Can I Photo Miami Landmarks?

Dear Rich: I am a professional photographer that recently moved away from fashion and commercial photography to artistic photography. Currently I have a show in Florida composed of highly manipulated images of several structures among them the notable Miami’s 1111 Lincoln Road parking lot. The property managers have recently sent me letters claiming I have infringed on their copyright, trademark and patent rights. What do you think? We don't understand why property owners are hassling you. But then again, we don't understand a lot of things -- for example, why people are stealing Tide to buy crack, why so many people were taking their clothes off on the most recent episode of Girls, or why things ended so badly for Paul Masson wines and Orson Welles.
Right, you had a question. We've said it before in other blog entries, but we're happy to repeat it here: Anyone is free to photograph publicly viewable buildings in the U.S., (even those constructed after architectural copyrights were legitimized). Under copyright law, building owners cannot prevent you from taking photos from a public spot and they can't hassle you over manipulations or other "pictorial representations." As for hassling you over patents, that's a non-starter. The design and appearance of a building can't be protected by a utility patent. Arguably, it may be protected by a design patent but that could only be infringed if someone created a similar building. As for trademark protection, it's possible that uniquely shaped structures such as the 1111 Lincoln Road parking lot may claim trademark rights (we found a registration for the mark, "1111," Serial No. 77816143) but even if the parking lot achieved trademark/trade dress status, the owners can't stop artistic or editorial uses such as a photo exhibition, or a book from an exhibition (or even for use on postcards).

Permission to Use Museum Pictures

Dear Rich: If I receive permission from a museum to reprint a picture of their building and a picture of a sculpture or artwork, am I to assume that they have the necessary permission from the creator of the artwork or building, as well as the photographer of the given piece? How many permissions do I need? Speaking of permissions and museums, the Dear Rich Staff wishes we could get permission to show you some photos from this exhibit. Our staff reports that it’s quite a mind-blowing event. Which reminds us of when our staff was younger and we used to go up to Berlin, New Hampshire and visit an uncle who worked at a paper mill and that's where we learned how to make paper pulp. All very fascinating stuff.
Right, you had a question.  When it comes to permissions, don’t assume anything; ask what rights are being conveyed and get the response in writing. As for using the picture of the museum, you’ll need permission from the photographer and assuming it’s a publicly viewable building, that’s probably all that’s necessary. (More on that, here.) It’s possible that the museum may have acquired the rights from the photographer so in that case, all is well, as long as the permission states that. It's wise to include a warranty -- a short statement in which the museum assures you that it has the rights described. If the museum doesn’t have rights from the photographer, you'll need to contact the photographer or whoever was assigned the rights.
The picture of the artwork. As for the artwork, you'll need permission from the artist and the photographer of the artwork. Again, the museum may have been assigned these rights and that should be expressed in the permission. By the way, slavish photographic reproductions of public domain artworks may not always be entitled to their own copyright. (We talk about it here). In other words, it’s possible that a photographer may not get a separate copyright simply for creating an excellent replication of a painting.