Despite Marina Towers Condo Association‘s lengthy new document governing the use of Marina City‘s imagery, YoChicago can claim exemption due to our editorial role – which is a good thing, because we wanted to share this view with you. Snapped from 330 N Wabash Ave, it’s a shot of the iconic development few people will get a chance to see. The view looking east of the Trump International Hotel & Tower is equally impressive.
Lynn Becker’s post today from Architecture Chicago Plus takes a few wild swings at the policy.
Again, all of this just to use a photograph taken from a public way of a complex of buildings the Condo Association doesn’t even own. (condo’s take up only 40 of the towers 60 floors; all of the rest of Marina City is owned by someone else.)
In fairness, the document only stipulates restrictions if the imagery is used for a commercial or business purpose. Fair editorial use is – and has been – unobstructed.
You’ll learn absolutely nothing useful about the applicability of Marina City’s policy from Lynn Becker’s incoherent screed on the subject – and a lot about Lynn Becker’s approach to any number of subjects: rant first, read later.
If you’re going to slam Lynn Becker, why even post a link to his website?
So why shouldn’t someone be able to use the images for business purposes? If I’m a photographer and want to sell an image of the complex, why do I need their permission?
Do I need a permission from the maker of my toaster to publish an image of that also?
May I only publish/sell images of nature?
Gordy,
There’s a link to Lynn Becker’s post in our post. Did you miss it?
Gordy,
Since we chose to disagree with Becker, the right thing to do is publish a link to his post to give our readers the opportunity to make up their own minds.
So what happened to Wilco when they used the Marina Towers on their album cover?
According to the PDF available on the condo association’s Web site, image uses prior to November 15, 2007 have been grandfathered into the new agreement.
I’m no expert in this area of law or any area of law for that matter. If the association persists at some point it will likely be litigated. Maybe they just hope to intimidate people into paying over fear of litigation. From what I have read about that association on various sites there are some interesting people on that board.
I don’t mean “interesting” as a compliment.
Oh well at least the association’s attorney is being kept busy.
In the original Articles of Incorporation of the MTCA (10/3/1977), the first Article states: “1. The name of the the corporation is: Marina Towers Condominium Association.” and “5. The purpose or purposes for which the corporation is organized are: To maintain, operate, and manage a condominium residential building and improvements situated at 300 North State Street, Chicago, Illinois…”. As such, the restrictions and approval process found in the Association’s new rule goes beyond their corporate purpose of maintenance, operation, and management of the facility.
The Declaration Of Condominium Ownership For The Marina Towers Condominium Association states at the top of Page 5, “…The Association shall not be deemed to be conducting a business of any kind.” And on Page 6 of the same: “…In any case of conflict between the Declaration and the Bylaws or the Rules and Regulations of the Association, the Declaration shall govern.”
Questions: If other users of the image or name Marina, Marina City, Marina Towers, etc. show no evidence or provide no claim that they are trying to “maintain, operate, and manage” the residential condominium building, how can a photograph or a blog or independent website be a violation?
Further, if the MTCA, “…shall not be deemed to be conducting a business of any kind.”, how can any outsider representation of Marina City or the Towers be deemed a deceptive BUSINESS practice?
They can’t enforce it, they’d get laughed out of court if they tried.
Maybe I’ll go take a photo this weekend, put it on a tshirt, and start selling on the sidewalk in front of Marina City.
Joe: They most certainly do not have the legal right to limit commercial use of their image. See the US Copyright code [17 USC 120(a), to be precise]:
“Pictorial Representations Permitted. — The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.”
Please spare us the amateur lawyering.
Condo doc,
You need to go back to law school.
Fitz,
All 17 USC 120(a) says is that – roughly but accurately paraphrased – the owner of the copyright in architectural plans (e.g., the architect) has no copyright in images of the work work as built. The language can be parsed even finer than that, i.e. a “right to prevent” covers only rights to injunctive relief, not necesssarily royalties.
It’s possible to have copyright rights separate from the right in the architectural work. And, copyright law may not be the sole source of rights that Marina City might be claiming.
Joe,
Are you implying that you are a lawyer and can I treat the above as legal advice?
The one thing that strikes me as a non lawyer is if the Marina City Board has a legitimate claim why haven’t other “iconic” buildings used the same claim in the past?
Again, I have no specific knowledge regarding this. I would just imagine that other buildings such as the Sears Tower, Hancock, and Empire State Building would likely claim the same “rights” if they thought they could make a buck doing it.
Perhaps the Marina City Board is blazing new ground. Perhaps they will find the ground turn to quicksand. Stay tuned for our next episode of “How the CornCob Towers Turn”.
NotALawyer,
I quit practicing law in 1979 – a very long time ago. I maintain some passing familiarity with some aspects of First Amendment and intellectual property law simply because my business is in advertising and publishing. As a practical matter, I need to know enough about the law to know when I should consult an active attorney. I am, for example, out on the street a lot and taking photographs, often under hotly-contested circumstances. I know when I’m on firm ground, and when I’m not. I know when someone has some basis for what they say and when they’re engaged in an uninformed rant.
Nothing I say here should be construed as legal advice. For starters, no decent attorney would pronounce on the muddled state of facts that’s presented here. There’s a discussion, for example, of copyright law but no clear indication that Marina City is asserting copyrights. And no one should consider anything as legal advice unless they’ve specifically engaged an attorney to provide it directly to them.
Until we know exactly what rights Marina City is asserting, and against whom it’s asserting those rights, and under what specific circumstances, no intelligent discussion is possible. In the meantime, I’d be very skeptical of any copyright claims, in part because Marina City has been in the public domain for so long.
I don’t know whether Marina City has registered any federal or state trademarks and how broadly those marks might be applicable. In the context of commercial uses of Marina City’s name and / or images of the building – which is all that its policy addresses – they may well have some rights under unfair competition and deceptive trade practices laws.
“The one thing that strikes me as a non lawyer is if the Marina City Board has a legitimate claim why haven’t other “iconic” buildings used the same claim in the past?”
Hasn’t the City of Chicago made this claim about Millenium Park?
I find that one far more outrageous, given it is (allegedly) a public park.
Wrigley Field, The Water Tower and the Sears Tower are all more iconic Chicago architecture than Marina City. I’m not aware of them having such restrictions…am I wrong?
These are all good questions, especially when you consider some of the developer sales literature showing specific buildings or restaurants in the neighborhood. I have always wonder if they are required to obtain explicit approval.
The Art Institute of Chicago site asserts trademark rights in its “building image:”
The trademark is likely to be valid within its scope. Take that to the bank. And examine the scope before setting off into flights of fancy over what this all means.
..but is posting a photograph the same thing as a “reproduction”?
sounds to me like you just can’t sell t-shirts/mugs, etc with the image on it, but hey, I’m no lawyer.
Carter,
I’m speculating to a certain extent here, because I’m too lazy to look up the trademarks in question. We’ll let irishpiraite do that.
The “building image” that’s trademarked is likely to be a single iconic image that the Art Institute uses with some consistency to brand itself. Taking or posting personal photos is likely not infringing on the mark. Start selling t-shirts with the identical or a confusingly similar image and you could be chatting with the attorneys.
Hey,
I’m too freakin lazy to look it up too.
Let the attorney’s in question fight it out.
I can understand the limited nature of the Art Institute case being legitimate. Much beyond that and it seems like a stretch.
What if you took a photo of a series of buildings from the lake and sold the image? Do you need to get approval from each building?
That is a rhetorical question.