[LargeFormat] Re: Tips on Architecture photographs

[philip lambert]

And would the law be more permissive of photographers in England? Certainly,
for buildings or trees, I guess, but people would be another matter.
Photographs of celebrities is a more sensitive area: ask a lawyer.
I just took dozens of pictures of views and palaces etc in Portugal. If I
sell a picture to a publisher for a calendar would the owner of the
view/building be entitled to sue? How many people photograph St Marks Square
in Venice?  Answer - they all do. PL
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stan McQueen" <stan@smcqueen.com>
To: <largeformat@f32.net>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 7:38 PM
Subject: RE: [LargeFormat] Re: Tips on Architecture photographs


> At 12:27 PM 7/14/2003, Vince Dobson wrote:
> >There is a tree on a cliff in California that (I think) has been
> >successfully trademarked - this is the only successful trademark of this
> >type that comes to mind.
>
> Yes, I was trying to remember that one. Point Loma, I think. My
> recollection is that the court threw it out--you can use an image of a
tree
> as a trademark, but how can you use the tree itself? The same went for the
> Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, as I recall--they could trademark an image of
> the building and use it as their trademark, but how would you use the
> building itself as a trademark? My recollection is that the court found
> that neither organization had actually used the tree or building as their
> trademark, but only images of them, and thus ruled that the objects
> themselves were not the trademark. But I really need to go back and check
> it in Bert Krages' book.
>