Intellectual property can be a tricky legal area. And these days the term 'property' more than applies...
When I was in Chicago I took some great shots of the famous Wrigley Building. I haven't posted them here and I won't be using those shots anywhere apart from my photo album. Sorry, there's no set of postcards coming. I won't be using them to promote anything like a pizza sauce, or as the background of a fashion shoot either. Quite simply, I don't want to get sued.
Seen a commercial picture of the Guggenheim in Bilboa recently? Or the Swan Boats in Boston's public gardens? Or something with the Sydney Opera House on it, that's not officially licensed?
Almost anything can be copyrighted. These days anything and everything is being protected legally. Increasingly, this applies to buildings, monuments and landmarks. So much for doing anything with those holiday snaps, like flicking them onto iStock - they won't take them!
The Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco has been trademarked, as have more and more distinctive properties, and the term ‘property release’ is starting to become a common term. Although there are apparently only a hundred or so protected buildings in the United States, you have to wonder what would happen to photographs of city skylines if you had to gather what, in effect, were model releases for all the buildings individually.
The Art Deco Chrysler Building, the New York Stock Exchange, the Flatiron Building and Rockefeller Centre have all got some form of trademark protection. In fact, a few years ago the Chrysler Building sued a souvenir maker for including its spire in a New York panorama. The Empire State Building is also trademarked. Today, skylines including these two are allowed as long as neither of the buildings are the prime focus of the photograph. For individual shots of the buildings, property releases are required.
It seems to be a common theme. If it's part of a larger city panorama, you're fine, but anything specific needs permission, investigation and probably the paying of a large amount of money. In 1998 an American photographer called Charles M. Gentile was sued by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame for selling posters depicting its distinctive building. This raised major questions about the future of what belongs to whom, and who can use what, where.
Advertising use seems particularly frowned upon. But it leaves you asking what exactly defines commercial use? Where do the lines fall? It's a confusing area.
The actual Eiffel Tower entered into public domain a long time ago, but in 2003, the City of Paris got a bit clever and copyrighted the lights on it... meaning that technically you can't publish a shot of the Eiffel Tower at night without either getting permission or paying a fee. Daytime's fine. Nightime's not.
Of course not every old skyscraper or house can be copyrighted or protected. They must be unique and fairly iconic - the double bind that also makes them more desirable as symbolising a location or gaining instant recognition.
The Atomium in Brussels is protected and needs a building release for commercial use. Frank Lloyd Wright's Falling Water House is only allowed to be photographed for personal use without official consent. It's no surprise really that Graceland is a registered trademark. Along with Grauman's Chinese Theatre, Hearst Castle, the Hollywood sign, the Louvre and IM Pei's Pyramid, Rosslyn Chapel, the Seattle Space Needle, the Melbourne Shrine of Remembrance, the Smithsonian and Guggenheim museums around the world, the Wrigley Building in Chicago, the Sydney Opera House, and the London Eye Millennium Wheel, to name a few.
The Merlion of Singapore is protected by an act of parliament (damn, more good shots I took that are delegated to a bottom drawer). Accordingly, no pictures are available of any of these for this narrative, but I'm sure you can remember the structures. And although not officially a building, pictures or representations of Uluru, or Ayers Rock as it used to be known, have very rigid restrictions around their use.
It's a trend we're going to see more of. It's not just people and buildings that require photographic release. Seen the blurred out artwork and logos on reality TV shows? There are products you can't use in commercials or photographs or as props without permission (including those little pastel-coloured heart-shaped candies). Street signs in the City of Westminster can't have their designs reproduced.
The flip side of product placement is copyright protection. Some people want their brands seen, others don't if they're not in total control. As differentiation becomes more and more important, and people recognise any brand equity they may have, they're moving to protect that. It's all getting so much more complicated. The copyright lawyers will be happy.
I wonder whether it caused issues for Google Street View. You've got to wonder how digital technology, accessibility and the internet affect it all.
Are the people with the trademarks winning and keeping their 'branded identities' safe or are they really like King Canute from medieval times who tried to command the waves to stop coming in?
Intellectual property can be a tricky legal area. And these days the term 'property' more than applies... 
Sometimes your computer needs a reboot, why not your brand? It's going back and looking at the core values... 
So what's the story with the Easter Rabbit and all those other animal icons? There's a long tradition of using symbols we know in branding... 
Find out more about our individual and combined experience. It's not services you're after, it's the right people... 
Tactile media rules! So come to your senses. All of them. Touch, smell, feel - it's not just what you see and hear any more. 
So what are the trends that are speeding towards us from the horizon? Some have already reached us while others are looming... here's our pick. 
