Slashdot Mirror
Public Park Designated Copyrighted Space
wiggles writes "The City of Chicago recently completed a $475 million park/civic center known as Millennium Park. One of the central features is a sculpture officially called Cloud Gate and unofficially called "The Bean". The Bean is a giant, 3 story, 110-ton hunk of highly reflective steel. Photographers taking pictures of the sculpture have been charged money by the city. The park district is claiming that pictures of the park violate the designers' and artists' copyrights. Quoth Karen Ryan, the press director for the park's project, "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." In response, Chicagoland bloggers have been posting as many pictures as they can get of The Bean."
Copyrights have now officially jumped the shark!
Windy City, blow me.
What happens to other publicly displayed works of art? Also, wasn't this payed for by the people of Chicago and thus now owned by the taxpayers? Shouldn't it be up to them to decide how to enforce/not enforce the copyright? Essentially, this is like Ford telling people not to take pictures of their own cars because the designers (read: the company) still own the copyright to the design.
Appalling.
Per Square Mile, a blog about density
As far as I know, anything viewable from a public area may be photographed. If the artists want to enforce copyright, they should place their sculptures in an enclosed building.
people will be harassed and intimidated merely for taking photos of public landmarks!
This is outrageous. The funding came from two sources: public and private. The article addresses both. First public:
The city's $270 million is mostly coming from bonds backed by revenue from the underground parking garages, said Lisa Schrader, a spokeswoman in the city's budget office.
Paid for by the citizenry of Chicago. Now, there was also the private source:
In all, about $200 million of the funding came from private contributors whose names are sprinkled throughout the park -- Wrigley Square, Bank One Promenade, BP Pedestrian Bridge, McCormick Tribune Plaza, the Lurie Garden.
Boom, they have their recognition and return on their investment.
My point is that these works of art are being errected in a public place, paid for by public funds and through private sponsorship (that has recieved its due return - free advertising in the form of building nomenclature). It is absolutely absurd that the citizens would be charged money to take pictures in their own damn park! Because that's what it is, they all own it through their tax dollars. Therefore, they should be able to take their damn pictures for free. Otherwise, can the city of Chicago really be providing the best government to its citizens?
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan
In a sense, this is a good thing, because it turns more people against the modern bastardization of copyright law. A few more incidents like this and America will be ready for serious reforms to copyright law.
Oh wait.. Chicago, the Windy City. Now I get it.
There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
This country gets stupider with every second. If only Canada wasn't so bloody cold.
Vote Quimby!
I wonder if I can copyright myself, and then charge people to take pictures of me?
Come on people, let's be serious, since when does taking a picture of something = reproduction?
The artist who created the Portlandia structure for the City of Portland said he'd sue the city if they wanted to move it to the waterfront. Can't find links to that bit, but remeber it from listening to the radio when they talked about it in 2000. City bought it, artist claims rights to it even after he got paid.
S /4 KIDS/arthist/portlan.htmo cyon_g/image/27208315
http://www.heritagepreservation.org/PROGRAMS/SO
http://www.pbase.com/pr
Isn't there freedom of photography in this country? This is why we should all vote communist!
It's in the public area, thus, anyone should be able to take a photo of it without any problems, especially since it cost the taxpayers money. _Their_ money. They should be allowed to at least take a photo of it! And, about YRO. YRO = Your Rights Online. The online part only describes your rights, but the page describing said things are online.
As much as it may sound like the ravings of a paranoid luncatic, the current culture of copyright is proceeding down a disturbing path. Very soon we are going to live in a world where the ideals of free expression and ideological innovation are replaced by the chains of universal IP rights. Every form of communication will be copyrighted, licensed, and regulated. People will fear to speak out or take action on ideas that matter to them for fear of being sued if they duplicate the process of someone else.
Hopefully the unwashed masses will get wind of all this and demand change before it gets to that point though.
Sorry Chicago, you spent public money so the place is owned by the taxpayers, not the artists. This was a commissioned work, not art done alone by the artist and intended for sale. The more the city tries to enforce this the more it will cost them in legal fees down the road.
Do really dense people warp space more than others?
A sculpture in a public park is copyrighted? WTF? I guess I don't get it. Maybe I should be copyrighted too...and if I ever show up in someone else's photo album, let the royalties flow!!!
So in case you ever visit a theme park or other such place, I'll be the asshole jumping into your family pictures and charging you ten bucks if you choose to develop. Commercial purpose or not, you mofos have to pay me.
Awww crap, better hide this article in the basement. My parents may ask for royalties 'cause their genetic material made ME possible.
"Photographers taking pictures of the sculpture have been charged money by the city."
That's about one step short of the RIAA charging me every time I hear a song in a public place...
Somehow I wouldn't be surprised if the city is keeping that money for themselves rather than collecting that money for the artists that created these so-called copyrighted works.
I must also wonder how long this will go unchallenged. I can't see this standing up in court if, for example, the land was paid for using tax dollars instead of private funding.
So if I see a picture of my house in the newspaper, maybe I should sue them because I designed it? and am the copyright owner of it? morons!
This is awesome.
They build a giant, 3 story, 110-ton hunk of highly reflective steel. and they don't want people to take a picture of it.
They might want to try making it a little smaller next time.
"Picture taking monitored by aircraft."
...memory erasure for viewing copyrighted materials. This idea was conceptualized in the short story Paycheck. As absurd as that sounds, ten years ago a story like the one posted here would have sounded equally absurd.
Place your own work in front of the sculpture, and sue them because their mirror is replicating your copyrighted work.
Seeing as how you are only the current owner of you and not the artists who originally created you.
Required Reading.
Here are my Photos of Millennium Park. Must go take more...
Im glad
(Software) Patents here.. copyrights there.. where oh where is this going to stop?
Sometimes I fear, against the fact that I hope for the better, that a species once named 'common sense' has definitely become extinct.
Oh brave new world?
or
'Daddy, where were you when everything got either patented or became copyright material?'
You know I bet the City of New York could place some tiny but barely visible emblem on top of some building, and then charge people royalties on photos of the Manhattan skyline. Why not? Of course you're still free to take photos of Manhattan! But you have to pay a royalty on photos of that little thingy on top of the empire state building, it's an "artwork". Oh, and it just happens that's going to be visible in any Manhatan skyline photo you take . How convenient.
Is there a greater example than this that the balance of rights between creators and consumers is out of whack? Law enforcement and legislation seems to tilt further towards creators every day.
The city of Chicago offers a permit, $325, which allows commercial photography in ANY city park for one day. You may take personal photos in any park at any time without paying anything. So, I think I'll just shoot away, buy the permit for $325, and "turn pro", releasing all my images on one day.
Oh... most people missed the part about ALL CITY PARKS. That's right. You can't shoot commercially in ANY city park in Chicago. So the Millenium Park "rights" belonging to the artists might hold a little water... but what about the hundreds of other parks? I suppose the trees are copyrighted? Does the park superintendent own the rights to the flower bed designs?
I think people should start a call-in campaign. Don't call the politicians. Call every business in Chicago that depends on tourism and shopping. Restaurants, bars, hotels, and all the ritzy stores on Michigan Ave. Tell them that you were considering a trip to Chicago. That it really would have been a lot of money... but since the fascists running Chicago don't see fit to allow free use of a camera, the trip won't be possible.
-- No sig for you!
The Bean itself is voilating copyrights of the buildings that it reflects...the reflections themselves are "reproductions" of the buildings that are designed by artists and builders.
I think the designers of the Prudential Building should charge the designers and the City of Chicago for the reproduction of their building without their permission.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
I'd like to get off now.
Having said that, at a personal level I get annoyed if my house or boat are photographed, especially as I know that there are pictures of them on photoblogs on the net, put there without my permission. If the taxpayer had paid for them, and put them in a public park, I really do not see I would have a case.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
.. anthem.
...complete and absolute corporate control over a nation's legal framework.
BoingBoing recently ran a story about the Eiffel tower. Now, because the Eiffel tower was built in the 19th century, there's an extra twist: Only the tower at night (with its recently added lighting) is supposedly copyrighted.
My copyrights budget just imploded.
I hardly believe that taking a picture of a sculpture could be considered reproducing it. Maybe We'll just have an artist make a sketch of it. It's like Nike charging someone of taking a picture of someone wearing a Nike logo (To my knowledge they have never done this). I know, that's a trademark, but it pretty much amounts to the same thing. Can you even copyright a sculpture? I thought it was just for written works, picture and code. Maybe Levi's should copyright a pair of jeans so nobody can wear jeans anymore on TV.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Welcome to new new world ... so how do you like your owners and overlords?
You overly affluent people are evil. Thanks for selling us out.
I'd save the images, but the flickr site displays the images as flash objects. The Muckromedia plug-in doesn't directly allow saving them, unless I save the entire page.
This whole thing sounds more like a PR thing then something legit. Think about it. Had there been no copyright on it, no one outside of Chicago would have cared. Now there's a huge outcry and people are posting pictures "out of spite".
Gee, sounds like the whole "Cartman Land" marketing scheme to me.
...except in this case people are copyrighting and patenting everything in sight. This isn't overgrazing, folks, this is bulldozing the field and sterilizing the soil.
Copyrights and patents are supposed to be a means to foster creativity, not stifle it. Unless we find some way to hold certain aspects of our cultural heritage as a shared resource, we will remove the ability to create new art.
Mabye somebody should start selling photographs of this area of Chicago on Ebay, and if this "bean" happens to be in the background, well I wonder what will happen.
If a sculpture is in a public place, you can take a photograph of it. (Assuming US law applies and excepting Military Reservations) You cannot, however, commercially exploit that picture without permission of the copyright owner. This is all simple copyright law. If you are being harassed by any law enforcement officer, please ask them why the Executive Branch is becoming involved in a civil matter. Alteratively, you can explain that you are gathering photographs for the news outlet "slashdot.org." Furthermore, explain that a copyrighted work, in a public place, can be reproduced for Fair-Use reasons, including the gathering and reporting of news.
I for one welcome our fucking gigantic copyrighted chromium-bean wielding overlords.
There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
Monsanto and other genetic engineering firms have been actively pursuing legal action against farmers who save their GM seeds. If this is modeled on a Monsanto GM bean, does that mean that Monsanto has the rights?
RHCE; are you certified? Karma: ambiguous.
Would you like to put your digital pictures from your recent Chicago vacation on your web site? Oh I'm sorry, those are copyrighted. Too bad.
My UID is the product of 2 primes.
a Two? This definately needs to be modded up.
So, does this mean that weather satellites aren't allowed to point at Chicago any more?
Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion
Maybe somebody should charge, these guys, as they are obviously reproducing the artists work for profit.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I often paint my face, thereby creating unique works of art over which I assert copyright. While standing near The Bean, I was horrified to see that it was making unauthorized reflected copies of my face! I tried to stop it by yelling at it, hitting it with things... but nothing worked. What kind of world are we living in today??
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
I need help.
Since I'm using my parents DNA, they've sued me for copyright infringement. What should I do? Do you think I can get a license to use it? They have even talked about a patent on sueing your children as a business method.
Seriously, some people must wake up and start thinking!
Evolution of Language Through The Ages: 6000 BC : ungh, grrf, booga 2000 AD : grep, awk, sed
Perhaps I should have my car painted and copyright it. Next time a survallence camera takes a picture of me going 5 over the speed limit I'll sue the city for copyright infringement.
He, I wear my cloths and style my hair in an artistic way, my name was artistically created by my parents.
Show me the money.
---
If it's on public display the fuck'em.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
This is simply what happens when (and these are not necessarily related):
- Everything becomes a commodity,
- Representations of things become somehow more valuable than the things themselves.
The first issue expresses itself most clearly in societies where money is held to be both the highest value and the Most Powerful Thing: whoever contols it, and can get their hands on it, clearly has The Power. Thus people seek to control the flow of commodities (which now include ideas, representations, waveforms, etc.) so as to tap into the flow of power, i.e., money. The second issue...well, the second issue is troublesome in its own special way. It also has been dealt with by Baudrillard time and time again. Just check out some of his essays...they're certainly not the final word on the subject, but they cover far more ground that may sensibly be covered here. One might perhaps want to begin with some of the essays in The Transparency of Evil or in Screened Out.brwski
"Because without beer, things do not seem to go as well''
We need a new feature on Slashdot. For each news story, there should be a "scream in horror, pain, and disgust" button. This way, whenever a story is reported where otherwise well-thinking people do something that makes no logical sense whatsoever, you can simply press the button to register your "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGH."
Each thread would have a scream counter, and perhaps also rate them by severity/incoherence. Perhaps a high-bandwidth version could be introduced in which posters can record their screams, and visitors can listen to all of them together, a la "millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced."
I bring this up because there is an increasing number of stories, like this one, where I think a good scream is necessary, but can't be made into a coherent thread.
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
God damn. This is fucking appalling!
UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 17, SECTION 106A, COPYRIGHT LAW ON WORKS OF VISUAL ARTS
(c) Exceptions.
(3) The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work in, upon, or in any connection with any item described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of the definition of "work of visual art" in section 101, and any such reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a).
There. Got it? IF YOU TAKE A PICTURE OF A WORK OF VISUAL ART, YOU ARE NOT COMMITTING COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!
I'm sorry, this just pisses me off. The creator can not do this. The fucking balls and arrogance of some people, goddamn!
Without a proper flamewar, Anonymous was undecided on what shell to run.
To _GET_ people to take pictures of it, thinking they are snubbing the system, then publishing those pictures resulting in free publicity for the artists creation.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The problem is actually worse in a lot of other countries.
For example, in France, a professional photographer must pay 5,000 euros per day for a license to use a tripod when taking photographs of public buildings like the Palace of Versailles. If you can't prove that you are a professional photographer, you may not buy a tripod permit at any price.
Looks like you're the stupid one, after all. But of course, lefty soreheads who belittle the USA are usually ignorant malcontents who don't realize how good they have it.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
... the Rage Against the Machine song Guerilla Radio, where they say: Transmission third world war third round A decade of the weapon of sound above ground Ain't no shelter if you're looking for shade I lick shots at the brutal charade As tha polls close like a casket On truth devoured A silent play on the shadow of power A SPECTACLE MONOPOLIZED THE CAMERA'S EYES ON CHOICE DISGUISED Was it cast for the mass who burn and toil? Or for the vultures who thirst for blood and oil A SPECTACLE MONOPOLIZED THEY HOLD THE REINS AND STOLE YOUR EYES The fistagons bullets and bombs Who stuff the banks Who staff the party ranks More for Gore or the son of a drug lord None of the above fuck it cut the cord
This was an extremely effective publicity stunt. Since I'm a contrarian that doesn't like to fall for such things, that's all I have to say on it.
Take that, City of Chicago!
I'm a big tall mofo.
Hear ye, hear ye;
:AFFIDAVIT
AFFIDAVIT:
The problem is diversity of citizenship. You have a corporation beknownst "City", uncured exhibit in res as "THE CITY" and it is inside a de jure city; hence the City of Westminster here in the "State" of California. Not related to this slashdot article, but for example.
Diversity of citizenship; corporations are bodies politic, according to their adhesion as mimic to the Law of Nations; and in relation to these united States of America they are citizens of the United States charted within the District of Columbia extending its embassy onto potestate of America by way of its national bank embassy POST OFFICES. When you see a flagpole with a flag, it is a memberSHIP set SALE on the HIGH SEAS OF COMMERCE. All claims made below the high tide mark must be mde in a district court in admiralty proceedings. It doesn't get any simpler. Open a evidence repository with your nearest district court LANDING on soil with purpose of prohibiting fraudulent claims.
I will post a story on my journal and then post notice to a Slashdot journalist on my research concluding that a corporation is a person et al. Try not to burden this forum with arguments. To fight a corporation, you can only approach it *as* a corporation and according to the Uniform Commercial Code -- all parties are in agreement; non-acceptance is acceptance of an offer.
Sincerily,
Gregory-Thomas (NRAdude)
If they were preventing sculpted copies, they might have something to talk about. But photographs are references to the object, depictions of the object, not copies of the object. Then there's the public display - which the public has a right to photograph. If I rob a bank in a trademarked, copyrighted, even patented suit of clothing, can I stop the cameras from recording me? And of course the dimension of public ownership of the object, given to the City, now City property. Photographs of one's property is fair use of one's property. If that somehow conflicts with the object, it should be returned, kicked out of the park. Why should the artist get all the free publicity of publicly displayed art, and try to hog all the other rights, too?
--
make install -not war
IANAL (obviously, otherwise I wouldn't we wanking on /.) but is taking a picture of "the bean" a copyright violation or is it just selling/showing images of it put you on the wrong side of the law?
I had a look at the galleries in the links and I'd wager the Number One question asked by tourists is;
one better than mcleodeight
If they are trying to stop people photographing this object, I think a flash mob with tripod several times a week will really make their day.
Can I get money for just looking at it? Pain and sufferring due to bad art. Give me the blue duck!
Who wants to bet that this copyrighted piece of crap will become the most photographied thing in the US just out of spite for this disgusting practice?
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
charge the artist and the city 4589762430768$ as the reflective bean imaged you as a person without you allowing it and thus violated your copyright.
How about "land of the fee" instead?
Read it while you have the right to.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Whoa, whoa. These are different issues here.
On one hand you have the right to take pictures of publicly displayed art, sculptures and buildings, even though they're copyrightable and probably copyrighted. (Yes, even buildings can be copyrighted, since 1990)
On the other hand, you do not have the right to publish/distribute those photos beyond what is allowed in fair use (most notably commercial distribution) without permission from the copyright holder.
Now I'd agree this is pretty silly. But it is the law as it currently stands.
It's not copyright violation. It's THEFT!
A prime example is the large suspension bride called De Zwaan (The Swan) near the city centre, any commercial use of picture(s) of it has to be paid for.
Indeed utterly rediculous once you talk about publicly funded objects and public places.
Sometimes it's the owner, sometimes it's the artist/builder that gets the proceeds.
If I remember correctly in the case of the Rotterdam bridge it's the city as owner that gets the benefits.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I'm going to start a clothing store but all my products will be copywrited. Of course the buyers will own their clothing, but I'll charge a small royalty each time they wear the clothes. And, even better, the wearers will become my agents and have to charge a royalty to everybody who sees them. The EULA will specify that they agree to collect my royalties for me, but in their favor, the EULA will also prohibit saying anything bad about my clothing without my express written consent. Furthermore, I'll patent this business method so nobody else can do the same thing without paying me a hefty licensing fee.
they tried to pull something like this. Once(maybe more than once)way back in 2000 or 2001 there was a non-free concert in Grant Park, and the city actually considered chasing off anybody lingering around within earshot of the show(It wouldn't surprise me if they told all the apartment dwellers nearby to shut their windows.). How much longer will it be before people wake up and realize that all IP robs the public? These kind of absurdities are the only path that copyright and its ilk can take. This will never be an election issue, so forget about putting anybody into office who has any intention of doing anything about it.
What?
the copyright holder has the exclusive right to reproduce the work.
You mean that we can't go out and put another bean in the park. Fine and dandy. But we're not reproducing it, we're providing an illustration of the original.
Well, it's splitting hairs, I suppose, but it's a silly idea NTL.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
read the itty-bitty print of the two newspaper scans in tfa here and here (I tried to get the text, but it's a paysite) and you'll see this does NOT apply to joe tourist, cellphonecameras, or anything like that. This applies to COMMERCIAL photographers, wedding photographers et al. You can debate how great that is on it's own, but it's nothing out of the unusual, I know you need a permit to take wedding photos in the public parks here in Milwaukee. The law generally is such that these photo-takers don't detract from others' enjoyment of the park, but this article says that security guards were stopping anybody with a tripod, even when the park was otherwise completely empty, and giving them leaflets that cited copyright protection, which like a lot of leaflets, was kind of glazing over a more complex subject. hilarity ensues.
http://flickr.com.nyud.net:8090/photos/search/tags :cloud+gate/tagmode:any/?page=1
It is obvious that we need to pick one way for these laws to go and stick with it. I just hope that we don't need to get a license for things that are today accepted as normal behavior. Like: taking a family photo at a ski slope; taking a group photo at a local restaurant; a photo of Mt. Rushmore or the various other national parks in the US; or, even taking a photo of your family inside your family home when something that is copyright is visible through a window. It is truly terrifying to imagine what could come next: copyrighting proper names? consumer products? or perhaps even a thought. Imagine taking a photo of Bono wearing an Ipod in front of Buckingham Palace wearing a tee shirt that says "Think Peace". That is four distinct copyright violations: The name Bono; The Ipod device; the landmark Buckingham Palace; and, the tee shirt slogan "Think Peace". Where will it stop?
Restore America: Dr. Ron Paul for President!
Overly Draconian copyright restrictions...now I know why they called it Millennium Park. I now understand that ridiculous huge metal bean to represent wastefulness, pompous arrogance, and idiocy. I'll never go anywhere near that park, and only laugh when I see that shiny metal turd posing as Art. I cringe at the thought of taxpayer money being spent on such empty extravagance.
I wouldn't say that in front of our not-so-new wind-making overlords. I, for one, welcome them.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
I once had a dream in which I tried to photograph a natural landscape and my camera had an error: "ERROR: This landscape is copyrighted by Microsoft Corporation". I thought it was absurd.
:-(
Now I know someday may be true.
I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.
It's short for Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) Bitches' Park.
Boy, you will really be in trouble if you take a picture of the building, with the image of the bean reflected in the glass, with the image of the building reflected in the bean... and so on... you will owe an infinate amount of royalties!
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
I and my company do ZERO business in Chicago because of that that moronic lawbreaking asshole did to Meigs. This is another example of why people should boycott Chicago.
isn't it ironic that Boeing moved to the only city in America which shut down a pulic airfield, by force
The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame sued a dude who sold pictures of their museum. If I read the decision right, the museum lost and the guy won.
It's amusing that I found this case referenced through these IP lawyers/scumbags, who say "This is one of those cases where the dissent got it right...On the other hand, the dissent by Judge Martin is 'right on' and 'righteous.'" Yeah - they totally get it, dude.
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
That's about one step short of the RIAA charging me every time I hear a song in a public place...
Listening to music is free, just like looking at this sculpture is free. Playing the music (esp. in public venues where it is part of a business situation: restaurants, shops, radio stations) is where the money comes into it. The RIAA wants to be reimbursed for the use of the music in those situations.
I wouldn't be surprised if the situation were similar with Cloudgate (why does this make me think of Watergate, Iran-gate, Clinton-gate and just about any other scandal in recent years?). The artist and/or whoever "owns" the sculpture wants to be reimbursed for any money made from photographs taken of the sculpture for commercial purposes, such as stock photos of Chicago for instance.
Probably the average tourist is safe, though it could be difficult to judge who is the average tourist and who is going to end up trying to profit from the photos.
Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
Don't take a picture of a forest without buying a licence from Mother Nature, or you will get striked by lighting!
artist claims rights to it even after he got paid.
Work.
For.
Hire.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
The scuplture is currently inside a temporary structure, so it won't be on "public display" again for several months...
See, it wasn't exactly finished when erected... and apparently the reported has never seen "The Bean"...
"Other highlights include a 110-ton sculpture forged of a seamless series of highly polished, reflective stainless steel plates..."
Note the term "SEAMLESS"... It has HORRENDOUS welding seams which have to be ground down and repolished... They estimate that it'll be done by May...
We'll have to wait til then to assert our "fair-use" rights
I wonder what that art would look like getting shot up w/ paintballs?
Good one! ;)
Am I the only one disgusted at the fact that the city spent $475 Million? On a Park?
What are tax dollars for anymore?
There must be at least a dozen satellite and aerial photography companies who have photographed Chicago. Are they going to be billed as well?
If nothing else, I would be curious to see what reflected image you get from that viewing angle.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
It sounds to me like you are hoping that the majority who have not a clue, will notice that their right to have an idea is being denied. The majority can't think, and don't notice the loss, as they haven't got one in the first place. This allows those who would propel humanity into an homogenous form to define the parameters of that form.
Welcome to the new millenium! What this planet needs is a good meteor impact.
Who knew?
As a resident of Chicago, I can say that this is just the latest silliness to come across the wire. I voted happily for Daley the first time, and grudgingly thereafter. Everything is angled toward revenue, restriction, rules, etc. Intentionally misleading parking restriction signs that allow for discretionary ticketing, arbitrary snow-related parking bans, very restrictive regulations against the Cubs doing anything to Wrigley while the Bears can turn Soldier Field into a parody of itself, Meigs Field being torn up under cover of darkness, and so on.
Millennium Park (scheduled to be finished at, well, the new millennium, but actually finished last year) was crazy overbudget, tied up traffic hopelessly on Michigan Avenue for several years, and all in all a burden on the city. This is not to say I don't think it was a great addition to Chicago - it's a fantastic, interesting, inventive park that's a blast to walk around in and explore. But there's something sadly unsurprising about the city's blindness on this one.
Public art is just that: public. And to tell residents who put up with the construction and whose tax dollars paid for the park (if not the bean itself - SBC paid for that, I believe) that they can't take pictures of it is bordering on criminal. Anyway, all legal issues aside, it's just impractical (and if you actually try it, expensive) to try to invoice every rubbernecking tourist with a camera in downtown Chicago. Daley, as near as I can tell, is beautifying Chicago strictly for how it will affect his legacy, not the quality of life of anyone who lives here.
Chicago's a beautiful city (it's MY favorite, at any rate), and Daley really did do a lot of great things recently to make it all come together. But here we are - there's nothing inherently wrong with the bean or the other cultural improvements made during the reign of the Latter Daley kingdom. But to take something that's finally giving something good to the residents of the city after a lot of cost and buttpain and turn it into yet another dumb distasteful battle that only serves the lawyers seems to be how too many things are going around here anymore.
Hells bells, The artist (or the artist now known as SBC - whatever) built a humongolous shiny bean in the middle of a public park - to expect people to not take pictures of it and, in addition, to try to keep them from doing it is more like performance art than legal angling.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
So, in 2000 I spent a few months in a mission hospital in Papua New Guinea. The many tribes of central Papua New Guinea (the highlands) were isolated, stone-age peoples as recently as the 1950s. It was a very interesting time, and I was struck more than once by the differences between our cultures.
Getting to the point of the story: coming back from Mt Hagen after stocking up on supplies, I got the driver to stop the van so I could take a good picture of one of the outstandingly beautiful waterfalls that dotted the countryside. The driver warned me to be discrete, but a small crowd of villagers gathered at the base of the falls started chasing me (several of whom were young males armed with machetes). It seems that they felt that they owned the falls, and that they wanted to be paid for the privelege of taking a picture of their falls.
At that time, it seemed to me to be one of the stranger, more un-western attitudes I had encountered.
Now...
Well, either they were more advanced than I realized, or we're headed back to the Stone Age.
Fermat's other theorem: "I have a simple proof, but I can't write it down as I fear it's a DMCA violation to discuss it"
There is a sign at the site saying "No Photography Permitted", which as far as I know is legitimate, as any reasonably close site from which a picture could be taken is on private property.
There's nothing they can do to prevent you taking a picture of it from a helicopter, assuming you stay clear of FAA flight regulations. But the developers who own 17-Mile Drive, Pebble Beach, etc., also say that the image is part of their trademark, so any commercial use of the image requires paying a fee.
Of course, there are similar or worse restrictions on photography in other countries.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
It sounds like the whole copyright situation is going to implode.
How absurd do things have to get?
You're not allowed to take mugshots of me. You can't use fingerprints against me either, those are unlicensed reproductions.
I call copyright on the custom paint job on my car... any photos taken by traffic camers are illegal reproductions.
I'm going to change my name to a copyrighted poem and disallow any reprinting in court documents... can't sue me!
Where does it end?
This is based on readings from the '90s so it may be out of date....
Commercial work and non-commercial work have different rules.
For commercial work, you generally need a property release from the property owner. In general, publicly-owned land, buildings, and fixtures are exempt.
For non-commercial work, you generally don't need permission.
However, if the picture is "of" a trademarked or copyrighted item, such as a mural or advertising billboard, then commercial use also requires permission from the trademark or copyright owner.
Non-commercial use is permitted unless it is somehow infringing. With trademarks this generally means it disparages or dilutes the trademark in a non-exempt way. For copyright, the rules are a lot broader.
Think of it this way:
If I'm a famous painter and create a famous painting, and sell the prints for $20 each, I don't want someone taking a 100MB photo and giving it away on the net. Likewise, if I'm in license negotiations with a clip-art company, I don't want any clip-art quality pictures floating around free on the net either.
In general, photographers are probably okay IF:
1) their pictures are non-commercial, AND EITHER
2a) the pictures do not have a complete, unobstructed view of the artwork, AND
2b) after cropping out everything but the art in question, the image is too small or too low-quality to be worth going to court over
If this goes to court and the public wins unlimited rights to non-commercially photograph art in public places, expect some artists to restrict their displays to places where they can impose photographic restrictions.
In the meantime, enjoy this trademarked image. A special memo to the trademark owners: Bite me.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Wasn't it paid for with taxpayer's money? It should belong to the city and all its citizens.
looks like a cheesey povray render ...
That park is a public place. The artists are getting credit for displayng their works there, it's like a marketing campaign. Have the artists asked for permission from the public to exhibit their works there? One of the conditions for granting such a permission could have been "Let the public take as many photos as they like of those works and do whatever they want with them".
As holder of the copyright to the letters A (and a) through Z (and z) of the English alphabet, you are hereby ordered to Cease and Decist their use. Any reproduction therby will constitute a violation of said Copyright, punishable by legal action.
Sincerely,
I. Diote and Associates
...then make him buy the plot of land the Bean sits on from the city of Chicago at fair market value, and make him pay property tax on it.
Women have to pay me everytime they see it.
Though, this could lead to prostitution charges on me, which would conflict with copyright law.. which would tear the very fabric of spacetime and destroy everything!!!
All your base are belong to Google.
Look, jackass, the parent poster was the one grumbling about how "stupid" America is and speculating about moving to Canada where they are presumably ever so much more enlightened. I was pointing out that his assumption that things are better in other countries is not necessarily correct.
I don't like this law any better than he did, but it's not enough to make me call my fellow citizens "stupid" and move to another country, as I am not a leftist ignoramus who looks for the worst in everything.
If anything, this proves the exact opposite of your crack about our "favorite despot". There are some people who take any evidence that America is less than perfect as proof that it is completely and irredeemably imperfect.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
couldn't be more fun, they went and made it illegal!!!
WOOHOOOOO!!!!!!
Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
about making public monuments extremely shiny like this. Memphis, TN tried that with the pyramid thing they built,
and after a few years of it blinding people and running them off the road, they finally dulled it somewhat.
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
No, that's not a typo.
Wee the people.
Let that sink in. I'm getting pretty sick of it.
Everyone in the Chicago area should grab their
cameras and head to The Bean! Set up your tripod
and start shooting. Let's let them arrest a
couple of hundred of us. I will decline to cease
if some security guard starts spouting off to me
about copyright law, and will respectfully allow
them to cart me away.
And remember... keep it civil.
I could only think of what it really looks like..
a big... chrome.... turd.
"To make a mistake is only human; to persist in a mistake is idiotic." Cicero
"USA is actually better than some other places"
Yeah, no argumemnt there. America has more freedoms than Saudi Arabia, Libya, and North Korea. It even has more freedom of speech that most parts of the developed world.
But you know what? American PRIDES itself as the home of the free; the American President used the word "freedom" in fucking every other sentence in the State of the Union/Campaign 2004. American is a "beacon of light, a "defender of freedom." Implying of course all other countries are benighted heathens in need for the saving grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
So excuse the rest of the world for holding America up to the standard its' current administration has set of itself. Please excuse the fact that right-wing pundits have "impugned the honor" of anyone finding the LEAST fault with the country; excuse the journalists with principles for holding America up to the standards that the right has set.
Art is a dynamic between the artist's creation and those that perceive it. Why have "artist" begun hating us? Artist that expect to be paid if the sculpture is photographed by those that paid for the sculpture, musicians that think copying is stealing, movie and TV studios and actors that tried to prevent VCRs, DVDs, and now Tivo. None of this bodes well for America -- as the creative engine of global growth. By the way I've submitted this rant for a copyright.
The answer is to vote out any and all local government scum. Get people in office who will vote to demolish the stupid "bean".
I'll be having the last laugh on this one!
3 years ago I patented a method for generating photographer revenue by erecting large amorphous reflective works of art in public places. I figured sooner or later someone would violate it.
Now if only my related patent for generating contractor revenue through the temporary construction of a series of orange fabric covered archways in a public park would be violated...
Project: Cloud Gated _gate.htm
Schedule: Artist selected: 1999
Completion: July 2004
Size: 110 tons
33' high x 42' wide x 66' long
Owner: City of Chicago
from
http://www.millenniumpark.org/clou
If anyone would bother to go to court, the city's claims will be thrown out. Photographing statues is allowed under copyright law. The photographer is NOT copying the statue. A photo is not, never has been and never will be a statue. Taking a photo of it is fair use.
Oh well, what the hell...
The traditional name for such a gift is "white elephant".
The usual story explaining this is that occasionally very pale elephants are born, and in SE Asia, these have been traditionally considered a sacred beast. If you offended a king or prince or other powerful person, one way of getting back was to give you a "gift" of a white elephant. This obligated you to care for the elephant for the rest of your/its life. This could be somewhat of a financial burden, of course.
Sounds like the people of Chicago have themselves such a gift. Especially if you can be sued and fined (or imprisoned?) for merely taking a picture of the gift at its very public location.
This is probably also a good exhibit in any discussion of changing the copyright laws.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
How is taking a picture not protected fair use ?
"The Bean itself is voilating copyrights of the buildings that it reflects...the reflections themselves are "reproductions" of the buildings that are designed by artists and builders."
To fight unfair laws, you must first understand them.
Architecture was not allowed to be copyrighted before 1990. It's not retroactive, so if the Prude was built before 1990, they're SOL.
Building designers do indeed legally have the right to restrict photographs taken of a building, although this usually relates to photos taken for commercial purposes. Putting up a mirror or other reflective object near a building would be a hard case to take to court without being laughed at, as the viewer still needs to be within the presence of the building to see the reflection. Compare this to, say, buying a book on famous architecture, which allows you view the building even if you're not standing next to it.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
as an artist i have copyrighted air. that's right the oderless colorless breathable air. Anyone caught taking a picture of it owes me big time!
City of Chicago: get bent!
Chicago land blogers: get down with your bad selfs.
I for one welcome our new copyright-whore overlords. :)
This package Does Not Contain a Winner
Is this the same Karen Ryan who was a paid fodder^H^H^H News reporter for the Bush administration?
As a Chicago resident I would be *real* hesistent to use the Reader as the one and only source of information. Not that it matters since every "article" (ahem.. blog) took this out of proportion anyway.
/. post:
Ready? Here we go. Step 1, read article not posted in
Page 1, Page 2, Page 3.
Step 2, knee jerk reaction. I am really hoping the part about bribing the police/security was something the author added for editorial flare. Now let's look at the actual permit, shall we?
Permit
The first fact the author got wrong is that this permit applies outside the Chicago Park district. It doesn't, so bring the knee back a little bit.
I also don't see the BS about "journalism" anywhere on here. In fact, this permit only seems to apply to anyone who wants to *sell* the photographs. While I don't agree with it, the fact that Chicago only wants to prohibit people from selling pictures of their parks makes a little more sense to me.
I am a little upset here for some of the bad journalism. Not only did the Reader get the facts wrong, but the blogs continued to propagate these incorrect facts.
Let me reiterate: the fee of $325 is only for people who intend to take commercial photographs of Chicago Parks, and it mentions nothing about a.) non-park places in Chicago or b.) journalists using the pictures for content.
The "article" is wrong, the blogs are wrong and the quotes seem plain out of context given the facts.
But let's say that the artist retained copyright himself (herself?). It's my understanding from Bert Krages' book Legal Handbook for Photographers, that images that substantially reproduce the sculpture are derivative works, and therefore are subject to copyright restriction.
Though not entirely clear, Krages seems to be saying merely taking the picture could be a violation of copyright in these cases.
However, if you take a picture that doesn't substantially reproduce the work, then you're probably safe. Let's say you take a picture of the reflection of the Bean, but not the edges. The original work is not even shown, so I'm pretty sure that wouldn't count as a violation.
Also, you could take a picture of the surrounding area where the Bean is only a small part of the picture. This might also be non-infringing.
Of course, it's all a matter of the always-gray interpretation of Fair Use.
Also, look at it from the position of the sculpter. You make a sculpture, and then people start taking picture of it and selling them without you seeing a dime. Sounds a little unfair, right? Well, in this case, it goes back to my original question: who owns the copyright on the Bean?
So, say you paint a painting and it's really really good. But you need money for heroin or a new Beowolf cluster so you sell it for $100. Buyer then issues 5000 limited edition prints and makes $10M. Is this fair?
Think you can walk into any museum and (possibly covertly) take pictures of all the paintings by artists both dead and alive and sell the photos in book? Is this fair?
You folks that are outraged seem to think this is not fair. It doesn't have to be fair, it has to be legal.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Since that's the way the gov of Chicago sees it, someone should take a stroll by a city of Chicago security camera somewhere and sur for infringement...
Maybe Chicagoans should organize a mass civil disobedience action, and turn up by the thousands all wearing sequinned jackets and REALLY shiny shoes.
I'll copyright my appearance so that I can sue everyone who owns a video security camera.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
If, in these mad times, this is upheld by the relevant courts, could we (the people) not use it to our own advantage?
I'm imagining copyrighting my own appearance. Could I not then prevent private interests from videotaping or photographing me (for the news, for "security purposes")?
Just think, you could screen print all your favorite shirts with a warning message - "the wearer of this shirt has copyrighted his image; any replication of this image is in violation of federal copyright law" in infrared ink so it would show up through CCD imaging, but not to the naked eye!
I know I'm just speculating here, but could there be a chance that the original author wanted all of this to happen? The Bean itself not being the intended result, but instead the resulting controversy, and all the attention brought to the whole issue of copyrights and intellectual property abuses.
I don't really know anything from the artist to support this, it's just a possibility which I though would be interesting. It's just so stupid that you'd want to think it was actually done on purpose, so what if it was? Argumentation through radicalization. If whoever sculpted The Bean wanted to prove this point, then taking it to this radical extreme, the actual total collapse of public space as actually public, then he might have gotten what he/she wanted for.
Especially considering two things: first, it's entirely reflective, so as many people have said, just place another copyrighted work in front of it and sue. It's a joke, I know, but it's just as silly as this whole thing. The reflective nature of the work might be trying to tell us something. Second, what has happened afterwards, that is, Chicago bloggers uniting to take photographs of The Bean and display them all over the place, as a form of civil disobedience. Being so many people and so many pictures, they can hardly stop them all, yet they're all bringing more and more attention to the whole issue of "copyrighting public space".
Yeah, I know, just wild speculation, but I dunno, I wished it was actually all about this than it being the real deal. Best shot I've seen so far: a guy photographing his own reflection, caption: "I am my own copyright". It's gotta mean something, I guess.
http://castorexmachina.wordpress.com - Filosofía, tecnología y cultura.
I wouldn't be surprised if they jumped on Google for this one. It's just distribution and they don't charge for looking up the pictures, but after the crap that France is pulling, I would put good faith in a lawsuit against Google Images. Sad.
I don't even live in Chicago and I'm outraged. Whatever happened to the camera rule of, "S/he who takes the picture, owns the PICTURE?"
Join me! Let's copyright our houses and force the removal from every aerial photo! I wanna see so many black dots that using all modern conveniences will be completely illegal.
Just you wait, they'll trademark air pretty soon and we'll all be screwed then.
I'm surprised there isn't some law stating explicitly that any landmark in a public place, or abundantly visible from a public place, cannot be restricted in this way. If not, we need one, because these folks (SBC, others) need a complete bitch slapping.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
"No, honey, move a little to the left, right a bit - okay - smile! Hold it"
[pause]
"What's up?"
"It's saying that it won't take the picture... copyright infringement or something"
"Now it's saying that we've willfully broken our 'Bond of Trust'."
"Now it's saying we're terrorists and all our assets will be striped"
"Huh?"
"Step away from the monument!!! Put down the camera - or we fire!!!"
Those weren't villagers at all, they were attorneys!
The amount of attention this thing is now gathering makes me suspect that the whole copyright-infringement threat was a veiled PR attempt...and so far success...
Let's not forget what's important.
Tank : 'kay..so what do you need..?...Besides a miracle.. [Neo thinks about it.] Neo : 35mm Film...lots of film.
Put it on their doorstep and let them figure out how to dispose of it. Honestly, it's kinda neat to look at (it is shiny, after all) but this "artist" should be happy with what they got: lots of government money for a giant shiney metal bean. Trying to charge money for photographs? Give me a break, it's hardly a creative work to begin with.
The city should return it, demand their money back, and find some other dime-a-dozen designer to crank out some hunk of metal and call it art.
agree that this statue is the ugliest thing since shit? People should be paid TO look at this thing.
Check out the technology test in Serious Sam Second Encounter. Look familiar?
Quote of the BoingBoing Article : "recently discovered that it's now illegal to publish photographs of the Eiffel Tower at night". Tourist and whatnot can photography and get away with it as long as they do not publish the resulting photo (aka: they keep everything for private usage). Well I ve got news for you : many of the public monument and/or sculpture and painting which are "well known" have copyright notice on their reproduction on photo. This is how some museum recoup loss : by selling right to publish photography on mona Lisa for example. If you come along and photography the mona lisa and sell / publish the photo then you are violating those copyright. Mind you, if I remmember the french law, you could still make a reproduction of the nighttime Eiffel tower in another format, like oil painting and be safe. Only some sort of publication like hpoto are protected.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
There's a lot of BS claims of copyright. Look here:
h tm l
http://www.acclaimimages.com/search_terms/nasa.
Click on the picture of the earth:
"Image © Allred Images,
This image is only available as a print. No reproduction is allowed. No licensing is available. "
In reality that picture is from NASA and NASA specifically claim no copyright, since its for public use.
So its a BS copyright claim not much different from this.
In L.A. there are several very modern buildings called the Pacific Design Center. They house expensive furniture and the buildings themselves are generally not open to the publice save for their extensive grounds. Taking snap shots there results in being escorted away by a guard who tells you a $1000 license is required for picture taking. Inform him you aren't with a studio and that it is just family you are photographing, they will seek to take your camera. There are no signs anywhere stating this and when asked why, they refer to "their employer" of whom, if you question further, they have no idea who he/she might be. For what it is worth, I have had this happen in several restaurants as well: I just wrote it off as an L.A. obsession with image. Who knew it was one of money and control?
In New York City, about a decade ago, an architect was trying to charge people for taking pictures of his building. The court overturned his case, saying that it was (pretty much by definition) a public work. Not sure where to dig this up, but I read about it in the NY Times; I'm sure their dead-tree index might be helpful.
The inanities of copyright law do not justify a seventies revival. Please! Please! Hide the disco ball!
Seriously.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
"Maybe Chicagoans should organize a mass civil disobedience action, and turn up by the thousands all wearing sequinned jackets and REALLY shiny shoes."
And disco balls.
They will never stop until somebody makes the
have a proof of previous art in the form of a 3d model or something?
what would happen if somebody had done that same structure in a 3d modeler program some time ago?
errera hunamum ets
I didn't see this list mentioned yet, the Picture Archive Council of America has a list of things you can't photograph.
A normal 2D image cannot be considered a reproduction of a 3D object. There is no way to reproduce the sculpture from a photo taken from one angle ... so it can't be a reproduction. Although this may be the logical conclusion it doesn't mean a judge would necessarily listen to you.
Bitter and proud of it.
People should start pasting The Bean into the background of their images. "Look, The Bean just happened to be in the background of all these pictures! Nevermind that some are indoors."
I am now a work of art. No one may now take my picture in public without my express written permission.
Continued usage of the Krebs cycle constitutes acceptance of these terms.
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
So, say you paint a painting and it's really really good. But you need money for heroin or a new Beowolf cluster so you sell it for $100. Buyer then issues 5000 limited edition prints and makes $10M. Is this fair?
Arguably, yes.
I think we ought to require people to formally register for copyrights, as opposed to granting them automatically and indiscriminately.
So ideally, if you don't want a copyright, if you're not willing to exert a small amount of effort to file for one, then why should you get one? It's clearly not worth it to you.
And if this results in the kind of scenario you describe, well, next time you'll know better. You'll either care enough to want a copyright, and take the trouble to get one, or you still won't care, and in that case, why should I care for you?
Think you can walk into any museum and (possibly covertly) take pictures of all the paintings by artists both dead and alive and sell the photos in book? Is this fair?
Setting aside the issue of photographing anything in a museum, which may just not like photography, yes it's perfectly fine to reproduce paintings for commercial purposes where those paintings are in the public domain. How on earth could it not be? That's a key point of copyright, to be able to do that.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Who paid for the park - certainly not the taxpayers.
I wonder how much the owner/artist pays in annual property taxes!
that piece of crap art, is nothing but 100% reflections, any one can re-create that art in a program, just take a 360 pano of any city/park, put it into your 3d app, then create a BEAN in the scene with the background of the city, and remap the reflections of the scene. BINGO
This is truly an ironic art, since there is NO ART in it, it souly depends on its surroundings, so if you had thebean in a warehouse it would be blank.
Its only art is its shape, big deal.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Anyway, the reason I bring this up is this; there was a mall policy; No Cameras! If anybody was seen taking pictures, mall security would swoop down on them and prevent them. Nobody ever explained why this policy was in place, and at the time, (I was young and still learning how the world worked), I honestly didn't care. Furthermore, I got this weird thrill when I caught somebody and had the opportunity to call it in on the com-system like a three alarm fire. Everybody got a buzz off it. "But why?" "Mall policy! Are you making trouble?"
I'm not even sure if anybody knew the reasons for this weird law enforcement. All anybody knew was that recording images was bad, bad, bad.
Now, today I could probably think up a couple of reasons why this policy existed, but so what? It doesn't mean a damned thing. Lawyers and politicians have demonstrated time and again that it is entirely possible to come up with rational-sounding reasons for all manner of insane activities and thus get people to accept and go along with them. It happens all the time, and I'm sure everybody can think up an example or twenty.
The point I found curious is how eerily easy it is to jump whole-heartedly onto the enforcement bandwagon for no other reason than one happens to have been given a symbol of authority. A walkie-talkie, in this case.
Soldiers will open fire on un-armed demonstrators, their own neighbors, and they will continue to do so because humans are wired in a creepy way. The trick is recognizing this face and taking steps to navigate accordingly.
-FL
Quote at the bottom of the page:
And of course by being outraged you just demonstrate that you are not respectful of others' intellectual properties. You are not a respectable individual. Frankly, you border on having a thief mindset.
This is the thinking that promoters of such obscene restrictions are working hard to make main-stream. They are evidently succeeding.
My gut tells me the most effective way to deal with this kind of bullying is to directly challenge it by brazenly snapping pictures and sharing those pictures. However, that takes bravery and involves risk.
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
The guy who posted all the pictures is eventually going to get a takedown notice. Before he does we should all grab copies of his pictures. Then we should post them ONE AT A TIME. We will each, in turn, get our own takedown notices which we will comply with. Then we will pass the baton to the next person. This way we will totally waste their time serving every single /. reader with takedown notices without getting any one of us sued.
Would I now be able to collect royalties on all moon photos?
Sounds like a great way to "claim" the moon, at least for some purposes ...
I'm gonna sue THEM, those greedy bastards! I have a lower uid than them!
I guess all these CEos/corps have either had no mommy or she worked 24/7 or was a whore because real moms would have tought, "you must share johhny"
:-) or disapear through lack of breeding.
So their greedy ass moms thought em, "screw everyone, take no prisonners, greed is good"
There are too many clinicly defined psyhos out there, and theres nothing you can do to get rid of em because they are the ones most likely that have the manager/boss roles because of their discregard for others and 'me,me,me" thinking. We need to stand up to psychos, dont marry them, sack em, dont be friends with them, make em more insane till they pop themselves off
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
A number of posters mentioned showing the world how stupid copyright was by copyrighting your lawns and designs on the house or roof. If a sufficient number of people do it, we will soon have to start paying for the many free geographic services our tax dollars are currently providing. The govt will continue gathering this data for 'strategic' reasons but little by little we will lose access to many of the services we fund.
Copyrights like this only double-tax the society that permit it. A creator of a work should be paid when he sells his work and taxed for the security his society provides. Greed and political savvy created copyrights, an educated society may abolish them.
One hit wonders watch out.
Its a massive version of the T2 terminator.
Now I want a car like that but it wouldnt be legal, though a boat might be, totally 'stealthy' in the ocean.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
This guy did exactly that to PayPal.
"Sir, I do not give you permission to record this call" ... "Yes you did. Right at the beginning of this call a voice said, 'This call may be recorded. It didn't say by whom'"
cLive ;-)
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
If you want some real art, go for Salvador Dali or something. - A true work of art is something that can be studied for a long time, both in detail and as a whole.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
yowsa massah bossman, yowsa... i'se gwine to go back home to africa now from where's you done stole me.
Quoted below is just one example of ccmay's extremist viewpoint voiced repeatedly here at /.
"The only thing I care about is that we put our boot on the throat of the Muslim world and ruthlessly slaughter every Muslim who thinks this way. Every one. Millions if necessary. Kill them fast and hard."
I think that falls under the 'Offensive' commments rule. Moderated my ass, more like a breeding ground for nutjobs.
Actually, you could just take a copyrighted work of art, hold it near the Bean, and sue! That's a great concept!
Straight from the Official park website:
Facts and Dimension of Cloud Gate
Project: Cloud Gate
Schedule: Artist selected: 1999
Completion: July 2004
Size: 110 tons
33' high x 42' wide x 66' long
Owner: City of Chicago
Artist: Anish Kapoor -- London, England
Engineer: Ove Arup -- London, England
Fabricator: Performance Structures -- Oakland, CA
Project Management: US Equities -- Chicago, IL
http://www.millenniumpark.org/
Are you telling me that if I tutor somebody in a public park and charge for it, I need to have the freaking city's permission? What about if I give my students an extra review session in a public park? I work for a public university, but the students do pay tuition. Is that a commercial operation? What if I go there and paint a picture which I subsequently sell? And what about somebody going to the park to work on a book they are going to publish? What's the difference between that and snapping pictures?
AccountKiller
To fight unfair laws, you must first understand them.
And do you?
Architecture was not allowed to be copyrighted before 1990. It's not retroactive, so if the Prude was built before 1990, they're SOL.
Nope. They merely have to have made some alteration since 1990, or to do so now. It doesn't have to be anything extensive. Replace a window, that should do it. The new work consisting of the old uncopyrighted building and the new window create one glorious new copyrightable building.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
The people should also _charge_ the ARTIST because he uses public property to _sell_ his work.
You had better check in with all the other commie assholes who think we are in Iraq to provide ourselves an endless supply of cheap oil
Right. We're in Iraq because Saddam done W's daddy wrong.
..that's a good point and any group who wanted to countersue for using their image as part of the artisitic expression should sue him all the way into bankruptcy. The "art" is most definetly using other folks images once they are reflected in it. Mexican standoff then, I hope it happens. I do landscaping sometimes, I should copyright all the work I do, photo it and document it, then charge people a fee to drive by and look at it. either turn their heads or pay a copyright "license to view" fee.
This is ridiculous, absurd, insane. It's not even the least bit humorous or logical. To infringe the copyright, one would have to make a copy of the sculpture. That's what "copy" means, to make a "copy", an exact duplicate. A photo is not a copy of a sculpture, it's a reference to it at best.
is this just a publicity stunt to get people to take as many pictures as possible?
so that people can take pictures in the park again.
Try saying to the guards: "Would you guys please cover the bean for few minutes so I can take a picture of my family here?"
AccountKiller
Wow... Didn't the taxpayers pay for the park? If the artist doesn't want photos taken, why did he even put it up there? This is a ludacris, insane mockary of our legal system. Whats preventing the people at the Empire State Building from putting up Pepsi logos in all the windows and charging 10 bucks per photo? I mean, a museum is one thing, but a public park is a completely different story.
This is beyond all reasoning and common sense. Whats next, landmarks, animals and people? Hell, ill copyright my ass and declare it a piece of art and walk around naked all day!
HTTP/1.1 400
Or is this shit getting ridiculous?
More people were killed last year by the family gun. Going to confiscate those and save lives....
IANAL but my understading is that unless the contract stipulates otherwise SBC paying the sculptor to make the bean and then giving it to the city means the city owns it, copyright and all. If its not owned by the public then I guess the city ought to start charging rent to the Artist and SBC for leaving their big pile of scrap metal on public land.
Either way, I fail to see how taking a photograph of a scultpure violates copyrights since its not the same kind of "expression". Taking a photograph of a photograph or a painting might be but a photograph of a scultpure that reflects whatever is around it is another original work IMHO.
This kinda reminds of an art show/sale that occurs every Fall in my hometown. One year I was there taking pictures to the happenings and there was a woman with these great Halloween-themed dolls (scarecrows and figures with Jack-O-Lantern heads and such. She saw me framing a shot of one of the figures and started shouting at me to get away. She said I was violating her copyrights on the designs if I photgraphed them.
I pointed out she was displaying the work at a public art fair being held in a public park so I could photograph what I pleased. She continued to argue so I let it go and left her table area.
The most ludicrious thing was she thought I was going to steal her designs by photographing her works -which I could have just bought from her, they were all for sale.
"Pictoral Representations Permitted - The copyright in a architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visable from a public place."
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
... your birthday party because he couldn't secure written permission from the architect who holds the copyright to the plans for our home.
This is where it is all heading. Sad.
Images of the Eiffel Tower have long been in the public domain; however in 2003, the operating company SNTE installed a new lighting display on the tower, which they then copyrighted. The effect is to put the night-time image of the tower under copyright. It follows that it is no longer legal to publish contemporary photographs of the tower without permission. The imposition of copyright is not without some controversy.
The question is also if this will be allowed by European regulations. Last september in the Netherlands the copyright law was adjusted to adher to directives from Bruxelles. Under the old law, authors could claim copyright on images of their creations if their creation was the main focus of an image. It did not matter whether this creation was a painting, a sculpture, a building or a piece of furniture.
Under the new law, the author cannot claim copyright over any creation that is displayed in public space, if the creation is being reproduced exactly like it is in public space.
Before this law was passed, there was a big row over the Erasmusbrug, because the Stichting Beeldrecht [Image-rights Foundation] was sending bills to each and everyone using the image of this Rotterdam landmark. The trouble here was that the copyright holder (the architects, UN Studio) transferred the management of their rights to the Stichting Beeldrecht with the addition that they considered use of the image an advertisement for their company, and that they should only claim their rights when the image were to be used as a logo or trademark by another company. But, the Stichting Beeldrecht, which survives financially by keeping 25% of the collected copyright fee, conveniently forgot this agreement.
For those of you who think they can read Dutch, there's an article on ArchiNed on the subject. Sorry, no fish yet.Hey lets not mince words, copyright infringement is theft - so these people are art thieves.
Although Picasso did say : "artists copy, great artists steal".
Anyway theft is really bad so these art thieves should be put away for stealing postcard money from chicago council and like the orphans man.
Can you even copyright a sculpture? I thought it was just for written works, picture and code.
Sculptural works are afforded similar status under U.S. copyright law (which applies to anybody taking photographs on Illinois soil) to paintings. In fact, 17 USC 102's list of copyrightable subject matter lumps "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" together.
He said Canada is, and he's right. So take your strawman and sit on it.
That's why publicly broadcast TV that you can pick up with rabbit ears airs full frontal nudity.
I suggest you start using them right now. That oh-so-precious bean wouldn't look so pretty after few thousand rounds had pinged off it.
"Arguably, yes.
i gh t_Term_Reform/Default
I think we ought to require people to formally register for copyrights, as opposed to granting them automatically and indiscriminately."
I am not sure I agree with formally register, but at least place a formal notice on the work.
What if unmarked works defaulted to something like Creative Commons BY-SA Without the BY part and to GPL for programs.
Please check this url:
http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Copyr
That way, all unmarked works would be protected by a share alike license. If you wanted more or less protection, you would need to so indicate. This might be a nice balance of default rights for the public and authors.
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
If you make photos of this crappy shit and post them online, you are creating free publicity for those morons. If you boycott the park and that monstrous contraption, you are playing along with those who would probably claim copyright on sunshine and the air in the park.
The only decent solution that doesn't make me want to puke is to blow up that sculpture or whatever it is or creatively modify it (add a penis or write the word "FUCK" over it in large letters with insoluble paint). People, stand up for your rights, protect the public domain, so no to fucktards!
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
That sounds like what happened to me a couple of times in Russia. Mostly opportunistic money grabbing, but that kid at the FSB building (what was the KGB) sure got upset! That was from the exterior of the building from about a block away.
I think you've got something there. I was also reflecting over the work (sorry), but my line of thought were more related to how you percieve the cityscape around you "through" the sculpture.
IANAL, but I understand copyright law as it relates to architecture better than the GP. Thanks for the additional insight into the vagaries of copyright law and architecture. In my post I was simplifying for the sake of brevity, not writing a thesis.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Intellectual property is an artificial creation, and one which in its current forms has done a great deal of harm to our society. Unlike tangible property which is a concept that has proven useful for millenia, the extension of the notion of property to intellectual works does not deserve the same degree of respect.
Violating copyright is not at all the same thing as theft - that's just a bit of propaganda repeated frequently by big media companies and their shills. For that matter, taking of such pictures might not even be an actionable violation of copyright. Fair use would allow photographs for certain limited purposes, and last time I looked there were limits to the amount of financial loss that is required before copyright is considered enforceable - presumably to eliminate nuisance suits against people who don't copy much of value.
I am not sure I agree with formally register, but at least place a formal notice on the work.
Registration wouldn't be difficult: fill out a form, mail off a few copies to the Library of Congress, and pay a small fee, chiefly to accomodate the costs associated with keeping it on file.
This is basically what we did until 1978, and we still had a lot of it until 1989.
Basically right now too much stuff is copyrighted. Your post up there, it's copyrighted. But why? I bet you would've written it even if it were not copyrighted. So it provides no incentive to creation to you there, and frankly to most things, e.g. internal paperwork, holiday photos, etc. It still incurs a cost on society though. When there is a cost and no benefit, I see something worth getting rid of. I don't see any balance, however.
Anyone who actually planned or even expected that their work was worth something would be able to file. But by getting most work in the public domain, it would clear out dead wood from the system, and ensure that people were not getting unjustified rewards that burdened the public.
We do basically the same thing already with patents: If your invention enters the public awareness, you have one year to file, or else the invention is in the public domain.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Either the artist wants to be pauid twice (for the commissioning of the work, and again for photos taken of it) or SBC wants to both give away the work and keep it.
If they wanted to charge people for looking at it, they should have made the park private and charged admission. Having donated the piece to a public park, they've got the only bite at this particular cherry they deserve.
Unless the RIAA figures out how to DRM your eyeballs, that is. Great SciFi plot idea, but in real life pretty miserable.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The city didn't buy the copyright to the structure, just the structure itself. Art is cheaper that way. Now I think that the city shouldn't have agreed to buy the art without the copyright, as it is public art, but they did.
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
In a socialist Utopia, the people would be free to photograph whatever they desired...not that anyone would have a camera...but they be able to photograph what they liked. (Assuming, of course, that they stayed within the areas to which they are restricted.)
I wonder if musicians could do something similar....
If you want to be less illegal but make as much of a point, build some lightweight walls beforehand, carry them in, and erect a building around it. Be sure to have people remain next to them so they can't charge you with littering.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
...it's a woman, a big-bottomed Chicago woman, you just have to look at it from underneath. I've heard other people, especially artsy women, call it the "Stainless Steal ______." (think of a word that denotes part of a woman's anatomy, and rhymes with the Chicago streets Paulina and Lunt). ;-)
The dang thing is too reflective. Those aren't pictures of it, but of what it reflects. It's like trying to take a picture of a mirror...
-- Alastair
Not if he or she was hired to do the work. It's called "work for hire". If SBC said "here's $50k, design and build us a monument", the artist is shit out of luck; SBC owns the work UNLESS they signed a contract saying the artist keeps copyright.
Furthermore, it's not the city's job to enforce copyright, unless the city owns the copyright. It's a civil (not criminal) matter- and entirely up to the copyright holder to enforce.
Read up on photo.net on copyright, and learn a few things about practical matters of copyright, not what a section or two of US code says.
Please help metamoderate.
Of course the height of artistry here is we will forbid recording of the performance and sell copies at outrageous prices which will force the entire thing to be pirated onto the Internet.
Think I could get a government grant to pull it off?
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
The security of the Rock and Roll hall of Shame has been telling people to cease and desist, and confiscating cameras anytime someone comes within their sight, using anything nicer than a bottom of the line SLR, a tripod, or taking photos for more than a minute. The reasons I've heard for this, but not been able to verify is that the photographer who took the official photos used on postcards and promotional literature, was very upset that he may be losing royalties. This has been going on for years.
I think the real reason they don't want people taking omre photos of it, is because the place was absolutely freaking filthy the last time I was anywear nere it. Literally. The white part, and glass ressmbled respective parts of a similarly colored car that had survived between 1 and 10 Cleveland winters without being washed. Just another reason among dozens of others for the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Shame moniker.
-Mikey P
Why are the cops at the park even saying anything to the people trying to take pictures of the bean? Isn't copyright violation a civil issue? In other words, isn't it up to the copyright holder to bring a complaint against the photog in court? I would think the cop/security guy couldn't do a damn thing to the photog, aside from warning them that they are potentially violating the copyright of the rights-holder of the structure...
A scenario: Take a pic at the park. The cop comes over and says bad things to you. You tell the cop that copyright violation is a civil violation, and it's up to the rights holder to protect their rights. Proceed to take a buttload of pics, and tell the cop that the rights holder is welcome to invite you to a court date.
The question is what is the legal status of "The Bean"?
Judge for yourself.
From http://www.publaw.com/photo.html/
Photographs of Property
Although property does not enjoy a right to privacy or publicity that there are other bodies of the law that might prohibit or restrict the unauthorized use of a photograph containing property. These bodies of law may include among others contract, trademark, unfair competition, copyright and trespass law.
The guiding principle, that of course is muddled with exceptions, is that as long as a photograph of private property is taken while the photographer is on public property or on property that is open to the public then it is permissible to publish that photograph without permission from the owner of the property.
However, there are exceptions where it may be necessary or advisable to obtain permission from the owner of the property. These exceptions may include among others, a photograph of (i) artwork displayed in a museum, gallery or other location, (ii) a well-recognized product, such as a Harley-Davidson motorcycle, where the manufacturer has been litigious with respect to commercial uses of photographs containing their product, (iii) a building where the building design is protected by a federal trademark registration - recently there was litigation involving a photograph of the Rock and Rock Hall of Fame, (iv) a "famous" pet such as Lassie, (v) interiors of private buildings and (vi) personal property, such as their clothing or jewelry, that could identify an individual.
Interesting. Does this mean if I wear a T-Shirt of my own design to a public demonstration, I can charge the police for taking photos of me?
"The Bush administration BTW is fining the city of Chicago at least $33,000 for improper notification"
Wow. The mayor spent more than that for champagne at his last coronation.
They'll think twice with the threat of a $33K fine hanging over their head.
Cripes the mayor ought to be in jail.
...and an ATM or CCTV camera takes my picture, can I sue them for copyright infringement?
Got what? All I got out of reading that gobbledygook was a headache.
So, I just got a copyright sign tattoed on my forhead, so any pictures taken of me are an infrignement of copyright, and I am therefore due royalties. Now, time to hit up every convenience store in town for 'reproducing' my copyrighted work. I think I'll copyright my car too, so when I get a ticket from photo radar or a red light camera, I'll counter with a copyright infringment lawsuit! Wait a minute, wouldn't (ford/chrysler/gm/generic overseas manufacturer) already hold a copyright on the car? Think the the royalies they are missing out on!
"but then go on to call me a moron because I stated my opinion in the public domain,"
You're teetering between a knucklehead and a chowderhead. But definitely not a moron.
... that it's those of the liberal mindset that:
- Has allowed Hollywood and the RIAA to continue it's twisting and warping of copyright law. Surely those folks aren't all conservative types?
- Probably created (and 'protected') this work "the Bean" in the first place?
Please, there's enough blame to go around without pointing to one specific ideology! I just hope BOTH sides can see their way clear enough to bring some sanity back into this process.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
"I've certainly heard him testify about the influence of Christ in his own life"
Uh huh. And you believed him.
Here's the influence of Christ in GWB's life. When he mentions the name, a lot of fundamentalist think God is guiding him somehow.
You know who has had a bigger impact on GWB's life than Jesus? Jack Daniels. Chivas Regal. Jim Beam.
Christ may not make the top ten list in that guy's life.
Do you think he has any say in how the public interacts with his art? I wonder if he even knows what Chicago is doing, or if he'd be able to stop it?
Well, because "land of the fee" is trademarked.
But hey, I'll accept payment with PayPal(tm)!
if the children want to bitch and cry about their artistic litter, then it is time to take it away. If that is a public park then no one has the right to dictate how cameras are used on the premesis.
Although it's a bit amusing, could photographing a public piece of art, the copy of which is owned by the city be construed as fair use? After all, if I buy a copyrighted work, I am allowed to reproduce it in some manner for backup purposes. That's why ripping CDs is totally legal. Along the same line of thought, shouldn't individual members of the public be able to reproduce something that THEY themselves own for their own backup?
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
It would seem to me that either that park is the *prime* place to commit a crime, or else the artists can make mad bank by suing the government for archiving hours and hours of footage of their sculpture via security cameras. In either case, graffiti is going to be a bitch when it's done because they either won't be able to find the people who did it since there are no cameras, or they won't have the money to have it removed since they had to give all their money to the artists over a court battle concerning the archived footage.
I wear a copyrighted tee-shirt to the Sears Tower and then sue them when they sell me a picture of it at the end of the tour. I'll be laughing all the way to Giordanos.
My Blog
(And no, I'm not defending this bullshit policy, just noticing a parallel.)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Every time a low-earth-orbit takes a photograph of Chicago, it's violating copyright - as interpreted in the United States of America.
Hmm, this sounds like a good way to pay for that expensive house my wife keeps asking me to build for us here in India.
I'm not greedy - I'll stop once the royalties cross a million US$.
This isn't a publicity stunt. It's The Coming of the Bastards, as foretold by the Man Who Sailed the Seas of Cheese. These are people who have no reason to exist, and no purpose on this earth, other than to fuck with those of us who are just here to have a good time. Whoever thought it was a good idea to put this shiny silver turd in a public park and deny the public the right to photograph it should be pelted with dog feces every time he walks down the street.
I'm sure the Army would be happy to have you as a tank captain. Heck, they'd even pay you to drive the thing.
There is a big difference between a tank, which is designed as a weapon of war, and a piece of art in a public space, designed for display and observation.
I just dont get 'art'.
Sclupture is only a close a second to poetry as something that just absolutely fails to make me give a rats ass.
Architectural works are copyrightable, but that copyright does NOT extend to preventing photography containing (or even depicting) the architectural work. See 17 USC 120.
"The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place."
However, the work in question is a sculpture and not an architectural work, so this exception does not apply.
copyright or not, this is bad news for tourism. If tourests cannot take pictures of local landmarks, statues, etc. then what will they do on their vacations? OK, so this is a good thing for countries and cities that have popular nude beaches (i mean this as an alternative to the all exensive vacation to see the sights).
There's no such thing as a stupid question, but there sure are a lot of inquisitive idiots.
It's like putting a monitor on a sidewalk, is it still private property to that person that put it there? or is it free keeps to whoever picks it up and drags it in there household? I doubt the city of Chicago signed a agreement with the guys who made the statue for nobody to take a picture of it, and if they did agree to it, im sure they didn't read the fine print.
To simplify the question:
Is a work that was donated to the PUBLIC (that is to say, the people as a whole) then in the public domain?
Second, consider the implications: building blueprints are likely copyrighted; the building itself could be construed as a "derivative work". It follows that photographs of the resulting structure are themselves copyrighted by whomever drew up the blueprints.
Egads, I don't like the worms in this can at all. I think they may be parasitic.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
1. This is a pice of public art wether it was purchased with tax dollars or given it belongs to the public. People take pictures its part of how they enjoy a thing like this, get over it. People should have a right to "use" public art anyway they want so long as it does not prevent others from haveing access to it.
2. A photo should not be considered a copy of a sculpture. A photo is a two demensional thing the sculpture has three, they are therefore not even remotely similar. Part of the artform of sculpting is determining how the viewer will inhabit its space, that cannot even be reproduced in a photo. A photo connot preseve a sculpture in anyway other then provokeing a human memory of it.
3. A photograph is in most cases a distinct work of art in and of itself. One form of photograpic art is called "strait photography" it was particularly popular for awhile basicly its all subject subject subject point and shoot. One work of art can't resonably infringe on another.
4. Please see Dadaism if you don't think that anything can be appropriated and made art. In this case DuChamp's "L.h.o.o.q." is particularly appropos. If this can be recognized as its own legitimate pice of art then ANY addition to the bean here include the reflection of the photographer or the act of composeing a photograph would make any such photo its own work of art.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
But because he is a useful idiot of the Left, for whom emotions and intentions trump all facts and evidence in any argument, he did not feel the need to actually provide any data to support his views.
I, on the other hand, being a conservative, well-educated intellectual, did so. And here is what I found, from a Canadian government site:
The Copyright Act states that the fair dealing defence may be used only in the following cases: private study, research, criticism, review and newspaper summary.
(Department of Canadian Heritage)
So commercial photographic reproduction of a sculpture is restricted in precisely the same way there as here, except that personal-use provisions are even less applicable. And it's no use appealing to the right to free speech in Canada, as there is no First Amendment there, and free speech can be restricted in any fashion that seems right to the government of the day.
Furthermore, Canadians have to pay a tax on blank audio tape and other recording media, which is not the case here.
There is no basis whatsoever to think that Canadians have greater rights in fair use of copyright, free speech, or freedom of the press than we enjoy in America. The evidence is quite the opposite.
Here again we see an example of a miserable malcontent leftist asshole who, in his eagerness to believe the worst about the USA, blindly accepts any slanderous accusation about America without regard to the facts. A stupid, ill-informed sheep, in other words.
--ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
This is the WHOLE issue, and this particular bit of legislation HITS THE NAIL ON THE HEAD.
Cut and dried.
Mod 'im up!
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
"Registration wouldn't be difficult: fill out a form, mail off a few copies to the Library of Congress, and pay a small fee, chiefly to accomodate the costs associated with keeping it on file."
It would still cost money which would unduly bite the little guy and give the big boys free access to the works of the little guys without giving the little guys reciprocal access to the works of the big boys.
What if unmarked works defaulted to something like Creative Commons BY-SA Without the BY part and to GPL for programs?
How would this be a bigger burden to society except to those who would take work they did not create and create a derivative and lock up the derivative.
With my proposal, people could make free use of unmarked works, even to the point of making money from them, they would just be prevented from locking up derivatives/etc.
If you respond to the first question, am I missing something in the following thoughts?
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
... How's that "land of the free" thing working out for you?
Love,
Australia
(Sadly, we're probably not far behind; hopefully our politicians won't see this story and decide that we should start taxing tourist for taking photos of kangaroos.)
1 April 2003
I think that pretty well explains it...
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
Actually, Europe made a huge mistake.
They kept the lazy inbred aristocrats, their idle flatterers and courtiers, the hidebound and ossified Church establishment, and all those too cowardly and timid to seek a better life. They cast out their most valuable population groups, and kept the dregs.
The New World was populated with the sober yeomen and hard-working peasants of England and Scotland, and later the other countries of Europe and the rest of the world. People of courage and vigor came here and built the greatest nation the world has ever seen. This is a fact beyond all serious dispute.
Now Europe is dying. The native women of Europe have 1.2 or 1.5 babies per lifetime each, while Muslim brood mares are dropping 4 or 5 or 6 children each. Within my lifetime, there will be Sharia law and public beheadings all over Europe. The last vintages of Bordeaux and Burgundy will be made in 2040 or 2050. The treasures of the Louvre and the Uffizi will meet the same fate as the Buddhas of Bamiyan.
The sneering leftists of Europe, or their children or grandchildren, will beg on their knees to be admitted as refugees to America-- an America that will be every bit as powerful and vigorous and unchallenged then as it is now.
Mark my words. Mark my words! You contemptible socialist Euro-trash scum will remember them with bitter regret in the decades to come.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
Last line should be 3. Profit!!!!!
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
With all those windows in all those buildings looking down at the bean, shouldn't there be bunches of web cams taking a pic of the bean every five seconds?
C'mon, Chicago, tourists (and locals) naturally take pictures of any and every thing in sight - ESPECIALLY something as strangely beautiful as the bean.
Whoever is in charge of harassing photographers trying to take pics of a donated sculpture in public space needs to buy larger panties - the one's they're wearing are OBVIOUSLY too tight...
But there is a small subgroup who are ideologically motivated and actively preparing to commit acts of terrorist violence leading to mass casualties in this country. I want them dead, all of them. I want the madrassas that train them, and the mullahs who lead them, removed from the face of the Earth.
You may find that offensive but I think you will find it to be the majority opinion in this country, and coming up fast in Europe and everywhere else the Muslim world borders its neighbors.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
And I think that should include corporate logos. People should be able to shoot movies or video outside and if your logo is visible, too f'ing bad. Even if it's McDonalds and the scene is someone on the street puking their guts out.
It would be such a simple rule to adopt. If it's outside and the shot is in context (you're not using trick photography to move a logo from some place it is to some place it's not) then it should be legal. Even if it's indoors, like in a grocery store, then logos of shelf product should be legal. This wouldn't be so complicated if Congress wasn't bending over for ever corporate donor with 100K to give the Chamber of Commerce.
Our government if f'd up beyond reason and this is only one example. But apparently to red state twits this is just how it should be.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
A bean is nothing. San Jose (you know, the capital of Silicon Valley) has a statue of a coiled Aztec snake god in downtown that looks like a big pile of dog doo doo. Needless to say, the real thing would've cost the city a few millions less.
The Space Needle in Seattle - once part of the Seattle Worlds Fair, is now privately owned and its image is trademarked by the Space Needle Corporation, for just about every class of goods to which it conceivably could be applied. So when you're up there on Queen Anne Hill taking your pics of downtown Seattle, you're violating their trademark.
The better-known buildings in Manhattan also maintain rights to their images, so if you take a commercial shot with the Chrysler Building or Empire State in the background, or film a movie in front of them, you're supposed to pay. Don't know what the situation is if you're simply showing a long shot of the entire skyline though.
Since in all these cases the structures are prominent public facts, this all seems an incredible violation of the right of the public to all of the visual space present from public vantages.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
...we have a giant, 3 story, 110-ton hunk of highly reflective steel
and also we have 110-ton hunks of steel which are not giant.
We also have crawlspaces in our houses large enough to explore with an Abrams tank.
It would still cost money which would unduly bite the little guy
No, it wouldn't. Remember, the only thing a copyright is really good for is economic exploitation of a work. Creating a copyrightable work is basically a business decision. It represents an investment which the author hopes to recoup later. It's no different from any of the other numerous matters in business. Want to form a corporation? There's a filing fee. Want to register for state or federal trademarks? Ditto. Patent applications? Ditto.
If an author is not willing to demonstrate confidence in himself, well, why should he expect something from me?
It's certainly not as though major authors are going to copyright every little thing they do either, but, already being established in the business world, it's not going to be surprising that they're better at it.
How would this be a bigger burden to society except to those who would take work they did not create and create a derivative and lock up the derivative.
Because that is beneficial to society. The underlying work is in the public domain -- anyone can use it for anything under the sun. That's the ideal of copyright. It's exactly what we want to have happen.
A derivative has been created. That's even better. We want them to be created too. And not only has the one derivative been created, but anyone in the world can create derivatives. How many tens of thousands of adaptations of Shakespeare are there?
Plus of course, the same issue would apply to the derivative -- fail to seek out protection, instead of expecting the world to owe you a living, and it too would be in the public domain.
With my proposal, people could make free use of unmarked works, even to the point of making money from them, they would just be prevented from locking up derivatives/etc.
Yes, but you're going too far. The idea behind copyright is that we want three equally important things: the creation of original works, the creation of derivative works, and for all works to be in the public domain fully and immediately.
In order to stimuate the first one of those goals, we 'spend' the immediate satisfaction of the second two. Not fully, but partially, and only for a span of time.
You're basically saying that where someone creates a derivative work of the kind discussed above, that they should effectively not be able to copyright it; if people can reproduce it, distribute it, prepare derivatives from it, etc. then it's effectively in the public domain.
I think that this would tend to taint those works as sources. You'd mostly but not fully satisfy the third interest, but you would not be fully satisfying the second. And remember, for the kinds of works we're talking about, the author never actually appears to have wanted a copyright, since they never tried to get one, and apparently would have created the work even if there was no copyright in it at all.
So you're incurring a burden on the public by not fully satisfying the third goal, and by not fully laying the ground for the second, and you're not doing so in order to bump up the first or the second. I don't know why you're doing it in fact! There's no important difference between different classes of authors -- authors are not important no matter who they are. Getting stuff produced and in the public domain is all that matters.
Basically, you're wasting public resources and I don't see how the public benefits more than they lose out. And that's the bottom line: the public has to come out ahead, when you add up the degree to which the three public interests I've listed are satisfied.
The best thing to do, I believe, and the easiest from a transactional approach, is to require strict formalities and to not allow for copyright protection if the formalities are not complied with.
Authors that only create works because they rely on the opportunity for profit that copyright affords them will follow the rules because it's important to the
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
...but whatever gigantic alien life form created that "Bean" sure didn't know how to solder very well--you could drive a truck under that arch-like hole there...
Whoa Everyone, slow down a little and do some research. Copyright AUTOMATICALLY belongs to the artist unless they sell that right (which has become an unfortunate trend largely because of shady back room business dealings of companies like Paul Allen's Vulcan). Let me give you an example...if you buy a painting at a gallery, you own the painting, but the artist retains the copyright. So if you want to paste a picture of your newfound art all over coffee mugs and T-shirts, you can't because although you own the art the artist still owns the copyright, get it? In this case the issue should not be with the artist (although it appears that he was stupid enough to sell his copyright) but with the city of Chicago who seems to be over zealously reinforcing these laws. The city is taking a rather gray issue and painting it black and white.
Um, commanding a tank is a bigger responsibility then driving. Command follows this order:
Commander. If dead/incapacitated, gunner. If dead/incapacitated, driver.
Some sort of reverse psychology:
I think they WANT people to take pictures of it.
This could be the most succussful advertising campaign ever. Advertisers take note, the key to make sure EVERYONE sees your advertisement is to forbid them to see it.
That sculpture is an obvious reproduction of that ship in "Flight of the Navigator". David Freeman should put the smack down on thier ass.
"We the Corporation, in order to find a more perfect profit, establish loopholes and ensure domestic legality."
There are many things other than islam that would cause people to throw themselves into a building at highspeed in an airplane.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
That the people who you feel are greedy are as a whole also infinitely more powerful than you or anyone you think you can group together to listen to you in the above post can be possibly capable of thwarting. They made people like you their slaves in times before, and still do. Now go back, drink some more cocacola, and keep consuming the www.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Europe has abolished the death penalty, so I don't think your views would meet wide support there. Hatred is what is speaking through you. Substitute "cathedrals" for "madrassas" and "infidels" for "mullahs" and you get Osama bin Laden.
If the 9/11 terrorists were caught before they committed their atrocious deeds, I don't think they'de be executed, at least not all of them, even in the US. So your "preemptive murder" doctrine is a bit stepping ahead of the ranks.
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
And you leeching buggers are now all going to have to pay me to read it, as is SlashDot! You're all reproducing my copyright in your stinking browsers so cough up. Hell, I don't even care if you haven't read down this far, it's in your browser anyway. I take PayPal.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
consider the implications of this.. everywhere there are objects that are copyrighted...tourism will go to hell, who can be bothered to go most places if you cant take pictures? soon you wont be able to take pictures of family memebers because some big corporation has patentend the human genome or you wont be able to take pictures of the sky because someone patented a mathetmatical formula describing how clouds are formed.. I mean. ..cameras will be banned cos they can be used to break copyright..while we're at it.. why dont we ban reading and writing because it can be used to describe and distribute/share a copyrighted object.. lets outlaw drawing.. omg.. such reproduction.. theft! copyrightviolation!
and they expect people to respect copyright laws? who are they kidding?..
Given the number of people living in poverty, the state of the educational system, and the myriad of other real problems facing citied like Chicago this just seems... what's the word I'm looking for...?
.
Oh yeah, deplorable
Now, if someone were to take a 47.5 million dollar chili-shit on this new installation... well that would be art.
Those who are capable of suspending their social conscience long enough to take pleasure in this new creation have a dubious sense of taste to say the least. Welcome to the new Roman Empire.
Reading all those comments, I wonder :
...
Can some artist demand payment from me when I see his/her art (even if I don't want to see it, as in case of the "bean", because it's in the open) ?
How small a part of the whole picture should such an artwork be (if at all), before we are no longer infringing any copyrights ? 25% ? 10% ? 1% ? Do do aerial (or satellite) photographs infringe too ?
How come I can be taped and made part (as in not screen-filling, but still very recognisable) of some film/photos without me being able to say no (news, home-movies), but having this art protected better than *I* am ?
As a side-mark : this could be a good way to legitimize "area 51" : put some "art" there, and just claim that the artist only allows selected people to see it
or is 'Land of the Free (R)' ?
Wasn't the sculpture purchased with Public funds? Isn't it on display in a public place? If they'd asked me to pay I'd take the matter to court and probably win - then again, it'd be in a US court, so there's little chance that Common Sense would win. I better pay up.
Don't forget. And vote for someone who will do something about it.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Or is it's commonly known: Copyright law.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Write your damn congressman!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I think it's wonderful that the artist found a way to highlight the single biggest technological controversy in the new millinieum, the DMCA. By sticking a copyrighted artwork in a public park ("Millinieum Park," did you notice?) in a city that gets worked up about people photographing it is an amazing way to capture the hysteria over P2P networks, RIAA lawsuits, and the SCO vs Linux courtcases. It's an ingenious social commentary.
I am allowed to talk about it, right? I do have a reproduction of it:
_
(_)
Where do I pay?
"No, it wouldn't. Remember, the only thing a copyright is really good for is economic exploitation of a work."
I think this is fundamentally wrong. I copyright my work these days, not to economically exploit it, but to prevent others from doing so if they are unwilling to share follow on works. Right now, I let them exploit them as is, but the situation is going from bad to worsed and I am thinking about the issues.
Since we want to promote the public domain, I can assure you that, seeing how attitudes to copyright and the laws controlling copyright are going, I for one, would publish way less if registration were a requirement and thus the public domain would suffer. (Assuming the things I publish have any value. At least one person seems to think so: http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=dragirl&P HPSESSID=03439fb06f0a89e32325cab807bd6d80
as seen in the review at that url.)
You are proposing that my works should have to be available as public domain to those who would make derivatives and exploit them while withholding access to the derivatives from me. Unless I pay and oficially register my works. This would get expensive for me. I think what you are suggesting may effectively kill GPL programs and the publish early, publish often methods of development. Could you speculate on this thought.
"In order to stimuate the first one of those goals, we 'spend' the immediate satisfaction of the second two. Not fully, but partially, and only for a span of time."
Ah, only for a span of time. And the current copyright powerhouses are doing a great (dastardly) job of having that span be elastic and ever stretching. I might be more inclined to agree with you if it were indeed "only for a span of time" and that span was short and fixed.
It is those people who are doing everything in their power to prevent their works from entering the public domain that I do not wish to have making use of my works as public domain without rewarding me financially.
On the sports field of battle, some teams bring size and power, some bring speed and finesse. You may have an interesting game. I think my proposal may give individual authors a better chance in the game. The current copyright powerhouses bring wealth and a hugh pool of locked up works that they can access freely but the little guys can't. We would bring our numbers and prolific output thus creating out own pool that would be easy (and free) for us to use but that would be more difficutl and costly for them to use. None the less it would be fair, since why whould they expect to use our work without payment when they do not expect for thier work to be used in the same way?
"You're basically saying that where someone creates a derivative work of the kind discussed above, that they should effectively not be able to copyright it; if people can reproduce it, distribute it, prepare derivatives from it, etc. then it's effectively in the public domain."
Yes, and no. First off, that is the current situation for everyone under the laws that currently exist. So yes, some people would choose not to make derivatives as they would not want to share alike. But please note, they could still contact the author (like they can now) and seek an alternate license. Others would go right ahead and create their derivatives and share alike. Please note that everyone could freely distribute (and profit from) verbatim copies. This is better than what exists now.
No, it is not effectively in the public domain. If I put a CC BY-SA on a novel and say that you can ignore the BY part, the work is not in the public domain.
Let's say the book becomes a big hit around the world. Would a big movie house take advantage of my license and make a big budget movie without paying me as would be their right? If they did, the movie would have to be share alike. You think they are going to do that? I think they would seek a different license.
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
The city of Paris did something similar with the Eiffel tower. Since the image of the tower itself has passed into the public domain, they installed a unique lighting pattern, and then copyrighted the lights. So you can photograph it all you want during the day, but you need their permission to publish photograph's at night.
Also, to those who designed these lights: They're ugly, and you should have left it the way it was.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
People visiting the park weren't going to take pictures?
I think the power of the copyright has been blown WAY out of proportion. It's just plain silly to expect one to put a three-story sculpture in a public park then expect to ban photography of said sculpture.
The commerical use of photographs, yes--I can support enforcing the copyright on those, but John and Jane Public visiting from South Dakota can't take a picture of mom and junior by the big sculpture?
Makes you wonder when any public photography will be banned because you're no doubt going to get SOMETHING that SOMEBODY has copyrighted in the picture...billboard, building design, blah blah blah...
Makes me sick sometimes the greed that some of the companines in this country are coming to.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Create small peice of "art" in form of lapel pin, hat with design, or some such. Copyright. No, no frigging photos allowed! So, various "security" camera's, etc are would all be violating the law, and the city, county, and state, airports, etc. have absolutely no right to photograph you as long as you are wearing your "art" EVEN IN A PUBLIC PLACE. Obvoiusly, that is insane... but sauce for the goose.....
The design and the appearance of a work are two different entities. There's a lot more to the design of a building than its exterior appearance (including the exterior of its internal walls etc). The blueprint is of course copyrighted, but its appearance is not. That's one of the powerful results of appearing in public in our society: people will copy. The music industry has jammed its spanner into the works of folk music, through the historical accident of their role in distributing little pieces of plastic containing recordings, a new setup in the music process. Now that their historical episode has passed, they're trying to hang on to their manufactured rights. And the MPAA is leveraging them for movies. But the basic system in our culture is to copy any representation, anything made, some relatively short time after its been introduced to the public. That's how the really large values of public appearances are created: by the public, by repeating them with our own versions. That's why these copyright and other IP extensions are untenable, in direct contradiction of how we actually operate. Whether buildings and their design documents, music and their scores, or this post and the points I'm making.
--
make install -not war
The Bean itself is voilating copyrights of the buildings that it reflects...the reflections themselves are "reproductions" of the buildings that are designed by artists and builders.
One could confuse the issue considerably by taking a picture of the bean as reflected in a handheld mirror. After all, if the city wants to hold the position that when you photgraph the mirror known as the bean you are taking a picture of the bean and not the objects it reflects then that same argument can be used against them: you were taking a photograph of your personal property. The case would be an even stronger parallel if your mirror was not a planar mirror but distorted the image in some way. Now, they might be able to rip your case to shreds but in so doing they would rip their own case to shreds.
The owner of a building reflected in the bean could sue the city for infringement of their own copyrights when the city charged money for the use of their reflection.
And there is attractive nuisance legislation. By placing the structure in a public place where it will naturally be a backdrop to activities that may be photographed without enclosing it in a protective structure, they are inducinging minors to violate copyright law. When you build a swimming pool, you are required to build a fence around it to protect yourself from being sued by the parents who fail to teach their kids not to trespass or swim without supervision.
And if selling a device which allows people to copy copyrighted material after they make the explict effort to purchase the product, another explict effort to hook up the product, and yet another explict effort to activate the product is I.N.D.U.C.E-ing someone to commit copyright infringment, than placing a copyrighted object in a public place where people can't help but photograph it in the course of normal human activities, such as photographing their friends, is certainly inducement to commit copyright infringement. Since the object was placed in the park by the same legal entitity that wishes to collect the fees and prosecute violators, it is also entrapment.
Since the park was undoubtably marketted to the public as a place of public recreation and not as a for-profit-subsidiary of the city, they are also guilty of unlawful conversion of property and violating the public trust when they infringe on the publics right to use the park in the manner that all other parks are used. True, the taxpayers would be the supposed beneficiaries of any money raised through license fees but that "benefit" would be far outweighed by the greater losses incurred by depriving them of the normal use of the park.
By violating the rights of handicapped people with poor visual memory to make a photographic record to compensate for their non-photographic memory, the city is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
If the city prevents taking and publishing photographs of demonstrators in front of the sculpture prostesting the cities policy regarding the structure, they are in volation of the first amendment.
Photographing a famous work of art with nothing else in the frame and selling that may be an infringing reproduction but photographing your girlfriend as she admires the work (with the work in the background) for your own personal use is certainly not.
In the Netherlands in the city of Rotterdam there is a very similar case of a bridge that is copyrighted by its architects :
E rasmu sbrug_auteursrechtelijk_beschermd.html (without the slashdot inserted spaces ofcourse)
for some pictures: http://www.architectuur.org/unstudio02.php
a story in a dutch newspaper about it:
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/12516361/
I do understand the parallel with copyright on music and other stuff. Having said that, I personally think it is sick that the city council can spend millions of public money (the equivalent of more than 100 million dollars) to build a prominent bridge in public space and not have the public own the copyrights (ie. have them in the public domain). I really don't understand why people in public gouvernance can be that asleep at the wheel.
It is also true that Mayor Daley wanted is park to replace it and was trying to get the airport closed for a long time. Way before 2001. So, you could say that 9/11 was the best thing to happen to him in quite a while.
Moderation -1
100% Troll
Look, TrollMod, agree or disagree with the post. But the anonymous suppression without comment is a disgrace.
--
make install -not war
I know it would be considered vandalism to actually do it (and probably theft of intellectual property if the lawyers really got their two cents (mils?) worth in), but I think that this thing really needs a massive copyright notice indelibly etched into its surface.
Soylent Green is peoplicious!
But there is a small subgroup who are ideologically motivated and actively preparing to commit acts of terrorist violence leading to mass casualties in this country.
Be careful about what you say about the Neocons. You might get in trouble.
Btw, murder is not an acceptable solution to the problems of the world. In fact, the majority opinion is that murder is unacceptable. So your solution is wrong on its face.
This is a good case for Creative Commons.
Cities should require that sculptures and buildings, including gifts, should be under a CC license.
I put a picture of the Millenium park on Wikitravel:
http://wikitravel.org/en/Chicago
Wikitravel is under a CC share-alike license.
So am I, WikiTravel, or people who use WikiTravel commercially in problems?
The artist is stealing other copyrighted works, just look at the bean and you will be the trademark for McDonalds and every other business in the area, including a copyrighted book someone is holding in their hand.
...that a photo of the sculpture was similar to quoting selected passages in a written text under the fair use doctrines. Of course you would have to actually _use_ that photo somehow in discussion/educational purposes anyway, but I think it would make an interesting court case. It wouldn't classify as a derivative work then, would it?
I understand the statutes, but I think they are overly broad and are subject to some challenges, especially in this case. If the artist has at any point made reference to it's reflective quality being part of the art he copyrighted, he would be on pretty shaky ground if someone elses copyrighted work was reflected in it and he didn't pony up a copyright licensing fee agreement with that person. He can't have it both ways.
So there's two potential court cases to try and get the law clarified or thrown out.
As to copyrights and patents, yep, I think the system is long broken and now should almost be scrapped and re thought out. Wouldn't bother me on iota to scrap it totally. Not for one second, I'd be all in favor of it. I really don't care anymore, it has gotten so far into the ludcrous range it's throwing good money and effort after the bad, better to abandon the whole idea. I would be fully in favor of redsigning it from the ground up, limiting patents to tangible objects only,no IP patents and no business process patents, and dropping copyright to just a few years max and having it be severely restricted as to how far you can go to restrict others around using it and as to what exactly you can "copyright" in the first place. If that means some folks make less money, or have to get alternative jobs or employment, still doesn't matter, the people who really want to create and be innovative have a built in drive to do so and will continue to do so, the ones who are just milkling the system will beforced into doing something more constructive and useful. Truely creative people will still create, we might suffer a temporary drop in things being copyrighted, but it would pick back up shortly when people realised it's just better to do it then not, creating new stuff I mean. The way we are headed now is back to the middle ages with restrictions and who can use technology or not. The **AAs want full use of technology so they can make copies and profit from it, yet want no one else to have that ability. They have no problenms ripping off people in other ways or just spewing out variations on a theme, ie, "the love story", the "action movie", etc. It is not all that new they are variations on what has already been created, that's it. Look at formula music genres, the same stuff, slight variations. whoppedy do, big deal. And yada yada, numerous examples out there now. This alleged "art" crap monstrosity. What a big fat joke. Like I mentioned, why shouldn't I copyright my "living sculptures" I create when I landscape, and have the law force people to pay me a fee for looking at it or taking a picture of it? It's like how far into absurdity are these "artists" and copyright doofusses and the lawyers and for mega profits corps going to haul this stinking "IP" carcass around anyway? It's already hit the ridiculous level.
A society shouldn't need everyone to have a personal lawyer on retainer tied to a leash following them around just to function, and we are *this close* to that point right now. When it gets there, right at that point, I think that it should be torn down with "extreme prejudice".
Commerical photographers need permission to shoot The Sydney Opera House but people are free to take pictures for their personal use. Makes sense.
Seems dumb that Chicago doesn't want their tourists bringing home pictures of their new sculpture???
is removing your right to possess and operate visual recording equiptment in this area. in doing so they have violated your rights, as this is a public area, and also have devalued your equiptement, which now is less effective in that area than before the installation.
Take two cameras, and tell them, if you won't let me take a picture, then it means you should pay me for the damages you have caused.
This happens to be the same as how much you want to charge me, and as I have two cameras, I will use one and we are even.
And when they still think they have th euppoer hand for you having to squirm your way through that apologetic denial of payment, you shoudl bludgeon them in the temple with a bowling pin.
works every time.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
I copyright my work these days, not to economically exploit it, but to prevent others from doing so if they are unwilling to share follow on works.
/. if you had to register them in order to protect them? I don't think so. I think that you post here because you enjoy the debate, and the copyright status of the posts is irrelevant.
Firstly, at this point in time, everything you make that is copyrightable is copyrighted automatically by the law. You are not in fact choosing to do it for a particular reason.
Secondly, I think you're confusing something. If you are creating works without any expectation of getting anything at all in return, then you appear to not be encouraged to create those works by the availability of copyright, and therefore shouldn't get a copyright since it is superfluous. If, however, what is encouraging you to create works is some form of potential compensation -- even if that compensation comes in the form of other people's works, rather than mere dollars and cents -- then copyright is appropriate, but only because your creation of the work hinges on whether you can economically exploit it.
I for one, would publish way less if registration were a requirement and thus the public domain would suffer
To be honest, I'm dubious. Your posts in this thread are copyrighted. Would you not post on
Given that the system I describe is more or less how we did things from 1710-1977 and that we had a pretty thriving public domain, and that the number of copyrightable works didn't seem to shoot up upon the effective date of the 1976 Act, or the 1989 amendments, I think that those expansions of the law were not really justified.
Plus, you, like most people, are getting stuck on quantity of creation. Copyright is not merely intended to encourage the creation of works, it is intended to encourage the creation of works and their entry into the public domain.
So if under system A, you would create ten works that enter the public domain after ten years, then that's a certain satisfaction of the public good.
If under system B, you create five works, but they enter the public domain after five years, then that's pretty much the same satisfaction of the public good. Maybe more.
It's not enough for works to merely be created. The copyrights have to be as minimal as possible during their term, and the term has to be as short as possible.
I think what you are suggesting may effectively kill GPL programs and the publish early, publish often methods of development. Could you speculate on this thought.
As for that form of development, no I don't think it would matter; no one's stopping people from writing software and publishing it. The issue is whether they get copyrights in them.
As for the GPL, it'd need to be seriously revised because it too closely relies on what the law is now. It wouldn't have worked under the 1909 Act either, though, so it's hardly an issue unique to me. Much as I like the GPL, it's barely a blip on the radar in the overall world of copyrightable works.
Ah, only for a span of time. And the current copyright powerhouses are doing a great (dastardly) job of having that span be elastic and ever stretching. I might be more inclined to agree with you if it were indeed "only for a span of time" and that span was short and fixed.
One year statutory bar to filing, probably from publication, where that's significantly expanded from what it means now (e.g. inclusive of public performance). Five year terms from publication, renewable for up to a total twenty-five year term, plus the filler time to set expirations at the end of the year for administrative convenience. No renewals allowed for software.
Some lesser protection for unpublished works from creation, but with that lapsing if the work is published or registered, and this only to bar people pirating materials still in development.
The registration formalities would require not onl
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
"Firstly, at this point in time, everything you make that is copyrightable is copyrighted automatically by the law. You are not in fact choosing to do it for a particular reason."
/. if you had to register them in order to protect them? I don't think so. I think that you post here because you enjoy the debate, and the copyright status of the posts is irrelevant."
Yes, but I am not talking of my works which I place no notice on, but rather those works I place a notice on. These days, ti is GPL and CC BY-SA for me. Check:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A %22drew%20Roberts%22
http://zotz.openphoto.net/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/zbcw/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/nanoppix/
http://security.royans.net/projects/dydns/
"Secondly, I think you're confusing something. If you are creating works without any expectation of getting anything at all in return, then you appear to not be encouraged to create those works by the availability of copyright, and therefore shouldn't get a copyright since it is superfluous."
You are missing what motivates me with respect to copyright and also trying to reduce all motivations to economic ones. I think you are mistaken as to what motivates me. Perhaps it is that way with you, I cannot read your mind, but I have some inkling of my own.
"To be honest, I'm dubious. Your posts in this thread are copyrighted. Would you not post on
With the example you chose, which is my posting on slashdot, you are more than likely right. But you chose a wrong example. Check this link:
http://www.nanowrimo.org/userinfo.php?uid=47354
I wrote a novel in November 2004 as part of a contest. If I sort out some issues with my lawyer with respect to short quotes from songs of the era sprinkled here and there in the novel, I intend to publish it under some Creative Commons or similar license.
After all that work, I would not put it in the public domain, but would be happy to release as CC BY-SA. I will be quite happy, even if I do not receive a dime as a result of sales. This brings up a key issue with reguards to motivation. That is that we have a continumm from demotivation to total absence of motivation to motivation. You are speaking like there is only motivation and the absence of motivation.
While I am quite happy to share my work for no monetary reward, I find it demotivating to think others will make a derivative of my work and copyright it all rights reserved and not pay me. I am cool with them copylefting a derivative and not paying me. Perhaps this will remove the need to be dubious.
"Given that the system I describe is more or less how we did things from 1710-1977 and that we had a pretty thriving public domain, and that the number of copyrightable works didn't seem to shoot up upon the effective date of the 1976 Act, or the 1989 amendments, I think that those expansions of the law were not really justified."
I can easily agree that the expansions of the law were not justified. However, if one of the acts/amendments you cite was the one that made all works automatically copyrighted once comitted to a fixed medium, you are seriously mistaken in your claim that the number of copyrighted works did not shoot up (I realise you said copyrightable works, if there is a fine point to the difference, please enlighten.) I take it you meant works where the copyright was registered did not shoot up in number.
"One year statutory bar to filing, probably from publication, where that's significantly expanded from what it means now (e.g. inclusive of public performance). Five year terms from pu
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
Later I saw where someone (a lawyer IIRC) elsewhere in this discussion brought up that since some decision ca. 1990, one can indeed copyright the appearance of a building! Insanity....
I think you are right that ultimately, this sort of IP is untenable and unsustainable.
And one has to wonder about the attitudes (and perhaps viability) of a business that's so worried about every dime anyone else might make off them, that they'd forbid a photographer from making at most a few thousand bucks off photos of a multi-million dollar building -- the disparity of scale of their respective incomes is just too great to be meaningful, yet some such businesses still pursue it.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I bet it was in Vegas. I think there's some validity to copyrighting the appearance of a building, in the same medium, architecture. Architects shouldn't be able to just clone another building's unique appearance, which is a ripoff of one's art by a competitor. But the problem with such protection is that it flies in the face of some essential facts of architecture history: architects, like any other artists, copy from each other, creating trends and styles. Architecture is one of the most consistent arts, because of that borrowing. And copying new techniques, especially in construction and execution, make new buildings safer and more useable. The copyright and other protections of architectural design are in direct conflict with a sustainable art, which has worked to the contrary for literally thousands of years. Especially in the age of perpetual IP renewal, that is unsustainable. So tough.
--
make install -not war
I don't know where it was... as to that sort of "copying" -- art (which I hereby use to mean "the superset that includes anything currently called IP") has always been largely about being inspired by one's peers. So if you saw a statue and were inspired to carve something similar, that was just how it was, and no one could tell you not to do it or charge you a fee for "stealing" the inspiration. NOW, you'd probably find yourself hauled into court for some sort of IP infringement. :(
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?