Can I Sell Photographs (or artwork based on) Wrigley Field?

[HeyHomie]

Cool Wrigley Field Lithograph.

Would the guy selling that lithograph need the permission of the Chicago Cubs to do so? What if he was selling paintings based on that photograph?

A follow-up question: what about a photograph (or a painting, or whatever) of this sign (without the “Hello Chicago” watermark, of course)? The words “Chicago Cubs” appear on that sign. Since the words “Chicago Cubs” are a trademark (or servicemark or something), would I need someone’s permission?

In general, do you need someone’s permission to sell photographs or artwork of private property, especially if the property in question is easily identifiable (for example, a photograph of Wrigley Field vs. a photograph of, say, your house)?

[Giles]

IANAL, but the problem is likely to be trademark law, i.e., “Wrigley Field” is a trade mark, and you can’t use it for your business purposes without the permission of the owner of the trademark.

[Al128]

@Giles

IANAL, but the problem is likely to be trademark law, i.e., “Wrigley Field” is a trade mark, and you can’t use it for your business purposes without the permission of the owner of the trademark.

but how about the manhattan skyline? … I guess there is no problem

how about the chrysler building … (or any other landmark, e.g. golden gate bridge, statue of liberty, etc…)

where does “public domain” start in this context???

[HeyHomie]

@Giles

IANAL, but the problem is likely to be trademark law, i.e., “Wrigley Field” is a trade mark, and you can’t use it for your business purposes without the permission of the owner of the trademark.

But what if I didn’t include the words “Wrigley Field” on the work?

[RealityChuck]

This particular case is relevant. The article is old, and the artist eventually won her case. A relevant paragraph:

The Court upheld Cortez’s right to use the NYRA’s trademark and the distinctive physical characteristics of the Saratoga race course (which can be thought of as the “trade dress” of the NYRA) in souvenir merchandise so long as the depictions were factually accurate…The court also made a significant ruling about the artist’s rights, deciding that use of these images was protected both by the artist’s First Amendment right to freedom of expression and because the artist was using the images not as an indication of the source of the goods (i.e., that the NYRA or the Saratoga Course had produced the merchandise) but, rather, was using the images to accurately describe Saratoga racing.

Under this principle, it would allow a photo or painting of the building (Cortez did paintings of the racetrack and the Saratoga Logo). I don’t know how strong a precedent this is, but you can bet any lawyers for the photographer will be citing it if it comes to court.

[Stentor_2.5]

IANAL, but I don’t think there’s anything even remotely illegal about this. Wrigley field is displayed in public, and as such it is legal to take photos of it. Likewise if a person goes out in public they automatically give consent to have their photo taken. Once I take a photo of something I own the copyright to that photo, as well as any copies I make of it, which I am free to sell if I so desire. There’s nothing even remotely illegal about this picture.

[TellMeI_mNotCrazy]

My photography books claim that property releases are necessary if you wish to sell photographs of things such as someone’s house, or farm, etc. Would the same thing apply to a privately-owned commercial property?

[Mindfield]

@Stentor 2.5

IANAL, but I don’t think there’s anything even remotely illegal about this. Wrigley field is displayed in public, and as such it is legal to take photos of it. Likewise if a person goes out in public they automatically give consent to have their photo taken. Once I take a photo of something I own the copyright to that photo, as well as any copies I make of it, which I am free to sell if I so desire. There’s nothing even remotely illegal about this picture.

I think the OP was concerned not with whether or not it was legal to take the pictures, but whether it was legal to profit from them if said pictures are of items or landmarks clearly displaying copyrighted or trademarked material. The precedent cited above seems to indicate that it is perfectly legal to sell and profit from the sale of such pictures or paintings so long as it is clear that they are not being represented as having been produced by (as merchandise for) the company owning the copyright or trademark in question.

[Telemark]

@Stentor 2.5

Once I take a photo of something I own the copyright to that photo, as well as any copies I make of it, which I am free to sell if I so desire.

You certainly own the copyright, and you may make copies, but I disagree that you are free to sell them if you want. Free speech and commerce are two separate things. This is why you need model releases if you want to sell photos, even if you take them on public streets. There are exceptions for news and public figures, but even those have limits.

[Dewey_Finn]

@Al128

but how about the manhattan skyline? … I guess there is no problem

how about the chrysler building … (or any other landmark, e.g. golden gate bridge, statue of liberty, etc…)

where does “public domain” start in this context???

Actually, I think the owners of the Chrysler Building have tried to prevent someone from displaying the building on a plate along with others in the skyline.

[HeyHomie]

@Telemark

Free speech and commerce are two separate things. This is why you need model releases if you want to sell photos, even if you take them on public streets. There are exceptions for news and public figures, but even those have limits.

Interesting. Withough permission, could I sell paintings of Pope Benedict XVI? How about George W. Bush? Tom Cruise?

[mazinger_z]

IANYL…standard disclaimers apply

@HeyHomie

Cool Wrigley Field Lithograph.

Would the guy selling that lithograph need the permission of the Chicago Cubs to do so? What if he was selling paintings based on that photograph?

Generally, there is copyright protection for buildings made after December 1, 1990, according to Section 102 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.. [note: this is a brief circular which makes a base description of the law]

§ 120 of Title 17 deals with the scope of exclusive rights in architectural works.

@17 U.S.C. § 120(a)

    Pictorial representations permitted.  The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed **does not include the right to prevent** the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, **if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place**.

(emphasis added)

However, there is a trademark issue also associated with the building (or more accurately, trade dress infringement). A building can become synanomous with brand recognition and identifying goods and services. So (with skipping a ton of detail) having Wrigley Field on your business card would be infringing Wrigley’s trade dress, even if your company is synonamous with letting go of major talent early and drinking in the world’s largest beer garden.

As to whether he could make commercial sales based on the photograph of the actual building itself, the court answered yes in Rock and Roll Hall of Fame vs. Gentile, 134 F.3d 749 (6th Cir. 1998)

@HeyHomie

A follow-up question: what about a photograph (or a painting, or whatever) of this sign (without the “Hello Chicago” watermark, of course)? The words “Chicago Cubs” appear on that sign. Since the words “Chicago Cubs” are a trademark (or servicemark or something), would I need someone’s permission?

This is more of a judgement call, but this might fall under one of those protected areas within trademark, and even copyright. The sign is not as ubiquitous as a building and the main focus of the work seems to be the sign. Then again, you could argue that your intent was the building and you just happened to be too close of an angle. My non-professional opinion is that it would be ok for a one time thing, but expect major hassle if your friend starts making a lot of money on it.

@HeyHomie

In general, do you need someone’s permission to sell photographs or artwork of private property, especially if the property in question is easily identifiable (for example, a photograph of Wrigley Field vs. a photograph of, say, your house)?

Check out the quoted passage above from § 120(a).

[mazinger_z]

@HeyHomie

Interesting. Withough permission, could I sell paintings of Pope Benedict XVI? How about George W. Bush? Tom Cruise?

It depends on how you got the paintings and how you came into doing the work. One would think that sitting down for a portrait would entail permission. However, typically these type of arrangements are work-for-hire so the painter/ohotographer does not have permission or a fair use exception to reproduce that work for the public. It depends on the agreement, ultimately.

Also, there is a trademark issue with using a celebrity’s image or likeness to sell goods and services. The most famous case was Benjamin Franklin (sorry I cannot find a handy cite). This is not allowed and will definitely invalidate a trademark as well as open oneself up to other litigation.

[Al128]

how about all that yellow press - which basically draws funds by shooting more-or-less known people and putting them into their rags?

[panache45]

I sell prints of my photography in my eBay store, and some of the photos are of famous buildings, monuments, landmarks, etc. The only item that got me into trouble was a photo of Keith Haring’s AIDS memorial in a chapel of a San Francisco church. I heard from the lawyers of Haring’s estate, urging me to withdraw that particular item.

And there was a case here in Cleveland several years ago, concerning a photographer’s prints of the Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Fame. The photographer won.

[Crandolph]

Can anyone really sell anything connected to the Chicago Cubs? Best to stick with the White Sox…

[TellMeI_mNotCrazy]

@mazinger_z

… even if your company is synonamous with letting go of major talent early and drinking in the world’s largest beer garden.

Snerk.

[mazinger_z]

@Al128

how about all that yellow press - which basically draws funds by shooting more-or-less known people and putting them into their rags?

These people are out in the public and what they are doing (the celebs and the photographers) can be loosely called news. What is news? What is art? It’s the same answer. Paparzzi can be loosely called journalists.

[JKellyMap]

I am resurrecting this (not very old) thread because I just saw a TV commercial which included an aerial shot of part of the Manhattan skyline, dominated by the Chrysler Building in the foreground, and I was very surprised to see a fine-print disclaimer at the bottom of the screen, something like “Chrysler Building is copyright [or was it “trademark”?] of Tischman [etc.] Properties”.

Is the statement necessary because the image is being used for commercial purposed by someone other than the Chrysler Building’s owners? It seems rather odd – there must be some fine line when an image of the skyline begins to feature that particular building “too prominently”, and so trigger the legal statement.

Or what??

[Cluricaun]

I guy I went to HS with is a photographer here in Chicago, and has prints of Wrigley available on his website (not linking as it’s a for profit venture ), and he has a disclaimer in the purchase section that says:

"A few of my pictures are unavailable to be purchased. If the picture is of a celebrity, performer, or sports athlete - Basically, if you can recognize the person in the picture, you can’t buy it. Sorry, just the way it is. Most of those images or pages are marked as “NOT FOR SALE”.

Will is a pretty smart cookie (Used to be the merch. guy for the band Cowboy Mouth) and I know that some of his photography has been used commercially, which is the ultimate sale, and he wouldn’t do it without being allowed to.