Ahhh .... I found something about the outcome: "Some companies have tried to prevent the use both commercially and editorially of photographs of their buildings or objects via trademark protection or contract law. Examples include the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the Lone Cypress tree at Pebble Beach, CA, and the Hollywood sign.
While these attempts have been unsuccessful, they can be expensive to litigate." Shel > [Original Message] > From: Shel Belinkoff > There was a case some years ago dealing with the issue of people > photographing the "Lone Cypress" at Pebble Beach, in California. The > company that owned Pebble Beach claimed that the tree was their trademark > (which I believe it was - they'd been using it that way for years). I > don't recall the outcome of that case, but I bet someone here knows. The > matter was discussed on the list, and I'm sure someone with better > searching skills than I could find info about the case on the net somewhere. > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > You'd think they wouldn't mind the publicity. What > > was that old adage, any publicity is good publicity? > > > > How can you sue that which you can't prove exists > > with photographic evidence, or even discuss? > > > > William Robb ======== > > This is a law, if it passes, that will be > > begging to be stuck down. > > > > In other words, yup, it will soon be challenged. > > Artistic freedom and all that. If not photographers, > > then painters.
