[restart hijack]
Of course there’s the national franchise chain called “Liberty Tax Service” https://www.libertytax.com/ that does Federal income tax preparation.
But they don’t only use the statue as their logo. It’s worse. At tax time they have people standing out in the street in a pale green robe, a pale green foam rubber tiara, and holding a pale green foam rubber torch. And a big sign they wave at the passing cars saying something like “Tax Prep Here!!”
[re-end hijack]
As I remember, the statue faces the harbor (to greet incoming ships) but in the commercial, she is facing the shoreline on which they’re standing. So I believe the view shown in the commercial is computer-generated.
The statue faces roughly southeast. Which is towards the wide part of the harbor rather than towards very nearby Jersey. But there are points along Brooklyn’s western shore which are right along her line of sight. She’s not facing directly out the main channel towards open ocean.
Whether they shot the commercials along the Brooklyn shore or faked the whole thing I can’t say.
Google maps or the equivalent in “satellite” mode can be zoomed in enough to clearly see how she’s facing. Then you can zoom out and see what’s across the bay in that direction.
I have never once in my life imagined the Hollywood Sign trademarked or copyrighted.
Nor any other building.
It’s like photographs. Generally ( apart from sensitive installations in various countries — the British really got in a mess before the First World War charging various German tourists with making sketches etc. [ at the same time as the Founder of the Boy Scouts, Baden Powell, was advocating sketching for spying purposes to his little charges, incidentally ] ) one can photograph anything out in the open in Western countries without fear of copyright or legal consequence.
Trademarks are very commonly images of things that the trademark owner didn’t create sitting on land that it didn’t own. It comes down to who was the first party to make a genuine trademark use of the image.
Jaguars are South American beasts. Anyone can take a picture of a jaguar. A British car company nevertheless got genuine trademark rights in the name and image.
Of course in this case there is a real connection between the Hollywood sign and the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. It’s not a ridiculous connection.
It’s also worth noting the history.
The sign was originally erected by a real estate developer as an advertisement for his development located in the flats below the sign. He surely had trademark rights in the coined name of his development: “Hollywoodland”. Which is exactly what the sign said when new.
Over time the sign got old, the ownership rights and trademark rights changed hands, etc. And once the “land” part was removed the sign grew in the pubic consciousness as a mark, an icon, a symbol of Hollywood itself, both of the municipality and of the industry commonly called “Hollywood”: AKA movie & television production.
What did *not *happen throughout this history, was the various trademark holders in turn ever letting the rights to their mark slide into the public domain. The object *is *in the public consciousness; the rights are *not *in the public domain.
And here we are today.
Given that a Chamber of Commerce is a booster organization dedicated to improving the prospects of both the local city & the local city’s industry(s) I can’t think of a better more logical owner for those rights today. Not that that would have any bearing on who does own them; but it does bear on the social / logical “legitimacy” of who the owner is. IOW, better the Hollywood CoC than, say, some Chinese industrial group or the City of Chicago.
Nor did I know a Hollywood Chamber of Commerce existed — although I could guess it existed as many other American towns and cities have them * — that doesn’t mean public rights should invest in them: chambers of commerce are merely collections of self-satisfied fat local businessmen and bores. If such rights have to exist, and they probably shouldn’t **, the local town administration would be more logical, and they even duplicate the same membership.
As for Jaguar the motor company, they only have rights to the name when selling cars, and to the little stylized emblem — not to the concept of the animal.
Near me I have just found out there was a Zenos car manufacturer from 2012, now gone under, producing the E10 — whose looks do not suggest self-effacing owners.
*The name Zenos is said to be a combination of ‘zen’, representing purity, and ‘os’, which is loosely Latin for ‘vertebra’ or spine – reflecting one of the key architectural elements of the company’s products.
*
Does that entitle them to own the persona of the Prophet Zenos, beloved by millions of Americans, or to the Greek christian name ?
Councils of Commerce seem to have begun in Marseilles in 1599. Quite fitting, like starting in New Jersey or Soho, London.
** As a tiny child I was given a tinier metal souvenir of the Eiffel Tower, analogous* in toto *to the Hollywood Sign. I sincerely doubt any rights-holder got a cut. The thing in Paris ( whatever it is ) was built long ago anyway, and like the Colosseum the builders are not to be found.
The hell you say.
Photographing it isn’t the issue. It’s selling that photograph for profit.
You can take pictures of anybody in a random crowd and then sell it even if they don’t want you to.
No, not if you’re selling the photo for commercial use.
There are many many USA federal Trademark registrations for “Hollywood” owned by various companies. I don’t know whether or not the organisation in this story owns a trademark registration for the sign or the word “HOLLYWOOD”. This article:
http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1394&context=ripl
does not contain any reference to a trademark registration owned by the organisation in question. Suspicious! If they did own one, it would be in relation to either advertising or tourism (my best guess), so check class 35. Nevertheless, even if they don’t have a registration per say, they may be relying on other imputed rights. Difficult to say - I would love to see their letter of demand.
Yes, this is the bit that seems odd to me as well, although trademark rights are a commercial property in themselves.
Did the Ford Motor Co. create the name “Lincoln”? Did the Prudential Financial Co. create the Rock of Gibraltar?
No, but they made the car and the logo image respectively. The CoC did not design or create the sign, nor buy it, nor buy the land it is on. These are not comparable examples.
As I said, I understand that rights can be bought and sold. I just find it odd that the owner of the actual sign and the owner of the rights to the image of the sign are not the same. Such is the wonderful world of intellectual property rights.
Why do you think it’s “suspicious”?
In any case, it is very easy to look this up yourself. As it happens, the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce has a handful of registrations on the word “Hollywood” with the letters arranged in a particular way.
What’s getting lost in all the ignorance here is that there is a very real controversy to discuss.
It’s not the existence of the trademarks. There’s nothing unusual about the existence of a trademark based on the appearance of an object that can be seen in public.
What’s interesting is the scope of the claim. I’m not yet sure what the legal basis is for a claim against any depiction of the sign regardless of whether that depiction is itself a trademark use.
Not always. If the person is clearly recognizable, and you want to use the photo for commercial purposes, you may need a model release form.
Please don’t call me ignorant. I waste enough time here trying to explain difficult concepts. I have 20 years experience as an international IP and trademark attorney. And I’m going to bed.
It was not my intent to call you ignorant. If that’s what happened, I take it back.
What I was trying to refer to is the ignorance that floods this thread and others like it.
There’s nothing unusual or suspicious or outrageous about the existence of trademarks based on the Hollywood sign. What does seem unusual is the kinds of uses that the trademark owner considers infringing.
How do the paparazzi operate then? I really doubt those celebrities are signing releases for those often embarrassing or intrusive photos.