That's not really a good precedent - the tree is on private property, and you need to be on private property to take the photograph. Not only that - although they restrict commercial use, they explicitly allow photography for personal use.
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 11:55:09PM -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > 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]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Date: 2/12/2006 9:56:52 PM > > Subject: Re: Sigma and the Volkswagen effect > > > > In a message dated 2/12/2006 9:51:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > [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. > > > > Marnie aka Doe >
