Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Photo

> So what about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? They trademarked their
> building and by so doing claimed (successfully) that an independant
> photographer who was selling a poster of their I.M.Pei structure
> violated their trademark. (New York Times, 6/16/96). They used
> trademark to circumvent the rights provided under copyright. If this
> is a successful ploy, the article notes, the very skyline might be
> in danger!

    Nah. The Rock and Roll opinion is wrong on trademark principles too. I hope it's appealed, so things get straightened out. Think of the ramifications of being unable to photgraph a trademark: movies couldn't have trademarked objects in view; newscasts would have pan very carefully indeed whenever their camera pointed outside the newsroom; newspapers would have to be super careful about what they photographed. And on and on. And why wouldn't the same rule apply to speaking the name of a trademarked product in a movie? The Rock and Roll case is totally out of whack--under its rationale Andy Warhol is liable for making a ton of money off his famous Campbell's soup painting.

    All legal decisions pose a choice between two different worlds we might inhabit. Is there any doubt which world we prefer here?

    Paul J. Heald
    <heald[_at_]jd.lawsch.uga.edu> Received on Tue Oct 29 1996 - 14:28:21 GMT