Copyrighted public space...

[rbV5]

It is true that you need permission to photograph copywrited Art even in a public place in the USA....however, you need no permission for tourist type photographs or for "fair Use" such as news reporting ect....only for photographs you intend to distribute or sell as Art itelf.

Essentially, you can't be stopped from taking the picture in a public park, even if it is of the Copywrited Art. You can be hassled, or questioned as long as it isn't harrassment, and you can be sued by the Copywrite holder if your photograph ends up being used for commercial purposes.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: MathMan

Yes, yes they can.

A city can arrest some random person for trespassing, while walking through the park in the middle of the day? For some reason I don't see the lawyers sitting still for that one.

 

[Unheard]

Originally posted by: 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.

Dodge Dakotas! Holy crap demon, I never linked 1 to 1. This is MusicCityDak from DakUSA.

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: MathMan

Yes, yes they can.

A city can arrest some random person for trespassing, while walking through the park in the middle of the day? For some reason I don't see the lawyers sitting still for that one.

Well, they can't arrest you simply for walking through unless they gave you prior notice to leave. Once you refuse or ignore a requst to leave, they can arrest you.

If an authorized agent for the city tells you have to get out of the park, you have to get out of the park.

The park is public property in much the same sense the highway is-- the public is generally free to use it, but only under the government's terms and conditions.

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: AbsolutDealage

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

$1.05 Please. I accept paypal.

:music:Freedom costs a buck-o-five:music:

 

[Juno]

this is BS.

i have pictures of myself in front of sculptures from millennium park! i know it's in chicago but i never got stopped for doing this?!!

wow this is fvcked!

 

[Cristatus]

What is even more amazing is that the Eiffel Tower (Paris, France) and the Atomium (Brussels, Belgium), both, IIRC, are prohibited from appearing in any kind of still, or motion photography.

Maybe it was just the Atomium, I could be wrong.

 

[DOSfan]

Originally posted by: jagecA city can arrest some random person for trespassing, while walking through the park in the middle of the day? For some reason I don't see the lawyers sitting still for that one.

A private landowner can't just have you arrested for walking through their property either.

There has to be a request (stated or print) to not be on the owners property before it can be considered a criminal act. And yes, posted No Tresspassing signs count.


So if I was to just walk accross someones lawn - and there wasn't any kind of fence, or wall, or some kind of posted sign telling me (or anyone) I wasn't allowed on the property - I could not "just be arrested."

Of course, the police can be called in, and then I could be detained and questioned - in short making the whole process more trouble than it is worth - but as long as there was no abvious infringement of rights, I could not be arrested. (per se)

 

[rbV5]

i have pictures of myself in front of sculptures from millennium park! i know it's in chicago but i never got stopped for doing this?!!

They can't stop you from taking pictures for personal use (tourist, personal photo) or exercising "fair use" (newstory ect) The copywrite only applies to using your photographs for commercial purposes. They can't stop you from "taking" the pictures in ANY case anyway, by using your photos for commercial purposes you subject yourself to potential lawsuit from the Copywrite holder.

 

[Kadarin]

Is the government really acting in the best interests of "We the People" when it passes laws like this?

 

[Aves]

OH NOES!!!

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Is the government really acting in the best interests of "We the People" when it passes laws like this?

Yeah.

The best intrest of the people of the United States generally doesn't require that pictures of art works be taken. Therefore, the need to protect people from wrongfully profitting from other people's work (the work that is necessary for them to survive), laws such as these that don't put people at a disadvantage are put in to place.

 

[Gooberlx2]

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.

snip...

But not in this case. The artist sold the work. He's not making royalties everytime someone passes a glance at the sculpture, nor does the city make any money from it.

In any case, anything a bird can sh!t on is fair game IMO.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Is the government really acting in the best interests of "We the People" when it passes laws like this?

Since "We the People" are all capable of creating intellectual property, I would say that yes, they are. The artist who created the artwork in question is not some big company or special interest that the government bent over backwards for, as most people would like to think is the only thing the government ever does. This is an extreme case of copyright that borders on silly or absurd, but there are cases that are not so dissimilar where it is clear that it is imortant to protect a person's copyright. For instance suppose I as a software developer write some software and give it away for free. Should anyone who obtains it then be allowed to do whatever they want with it?