playing stringed instruments, and priests. Hilariously, when I looked up priest on Google image search, I got mug shots. Tried Google and Corbis. Photos are either too small or too low quality to be used as photos (not ghosted). Or they are 'artsy', cropped, weird lighting, mug shots or Judas Priest. Sources?
have you tried flickr?
invest in the RPC plugin for photoshop, so you can use the people:
http://www.archvision.com/default.cfm
I would try http://www.istockphoto.com/index.php but they charge per image. I have had luck finding specific people I needed for my renderings and many of them have clean backgrounds to edit out.
Aside from that I would agree with Ovalle, RPC conent is amazing although very expensive.
I've got a ton real-people for renderings - send me your email address and Ill send you some.
cut-out people
Live globally, become cultured, take photographs of people doing things, upload said photos, you're all set.
Are you wearing skinny jeans, black glasses, and eating a Trader Joes organic vegetarian microwave burrito while you typed that? Because it sounds like a really hipster-snark comment. Right oh, I'll run out to a black tie orchestral even and take some studio lighted shots right away!
hey, hasselhoff is back! we missed you, you old archi-cynic! ; )
Uh, I guess people just don't care about copyright violations??
In school, fine, out of school, not fine.
Exactly trace, you're a dick hasselhoff.
who's dick hasselhoff?
couldn't resist.
give me your email address and I'll send you people I've used. It took years to collect, but I always like to share them
copy-who now?
gettyimages.com is my favorite....
make sure to use more elderly women than half naked models.
poop876, I'd love to have some cutout people. thanks! zga@pdx.edu
Will send it this weekend when I sober up!
If someone legally ownes or has purchased images, then is sharing them with another person violating copyright laws? I don't know much about these things...
If somebody took pictures of people on the street does he have the right to use those images? America is all about lawsuits!
While taking pictures from a right-of-way is perfectly legal... taking pictures of people without the expressed written consent is illegal, even if they are on public property! Especially for commercial non-journalistic, non-art purposes.
The only way to really skirt this is to take pictures of people in front of courthouses or city hall... and hope to jesus/allah/moses that they are public servants!
Clip art models or blacked out ghost people, ftw!
Commercially available textures:
http://www.ambientlight.co.uk
http://www.realworldimagery.com/
http://www.doschdesign.com/
http://www.got3d.com/
http://vyonyx.com/index.php/category/down/cutout-people
Ambient light seems to have disappeared, however these guys seem to be reselling their peeps, as well as a whole bunch of other collections I recognize...
Can anyone actually substantiate these claims of lawsuits regarding the use of people in architectural renderings?
I'm really just curious, not trying to make an argument.
I use people others collected and clipped as well as photos I took and clipped and images I collected from who knows where but often show up here and there in other firms renderings. I use them at work, sometimes 'greyed/whited out' and sometimes as straight images.
"AddThis
The Law for Photographers:
Do I Need Permission?
An Introduction to the
Legal Aspects of Travel Photography
By Dianne Brinson,
a copyright attorney,
for PhotoSecrets
Before you take that photo, you may need permission for the following: Photographing buildings, works of art, or other copyrighted items; Photographing people; Photographing on public or private property. In this short article, attorney Dianne Brinson briefly discusses when permission may be required.
Copyright
Under current U.S. law, copyright protection arises automatically when an "original work of authorship" is "fixed in a tangible medium of expression". A work is "original" in the copyright sense if it owes its origin to the author. For example, a photograph of Yosemite's Bridalveil Fall is original so long as it was created by the photographer, even if it's the zillionth photo to be taken of that scene. Only minimal creativity is required to meet the originality requirement, no artistic merit or beauty is required.
Works of art - sculptures, paintings, and even toys - are protectable by copyright. Furthermore, buildings created on or after December 1, 1990 are protected by copyright. A copyright owner has the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted work, and photographing a copyrighted work is considered a way of reproducing it. Thus, you may need permission to photograph a building or an art work.
Learn more with:
Copyright
Here are some guidelines:
Buildings
Only buildings created after December 1, 1990 are protected by copyright. Fortunately for photographers, the copyright in an architectural work does not include the right to prevent others from making and distributing photos of the constructed building, if the building is located in a public place or is visible from a public place. So you don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a public building. You don't need permission to photograph a public building from inside the building (although you may need permission to photograph separately-owned decorative objects in the building, such as a statue). You don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a private building such as a church or a house.
This "photographer's exception" to the copyright-owner's rights applies only to buildings, a category which includes houses, office buildings, churches, gazebos, and garden pavilions. The exception does not apply to monuments (protectable as "sculptural works") or other copyrighted works, such as statues and paintings.
Art
You may need permission to photograph a copyrighted work of art, for example, a statue in a public park, or a painting in a private collection or art museum. And getting permission can be tricky, because, according to copyright law, you need permission from the copyright owner, not from the owner of the work of art itself. In copyright law, ownership of the copyright in a work is distinct from ownership of the copy (the tangible item).
For example, suppose that you are taking photographs of a painting in an art collector's private home collection. The art collector probably does not not own the copyright in the painting, the artist does. Unless your photograph of the painting is "fair use" (discussed later) you need permission from the artist.
When You Don't Need Permission
You don't need permission to photograph a work that is not protected by copyright (in "the public domain"). Works fall into the public domain for several reasons, one of which is expiration of the copyright term. In 1997, works created before January 1, 1922 are in the public domain. Also, works created by federal government officers and employees as part of their official duties are not protected by copyright. (This rule does not apply to works created by state or local government officers and employees).
You don't need permission to use a copyrighted work in two circumstances: (1) if you are only copying facts or ideas from the work; or (2) if your use is "fair use".
You are free to copy facts from a protected work or to copy ideas from a protected work. The copyright on a work does not extend to the work's facts. This is because copyright protection is limited to original works of authorship, and no one can claim originality or authorship for facts. Anyone can use ideas.
Fair Use
It may be that your photograph is "fair use" of the art works you photograph. If so, you don't need permission. Whether a use of a copyrighted work is fair use is decided on a case-by-case basis by considering the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect on the potential market for or value of the protected work.
There is no simple rule to determine when an unauthorized use is "fair use". You are more likely to be able to rely on fair use for photographing copyrighted items if your work serves a traditional fair use purpose (educational, research, news reporting, criticism, or public interest). Fair use is always subject to interpretation.
Learn more with:
Fair Use
Publicity and Privacy Rights of Individuals
You may need permission to photograph people due to state laws giving individuals privacy and publicity rights.
Most states in the US recognize that individuals have a right of privacy. The right of privacy gives an individual a legal claim against someone who intrudes on the individual's physical solitude or seclusion, and against those who publicly disclose private facts. Unless you have permission, avoid publishing or distributing any photo of an individual that reveals private facts about the individual (particularly if revealing those private facts might embarrass the individual).
Almost half the states in the US recognize that individuals have a right of publicity. The right of publicity gives an individual a legal claim against one who uses the individual's name, face, image, or voice for commercial benefit without obtaining permission. In case you are wondering how the news media handle this, newspapers and news magazines have a "fair use" privilege to publish names or images in connection with reporting a newsworthy event.
Be particularly careful about celebrities. Using a photograph of a celebrity for your own commercial gain - for example, posting a photo you took of Clint Eastwood on your business's marketing material or Web site - is asking for a lawsuit, even if you took the photograph when you ran into Clint on a public street.
Commercial photographers avoid right of publicity/privacy lawsuits by obtaining photographic releases from people shown in the their shots. If you are considering selling your photos or using them on your Web site, you may want to do the same. The Multimedia Law and Business Handbook contains a sample release. Experienced performers and models are accustomed to signing these releases."
Whoops, only meant to cut this paragraph out.
Almost half the states in the US recognize that individuals have a right of publicity. The right of publicity gives an individual a legal claim against one who uses the individual's name, face, image, or voice for commercial benefit without obtaining permission. In case you are wondering how the news media handle this, newspapers and news magazines have a "fair use" privilege to publish names or images in connection with reporting a newsworthy event.
I am surprised there aren't more lawsuits. Most renderings from an arch office (not pro rendering) you seen obviously illegal images (fashion images, etc.) used all the time, then the client takes the rendering and it gets published, thereby taking what would be a harmless 'show the client' to a blatant copyright infringement.
So like I said, any examples?
Not yet-- however, I thought about how I could garner some publicity and notoriety by organizing a class action lawsuit.
But even if I were to do such a thing, each individual in the photographs would have to evoke the right (or a legal guardian or someone with power of attorney or someone handling an estate) that right.
However, I don't think that would help me at all land a job if I got everyone to sue everyone in the architectural world.
The only reason I know anything about this is that a kid I know who I absolutely hate tried selling a picture of me and some friends that was candidly taken... so, we made him destroy his photograph at an art gallery because he was trying to sell it for profit.
It happens quiet frequently with professional models (and they are bitches about it). Then again models get paid to do exactly that... model. I haven't seen anyone in the general public get sued over it.
http://asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-model-releases.html
The American Society of Media Photographers says basically the same thing if you want to read it from a more authoritative point.
Your best bet to skirt liability of such issues is to buy the photos from a photographer and avoid using rights-free or royalty-free work.
You could always do the black tape over the eys thing could you? Photoshop black boxes over the eyse of every person in your renderings..If I was still in school I'd go for it..seriously.
lol, black tape over the eyes!
this will get more attention then the actual building
Trace has a point. Just look at the Obama weatherproof ad that the weatherproof garment company billboard in Times Square, NY did. They took a harmless photograph of the president styling the jacket in China and used it for commercial purposes without him endorsing the product. So if you cut out images of people online, at least blur their faces or something so it doesn’t come back and bite you in the a**.
anyone want to share cut-out people/tree files with me? send me your e-mail. I will send my collection, and you will do as well?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.