Photographing trademarked scenes such as landmarks prohibited? This sounds like BS.

[KevinFromTexas]

I just spotted this in the Austin American-Statesman. A person in Austin took a picture of the UT Tower at night with the famous "Number 1" lit up on the tower to signify that UT had just won a game. The person wanted to know if it is illegal to sell photos of a trademark such as this. The columnist said it is, but this sounds like a bunch of bull.

Is this true?

Go here to see a photo of what it looks like:
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/novak/uttower.html

From the Austin American-Statesman
http://www.statesman.com/life/conten...0/30greig.html

COMMENTARY: JANE GREIG
UT Tower and just about everything else are trademarked

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Friday, March 30, 2007

Q: Is the image of the University of Texas Tower a trademark?

I have a good photo of the No. 1 taken at night. I thought I might try to sell it on eBay and was surprised to not see any for sale.

Can UT keep you from selling this photo?

— Danny P.

A: Trademarked? Yes.

Keep you from selling? You bet. Without a license, you run the risk of infringement or counterfeiting charges.

Visit the University's Web site at www.utexas.edu/trademarks for details on how to obtain a license to use a trademarked item. Protected marks include the seal design, Tower design, Hook 'em Horns, Bevo, interlocking UT, block T, longhorn silhouette, longhorn caricature, helmet logo, hook 'em hand sign, Hook 'em, etc.

You may apply for a license to sell an item with a trademarked design. As part of the agreement, you must maintain an annual advance on royalties and agree to the royalty rate of 8 percent. Not all applicants are accepted.

Contact the licensing office at Office of Trademark Licensing, The University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station Stop B6900, Austin, TX 78712 or call 475-7923.

------------------------------------------------------


So, that sounds like a crock. How can they trademark that? Sure it's their building, but it's a local landmark, almost public domain. Whatever happened to that rule that says you can photograph anything as long as you're on public property and not causing a security risk? Your thoughts? I wonder about this, as an editor at Emporis, I photograph the building for the site. I haven't taken any night pictures of it, but I have taken a few of it in the daytime. I just can't believe that they could trademark/copyright a scene like that. It seems ridiculous.

[Robert Pence]

I've heard numerous accounts of people being challenged by security when taking photos of the structures in Chicago's Millennium Park, most notably Anish Kapoor's Cloud Gate (the bean), because of copyrights.

Generally, they don't bother anyone shooting hand-held photos; I've done that without any problems. I've even taken photos of the security guards on their Segways:



I've heard that the triggering event is use of a tripod because they take that as a signal that you're a professional who may intend to use the image for commercial purposes.

Seems unfair to serious amateurs; I've been tempted to take my tripod and Rolleiflex or Mamiya 7 and see what I can get by with or talk my way through.

[KevinFromTexas]

I just can't believe that. It's one of our best landmarks and I'd like to show folks what it looks like. Selling an image or two is just a side-effect, but certainly isn't my initial goal. I just want good pictures of one of my favorite local buildings.

[plinko]

Kevin, I think it has more to do with the University of Texas name, logos or teams more than anything else. That's why many postcards of stadiums and arenas don't have the name of the teams that play in them in the description or the title.

...first thing I thought of when I read your post...here's a description off the back of a postcard I have showing an aerial view of Baltimore over the baseball stadium:

"_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Baltimore, Maryland
Fill in the blanks for the name of the new home of Baltimore's famous baseball team, completed in 1992 with a seating capacity of approximately 48,000 (Fees for printing the trademarked name would increase the cost of this card). Located near the Inner Harbor in the old B & O Railroad yards with a renovated, old B & O warehouse just beyond the right-field wall and Camden Station behind the huge scoreboard, the ballpark includes state-of-the-art features with a traditional look."

Maybe that's the issue...?

[Eigenwelt]

If you take a photo of their trademark and sell it to intentionally capitalize on that trademark... then yes, they can sue you.

However, were you to take the same photo and sell it as a general night photo of Austin you could probally get away with it.

[MJPhilly]

I guess the ban on selling photos of trademarks makes sense. After all, you can't take a photo of the Mona Lisa, or of another photo, and claim that the artwork is yours. Since it's hard to draw a hard line on this, any copyrighted work could fit under the same argument. However, I don't know how someone could stop you from taking the photo, especially when their standard is to stop those with tripods but not those with handhelds. Doesn't sound like a policy that could stand up in court.

As for the Bean in Millennium Park - I'm glad they didn't stop me and my tripod in December. Maybe it was too cold out. But I was there for about a half hour.

[Robert Pence]

Fabulous shot of the Bean!

[flar]

I've also heard of this kind of thing. Copyright laws are really being abused lately. Our society really needs to sort out intellectual property rights.

As far as I'm concerned, if you can see something from the public street, or if it's a publicly owned park, etc, you should be able to photograph it. On private property, the owner obviously has the right to restrict certain things. But if they don't want their publicly viewable building photographed, they're perfectly within their rights to cover it up with a tarp

[cur_sed]

Flan, I think you're confusing 2 different issues here. My understanding of it is that, in the US, you have a legal right to take photos in public spaces - stay off private property and there's probably very little anyone can do, from a legal point of view (though security types might try).
The issue here is entirely about sale. You aren't allowed to profit off of someone else's trademark, and as the University holds a trademark on the image of its tower, you can't sell said image. I understand a similar thing goes for the Eiffel Tower at night, incidentally.

[MayDay]

Ok folks, put on the brakes! I'm hearing a lot of half-truths and simply inaccurate comments.

Kevin, the person at the American Statesman is absolutely incorrect. Thanks to Chuck Gentile (rhymes with Philly) a Cleveland-based photographer's suit against the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, buildings can NOT be trademarked if they appear in photographs. The photographer's suit made national news and set a legal precedent - read all about it: http://www.gentilephoto.com/html/bio_frame.htm - the full report http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/ja...a0020p.06.html

"The issue here is entirely about sale. You aren't allowed to profit off of someone else's trademark, and as the University holds a trademark on the image of its tower, you can't sell said image."

Read the info in the link I provided - institutions cannot put a trademark on photographs of their building, and yes - you can sell said images. As far as the Eiffel Tower, I don't know how French laws would apply, but in the States, the Gentile ruling stands. What plinko said is where it gets to be a grey area - text can be copyrighted, as can names of companies/institutions - however, a building (a photo of it) is public domain.

"If you take a photo of their trademark and sell it to intentionally capitalize on that trademark... then yes, they can sue you."

No, they can't - the Gentile ruling has set the precedent. Now, if you were to slap the name of the building on the image (like a poster/postcard), that's the grey area.

[WonderlandPark]

MayDay is correct. I was going to say the same. That doesn't mean that ignorant security guards can't hassle you for taking a shot of the Bean, because they apparently do. It is paid for by public dollars on public property, and you have the right to drag your tripod out there and shoot it--how far you want to take it with the guard is up to you.

But they can sue, anyone can sue for anything. It would be dismissed in a heartbeat in any court of law, though.

[JManc]

isn't the UT tower public property (state university) owned by the taxpayers?

my crappy attempt with a tripod a few years ago:

[KevinFromTexas]

Thanks guys.

And JMan, I'm pretty sure it is public land.

[DaveofCali]

IMO, one needs to understand that its in their (organization's) interest to misinterpret and misstate the facts about trademark and copyright protection, so that they can have some control over use of images of their buildings. I don't know exactly why they won't, but in the case of places like the Rock N' Roll Hall of fame, and the University of Texas, they make money off their image (ex. through merchandise) and thus they probably think its unfair of photographers 'profiting' from 'their' place without them getting any cut.

Architecture is not copyrighted, and that has been a longstanding exclusion in the copyright laws.

Also, about trademarks, decision from The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Museum, Inc. v. Gentile Productions:

http://www.swlearning.com/blaw/cases/rock_and.html

"Vacated and remanded. The trademark holder failed to show a likelihood of success on its merits of its infringement claim, due to its inconsistent use of the museum's design to serve a source-identifying function. Not all inherently distinctive symbols function as trademarks. To be protected, designation must create separate and distinct commercial impression which performs trademark function of identifying the source of merchandise to customers. The trademark holder had been inconsistent in its use of the building's likeness. Further, the use of the name may have been fair use. Since there is not a strong likelihood of success on the merits, no injunction should have been issued."

IMO, since its impossible for any building owner to make and use trademarks for every different angle of a building, a building simply can't be trademarked to protect it from being photographed for professional purposes.