Robert A. Baron wrote:

> The purpose of honoring trademark is so
> that people who buy products are not confused about the origin of the
> merchandise they purchase.


Yes, and I think in some way those building owners are trying to
differentiate "official" stuff from that which they have no control over
which may present their building in a way they may not want to have it
presented.  No difference from Rolex--poor quality watches marked
"Rolex" in violation of trademark affects the business of the real Rolex
watches.

But I think at bottom this whole effort to trademark buildings is
another way for people to make money, by selling the rights to reproduce
their building's design or characteristics.  If this thing gets any
further I think distinctions have to be drawn:  no, you don't need to
ask permission to have the Chrysler Building in the photo of the New
York skyline you are drawing/photographing/painting etc., but if you
want to sell postcards of the Chrysler Building, you should have to have
permission and probably pay a fee.


> But there is a potentially more serious effort afoot to use trademark law
> to seize aspects of intellectual property for individuals -- intellectual
> properties (if one can call it that) that rightfully belongs to the public.
> I'm not talking about the Copyright Extension Act -- an effort to increase
> the term of copyright from 50 to 70 years -- that's bad enough -- but
> efforts to claim that "styles" can be owned and protected.



Recent court cases have proved that this is very difficult to uphold.
There are a number of things that have to be proven, one of them being
that there is an intent to defraud the ordinary reasonable person by
directly copying the style in question.  Merely being influenced by an
artist's style to the extent that it can be seen in the "derivative"
image does not hold up--many cases have been dismissed because of that
very reason.  I don't think there's much danger there in things running
amok on the style question.


>  What the heirs own -- a very valuable commodity, indeed --
> is Calder's signature signature. That, just like Picasso's signature,
> cannot be reproduced without license.


Yes--and for the most protection they should trademark that signature.

There is a very good new book called ART LAW--2 volumes--that addresses
some of these questions very well.  I suggest that every museum own a
copy!  (we don't, but I'm trying to find the funds to purchase it)

Julia Moore
Indianapolis Art Center