Condo ass. claims copyright on Chicago's Marina City Towers

Discuss

27 Responses to “Condo ass. claims copyright on Chicago's Marina City Towers”

  1. krylon says:

    I think this is the first time I’ve ever heard a condo association referred to in a good light.

    I always thought they were thought of as being harpish nightmares that were made up of people with nothing better to do than make other’s lives miserable, which (coincidentally) seems to be the end run of what they’re trying to do here.

  2. devophill says:

    #15 Vlad the Inhaler- I lol’d and lol’d!

  3. devophill says:

    Also, by frequency I’d say TNH was going for Glia Maturation Factor, Beta. A bank? Not likely.

  4. Sidehike says:

    Don’t sue me, bro!

    …Or the other 1200 people who take the architectural boat tour each day. (Which I highly recommend!)

  5. klg19 says:

    most of you coasters will recognize the buildings from the cover of Wilco’s YHF)

    Really? Not from “The Bob Newhart Show”?

    Damn, I feel OLD.

  6. bonabo says:

    They look cool from a distance, but up close they are butt-ugly. Bare rough concrete and no street presence. And they are an obstacle to walking around the city. When you hit these buildings the sidewalk dead ends.

  7. duus says:

    Sometimes I tell others about what the building looks like. Is that okay?

  8. Giovanni says:

    They should have shock troops that guard the buildings, if someone takes a glace without paying, or is a “glance pirate” so to speak, out comes the taser.

    Everyone with a taser wins!

  9. chasie says:

    Serious Headline Tip: Use assn. to abbreviate association.

    Frivolous headline tip: If an association is doing something stupid, abbreviate it with “ass.”

  10. Spherical Time says:

    That’s absolutely hilarious. In one of the links, they extensively cover copyright involving buildings, and it specifically does not cover photographs of buildings from public places.

    You’d think that they would have at least tried to familiarize themselves with the law before trying to make broad declarations about it.

  11. EricT says:

    That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Fortunatly I have a very good friend who owns one of the Condos there. In fact we stayed in it last summer. Very nice.
    SO I will ask him what he thinks

  12. duus says:

    it’s not my fault i have this kamera on my eye.

  13. bbum says:

    Sounds like it is about time for a Chicago Photographer’s Field Trip!!!

    If I still lived in Chi-town, I’d be there in a heartbeat.

  14. richard61 says:

    I think this was solved in Cleveland, Ohio a number of years ago. A photographer produced a poster of the rock ‘n roll hall of fame and was sued for infringement of the hall of fame’s trademark.

    The photographer won.

    Here’s the decision from the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

    http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/IP/trademark/rock_and_roll.htm

  15. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    The giant corncobs are copyrighted? GMFB.

  16. Spidercoz says:

    Whatever happened to flash mobs? I live in Chicago and am perfectly willing to find as many people as I can to head down there and snap some photos.

  17. Tirjasdyn says:

    You can’t copyright a name…not even a fictional one.

    I don’t think they even read the memo on copyright.

  18. Spherical Time says:

    What does GMFB mean, Teresa? Perhaps Give me (a) F***ing Break?

  19. doggo says:

    Yikes! I almost posted a photo I took of one of the towers on my web site. Good thing I didn’t, I don’t have the resources to deal with any kind of legal action, warranted or not.

  20. deejayqueue says:

    isn’t Chicago where that giant chrome Bean is too? The one that the cops will stop you from taking a picture of because people sell postcards of it?

  21. duus says:

    @#26: sorry, wasn’t trying to break your heart.

    GOOD LORD THE YHF PUNS KEEP COMING!

  22. Mavis says:

    These people need a hard and vigorous slapping. Seriously.

    According to the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 301.

    “Preemption with respect to other laws

    (a) On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished, are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State.”

    While there’s an exception for state landmarks and historical sites protected under Sec. 102, I seriously doubt that the condo association has any right in the building.

    On a side note, that building is awesome. I love passing by it everytime I go to Chicago.

  23. Mavis says:

    Forgot to add… Sec. 301 means that there is no longer a common law, or state copyright. Meh. Need more coffee.

  24. M Saunders says:

    *sigh* They mean trademark, not copyright. If I had a nickel for every time people confused the two, I’d have…. exactly thirty five dollars and twenty cents.

  25. coop says:

    Yep, ‘the bean’ (officially known as Cloud Gate) is there, but the last time I was there (May 2007) the guards were not shooing people away.

    Instead they were buffing it up after people pressed their noses to it.

    Kept it nice and shiny for the photographers. It seemed very civilised to me.

    coop

  26. Eutychus says:

    Don’t worry. these ones are just as nice, much nearer to me and still photographable legally :)

Leave a Reply