Copyright 101

[Ronnoco]

Copyright and trademark are two different things:

Trademark infringement is defined as another person using a registered trademark or a similarly designed trademark in such a way as to confuse the consumer as to the source of the goods and/or services.

It would seem that taking a photo of scene with a trademark in it would NOT meet the above requirement for being trademark infringement.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

Not to leave out British law:

Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

Section 62: buildings and works of artistic craftmanship in a public place or a place open to the public.

2. b) the work is not infringed by making a photo or film of it.

Notice that in Britain as well a public place is not necessarily public property but rather a place open to the public.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

One requirement of a copyrightable work is that it has to be in a fixed form which seems to eliminate fireworks and light shows. Infringement also involves copying a whole or substantial part of a work. It is impossible to copy a whole or substantial part of a fireworks or light show with a still camera.

Vic Perlman, Managing Director of the American Society of Media Photographers and
a copyright lawyer with reference to a fireworks display said it could not be copyrightable because it was not fixed. (fixed form is necessary for a work to be copyrightable)

Ronnoco:

[drg]

Fixed expression only applies to certain elements. The part of firework shows and light shows that comes under copyright is the Industrial Design. Thus the expression of that industrial design is wholly protected. If I photograph a pattern in one of these shows, I can't sell the recognizable pattern that has been copyrighted by the originator. A fine line, but as I mentioned before, greedy people. Besides, if I design a light show, I don't want someone copying even portions of it in such a way that it could be reproduced. Fair use for advertising or publicity yes, duplication no.

Further more, these live performances have related laws regarding rights to record or reproduce that have nothing to do with copyright that prevent their being documented.

Live theater has long as a condition of performance rights to a work, included prohibitions on recording or mechanical reproduction (meaning traditional photograph).

Copyright is a fascinating area and its basics are very straight forward. The devil is in the details of each situation.

I've been photographing architecture and building for over twenty years and there are jurisdictional issues as well. When extra-legal entities like associations, districts, and authorities kick in, the laws get wild. We have park districts where you will rarely see any photography of structures as the 'live' view is meant to be part of the selling point of the experience. To commercially use photos of these buildings require permissions which are rarely granted. There are some private architectural parks in the southwestern portion of the United States where there is no real public access, but they are considered public places but there are restrictions as a condition of that access.

I have architectural photos of several major sports stadiums take during construction as a result of work I was hired to do. But the moment the building was completed from the contractors legal point of view, I no longer could photograph for commercial purpose the interior. At that point it wasn't a public place as it had not been opened to the public. And the public has never been allowed access for purposes other than that they have been ticketed for. One small example.

[Ronnoco]

Fixed expression only applies to certain elements. The part of firework shows and light shows that comes under copyright is the Industrial Design. Thus the expression of that industrial design is wholly protected. .

There is a disagreement among copyright lawyers. Some feel that it is the setup of the lights, the programming involved since it is now done by computer, the sequence and organization of the show in the material form of a script but not the results i.e. the temporary lights in the sky which have no lasting material form.

The court cases in which the concept of fixation has arisem have determined that copyright subsists only in works which are "expressed...in some material form, capable of identification and having a more or less permanent endurance."

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

Further more, these live performances have related laws regarding rights to record or reproduce that have nothing to do with copyright that prevent their being documented.
Live theater has long as a condition of performance rights to a work, included prohibitions on recording or mechanical reproduction (meaning traditional photograph).

.

Live performance however is the performance of a PERFORMER and infringement applies only to audio recording in Canada, and both video and audio recording in the US>

THis would certainly eliminate light shows and fireworks shows.

Ronnoco

[drg]

It isn't necessarily the act of photography that is the problem, it gets confused by many with what you do with that photograph once it has been made.