Re: Re: Coipyright in the Hollywood Sign

This a scam. The Chamber has a copyright, not a license, and their lawyers know the difference. I'd love to look at the email header and signature block if you would send it to me offlist.

John Noble
Attorney, Washington D.C.
jfnbl[_at_]earthlink.com

At 4:00 PM -0400 6/16/05, R.G.McCracken wrote:
>Many thanks to all who have replied - this has been very useful.
>
>Our first thought when we were contacted was
>that this might be a scam - and we're checking
>it out. I still strongly suspect a scam.
>Either way we won't be paying - and advice from
>the list has provided strong support.
>
>Contact was made by a UK company claiming to act
>as agents for "Global Icons LLC" who they claim
>were appointed by Hollywood Chamber of Commerce
>to act as global licensing agents. The claim
>was for $5k fees in respect of previous
>unauthorised use and a further annual licensing
>fee of $5k for continuing use. This has now
>been reduced to £3k (approx 50% of original
>claim) to cover both past and continuing use.
>Here is copy of their email in response to our protest:
>"Thank your for taking my call yesterday.
>Following our discussion with regard to the
>unauthorised use of the Hollywood sign on the
>hill mark on the OU Hollywood/Science web site I
>have spoken to my principals in LA and they are
>willing to offer a substantial discount to the
>OU on the appropriate license fee.
>
>The normal fee they charge would have been
>$5,000 to correct the unauthorised use and then
>an annual fee of $5,000 so it would have been
>$10,000 on signature.
>
>Naturally for a 'not for profit' organisation
>such as the OU this is not acceptable and I
>agree with that position. Nevertheless there has
>been a breach of copyright and this must attract
>a fee in order to clear the rights for the
>unauthorised use and into the future.
>
>I would therefore propose a fee of £3,000 for
>clearance of the breach of copyright and in
>addition a further 12 month renewal of a license
>to use the mark through to 30th June 2006 with
>an option to renew.
>
>If you are agreeable then I will draft a
>suitable document which we use in these
>circumstances.
>
>I am requested to politely remind the OU that at
>this time the Organisation is breaching the
>copyright of our ultimate Principal the
>Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. As such we are
>requested to ensure that this matter is dealt
>with promptly to avoid further action by our
>Principal which I am sure you will understand"
>
>Richard McCracken
>Head of Intellectual Property
>The Open University
>
>From: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual
>Property [mailto:CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org] On
>Behalf Of Robert Panzer
>Sent: 15 June 2005 23:06
>To: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property
>Subject: [CNI-(C)] Re: Coipyright in the Hollywood Sign
>
>It seems doubtful that they could make a
>copyright claim on the sign since it is a
>utilitarian object meant to identify a place.
>Also, fonts are not really protected by
>copyright in the U.S. Furthermore, because your
>use is educational, you could potentially claim
>fair use, which is similar to fair dealing in
>UK. The city of Hollywood could potentially
>make a trademark claim, which is becoming
>increasingly popular for U.S. cities, but your
>use would be an identifying use rather than one
>that would trigger trademark in my opinion.
>
>I'm curious as to the circumstances under which
>you received the request from Hollywood. Did
>you contact them seeking authorization? It
>would also be interesting if you could post
>their request to pay. The wording might be
>telling.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>Robert Panzer
>
>VAGA (Visual Artists and Galleries Association)
>350 Fifth Avenue
>Suite 2820
>New York, NY 10118
>tel: 212 736 6666
>fax: 212 736 6767
>rpanzer[_at_]vagarights.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual
>Property [mailto:CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org]On Behalf
>Of R.G.McCracken
>Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 11:06 AM
>To: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property
>Subject: [CNI-(C)] Coipyright in the Hollywood Sign
>I'm hoping that US colleagues on the list may be
>able to help with advice on a recent request to
>pay licensing fees for use of a photograph of
>the Hollywood sign.
>
>My university is a distance teaching university
>in the UK and we host an open web site on which
>we place educational and general interest
>content for access by members of the public.
>One of the activities featured on the site
>contains a photograph of the Hollywood sign,
>taken by one of our own staff.
>We've received a request to pay licensing fees
>for use of the photograph from the Hollywood
>Chamber of Commerc, claiming that the sign
>itself is protected by copyright.
>
>Is this the case, and does US legislation permit
>licensing of this kind? Under UK copyright law
>works of art displayed openly in public places
>may be photographed freely and a similar
>photograph in the UK could be used without
>licence.
>
>Many thanks
>
>Richard McCracken
>Head of Intellectual Property
>The Open University
Received on Sat Jun 18 2005 - 01:05:16 GMT