Re: Photographs of homes

On 1/29/97, Alicia Brillon <aliciab[_at_]ntserver1.photodisc.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, the copyright in architecture section referred to above only
> covers one aspect of Pamela's question. Yes, under this section you
> can take a photo of a house/building/structure which is visible from a
> public street without the *architect's* permission and distribute, etc.
> that photo. However, this does not mean that you can freely take photos
> of a private home and distribute those photos without obtaining the
> permission of the *owner of that home* to do so.

Then, would that mean that if I photographed the Empire State Building, I'd need permission of its owners to publish it? Are we headed here toward a copyright gridlock in which there are so many rights that must be acknowledged it is becoming impossible to maintain a supportive atmosphere for free expression?

Recently the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame tried to prevent a photographer from selling a poster of its building by claiming that it was protected, not by copyright, but by trademark. I always thought that trademark (like a hallmark) was to identify the source of an item and that the mark in and of itself was not altogether protectable. How does the museum expect to skirt around the permission to photograph and publish such buildings given in copyright law by use of trademark. Is there any likelihood that such a tactic will prove successful?

Robert Baron
mail to:ra baron[_at_]pipeline.com Received on Fri Jan 31 1997 - 04:57:40 GMT