Selling pictures of UT campus and tower?

[grasshopper]

I'm small-time, but do have some pictures of the UT campus and the tower that folks have asked to buy. I've been hesitant to sell these bc I am not sure of the trademark issues.

I'm working on a new website now and would like to include these in the offerings.

Anyone know the legal aspects of this? Seems like these are public buildings built by tax-payer dollars! (Heck, I know I gave them enough money in my 5 years there and still do with football tickets!)

Thanks!

Grasshopper

[jeffkohn]

Building copyrights do not apply to photography, and to violate a trademark you would have to use the image for commercial purposes (ie advertising) or in a way that dilutes or damages the trademark. Most building are not trademarked anyway.

Selling prints as art should be fine, in fact even there's never been a case of a property owner winning a trademark case against a photographer (Hard Rock Cafe and The Lone Cypress are two high profile cases that were decided in favor of the photographer).

[Ph0t0g]

Not to start an arguement here, but I recall reading an article a few years back where a photographer was sued for selling photographs of a building. They claimed copyright on the design and the photographer lost. If I recall right it was a buidling in Memphis, maybe the pyramid. But if I remember correctly that copyright issue only applied to buildings after 1990. Anyway it might be worth doing a little looking into. Sorry I can't be any more specific, its been awhile since I read that article.

[jeffkohn]

All buildings built after a certain year (dont remember if it was 1990 or not) are copyrighted. But the law explicitly exempts photography, it's meant to protect the architect/designer from someobyd else contructing a building that copies the design.

One area where you could get into trouble is if the picture you take includes copyrighted artwork such as a sculpture.

If you know of a case where a photography was successfully sued on the grounds that buildings are copyrighted, I'm sure The PhotoAttorney would like to hear about it.

There is a current case pending, but that case is complicated by the fact that the photographer allegedly trespassed.

[Steelsun]

I believe it might be trademarked (heard about the tower being so somewhere).

Kinda like the Hollywood sign in California - it's owned and trademarked by the Chamber of Commerce, and if you use it in a movie, commercial, etc, you have to shell out $$$ to them.

IMHO it's a scam and an insult to everyone to do that with buildings and such. Even a few building in NYC are like that, and many movies actually delete them from the skylines rather than submit to the demands of the "image rights owners" for their tenpence.

[chloew]

If you want to be 100% certain contact the UT Office of Trademark Licensing.

[grasshopper]

Thanks for everyone's input.
So I hear two different bit of info... I emailed UT last week and did not hear anything back.
I'm not focusing on any sculpture... just some photos with the tower. Some of the photos are focusing on the tower... some just have the tower in them.

Just wanted to be able to place the photographs on my website and offer them.

Thanks! I like the answers where you say it is public domain (and the tower was obviously built before 1990!

[Steelsun]

They list the "tower design" as a protected mark here:
http://www.utexas.edu/trademarks/marks.html

They also list the "Hook em hand sign", which I cannot see as enforceable since it is a common hand sign that would even predate the use by UT (i.e. at rock shows, etc).

[Ph0t0g]

Found a little bit about it.. it is a trademark issue and not a copyright. Here is a link if you want to check it out.

http://www.jurisnotes.com/IP/article...emarkblues.htm

[jeffkohn]

In that link the photographer won, and it spells out the reasons why just because a building is trademarked it doesn't automatically mean you can't publish or sell photographs of it.

[grasshopper]

Thanks for the replies. I think I will proceed as planned now. Seems like it is ok to sell photos of the tower. Am I reading this right?

I don't plan on using the image to advertise or anything like that.

Thanks!

[chloew]

Originally Posted by grasshopper

Thanks for the replies. I think I will proceed as planned now. Seems like it is ok to sell photos of the tower. Am I reading this right?

I don't plan on using the image to advertise or anything like that.

Selling a photo or using it for advertising is about the same in this regard, as you are gaining financially from its use.

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by chloew

Selling a photo or using it for advertising is about the same in this regard, as you are gaining financially from its use.

Not true. Selling artwork is completely different from using an image for advertising. In fact you can use an image for "commercial use" without actually getting money for it. If the criteria was whether or not you got paid for the image freelance photojournalists would have a problem making a living.

[Ph0t0g]

Freelance is a completely different usage.... if they are freelance pj's they fall under news and its a whole different category.

[jeffkohn]

That doesn't change the fact that the legal definition of "commercial use" is not determined by whether or not you received money for an image. Selling prints as artwork is not considered commercial use, this has been tested in the courts. (Selling mass-produced posters is a little less clear-cut though).

So many people seem to think that 'editorial == news' and 'commercial == for profit', neither of which is entirely accurate.