Can I Use 'Fortune 500' ?

Dear Rich: I am working on a research project about architecture and Fortune 500 companies. I want to publish my research but would like to learn more about trademark and copyright. The questions I have are the following: Can I use "Fortune 500" in the name of my book? Do I need permission from Time Inc? Can I use a company's name from the list of "Fortune 500" in my book? Do I need permission from Time Inc. and/or each listed company?I have made original architectural drawings that contain the logo of the company and the design of their existing space, such as McDonald's. Do I need permission to publish my drawing? Here we go: 'Yes ' you can use Fortune 500 in your book title. We found at least eight books that made similar uses from dating as a business strategy to spirituality in marketing. Avoid duplicating the Fortune font and logo. And, no, you don't need permission from Time Inc. Yes, you can use a company's name or logo in your book without permission because your work is "informational." For the same reason, you can publish company logos and your drawings of the buildings - yes, buildings can be the subject of trademark protection. Buildings are also protected by copyright law, but not if they were created before 1990. Even with that protection you can take photographs or make other "pictorial representations" of post-1990 buildings. So you're good to go all around

 

Church Steeple Copyright

Dear Rich: I am working on a photography book idea involving church steeples that I come across on my travels in the south. Do I need to get the churches permission to publish a picture of the steeple, with a small caption stating name of church and state? Your letter reminded us that the last time we answered a question regarding a church steeple, we received a cease and desist letter from the owner of a clip art company who apparently did not appreciate the modifications we made to their artwork. (We took our own advice and removed the artwork but it just goes to show that you never know what you'll find in your mailbox.)
Right, you had a question. We believe you can proceed with your book without seeking authorizations. Here are the general rules:
Anything created before 1990 is fine to reproduce. The appearance, architectural plans, drawings, or photographs of an architectural work (a building) created after 1990 cannot be reproduced without the consent of the owner of copyright -- usually the architect or developer. However, there are exceptions that would permit photos of post-1990s steeples -- for example, pictures of a church can be taken, distributed, or publicly displayed without permission if the church is located in a place that is ordinarily visible to the public. In addition, copyright will not protect standard architectural features (and a steeple seems pretty standard). Perhaps there exists a modern steeple that has ornate or other artistic details that make it protectable -- for example, maybe if this steeple were new. But even if it were protectable, your use of the photos in your book seems excusable because it is intended to comment upon the steeples --  precisely what fair use was intended to permit.

Can They Use Photos of Our Home in Magazine?

Dear Rich: We are restoring our home in Atlanta and our architect had asked me near the beginning of the restoration to fill out a questionnaire about the experience of working with him. I did so very positively. The relationship has since cooled a little, and recently we became aware of an article published about us and our home in which my responses were modified and used extensively as direct quotes by the writer as if she had talked to us. We had never talked to the writer or knew anything about the article. Many quotes were attributed to my wife who had never seen the questionnaire. The article also included pictures taken of the home from on our property. And, the writer had us quoting someone from the Historical Society saying something that he never said and that we never said he said. The feature ended with a bold-faced paragraph saying, "Look for an update...in an upcoming issue." We do not want another story done by this publication. Do we have legal rights to prevent them from using photos of our home--interiors and exteriors shot from our property--that are taken by the architect?  We assume that the architect instigated the article, so practically we think the best course is to notify him and ask him not to publish any more photos of your home or publish any more statements attributed to you or your wife. We think the letter will work best if it is flat and matter of fact, not harsh, legalish, or argumentative. The prudent response from the architect would be to comply.
The Legal Analysis. In answer to your specific questions, a magazine would need permission from the copyright owner of the photos (the architect, apparently) and would only need a property release for the interior pictures assuming they were taken without the authorization of the homeowners. That may be the case here but it's probably not worth hassling over and it may be difficult to prove without losing money on attorney fees.  Exterior photos of your home taken from public locations can be used for editorial purposes without your consent. Using your quotes without permission is probably a violation of copyright law, unless the architect can demonstrate that you consented or that your consent was implied, or there is a fair use defense.
Ennyway ...  all you really want is for people to behave properly in the future and most of the time, you can accomplish that with a well-written letter. Of course, if this isn't one of those times, then it may be worth having an attorney write them a letter to set things straight.

Does travel photographer need property release?

Dear Rich: I have an opportunity to do some video work for a travel related website distributor. They want video tours of certain cities, highlighting the attractions. I was under the impression that I needed property releases from any property I depict in a video or photograph. Now I'm not sure. The video would have scenes of attractions such as museums, theaters, ball parks, amusement parks, bars, restaurants, casinos, etc. I will limit myself to shooting from public property such as sidewalks. I may also have people in these shots. Where would I stand? The client expects me to sign a contract saying I am responsible for obtaining all releases needed. In the U.S., if you're photographing from public property, usually no release is needed. There are two exceptions: structures such as statues and memorials that qualify as copyrightable works; and buildings that have achieved trademark status. You may not need to worry about either of these exceptions as we discussed in a previous post. If you're creating videos outside the U.S., you should review a principle known as Panoramafreiheit. As for the people in your videos, you're generally fine photographing people in public places as they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Problems will develop if the website deliberately either: (1) makes these people appear in a bad light -- for example, the travel video has a section entitled "The Amsterdam Red Light District" and shows two tourists who do not work there; or (2) you use screenshots of individuals in a manner that makes it seem as if they are promoting the site -- for example, the website creates banner ads using screenshots of individuals seen in your videos.
Property Release. If you need to obtain a release, here's a standard property release (also known as a 'location release') from our book, Getting Permission. You can use this release for buildings that are copyright protected or are not viewable from public space.
Property Release