# legality of putting a building on a shirt



## nowitsshowtime (Jan 19, 2008)

Just wondering what the laws are in terms of putting images of a building on a shirt, the empire state building for example.

Of course if I use someone elses image/photograph, then Im sure I can't without the photographers permission. What if in this case I re-draw the image as a sketch.

Or better yet, what if I find an image of the empire state building from a long time ago, such as the 30s. Is it still copyrighted, can I use that, can I sketch that?


----------



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

Yeah, if you use an image, you would need permission from the owner of the image since they would own the copyright to it. Copyrights usually last 70 years before they become public domain, so an image prior to 1929 should be ok to use or sketch.

But, I believe the image of the Empire State Building is owned by the original architect. So regardless of the image you use or sketch, you still need permission to use the building, otherwise you could be at risk to be sued.

You may be able to contact the ESB and find out, or at least contact an intellectual property attorney who may have more detailed info as what is or isn't allowed.


----------



## nowitsshowtime (Jan 19, 2008)

Thanks for the input. This just seems like it would be a lot of hassle and also a subject that most people for the building management would have no clue about, especially when done on a small scale it would get blown over.


----------



## hostingdiva (Mar 31, 2006)

The Empire State Building design is actually a registered trademark owned by Empire State Building Company L.L.C. They do have a whole website dedicated to the building - Empire State Building: Official Internet Site. If you're really interested, contact the owners.


----------



## shirtster (Oct 27, 2009)

you can totally use an image of a building, the exterior or public places follows the same copyright laws as celebrities and public figures. They put themselves there, so you are allowed to photograph and publish those, it's only when you go beyond that, that it becomes a problem...

For example you can use a picture of the outside of a celebs house, but you can't take a picture of the inside (it's considered private)... same with a building (which is why most stores don't let you film or take pictures inside).

Anyways, that was a long way to say, you can totally use it, as long as its not someone else's picture or artwork


----------



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

shirtster said:


> you can totally use an image of a building, the exterior or public places follows the same copyright laws as celebrities and public figures. They put themselves there, so you are allowed to photograph and publish those, it's only when you go beyond that, that it becomes a problem...
> 
> For example you can use a picture of the outside of a celebs house, but you can't take a picture of the inside (it's considered private)... same with a building (which is why most stores don't let you film or take pictures inside).
> 
> Anyways, that was a long way to say, you can totally use it, as long as its not someone else's picture or artwork


This is completely erroneous as it pertains to usage of buildings or celebrities for use on t-shirts that are intended for sale for profit.

Publishing images in a magazine or website is different than using them on a shirt.

Buildings can be trademarked, and celebrities have a right to publicity. Any infringement or violation of these can get you sued.


----------



## shirtster (Oct 27, 2009)

kimura-mma said:


> This is completely erroneous as it pertains to usage of buildings or celebrities for use on t-shirts that are intended for sale for profit.
> 
> Publishing images in a magazine or website is different than using them on a shirt.
> 
> Buildings can be trademarked, and celebrities have a right to publicity. Any infringement or violation of these can get you sued.


It's true that buildings can be trademarked, however, that only means i cant build a building using the same blueprints and design... However, with shirts, etc, another persons representation of one is not infringing, it's covered under the parody provision. Same for celebrities and public figures, that's why sites like bustedtees, snorg and all the rest are allowed to do things like these:

BustedTees - Yes We Did
Viva La Stewart T-Shirt | Snorg Tees


----------



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

shirtster said:


> It's true that buildings can be trademarked, however, that only means i cant build a building using the same blueprints and design...


No, it also means you can't use it for any profit, including using them on t-shirts. That's kind of the point of trademarking, it protects the owner of the mark from someone else using it. The empire state building cannot be used without permission, the same way the Yankees logo cannot be used, or the Coca Cola logo cannot be used, without license or permission.



shirtster said:


> However, with shirts, etc, another persons representation of one is not infringing, it's covered under the parody provision.


Using intellectual property or another person's name or likeness for profit, without license or permission, infringes on registered trademarks and right to publicity. And if used illegally, they absolutely have the right to sue. The parody or fair use doctrine is a defense to an action, not a license to infringe. So if you get sued, you can try to claim parody, but it will be up to a judge to determine what is and what is not parody. Either way, it will cost a lot in attorneys fees to defend an action, so parody is hardly a reason to justify violating IP or Right to Publicity laws.



shirtster said:


> Same for celebrities and public figures, that's why sites like bustedtees, snorg and all the rest are allowed to do things like these:
> 
> BustedTees - Yes We Did
> Viva La Stewart T-Shirt | Snorg Tees


Elected officials give up their right to publicity when they take office. So as long as there is no defamation, it is not the same circumstance as celebrities. Sites like these are in fact violating laws if they don't have permission, and perhaps they get sued and perhaps they don't. But they have the money to defend themselves. And in certain situations, like t-shirt hell, the marketing opportunities that were created by getting sued actually increased their sales and popularity. I still wouldn't suggest it as a business model, though.


----------



## shirtster (Oct 27, 2009)

well, i disagree, but that doesn't mean you're wrong... It's a fine line, but in copyright law classes ive taken, its been said as long as you are creating something new from something, you're good to go, obviously that's not the most legal terms...

I would suggest finding a copyright lawyer and paying for an hour or two of his or her time to ask all the right questions.


----------



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

Copyrights are completely different than Trademarks and Right of Publicity. So some of what you just said about creating something new from something *could* apply regarding copyrights. But that really doesn't apply in this case regarding the OP's question.

And yes, consulting an attorney is always the best answer as opposed to following advice on a free forum.

We can agree to disagree on the rest. But I do hope you take some time to research this topic and better inform yourself. Because you are giving advice/opinions on a public forum that could be taken as truth. And your advice/opinions could possibly get someone sued. And that would be very unfortunate.


----------

