Re: CNN/AP: "Appeals court opens Titanic wreckage to tourists"

On Sat, 27 Mar 1999, Colin Seeger <seeger[_at_]ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
> >
> > Judge Paul Niemeyer, writing for the unanimous panel, wrote that
> > "a property right does not normally include the right to exclude
> > viewing and photographing of the property when it is located in a
> > public place."
>
> I'm worried by the "normally" qualification here. Where does His Honour
> propose such a purported right could ever be properly claimed?

I don't know what he refers to re: restrictions on "viewing" in a public place (huh). As to photographing, I think he leaves open the possible trademark (trade dress) restrictions on photographing inherently distinctive 3 dimensional objects and then making a commercial use of the picture, a claim that failed in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame case <http://laws.findlaw.com/6th/980020p.html>. Of course, it depends on the use put to the photograph. A picture taken even of a inherently distinctive trademarked object for personal use would not be a trademark use.

Mike Oliver, Bowie & Jensen, LLC
<mikeoliver[_at_]home.com> Received on Wed Mar 31 1999 - 02:03:17 GMT