Slashdot Mirror
NYSE Sends Cease and Desist Letter To News Organization
An anonymous reader writes "Apparently, the New York Stock Exchange has registered a trademark for their trading floor, and they claim that no one can use a photograph of the trading floor without permission."
Fight it all the way. Taking a picture of something that is open for a news story is perfectly allowed.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Maybe they don't want anymore facepalm shots, reflecting the true economy, eh?
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
The NYSE has a reputation to uphold, like any other organization. The trading floor is as recognizable at the Coca-Cola ribbon, so why shouldn't it be a trademark? The C&D was referring to an article that could harm NYSE's reputation, so why should the organization just sit idly by and be tarnished? Perhaps more to the point, why should they let a trademark be diluted, facing potential problems later?
I see nothing to be outraged about here.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
If the event is newsworthy (and if they're allowing press in there already) I don't see how a location can be trademarked. Which part of the trading floor? All parts? Every floorboard? Or are they just generally saying that a crowded group of yuppies in suits wearing bluetooth headsets falls under their IP?
If this ends up being upheld we can pretty much kiss any photographic evidence of civil wrongdoing goodbye... Obviously the point, but really? They're getting pretty damn brazen.
We need to start an internet campaign to post pictures of their "trademark" everywhere. If everyone does it, they can't do anything about it.
... another corporation using laws that were designed to further the public good to take away the right to free speech. Nothing unusual. Probably shouldn't even be considered 'news' anymore.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
Considering the location has been photographed infinite times and lots of video before this decision, how can it ever be enforced?
Take Nobody's Word For It.
A photograph of a location cannot be trademarked, if that were the case, then they would have to trademark every and any photograph of a place. Suppose that the claim that a photograph of a particular place can be trademarked... Taking the following into account, angle, zoom level, color variance, etc...Every photographic variation should also be trademarked. But this would not fall under the definition of a trademark, and not even a trade dress... A trademark, trade mark, or trade-mark[1] is a distinctive sign or indicator used by an individual, business organization, or other legal entity to identify that the products or services to consumers with which the trademark appears originate from a unique source, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark
I'm pretty sure that "trading floor" goes back a ways. Like maybe 10,000 years or so. So does "a bunch of loud mouths standing around shouting prices". You can take a picture of people doing this kinda thing in every major city in the world, 24 hours a day, and could have do so at any time since the invention of the camera in 1837.
Prior art bitches.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
The NYSE trading floor depicted in the photo is mostly irrelevant with, presumably, most, trades being done electronically.
Furthermore, the NYSE itself is no longer the NYSE alone ... it's part of a larger company, NYSE Euronext.
Ron
Use a photo of the garbage-filled gutter in front of the NYSE, or maybe Bernie Madoff, or a simple graphic of a downward-trending chart with the words FRAUD superimposed.
Owning and controlling something is fine and dandy. Literally trying to own and control the photons that bounce off of your property is too ludicrous for words.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
This is a case of image management. NYSE must maintain an image that they are an institution not involved in corruption. To maintain this facade, they feel they must manage any image that portrays them differently.
Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment.
Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment.
Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment.
Whaaa! I can't use a photograph in my story. Whaaa! So what??? Does that stop you from publishing a story about the stock exchange? What's wrong with taking control on how your image is used? I applaud them and if they are successful, I might go about trademarking my image. Wouldn't it be nice to have the law on YOUR side when people post photos of you without your okay?
If they allow high frequency trading, they're making a profit from destabilizing the economy. It's time for a tax on transactions.
You're thinking patents, I think. Someone sued Lucas over Star Wars copyrights, and lost, iirc. The reason they tried to use was that it had become a common cultural icon. One could say the same thing about Coca-Cola or Disney characters. But neither are in danger of losing their copyrights.
Mickey Mouse is seen everywhere as well. But if you were to take a picture of a tshirt with the Mickey Mouse logo on it, then that photo would possibly be in violation of copyright. It is effectively a reproduction. Of course, it depends a lot on the context of a photo. If you photograph your family at Disney World in front of the castle, which is copyrighted, you are likely allowed to use it to give to family.
However, the question in this case, to me, is more like trying to copyright Times Square or any other well known place. This case will rest mostly on whether or not NYSE has a valid copyright. IANAL
I8-D
The active part of the NYSE floor is now SMALL compared to it's former glory. And drop in at a random time after the market open (ok, you can't as a member of the general public, but let's say you could) and you'll find it's fairly dead. There's not much going on, it's obvious that the folks there have not much to do 99% of the time (and yes, there are constraints that limit further headcount reduction, even if there's not really any work.) So they are standing around, chatting, looking totally bored.
In order to maintain a public image of a dynamic market, the heart of American capitalism, I'd guess it's fairly essential to tightly control (and perhaps just stage-manage entirely) any images and video of the floor.
So if this is legit then selling a photo taken virtually anywhere in pubilc in the U.S. and much of the rest of the world would be a trademark violation. It is impossible to open your eyes without being assaulted by a dozen corporate trademarks.
The real reason that this is absurd is this: Trademark law is intended to prevent one company from dishonestly associating themselves with the reputation of another company. For instance making a shiny white PC and branding it an ApplePC would obviously be an attempt to deceive the market. When a reporter takes a photo at the NYSE, that reporter is not attempting to fool people that his stock exchange is associated with the NYSE, he is reporting on the news. NYSE also has no need do defend the trademark here since there is no infringement to defend. Reporting is not infringement.
-- QED
Trademark law is there to protect a trade mark from being used by someone else to advertise their similar product.The news report did not post a picture and attempt to pass it off as their trading floor. That is dilution of brand and therefore against trademark law. I can use a trademark any time I want as long as it refers to the owner of the trademark. For example, Pepsi can display Coke's Trademark if they are doing a comparison. They do not need a license to do it. I could also write an article about the use of high fructose corn syrup, display a Coke can and Coke could do nothing about it.
And yet we still see CNBC using that hackneyed shot of a "reporter" on the chit-strewn floor, looking up at the camera as bustling and hustling occurs around them.
I wonder if they've started bringing in their own slips of paper as props, and hiring extras ("must bring your own wing-tips") to create the activity.
I have no doubt that the entire scenario is a part of their elaborate scam to induce churn.
Those things are all true, except the last (and only with a contrafactual assumption there). If it were the case that Coke did not, in fact, have high-fructose corn syrup in it, then they could complain about your picture of Coke. Just because it is a soft drink, and popular, doesn't give you the right to print a picture of the trademarked Coke logo when that has nothing to do with the story. (In the real world, Coke is full of HFCS, and it would be fine.)
In this case, the NYSE has nothing to do with the insider trading (apparently), and they don't want to be associated with the story, and that means they can use their trademark on their "image" to prevent it being tied to a story that isn't about them.
It's as if a story about pedophiles in our midst were illustrated with pictures of you playing with your kids. Sure, the story never claimed you were a pedophile; it never mentioned you at all. Yet the presence of your image there would cause an association you would certainly not like, and you would for damn sure use whatever legal basis you had to get your pictures off of there.
-DwS
Well the actual active floor of the NYSE these days is a computer data centre with lots of air conditioning tubes, cables, blinkenlights and so on. The real activity takes place on bank trading floors. They put their trades on their computers, and they go to the NYSE computer for processing.e
Here's the actual trademark image. from the USPTO. "The mark consists of a representation of an actual building interior, namely, a securities exchange trading floor."
Here's the image from the article. It's not an overview of the NYSE trading floor. It''s a single trading post on some exchange. (Of course, at this point, the NYSE is about the only exchange that still has a trading floor. Most of the trading actually happens in the racks of a colocation facility in New Jersey anyway.) If anybody has a right to complain, it's Barclays Capital, because their trading post is being shown in conjunction with a story about fraud, and the story doesn't mention Barclays Capital.
This seems to be well within the rights of the exchange, and I think most of the Slashdotters are missing the point. To be clear, we're talking about images of the trading floor, which requires permission to simply access, camera or not. Actually accessing the floor itself is a Big Deal compared to accessing the visitors' viewing area, security checks/ RFID Badges are required, etc.
We're not talking about trademarking the building exterior.
It isn't possible to use a photographic flash inside, for example; that's an old rule. This RTFA might be a new rule I haven't heard of before, but it seems if they can prevent access to the building, flashes, etc. it seems they can imposed similar publication restrictions on photos that exit the building.
With the trading done automatically now, the floors of the grand global exchanges are very quiet and dull actually. Word has been the floor is to be leased to MSNBC-type broadcast TV stations 'covering' the actual exchange activity itself. The NYSE E. wants to maximize its investment, so why not charge TV stations, to use the floor as a broadcast backdrop? And as such they don't want the, actually rather dull, trading floors to dilute such broadcast value.
Disclaimer: Posted anonymously, because it is a good idea to do so now.
So all the court convictions of insider traders on the NYSE does not point to the fact that insider trading happens there? Just because the NYSE itself is not doing insider trading does not mean that the NYSE is not related to it. That would be like banning the picture of a gun involved in a murder because the gun manufacturer did not pull the trigger and does not want to be associated with murder.
I am not related in any way to paedophilia therefore I could sue for slander. The NYSE, where insider trading does occur, is related to the story. If the NYSE feels slandered then sue for slander; don't try to hide behind an unrelated law.
It does hold weight with trademark though. If you don't protect a trademark you can lose it. There is a difference between trademark and copyright, and the article is talking about trademark.
Those things are all true, except the last (and only with a contrafactual assumption there). If it were the case that Coke did not, in fact, have high-fructose corn syrup in it, then they could complain about your picture of Coke. Just because it is a soft drink, and popular, doesn't give you the right to print a picture of the trademarked Coke logo when that has nothing to do with the story. (In the real world, Coke is full of HFCS, and it would be fine.)
Says who? I assume you have case law and/or statutory law to back this up, right?
Just because it's the NYSE doing this, it doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing. It's a big, bad entity.
But what if the entity were an individual? An individual trying to assert their right regarding publication of their trademarked image (i.e., a picture of their face)?
Would you look at the argument any differently?
Everybody knows the Duke brothers own the exchange. The founded it; they own it; it is theirs!
Still, that only applies to the inside right? I mean, we can still use that photo of the guy outside holding the placcard that reads: "Jump! You fuckers!"
God I love that photograph.
It's private property, not a public place. They can control what photographs are taken on their property by simply enforcing whatever policy they like. If you control the space, you control the photographs taken within that space (you don't have copyright to them, of course, but you can stipulate that photographs can not be taken or distributed without permission, and the courts will generally back you up). Of course, the underlying reason for attempting the trademark thing has nothing to do with controlling photography, but making money off it when photographs are taken, and trying to retroactively control all photographs of the NYSE that already exist, presumably taken before their change in photography policy. In other words, pure greed.
If I were working at a news business, I think the solution would be simple: don't show any more pictures of the NYSE trading floor, or maybe show pictures of trading floors of other stock exchanges that appreciate the free advertising when they are used in a news story about the markets. Alternatively I'd show an archival picture of the NYSE from the days of tickertape, taken long before their silly policy was in place, and challenge them to sue me over it.
That's awesome. That means I can't create a trading floor, call it the NYSE and try to con traders into believing that I am the NYSE.
I think I can hold myself to that. Now, where's my camera?
We need fewer lawyers and more people doing real work, creative work, like taking photos. NYSE is a con-artist.