Privacy laws vary somewhat from state to state. A photo that has news value—even if it’s nothing more than celebrity gossip news—doesn’t need a release.
But as soon as a photo is used for a commercial purpose—promoting a company or product, even if it’s not for profit—then you are getting into people’s personality rights and you need permission.
I believe those are considered news and not covered under commercial use.
Basically, this. Editorial usage vs commercial usage. I can take a picture of Kim Kardashian walking down the street and sell it to US Weekly without a release, but I can’t use that same picture to, say, advertise my newest perfume
Some companies have gotten into trouble recently for posting on social media a pic of a celebrity using their products. That was considered less news and more commercial.
For example Valentino distributed a pic of Amy Adams carrying a handbag at Philip Seymour Hoffman’s funeral. That crossed the line.
Would it be possible to TM the word/name:
Kadmos1
…thereby requiring the original poster to pay a licensing fee whenever he uses it?
That’s not how trademarks work.
Again, part of your misconception arises from how you are using “trademark” as a verb. You don’t create a trademark by filing a paper with the government.
You create a trademark by having a product or service and branding it with that mark.
So, start selling something, and then start calling it “Kadmos1” and then you have a trademark. Whether or not you register it with the state or federal government or both or neither is optional.
Then you have to show that Kadmos1’s uses of “Kadmos1” are infringing. That’s very unlikely in this case.
The biggest reason for that is that Kadmos1’s use is not a trademark is—a use in commerce—he’s not using it as the indicator of the origin or source of foods or services.
And that’s the issue that I find interesting about the Hollywood sign. Just showing it in a movie or TV show isn’t necessarily a use in commerce governed by trademark law.
Usage of trademarked words is quite legal in a wide variety of situations. You can use the phrase “Coca Cola” in a news article, in a forum post about beverages, and on and on.
There are several ways to get into trouble. Slapping the name “Coca Cola” on your product, diluting/confusing the brand name, etc.
And no, you can’t copyright Kadmos1 either. That’s too short and you didn’t create it.
The reason the FTC is angry about celebs promoting products on their social media accounts is that there aren’t clearly stating it’s a paid endorsement. (And here and there someone crosses the FDA over some sham medicine.)
Too short? “UPS” is a trademark. “GE” is a trademark. I think even “W” is a trademark used by Starwood Hotels.
FTG, it seems to me you’re confused by several things here:
Your note about Coca-Cola—yes of course there are many ways to use trademarks that don’t violate a trademark holder’s rights, but I’m not sure exactly what you’re responding to with this.
The question was about asserting trademark rights in Kadmos1, not copyright interest.
I’m not sure what your reference to the FTC is in response to. I was referring to objections by celebrities about the use of their images by brand name marketers without their permission.
Copyright is not trademark. They have entirely different rules.
Shortness is not of itself a ban to copyright. Copyright must be original expression. Usually short phrases are in common use, and that’s what makes them uncopyrightable.
It was suspicious to me that an academic legal article didn’t footnote any of the actual trademark registrations. If I were writing such an article specifically about trademarking of the HOLLYWOOD sign I would have footnoted the actual registration numbers. Nevertheless, I checked TESS this morning and there are a few trademark registrations owned by Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, including one for class 35, which I predicted.
The entire purpose of a trade mark is to identify the manufacturer of items that are not identifyable by other means. For example, thread. Or cotton cloth. Or cheese made by Kraft.
OK, trademark usee has been expanded for use for other reasons, because it was easier to expand the system rather than creating an entirely new system.
So as a Trade Mark, the Hollywood sign identifies Hollywood (it’s actual original purpose). Now it is also an image with intrinisc value, like da Vinci’s Mona Lisa. Which could be covered by a Design Patent, or Copyright, or some other law: In the USA evidentally trademark law is part of the law used to monopolize that value.
The indicator of the source or origin of goods or services, which is not necessarily a manufacturer.
No, as a trademark, the Hollywood sign cannot by definition identify Hollywood. That’s just the name of the place. A name of a place is not a trademark for that place. It’s can’t be. It’s just a name.
But if it is used to identify the source of goods, then it can become a trademark.
For example, “Hollywood Records” is the name of a music label. If all it meant was “records from Hollywood,” then it wouldn’t be a trademark. It’s a trademark precisely because that’s not all it means.
This has been said in this thread, but apparently it didn’t get through.
The original purpose of the Hollywoodland sign was to promote a tract of homes in the hills where the sign was. It did not identify Hollywood, which is just a neighborhood in the city of Los Angeles. Only after the sign had been stripped of its original purpose and was a crumbling derelict was it rehabilitated and made to spell and publicize Hollywood. It had no more purpose to identify Hollywood than the Eiffel Tower, also originally intended to be up for only a short period of time, had to identity Paris, although it eventually became that. Interestingly, while the tower is in the public domain its illumination is copyright and and legally also cannot be used commercially without a license.
NM
Also the case of the Rock ‘n’ Roll Museum, where
[QUOTE=The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law]
. . .[T]he Sixth Circuit vacated the injunction initially granted to the Museum, finding that the record did not establish that the Museum had used its building design as a trademark and thus lacked a strong likelihood of success on the merits. Thus, for a landmark to be protected as a trademark, the public must recognize the landmark as a trademark, not just as a landmark.
[/quote]
When people look at the Hollywood sign, do they think to themselves, “That indicates to me the fine goods (or services) of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce!”? I certainly never do, and I look at the damn thing every time I come home from work.
Even when people buy the souvenirs, for which the Chamber licenses the image, I’m sure they don’t identify that image with the Chamber as a particular source of those goods. Effectively, by getting the trademark, the Chamber has commodified a concept, and then become that concept by proxy.
AFAIK, the Chamber has won exactly one case in court, but that was in Germany, with a case that was straight forward selling of merchandise with the distinctive word. Otherwise, they just send cease and desist letters like crazy, and people simply back off, pay the license fee, or settle out of court, because it’s not worth the greater expense just to make a point.
Presumably such copyright can be applied for for any Son et Lumière application for any building at any time. Churches mostly in Britain.
Most owners don’t bother with such piddly crap.
However from that, an instance that the myth French are not prudes is demonstrated:
*The imposition of copyright has been controversial. The Director of Documentation for what was then called the Société Nouvelle d’exploitation de la Tour Eiffel (SNTE), Stéphane Dieu, commented in 2005: “It is really just a way to manage commercial use of the image, so that it isn’t used in ways [of which] we don’t approve”
*
Perspective-bending images of naked chicks posing astride the colossus are right out — when it’s all lit up.
One does not “apply” for copyright protection.
One does not “apply” for trademark protection.
However, one may apply to register a copyright interest or a trademark right.
Copyright interests and trademark rights exist prior to and independently of any plea for government action.
On the other hand, one does apply for a patent. A patent comes into existence only when the government decides to grant one.
I don’t get it. If I understand correctly, the chamber of commerce own the trademark for this sign despite not owning it nor the land it’s build on. Doesn’t it need some basis to claim it?
For instance, if nobody has yet trademarked the image of the Taj Mahal, can I trademark it myself?
Or did I misunderstand something?
Yes, you seem to be misunderstanding several somethings.
First, a claim of trademark rights is not a claim of ownership over a physical object or real property.
It’s s claim of ownership over the connection in the minds of consumers between:
A distinctive sign or symbol, which may be a word, phrase, image, icon, sound … anything that is capable of identifying uniquely …
A source of goods or services.
So, no, you don’t have to prove ownership over the thing being depicted, just like the Jaguar car company doesn’t have to prove that it owns all jaguars or that FujiFilm owns Mount Fuji or that Prudential owns the Rock of Gibraltar.
Second, your question about the Taj Mahal. Yes, you or anyone can assert trademark rights in the name “Taj Mahal” or an image of the Taj Mahal and indeed I would guess that there are hundreds of trademarks so claimed in the world.
Third, this—
Reflects a misunderstanding about how trademarks work, and it is very likely connected closely to your use of “trademark” as a verb in this manner.
But before I go further with an explanation, I would like to know exactly what you think this means when you say it:
“if nobody has yet trademarked the image of the Taj Mahal”
What in your mind does this mean, exactly?