I previously reported on a continuing thorny issue facing many photographers - whether, and to what extent, images of public buildings may be used in photography without the consent of the building owner (August 1998). To some extent this issue has now been decided in favor of the photographer. The New York Stock Exchange sued a Las Vegas casino for trademark infringement. The casino uses replicas of several of New York's most recognizable buildings in its motif, including of course, a facade of the New York Stock Exchange. Judge Cedarbaum of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently dismissed the case, finding that there was little likelihood of confusion because of a lack of "competitive proximity" of the various services offered. In a nutshell, the casino and the Exchange simply "do not compete directly, and they offer different services." The Court further determined that, in essence, the New York theme at the casino was a parody and that the purchasing public would not be confused. On another issue of great importance to the photography community, the Court also ruled that the Exchange's building facade was not distinctive enough to be protected, finding that many prominent public buildings had a similar classical facade with Corinthian columns and bas relief figures, such as the United States Supreme Court. The case will probably be appealed so the story may not yet be over. On another front, in a similar context, the owners of the unique building known as the Flatiron Building in New York objected when a venture capital firm called Flatiron Partners wanted to use an image of the building's facade as its logo. Rather than fight the issue, the venture capital firm agreed to pay a license fee for such use, thereby avoiding a legal determination on the merits. I am sure we will be hearing more on the subject.