At 09:43 PM 9/11/98 -0500, you wrote:

>Jennifer Jaskowiak wrote:
>>
>> I have a question about copyright and reproduction of photographs of
buildings.
>>
>> What are the copyright restrictions, if any?  Who holds the copyright to a
>> photograph of a museum?  Does it matter if the museum commissioned the
>> photograph?
>
>
>As I understand copyrights, if the museum commissioned the photograph,
>copyright belongs to the museum because it was a "work for hire."  If
>the photographer took it on his/her own, copyright belongs to the artist
>for his/her lifetime plus 50 years, and if the museum wants to use that
>image for posters/photos etc. it must negotiate with the photographer.
>
>However, I just read in the NYT that some buildings, i.e. the Chrysler
>Building, are trademarked and that one, even an artist, may not publicly
>present an image of that building without permission from the building's
>owners regardless of whether or not the image was original to the artist
>(i.e. a drawing as opposed to a photograph).  This would include selling
>postcards, posters etc. The photographer should check to see if this is
>the case on the building in question.  Trademark differs from copyright
>in that a trademark lasts forever, whereas copyrights have time limits
>after which the image becomes public domain and anyone can use it.
>
>The U.S. Copyright Office has a very good website that explains
>copyrights and trademarks in easy-to-understand language.
>
>Julia Moore
>Indianapolis Art Center
>
Those building owners such as the owners of the Chrysler Building or the
foundation that runs the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, by attempting to
prevent people from publishing their photographs of these buildings are
misusing their trademark rights.  The purpose of honoring trademark is so
that people who buy products are not confused about the origin of the
merchandise they purchase.  For example, use of the Rolex mark on a watch
that is an imitation of a Rolex, is obviously a trademark variation.  But
where is the confusion when someone sells a picture of the Chrysler
Building? There is none. The owners cannot be allowed to control all images
of their building -- that is exactly why section 120a of the copyright
statute exists -- to prevent that.


As one writer to the New York Times stated: If we begin to honor the
trademark in buildings by not reproducing them, what will we have to do?
Erase the skyline?

Let's get real, and not allow these owners to seize ownership of everything
in plain sight. Next thing you'll discover is that they'll claim that the
air we breathe belongs to them by virtue of their "air rights."

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. The most recent
example I've read about is an effort by the heirs of Alexander Calder to
prevent museum shops from selling Calder-like mobiles. They claim that
these objects are sufficiently like Calder's style and like his invention
as to confuse purchasers as to their origin. Many museum shops have caved
into the efforts of the Calder heirs and have removed such items from their
shelves.

What this strikes at is the very core of artistic production and evolution.
To claim that an individual owns a style and no one can copy it is to say
that individuals cannot allow themselves to be influenced by the great
masters of their time. Further, one must have a very low esteem for museum
store patrons if it is thought that they are confusing their purchases with
real Calders.  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.

Indeed, to claim that Calder's estate "owns" the mobile is to neglect the
fact that Calder, himself, was influenced by numerous sources, from the
Bauhaus, the use of primary colors in Mondrian, to the Russian
Constructivists, etc. This is a self-defeating game the Calder heirs (and
anyone else who tries it) is playing, for to succeed in one's attempt to
control style is to lay oneself open to the same charges by the heirs of
artists whose works are still under copyright.  Quite obviously, greed has
a way of eating itself.

Robert Baron
[log in to unmask]