Do I need permission or a license to film or photograph the Hollywood Sign?

No. Filming and photographing the Sign is lawful and requires no trademark license. A FilmLA production permit governs where a crew works; it is not a fee for the Sign appearing in the shot.

Can the Sign appear in movies, TV shows, documentaries, and video games?

Yes, freely. Depicting the Sign to establish place, setting, or realism is descriptive and expressive use, protected by the First Amendment. There is no public record of any creator losing a federal trademark case for depicting the Sign.

Can the Sign appear in an advertisement?

Yes. An ad may show the Sign as the real place where the ad is set. What an ad may not do is imply the Chamber endorses the product or use HOLLYWOOD in the staggered lettering as the ad's own branding.

Is the Hollywood Sign trademarked?

No. The physical Sign is a City-owned landmark, not a registered mark. Registrations associated with HOLLYWOOD are word and design marks for specific goods and services. The Chamber's 2004 applications to register the Sign itself were refused and abandoned.

Does the Chamber own the Hollywood Sign?

No. The City of Los Angeles owns the Sign and its Griffith Park site, through the Department of Recreation and Parks, and has since 1944.

Does the Hollywood Sign Trust own or control the Sign?

No. The Trust is committed to the Sign's upkeep by its own trust instrument; no City instrument granting it standing authority over the Sign has been located, and in 2026 the office of Council District 4 stated that no such instrument exists.

What about selling shirts, prints, and souvenirs showing the Sign?

The tag is the brand; the picture is not. If the tag says HOLLYWOOD, that's branding — the Chamber's registered territory. If the image on the product is the Sign, it is a picture of a City landmark.

Why do productions pay licensing fees anyway?

Because a demand letter is cheaper to pay than to litigate. Payment under pressure does not create a legal obligation that never existed, and it does not expand any registration's scope.

Nearly every question here has the same answer: the landmark is not trademarked.

In plain terms

The questions below come in from filmmakers, photographers, advertisers, sellers, and journalists, and almost all of them are one question wearing different clothes: does the Chamber control pictures of the Sign? It does not. The Sign is City property; the Chamber's trademarks are brand marks for merchandise and services; and no registration, settlement, or court ruling gives anyone a veto over the landmark appearing in an image.

Legal analysis

The short answers below are each backed at length elsewhere on this site: the registrations on the trademarks page, the ownership documents on the ownership page, the 2025 federal order on the case page, and the branding boundary on the merchandise page. Where an answer is genuinely qualified — merchandise branding — the qualification is stated. Everywhere else the answer is unqualified because the record is. Licensing is not required. The landmark is not trademarked.

Do I need permission or a license to film or photograph the Hollywood Sign?: No. Filming and photographing the Sign is lawful and requires no trademark license. Trademark law does not regulate what a camera records. A production permit (FilmLA) governs where a crew works — it is not a fee for the Sign appearing in the shot.
Can the Sign appear in movies, TV shows, documentaries, and video games?: Yes — freely. Depicting the Sign to establish place, setting, or realism is descriptive and expressive use, protected independently by the First Amendment. There is no public record of any creator ever losing a federal trademark case for depicting the Sign.
Can the Sign appear in an advertisement?: Yes. An ad may show the Sign as the real place where the ad is set, exactly as it may show a skyline. What an ad may not do is imply the Chamber endorses the product or use HOLLYWOOD in the staggered lettering as the ad's own branding — source-identification acts that have nothing to do with scenery in the frame.
Is the Hollywood Sign trademarked?: No. The physical Sign is a City-owned landmark, not a registered mark. The registrations associated with HOLLYWOOD are word and design marks for specific goods and services. The Chamber applied to register the Sign itself in 2004; the USPTO refused, studios opposed, and the applications were abandoned.
Is the Sign protected by copyright?: The Chamber's demands are trademark claims, not copyright claims; no copyright registration for the Sign has been located, and the 1923 original long predates any surviving term. Copyright is not the basis of any licensing demand this site has examined.
Does the Chamber own the Hollywood Sign?: No. The City of Los Angeles owns the Sign and its Griffith Park site, through the Department of Recreation and Parks, and has since 1944.
Does the Hollywood Sign Trust own or control the Sign?: No. The Trust is committed to the Sign's upkeep by its own trust instrument, and its documented work proceeded under temporary City rights-of-entry. No City instrument granting it standing authority over the Sign has been located, and in 2026 the office of Council District 4 stated that no such instrument exists.
Didn't the 1992 settlement recognize the Chamber's rights?: No. The settlement — which resolved the Attorney General's charitable-enforcement suit against the Chamber — contains an agreement by the AG and City not to challenge the Chamber's marks. A release is not recognition, only the USPTO registers marks, and the document says nothing about depicting the landmark. It is quoted in full on the ownership page.
What about selling shirts, prints, and souvenirs?: The tag is the brand; the picture is not. If the tag on the shirt says HOLLYWOOD, that's branding, and it is the Chamber's registered territory. If the image on the shirt is the Sign, it is a picture of a City landmark, and the shirt's brand is whatever the tag says. Full treatment on the merchandise page.
Why do productions pay licensing fees anyway?: Because a demand letter is cheaper to pay than to litigate, and because permits and "licenses" are easily conflated. Payment under pressure buys peace; it does not create a legal obligation that never existed, and it does not expand any registration's scope.
Where can all of this be verified?: USPTO records at tsdr.uspto.gov by serial number; the 1992 settlement and Attorney General's complaint on the Documents page; the 2025 docket on PACER, No. 1:25-cv-01662 (N.D. Ill.). This site links its sources so that nothing on it needs to be taken on trust.