Copyrighted public space...

[Armitage]

http://newurbanist.blogspot.com/2005/01/copyrighting-of-public-space.html
http://newurbanist.blogspot.com/2005/02...lennium-park-photographing-update.html

When Wimmer set up his tripod and camera to shoot the sculpture, security guards stopped him, demanding that they show him a permit. Wimmer protested, replying that it's absurd that one needs to pay for a permit to photograph public art in a city-owned park.

"The copyrights for the enhancements in Millennium Park are owned by the artist who created them. As such, anyone reproducing the works, especially for commercial purposes, needs the permission of that artist."

So - art paid for with tax dollars and located in a public park is cannot be photographed without a permit? WTH??

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: Armitage
So - art paid for with tax dollars and located in a public park is cannot be photographed without a permit? WTH??

umm... yeah?

It doesn't matter who the owner is or who commissioned it, it's copyright infringement to make reproductions of all artwork created after like... 1976... when this copyright law went into effect.

Go to any art museum. Many of them now have their galleries set up so that there are no works after 1976 in the same galleries as before then so it's easier for guards to know if people are snapping photos of protected work.

And a "permit" would really just be written consent from the artist.

 

[Runes911]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: Armitage
So - art paid for with tax dollars and located in a public park is cannot be photographed without a permit? WTH??

umm... yeah?

It doesn't matter who the owner is or who commissioned it, it's copyright infringement to make reproductions of all artwork created after like... 1976... when this copyright law went into effect.

Go to any art museum. Many of them now have their galleries set up so that there are no works after 1976 in the same galleries as before then so it's easier for guards to know if people are snapping photos of protected work.

And a "permit" would really just be written consent from the artist.

What if said artist is dead?

Odd rules, especially for something paid for by tax dollars.

 

[kranky]

Can't get to the links, but it seems that all that would have to be done to fix this issue is to specify in the contract that the artist may not copyright art paid for by tax dollars.

 

[episodic]

BS, if you can see it in a public space you can photograph it.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: Armitage
So - art paid for with tax dollars and located in a public park is cannot be photographed without a permit? WTH??

umm... yeah?

It doesn't matter who the owner is or who commissioned it, it's copyright infringement to make reproductions of all artwork created after like... 1976... when this copyright law went into effect.

Go to any art museum. Many of them now have their galleries set up so that there are no works after 1976 in the same galleries as before then so it's easier for guards to know if people are snapping photos of protected work.

And a "permit" would really just be written consent from the artist.

Actually, in this case you need to buy a permit from the city.

It just seems very strange & odd to me. The museum case doesn't really seem analogous, though I can't quite put my finger on why. I just have an expectation (apparently incorrectly) that if something is placed in a public space without any restrictions, that I can damn well take a picture of it. If I were walking across that park, there's nothing I could do to prevent somebody from taking a picture of me - but you need permission to photograph the landscape?

Yes I know that is completely apples & orages - privacy vs. copyright. It still feels wrong to me.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: kranky
Can't get to the links, but it seems that all that would have to be done to fix this issue is to specify in the contract that the artist may not copyright art paid for by tax dollars.

Well, the artist has assigned exclusive licensing rights to the city. So the city is making money on the deal.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Injury
It doesn't matter who the owner is or who commissioned it, it's copyright infringement to make reproductions of all artwork created after like... 1976... when this copyright law went into effect.

So, taking a picture of a Ferrari at a dealership is OK, but taking a picture of a few twisted bits of metal that some modern artist threw at the canvas and hoodwinked a park into putting on display is....?

I'm sorry, but I'll buy the copyright angle at a museum...but in a PUBLIC PARK, you can take pictures. Otherwise, the government should sue Google Maps for having satellite images of all parks which contain artwork.

 

[NatePo717]

Fvck copyright laws. If I see something I want to take a picture of I'm gonna take a fvcking picture of it.

 

[episodic]

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

 

[QED]

Makes sense to me...

A few years ago the courts ruled that you can take photos of public works that are normally viewable in a public space as long as they aren't for commercial purposes... however, it's so hard to tell whether a photographer is taking a picture for themselves or for commercial purposes so generally security guards will give everyone a hard time.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: Armitage
So - art paid for with tax dollars and located in a public park is cannot be photographed without a permit? WTH??

umm... yeah?

It doesn't matter who the owner is or who commissioned it, it's copyright infringement to make reproductions of all artwork created after like... 1976... when this copyright law went into effect.

Go to any art museum. Many of them now have their galleries set up so that there are no works after 1976 in the same galleries as before then so it's easier for guards to know if people are snapping photos of protected work.

And a "permit" would really just be written consent from the artist.

Yeah, I went to an art museum once where we were only allowed to take pictures of certain works.

Ownership of the work is irrelevent unless the artist sold the copyright with the work.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Wow. Freedom really isn't free.

 

[Eeezee]

What the hell? The photographer owns a piece of that sculpture by paying taxes. It no longer belongs to the artist, he sold it. Its public property, and I'll be damned if I can't take a picture of something that the artist no longer owns.

Copyright laws are ridiculous, there are circumstances where they are obviously needed and this is obviously not one of them.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Interesting - thanks for the link. Though it seems more aligned with criminal issues then civil.

One bit in particular...

Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their properties from other locations.

So presumably, the city owns the park and is within their rights to prohibit it.

Regarding commercial use - I'm still of the mind that if it's in a public space it's fair game. But even so - it's not commercial use until I start selling T shirts. Not when I snap the picture.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

It's sad that in this day and age, everyone needs to carry around a lawyer to figure out what they can and can't do.

 

[AbsolutDealage]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Wow. Freedom really isn't free.

$1.05 Please. I accept paypal.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their properties from other locations.

So presumably, the city owns the park and is within their rights to prohibit it.

It's not the same thing. Can they arrest you for trespassing if they want? A private owner could. (And I don't mean at 2AM when the park's closed)

 

[notfred]

Anyone who thinks that a photograph is a copy of a sculpture is an idiot.

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Armitage

Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their properties from other locations.

So presumably, the city owns the park and is within their rights to prohibit it.

It's not the same thing. Can they arrest you for trespassing if they want? A private owner could. (And I don't mean at 2AM when the park's closed)

Yes, yes they can.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: AbsolutDealage

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Wow. Freedom really isn't free.

$1.05 Please. I accept paypal.

I live in the UK and as most of you think I'm oppressed I think that is free.

 

[GoingUp]

weird. People photograph that thing all the time and Ive never heard of that.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: MathMan
Makes sense to me...

A few years ago the courts ruled that you can take photos of public works that are normally viewable in a public space as long as they aren't for commercial purposes... however, it's so hard to tell whether a photographer is taking a picture for themselves or for commercial purposes so generally security guards will give everyone a hard time.

Exactly.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Injury
It doesn't matter who the owner is or who commissioned it, it's copyright infringement to make reproductions of all artwork created after like... 1976... when this copyright law went into effect.

So, taking a picture of a Ferrari at a dealership is OK, but taking a picture of a few twisted bits of metal that some modern artist threw at the canvas and hoodwinked a park into putting on display is....?

While ferraris are nice, they aren't a work of art. The difference being is that a Ferrari is sold as transportion, and artists make their money from what people are seeing.

I'm certain that if Ferrari wanted to sue people who used a picture of their vehicles they could probably tackle that, but the legal fees and PR nightmare it would cause really tends to shatter their image as a dream car. Ferrari probably enjoys people taking pictures of their cars because it helps keep the image that most people consider it a beautiful thing they they probably can't afford.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Injury
It doesn't matter who the owner is or who commissioned it, it's copyright infringement to make reproductions of all artwork created after like... 1976... when this copyright law went into effect.

So, taking a picture of a Ferrari at a dealership is OK, but taking a picture of a few twisted bits of metal that some modern artist threw at the canvas and hoodwinked a park into putting on display is....?

While ferraris are nice, they aren't a work of art. The difference being is that a Ferrari is sold as transportion, and artists make their money from what people are seeing.

I'm certain that if Ferrari wanted to sue people who used a picture of their vehicles they could probably tackle that, but the legal fees and PR nightmare it would cause really tends to shatter their image as a dream car. Ferrari probably enjoys people taking pictures of their cars because it helps keep the image that most people consider it a beautiful thing they they probably can't afford.

An interesting bit on this:
If you take a picture of your car, and sell it on a calender. You have to get permission from the company that made that car because it's considered a trademark.

I'm part of an automotive based group that focuses on a particular model of car (a cookie to whoever can figure this out in less than two clicks), and we ran into this problem. We own the cars, we took the pictures, but effectively the fact that it has a manufacturer's logo on it makes it a trademark issue.

Note the number of commercials and advertizements when the make of the car is freaking obvious, but the logo on the grill is blacked out, or covered up in some way.

As far as a car not being considered art. When someone glues a bunch of shells to it, they can call it art. Art is in the eye of the beholder, and to many people, cars are a mechanical, functional sculpture (though some much less functional than others). Seems like a signifigant part of the art community thinks that if you can have fun with something it can't be art.