Re: Photographs of homes

Robert Baron wrote:
>
> 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?

Without opining on the correctness of the R&RHF's position, the tenor of their claim, as I understand it, is not to prevent photography or replication of the building, but to prevent unauthorized commercial uses of the building's image. In other words, casual photography of the building is not a violation of copyright law, but use of photographs or depictions of the building on postcards, t-shirts, mugs, etc. would be the sole province of the R&RHF. Thus they seek to create an exclusive right in an "official" line of R&RHF licensed merchandise. Right or wrong, it strikes me that this sounds less like trademark law than like a Right of Publicity for buildings.

Bob Cumbow
<cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> Received on Mon Feb 03 1997 - 18:34:26 GMT