For example, you can take a photo of Ross Valley Winery and sell it to the city who's making a publication titled, "Directory of Ross Valley Businesses." The winery has no claim here, since the photo was shot (presumably) from the road on public land, and the photo is being used in a non-commercial context. This is a classic example about the Fair Use exception. However, the same photo cannot be used for a book called, "History of Mondavi Winery," since the photo is not of that particular winery. Using the photo of Ross Valley Winery would be a misrepresentation both companies.
Pop Quiz: What if you had an unreleased photo from inside the winery? Could you use it in the directory example? No, because the photo was taken in a private setting, which may contain business secrets or other aspects about the company that it wishes not to be known. One way to establish if you're on private property, aside from it being someone's home or a business, is whether you had to pay money to get in. Amusement parks, for example, are private property, so you would need a release from the company that operates the park if you wanted to use an image of the park in a way that would require a release. (Remember, not all photo uses require a release! You need to constantly be reminding yourself of the four checklist items.)
Exceptions to "private property" include state or national parks, or other venues owned by the government, even though you often have to pay to get in. These places are considered public domain, and generally do not need a release. Similarly, paying to enter an event that's held on public land, like a concert in Central Park are deemed "Fair Use" in most cases. Note the exception of the performers, however, who may be trademarked or copyrighted, which puts up a completely different set of blocks (Fair Use notwithstanding). Remember, those uses may misrepresent people or suggest that they advocate an idea or product.
