[no subject]

Subject: WHO OWNS THE "IMAGE" OF A BUILDING?

>In a precedent-setting intellectual property dispute, the Rock & Roll Hall
>of Fame & Museum in Cleveland, Ohio, is suing a photographer for
>infringing its trademark by selling posters made from his photo of the
>architecturally distinct museum.  Photographers, artists, filmmakers, and
>publishers are concerned about the implications of allowing trademarks for
>buildings, but lawyers for the museum argue:  "If we lose our rights on
>posters, we'll lose it on T-shirts and hats."  Trademark protection
>generally is intended to prevent someone from copying a building's
>distinctive shape (such as that of the famous McDonald's golden arches).

>The issue is whether the photographer's profits from the poster are due
>mainly to his own creativity as a photographer or rather to the beauty and
>fame of a building designed by others.  (New York Times 16 Jun 96 p1)

Somebody made pictures of the soft wrapped berlin reichstag and cristo did
win. The question for me was if it is a picture of the wrapped reichstag
or one of the wrapping. The question for cristo was not only the marks but
also to prevent others from publishing their views, thats what intellectual
property means (beuys widdow running trough galleries and - ritsch,ratsch-
destroying lots of stuff, that her husband had put his signature on, but
wasnt considered works of beuys-- galleries started to hide stuff in belgium..)

Newspapers etc are allowed to publish but I think I had a right to publish
every picture of a public building at all time in all sizes etc, no matter
how wrapped, and there are much better wrapping around, for example by the
company layther or something, that wrapped the louvre and the brandenburger
tor and the many now restored triumph bows between the louvre and including the
bigger arc de triomphe. Anybody has seen the louvre towers in little boxes
with roofs?? Maybe I can find dirty prints and put them on buggy /~uzs106.

heiko