# Legal Question



## idrivea9 (Jul 26, 2009)

Hello,

I have been a staff magazine photographer for 9magazine since 2001.  Most of my work are cars, and use a pretty standard release that the owners sign before I shoot.

I love courthouses and have been traveling around my state photographing them for pleasure.  However, I was thinking about turning the photos into a book or calendar to help make a few bucks during these hard times.

My question is, do I need to have a release for the country courthouses, or because they are state/government property is the release waved?

Thanks,

Brian


----------



## skieur (Jul 27, 2009)

No release is necessary. They are public buildings in a public place.

skieur


----------



## CygnusStudios (Jul 27, 2009)

Now I am not a lawyer nor do I play one, but from my discussions with my attorney, here is what I have been told.

Under some circumstances, a trademarked building may be photographed as long as the images are true to the structure. 
Example, the Golden Gate Bridge is trademarked and copyrighted. As long as I do not alter the image of the bridge to depict something it is not I am fine. If I photoshop the bridge into a scene of NY city and used it for commercial purposes, there may be an issue. If I broke the bridge up into a handful of pieces and again used it commercially, there could be a problem. 

If the buildings in question are owned privately, 99% of the time they will not be trademarked. There are exceptions like the Magic Kingdom at Disney, the TransAmerica Building, The Chrysler Building, and other major landmarks. Images taken of these buildings and used for commercial work may cause the person trouble, depending on the use.

There are even less commercial buildings owned by the government that are trademarked. The vast majority of the time, if the image is used for commercial projects, the image has to reflect the building in the correct way.


----------



## skieur (Jul 27, 2009)

CygnusStudios said:


> Now I am not a lawyer nor do I play one, but from my discussions with my attorney, here is what I have been told.
> 
> Under some circumstances, a trademarked building may be photographed as long as the images are true to the structure.
> Example, the Golden Gate Bridge is trademarked and copyrighted. As long as I do not alter the image of the bridge to depict something it is not I am fine. If I photoshop the bridge into a scene of NY city and used it for commercial purposes, there may be an issue. If I broke the bridge up into a handful of pieces and again used it commercially, there could be a problem.
> ...



Photography alone does NOT violate any object that is trademarked nor does it violate any building copyright. That is the law in the US and Canada.

skieur


----------



## CygnusStudios (Jul 28, 2009)

skieur said:


> Photography alone does NOT violate any object that is trademarked nor does it violate any building copyright. That is the law in the US and Canada.skieur



Maybe you missed the part about *USE* in my original answer.

Since it is easy for some to state information on online forums without backing it up with facts, here is a case where a photographer was sued for photographing the Rock and Roll hall of fame for commercial use

Here is the short version:

*"Quote"
In reaction to Gentile's poster, the Museum filed a five-count complaint
against Gentile in the district court. The Museum's complaint contends
that the Museum has used both its registered service mark, "THE ROCK
AND ROLL HALL OF FAME," and its building design as trademarks, and
that Gentile's poster infringes upon, dilutes, and unfairly competes
with these marks. The Museum's somewhat unusual claims regarding its
building design, then, are quite unlike a claim to a service-mark right
in a building design that might be asserted to prevent the construction
of a confusingly similar building.

Specifically, count one of the Museum's complaint alleges trademark
infringement, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1). "Quote"*

After losing the case, the photographer did eventually win an appeal. Do you think that his lawyer worked for free? There are also cases where the photographer did not eventually win. 

Since the original question in this thread was about using the images for commercial use and gain, real facts should be presented, not opinion.

The American Society of Media Photographers have this statment on their website regarding trademarked buildings.


----------



## KmH (Jul 29, 2009)

What? You expect to get bulletproof legal advice in an online forum? :lmao:

In just about every court case there is a winner..........................and a loser. :thumbup:

Anyone can file a suit, for just about anything, at any time. Welcome to America.


----------



## ocular (Jul 31, 2009)

Best to go to your local library and ask a librarian this, it's different in each district. Private property on a different subject usually always requires written permission..


----------



## Imaginis (Aug 3, 2009)

idrivea9 said:


> My question is, do I need to have a release for the country courthouses, or because they are state/government property is the release waved?



Before listening to a advice from people in an online forum, go to an attorney and get a correct answer that actually applies in your jurisdiction.


----------



## skieur (Aug 4, 2009)

From CygnusStudios: 
   		 			  				 					Quote: Originally Posted by *skieur* 

 
_Photography alone does NOT violate any object that is trademarked nor does it violate any building copyright. That is the law in the US and Canada.skieur_


Maybe you missed the part about *USE* in my original answer.

In Trademark law, infringement must involve "passing off" something as the original by using the trademark.

Taking a photo of a trademarked building and selling it commercially is not "passing off" since no object is involved.

Despite the argument of building owners who want to retain all rights to the image of the building, that is not in the law.

As to producing a poster of a building, that competes with a poster sold by the building owner, trademark law does not prohibit such an action.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Aug 4, 2009)

idrivea9 said:


> Hello,
> 
> I have been a staff magazine photographer for 9magazine since 2001.  Most of my work are cars, and use a pretty standard release that the owners sign before I shoot.
> 
> ...



No release is necessary.

skieur


----------

