Photo Permits and Public Property

Photo Week #1
It's our annual Photo Week Celebration in which we answer questions regarding photography.
Dear Rich: I am an amateur photographer and have taken photographs of many public places within the city in which I live (e.g. parks, beaches, statues and other public works, buildings, streets). I compiled these photographs for an advertising campaign that I wanted to start of which the photographs would be used for commercial purposes. Now I find that a city issued permit is needed to commercially photograph, anywhere in the city. According to one city website, photographs cannot even be compiled, as part of a commercial portfolio without first getting a permit from the city, even if these photographs are not being sold. My questions is this: My registration for copyright at the copyright office is now in progress (although temporarily delayed at my request). Can I be penalized or fined by the city if my photographs are registered and made public (published) by the copyright office? Also, can I be sued for infringement if some of the photographs that I had taken and sent into the copyright office were of statues and other publicly displayed art works and buildings (which I now realize, may have been copyrighted by the artists). Start with the principle that a "permit law" created by a local government will have no effect on your ability to copyright your photos. Any permit law that attempts to limit your right to claim copyright would be preempted by federal law. In other words, even if the law says stuff about copyright, it would be invalid if challenged in court.
What's up with permit laws? Many cities and counties have permit laws for commercial photography and they're all pretty similar -- here's what Miami's law looks like. These laws require permits when shooting commercial photography in order to limit the impact of photo shoots on the public and to require  insurance in case someone is injured during the shoot. As this article points out,  the definition of commercial photography in these regulations is usually vague, so that a photographer who is not acting commercial -- working with models, props, crews, vehicles, or closing down traffic -- can usually manage without a permit.
Will the city chase you after the fact? It seems unlikely that a municipality will chase a photographer after the fact -- more likely if an incident occurred during the shoot. As for statues and public art, that's a different matter and we've discussed this issue previously (check out one recent example). That type of dispute involves the copyright owner and the photographer (not the municipality).
Today's public domain photo: from the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture photo website,  a 60-minute-old agar plate culture from an air sample taken in a caged layer room of birds infected with Salmonella enteritidis.

Copyright and Trademark Issues for Expansion Pack for Game

Dear Rich: I read with interest your post "Do Not Pass Go: How to create non-infringing board games" and I have a related question regarding expanding existing games. I have created an expansion for a popular board game. I do not use any of the original game trademarks in my naming or design, and I don't replicate any of the original game's physical, visual, or textual elements. Can I legally market my game? You may be legally correct in what you're doing -- that is, you're not infringing any copyrights, trademarks, or patents of a famous board game -- but if the board game company perceives your work as chipping away at their potential revenue or trading off their famous trademarks they may sue first and ask questions later. Why is that?
Inside the mind of a board game executive. Perhaps it would help to imagine what happens if you put yourself into the mind of someone at the legal department of a big toy and game company ... for example, Mattel. Fade in on your office. You sit behind your desk, sipping a chai latte and looking at the framed posters of Chatty Cathy, Barbie, Tickle Me Elmo and several Hot Wheels vehicles while you sneak time to work on your screenplay. You quickly switch screens as your boss comes into your office to show you a print-out from a website. It's an expansion pack product for a Mattel board game. Your boss -- pleasant enough in the office, but a tough cookie in licensing negotiations -- says, "Memo Me Elmo" which means you better come up with a good legal theory for going after these guys because after all, this is business, and Mattel wants to earn any and all revenue resulting from the success of its games.
Your memo. You know there are a few legal cases related to these issues and you know that Mattel will have a legitimate claim against the expansion pack maker only if: (1) the game company can demonstrate that consumers are likely to believe that the expansion pack is endorsed by, affiliated with, or commercially connected with the game; (2) the game company can demonstrate that the expansion borrows enough copyrightable elements from the board game such that it is a derivative under copyright law; (3) the expansion pack somehow dilutes or tarnishes the trademarks of the famous board game. You study the advertising for the expansion pack at the website and look for references to your famous game's trademarks and then you buy a copy to examine the expansion pack in detail. A few weeks later, your boss directs you to send out a cease and desist letter. Fade out on legal counsel.
Takeaways.  Even if the law is on your side and your expansion packs may be legitimate products (subscription required), turf-protection by game companies may hinder or slow down your ability to get to market. We hate to stifle your creativity but you'll notice that the case law we cited was between well-heeled businesses able to take each other on. Otherwise, you'll be flipping through Yelp looking for an attorney.

Can We Name Our Non-Superman Movie After Superman Villain?

Dear Rich: I'm stumped here. I'm doing a title search for a client and their film is the name of a superhero villain in the Superman series and has nothing to do with this superhero. Is this kosher? We can't tell you whether you will violate Jewish dietary laws, but we can tell you that you may trigger a battle over intellectual property and free speech laws. Most likely your use will be permitted under first amendment grounds -- assuming that consumers are not likely to associate your film with the Superman franchise. If Superman's owners believe consumers will be confused or that their mark will be diluted-- in other words, you're causing their franchise to lose value -- they'll sue. (Superman's legal posse is not shy about litigating; they have gone after everything from reversionary rights to kryptonite).  These battles between First Amendment and trademark rights can be expensive. Mattel battled to keep Barbi's name out of a pop song (and lost) and Dairy Queen battled to keep the name out of the title of a movie about beauty queens (and won). The issue is discussed at length in this article (subscription needed). So, even though the law might favor your right to use the name, your film's insurers and backers may not want to risk the distraction of a legal battle.

The Lawyer Who Invented Copying

Wow are we annoyed! We missed celebrating Chester Carlson's 100th birthday last month. Oh well. Here's an article we recently wrote about  one of the coolest inventors ever.
Snazzy inventions aren’t just for science geeks and movies about time travel—they also changed the way that law offices did business in the twentieth century. The ballpoint pen made it easier to sign contracts, by eliminating attorney’s fountain pens and inkwells. Post-Its made it possible to flag legal errors and provide handy “sign here” notes. Liquid Paper enabled secretaries to make corrections (instead of retyping whole briefs), the Rolodex simplified keeping client information, and, of course, Scotch tape enabled lawyers to tape together legal bills after clients ripped them to shreds.
But one invention—the Xerox 914—turned out to be the most profitable device to drop into the law office. And surprise, surprise, it was invented by an attorney.
Like many people who worked with legal documents, Chester Carlson was frustrated by inefficiency. Back in the early 1930s before he became a lawyer, Carlson worked in the patent department of Bell Laboratories. He quickly tired of copying patents using carbon paper. The reproductions were time-consuming and prone to errors. (For those too young to remember, copies used to be made by jamming sheets of carbon paper between sheets of paper, stuffing them into a typewriter, and typing firmly enough so that the carbon made imprints—then swearing up a storm if there was a typo.)
At about the same time, Carlson’s hypercritical mother-in-law moved into his apartment. To avoid her unpleasant nightly tirades, Carlson enrolled in law school. While hand-copying passages from law books one night, Carlson again ran into the same frustration. Why wasn’t there a simple method of reproducing copies on paper? Carlson began to pursue an obscure idea—a process that would fuse fine black powder to paper using electrostatic charges. Carlson originally called his process “electron photography,” and then nicknamed it xerography (from the Greek words xeros (dry) and graphein (writing).
In 1937, by which time he was a patent attorney, Carlson perfected his theory and used his legal drafting skills to patent his revolutionary process. But he still had no actual proof that it worked. He offered his patent to IBM for a $10,000 advance and 5% royalty—in hindsight, one of the best offers of the twentieth century—but IBM passed. (Twenty years later, IBM still failed to see the potential when it reviewed the first Xerox copier and concluded that the device “has no future in the office copying market.” Ouch!)
It wasn’t until 1945 that Carlson partnered up with a nonprofit R&D firm in Ohio, which improved on the invention and licensed manufacturing rights to the Haloid Company, a tiny photographic paper manufacturer in Rochester, New York. Things dragged on until the mid-1950s when—just as Carlson’s initial patents were expiring—the Haloid Company (now renamed Xerox) perfected
Carlson’s process and tested it in nearby offices. Xerox knew it had a hit when the testing companies asked to keep their demo machines.
The debut of the Xerox 914 was one of those rare moments in inventing history when a device transforms the environment in which it is placed. Xerox believed that businesses would use the 914 primarily to make duplicates of outgoing correspondence. They never imagined that employees—no longer encumbered by messy and time-consuming copies—would use it for internal document reproduction, such as memos, reports, newsletters, and even personal documents or their faces and other body parts. The result was an explosion of office and personal copying. Within seven years of its introduction, Xerox was the 15th largest publicly owned company in the United States.
It’s said that the business of law is really about selling paper to clients; and the Xerox machine put that principle into overdrive. The law firms devised a clever system of markups. Initially, they leased copiers and paid per copy, allowing them to mark up and pass along those charges to clients. But even after law firms began to own their photocopiers, they retained the per-copy charges for clients. A few cents per copy may not seem like much at first, but hey, what if everyone is suddenly buried in paper?
And buried they are. Consider, for example, when one business sues another. As a normal part of the pretrial discovery process, in which each side asks to see evidence held by the other, attorneys review the other side’s relevant memos, phone records, financial records, and other documents. With piles more photocopied documents at each business, however, it creates an exponential increase in the size of discovery requests—literally boxes, and sometimes trucks of documents being sent back and forth. To deal with this paper explosion, law firms added more staff, thereby increasing the billing. In short, Xerox had created a cash machine for law firms.
The copier also triggered illegal activity (always a boon for lawyers). For example, there was office espionage, loss of trade secrets, and even fraud (for those who understood how to create fake photocopied documentation). The Xerox machine launched many copyright lawsuits: for example, a series of cases where authors and publishers protested the fact that people—students and teachers, in particular— were no longer buying their books and scholarly journals, but simply slapping a borrowed original onto a copy machine. Legislators took the device into consideration when creating the 1976 Copyright Act, by including provisions on academic photocopying. Although we now take the photocopier for granted, it was essentially the original VCR or Napster—a device that, for the first time, put infringement into the hands of ordinary Americans.
Carlson earned millions from Xerox, but never measured success by money. He had spent his childhood in poverty—during his last year in high school he lived in a converted chicken coop—and had a goal to rid himself of his wealth before he died. He spent his final years getting rid of his royalties via charitable contributions and pursuing spiritual goals. His process—which remains virtually unmodified from his 1937 patent—continues to supply copies to his legal brethren via photocopiers, laser printers, and fax machines.

Can We Make Custom Movie Posters?


Dear Rich: I have a question for you. We run a theatre here in Ottawa, Ontario and wanted to start creating our own 'promotional posters' for upcoming movies. Our movies are mainly cult classic and B-movies anywhere from 1940 to 1980. We would like to hire an artist to create a custom promo poster advertising the showing of the film at our theatre. We pay for rights to play the film, but we're unsure if we are allowed to create these custom movie posters. Also, we would like to print a limited supply of these posters, say 100 – 200, to offer souvenirs from our theatre. Do you have any idea if this would be breaking the law? I see this done a lot for music venue's (the resale of music venue posters), but never for theatres. Any advice would be awesome! Wow, will you be showing our favorite B cult movie, Carnival of Souls? We loved that movie when we first saw it and still love it today (and the fabulous soundtrack). And just as the lead character moved in and out of reality, the film moved in and out of copyright. Some claim it is in the public domain while others claim that a chain of title has been reestablished.
Right, you had a question. We love your theater for presenting older films (no subwoofers needed for these movies) and we love your theater for making original posters of the film. (Can we pre-order Carnival of Souls?). We hope our love for you doesn't affect our judgment but the short answer is that we think your creation and sale of movie posters will probably be fine.
The difference between music posters and movie posters? Yes, there is a diff. Movie posters usually include copyrightable elements from films or copyrighted characters from those films -- think Sam Spade, Superman, or the Terminator. That's not the case with music posters where the emphasis is on the artwork and the event. We bring that up because the only way we can see you tripping any alarms is if you use copyrighted stills or imagery from a film (or as in the case of this lawsuit, you copy a non-film copyrighted image into your poster). But if we were a betting blog, we'd bet that the copyright owners of these films (if they are even aware of your use) won't bother chasing after a hip Ottawa movie theater which may after all, be one of the few paying venues showing such films. Takeaway: If you're really paranoid, keep in mind that the more original the poster -- and the less use of stills from the films -- the less chance for hassle.
This just in from our CYA Dept., We're not experts on Canadian copyright law which differs in many ways from U.S. Copyright law (also, note the distinction between "fair dealing" and "fair use").

Newspaper Columns and Copyright

Dear Rich:  I have been writing a column for a local newspaper for the past few months, for which I am not receiving any payment. I want to preserve my copyright in the columns, all of which run under my byline with a distinctive title, but both the printed and online versions carry footnoted language stating that the newspaper owns the copyright. I asked for a written agreement to correct this, but their standard agreement is complicated and asks me to give up rights without establishing my ownership. Since I'm unpaid, I'd rather just go without a written agreement but worry about letting their copyright footer remain. I'm about to launch a blog or Facebook page relating to the column, and want to make my ownership of the column and its title clear.  If you're not an employee of the newspaper and you don't have a written agreement detailing who owns copyright -- either a work made for hire agreement or an assignment -- then you own the copyright in your column, no matter what the notice says. The newspaper must have necessary paperwork to claim ownership and apparently they don't. That doesn't prevent the newspaper from reproducing your column. You've consented to that and the newspaper has an implied license (created by your behavior) to use the material. Could the newspaper argue that you never objected to the notice and therefore, that failure to act prevents you from now claiming copyright? That wouldn't fly because the rules about transferring ownership would trump any such claims. The newspaper needs something in writing.
What about the copyright notice? We haven't seen the notice or its placement in relation to your column but here a few things to consider about notice.

  • Copyright notice is not required to protect a work. Or perhaps we should put it another way: the absence or presence of notice won't harm your ability to claim copyright ownership; 
  • Improper copyright notice may affect the owner's ability to seek maximum damages against someone who claims to be an "innocent infringer."   The newspaper possesses your permission to reproduce the column. So, the newspaper's use of the notice may reflect its claim as to those limited rights -- for example, the newspaper's claim as to its exclusive right of first publication of the column; and 
  • Finally, it's possible that placing a copyright notice may mean that the newspaper is seeking to put the world on notice that it claims a collective works copyright in everything on that newspaper page or in that issue. For example, at many websites, the copyright notice in the footer of the web page is not necessarily claiming ownership on everything on that page, but it is claiming rights in the collection and selection of material (while the individual authors may claim rights in individual contributions).
What does "owning copyright" mean? Okay, so assuming you own copyright in the column, you have the right to reproduce and create derivatives. For example, you could put out a book of your columns or reproduce them at your blog. It also may give you the right to prevent the newspaper from reproducing the material at a secondary site, in print form, or from licensing your column to others.
Crystal ball dept. Can we ask why you are writing the column without payment? We assume its because you get something out of the publication? If what you get is very important, you may want to rethink the whole copyright issue. Yes, it's important to own copyright if you have plans in the future. But if not, you should ask if you really need to own the copyright. You could, for example, grant the newspaper copyright and retain the right to do certain things with the column without having to ask for permission or having to pay the newspaper -- just an idea. Also keep in mind, that in return for some consideration, you can always grant copyright to the newspaper after the fact. Assignments do not have to be contemporaneous with the creation of the work (while some courts have held that work made for hire agreements must precede the creation of the work.)

Can We Turn Boston Red Sox into Zombies?

Dear Rich: I have come up with a couple of designs that depict the Red Sox baseball team as zombies, and before I start trying to sell them online, there are several points regarding Fair Use as parody that I am concerned about. First, is the use of the team's name at all permissable? My design's currently show the name "Red Sox" in a generic font, but the word "Red" is covered by the word "Undead", changing the term to "Undead Sox". The "Red" is still discernable. Is it necessary for me to remove the "Red" entirely? Second, I use modified versions of two logos. The Red Sox's Hanging Sox logo -- my version is an original drawing that includes a dismembered zombie foot in on of the socks, with several toes poking through a hole in the end of the sock. Also, the MLB logo has been modified to replace the baseball player silhouette with a zombie. Thus, both logos have been modifed from the original so that they are unique but clearly reference the original. Is that protected as parody under fair use laws? Third, I use a modified version of the MLB name. In my artwork, it is altered to read Major League Zombies or MLZ. Again, is this permitted as parody? Short answer dept. If your concept is successful, you'll probably get sued by the MLB. If you can afford to defend the lawsuit, you might win; then again, you might not.
Trademark parodies. What you need to keep in mind is that you're dealing with trademark parodies, not copyright parodies so the copyright concept of "fair use" isn't really relevant (and we're not going to address trademark fair use which is an entirely different animal.) Here's a previous post on the subject and here's a good explanation of the trademark parody rules. Keep in mind that to create a true trademark parody, you must convey contradictory messages: you want people to think of the MLB, but you also want people to see your use as a parody that's not connected with the MLB (Chilling Effects elaborates on that distinction here -- scroll down for the explanation).
Why will you get sued? Famous companies typically sue over parodies under a trademark theory known as dilution. When you dilute, people think less of the mark because you've tarnished its famous reputation. Even if a company believes you have a good free speech defense, the company may proceed with the lawsuit because it has more money to spend on the lawsuit and is more likely to force you into a settlement. If we were to analogize to the world of zombies, the MLB lawyers will want to devour your grey matter.