Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/02/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]One of the regional books that I publish has the Lone Cypress on the cover. Tina, you don't have that particular book, but the same picture is inside the Carmel book. We published the book in 19921 and sold it in gift and book stores throughout the Monterey Peninsula. In 1993 we got a threatening letter from the Pebble Beach corp to cease and desist plus pay several thousand in damages. I immediately sent it to Victor Perlman, legal council at the ASMP. He and the Pebble Beach lawyers had numerous back-and-forths, but the upshot was, when the Chuck Gentle "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" suit was settled in favor of Chuck Gentle, Pebble Beach ceased further communications. I have a patent/trademark library locally at my disposal. In 1993/4, Pebble Beach had not re-trademarked the "Lone Cypress" as it had actually been cancelled for lack of use. And they illegally state in their ad's, "Registered Trademark" when it actually wasn't registered. A trademark has to actually be used to be valid. You cannot be charged with infringing upon someone's trademark unless they can prove that you are actually damaging their business. Which is hardly the case with photographs, painting, renderings, etc. If you went into a similar business AND used a likeness of the Lone Cypress as a company symbol, you could be in trouble. But not for publishing photographs. The towns of Monterey, Pacific Grove, and Carmel were so mad at Pebble Beach for literally falsely screwing artists out of license fees, they basically boycotted Pebble Beach. All of this was going on when the Japanese owned Pebble Beach. Since then, Clint, Arnold, and some others bought Pebble Beach and nary a word has been mentioned about the Lone Cypress, and in fact, there are lots of posters, paintings, plaques, etc, for sale by artists now that do not carry the obligatory "licensed by" phrase. The whole matter simply went away. It is still private property and they can keep you from "professionally" photographing the tree, but if you took it legally, you can pretty much do what you want with it, other than use it as a trademark for your golf/lodge/restaurant business. The photograph I use, I took back in the 80's, before there was a sign posted about photographing the tree. JB At 02:09 PM 2/24/2005, Tina Manley wrote: >At 11:15 AM 2/24/2005, you wrote: >>Sorry Tina, yes it's on private property, but it's not trademarked - you >>can't trademark an actual tree - only a particular representation of that >>tree as it is used in that trademark. >> >>tim > > >Tim - > >I was going by this: > >"In May 1990, the company officially registered the Lone Cypress as its >trademark. Soon afterwards, the signs restricting commercial artistic >renderings of the tree were posted. Today, the company has no problem with >folks snapping pictures of the Lone Cypress, and pasting those photos in >their scrapbooks. "We welcome it," Hotelling states. >Just don't try selling those photographs, or you risk the billion-dollar >wrath of the Pebble Beach Co. And it's not just photographs: The >restrictions extend to paintings, sketches, and all other artistic >renderings of the tree, as well. "An artist can paint the tree and hang it >on their wall, but if they sell it, it becomes a problem," Hotelling says. >"The rules apply to both photographers and artists." > >But the same site has a long discussion about whether you can trademark a >tree: > >http://www.midrealism.paxtonfineart.com/Pages/Articlecoastweekly.html > >Tina > > >Tina Manley, ASMP >www.tinamanley.com > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information