Is it OK to photograph mailboxes?

Is it OK to photograph mailboxes?I was in the country yesterday, and found a perfect row of colorful mailboxes. I was going to take a photo of them but a person stopped me and said it was against the law. Can you confirm this? There were no names.

Of course its not illegal, if you were standing on a public road....

Now what if one of the them had the persons name on it?  I thought thats where the line was?

What should be illegal is that level of ignorance or arrogance, or simple desire to control others.

Sheesh.

If you are standing on public property, anything within viewing distance, barring the use of special equipment like really long zoom lenses, is fair game. The courts have made it clear that there is no expectation of privacy when you are in public, or something is in public.

Thus, standing on a country road, you are well within your rights to take a photo of anything you see. Who cares if there's a name on a mailbox? It's public information, for crying out loud.

The (polite) response needs to be, "I'm afraid your mistaken as this is public property. Mailboxes by be governed by the USPS, but they're sitting in plain view and therefore fair game for photography."

Past that, you wish them a good day and go about your business. If they want to call the cops, encourage them so that you can find out just exactly what law they think you're breaking.

Again, sheesh.

If these are identifiable (owners' names on them) you'd need to get property releases signed by the owners. If they would be identifiable in some other way with no names on them, you'd probably still need to get property releases signed (such as if they were unique enough to be recognizable, that if someone saw the pictures they'd know those painted mailboxes belong to ___ or are on ___ street).

The person who said something to you most likely doesn't know the difference between being able to take pictures and usage of the photos. You're the photographer, you should know this stuff. Get on asmp.org or PPA and look into releases, etc.

This would be if you'll profit from using images of someone's property, such as for retail use (merchandise) or commercial (business) use. To sell as a print, a release usually hasn't been necessary since it's intended for the buyer's personal use (to hang on the wall).

Usually releases aren't needed if the usage is editorial, like if there's an accident or other incident that happens there and news photographers are taking pictures and the mailboxes would happen to be in the photos. Even though releases may not be necessary for editorial use, a newspaper may request releases from a photographer, especially someone who they haven't worked with before.

icepics wrote: If these are identifiable (owners' names on them) you'd need to get property releases signed by the owners.

OMG, no, you don't. Property releases only come into play when dealing with intent, which doesn't appear in the OP's post. There are absolutely no requirements for taking a photo in the situation described.

What you do with the image is a completely different subject.

By way of example, paparazzi do not need model releases to take photos of stars and have them published (editorial, I think). so much depends upon use. If the OP wishes to create art from a photo taken of mailboxes snapped by a country road, he's well within his legal rights in this scenario, and I'm pretty sure that no one could stop him.

Yeah, you can take a picture, what you do with it is the thing. I should have said, get releases signed if you intend to use the photos. If you aren't going to do anything with them and just keep them for yourself, you wouldn't have to get releases signed.

I've been a photographer forever and haven't had this happen, but since this seems to happen often enough (to people posting on message boards anyway, it comes up every so often), I'd suggest learning this stuff to be able to explain it to the average non-photographer. Being better informed as a photographer would probably help.

Depends on where this was, if it was on a public street and not in someone's yard/driveway. But whether intended or not, if you're near someone's house or driveway etc. you may be making them uncomfortable. I don't know how long the OP was standing there, but if a neighbor doesn't know you they might wonder what you're doing. You don't live there, think about what is's like for the people who do. They probably can't figure out why you're taking pictures of mailboxes (they probably don't see them as good potential photos! to them it's the US Mail) and I wonder if the person was thinking of it being illegal to tamper with the mail (and with mailboxes) not necessarily taking photos of the boxes.

Yeah your good here, you can't publish the shot though

No names on the mail boxes, not identifiable? Yes, you can photograph and publish. If not, we need a serious class action suit against Google Earth.

Ian Stone wrote: Yeah your good here, you can't publish the shot though

No, that's not a given. In some locales, you have no control over what someone captures with a camera if they're using it for "art".

www.nydailynews.com/new-york/family-lose...cs-article-1.2179583

My point, which seems lost here, is that there is no fixed answer to this question, and, as is often the case, it depends. You can object all you want over someone using images that contain personally identifiable information, but it's not clear that that will stop anyone.

And I believe that the only reason publishers, contests, etc, require signed releases is to avoid the hassle of lawsuits. Not because they wouldn't be within their rights to publish, but because people don't always understand the law, or that the law depends upon where you are.

SO, again: it depends.

According to the federal government, air space isn’t private property either. So, you could, according to their definition, fly a drone around and film someone’s entire property. 

This is certainly where I draw that line. The invention of drones has made a mess of this area. Best not to do it, however, “they” do it without warrants....


Sorry, stepping off my soapbox now. Lol 

I think though Effron there can be other things besides someone's name to make something identifiable.

Depending on how the photos will be used it might be necessary to consider how common are mailboxes like this? are they unusual enough that nobody else around has these and it's obvious where these were photographed? Could one of the homeowners see these online somewhere and recognize that's their mailbox (and realize nobody asked permission to use photos of it)?

If there's no intention to use the photos then permission/releases wouldn't be needed, but to neighbors the OP would be a stranger and someone might wonder what he was doing (even if they were mistaken or misguided in what was said).

I suppose Google maps would be editorial use? But if you don't want the photo of your house used, I think you can request to not have it on there and it will be blurred out.

Photographers get releases signed so usage of their photos will be covered for certain purposes. Get on ASMP or try PPA and find out this info. from pro photographers organizations.

For example if somehow those mailboxes were newsworthy, a release would usually not be needed for editorial use (newspapers, magazines) although a publication may request one from the photographer (if it's someone they haven't worked with before). I think that's how tabloids (like the NY Daily News) are able to carry some of their stories, it would be considered editorial use. However tabloids have gotten sued for making up stories that are untrue and/or harmful to someone's character, etc.

For retail use (on merchandise) or for commercial (business) use, photographers get releases signed to cover those uses of someone's image (or images of their property) because it is for profit/money making.

Selling an art print intended for the buyer's personal use doesn't usually require a release unless a gallery or art center might request one. In my experience doing submissions to juried exhibits, they don't.

In the case of the photographer who took photos thru windows from across the street with a telephoto lens, the judge ruled it wasn't actionable (see the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs) and called on the state legislature to revisit this issue.  
pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2015/04/arne-sven...y-invasion-case.html

As Gary said, it seems to depend. It might be legal to be on the sidewalk taking photos of someone's mailboxes, but I can see why a neighbor might wonder what someone's doing and say something (even if what they tell you might be inaccurate).

I believe the agreement here is the law/s is/are a mess. However, I'll continue to shoot what I want, post or publish where I want and let things shake out as they will. You of course can do what you want.....