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."
Windy City, blow me.
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!
Place your own work in front of the sculpture, and sue them because their mirror is replicating your copyrighted work.
Ahem..
Search for Cloud Gate bean
Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. This means I can charge my brother for toast he makes in the crappy toaster I bought him for his wedding, right?
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.
I copyrighted my own voice, so I could charge companies for phone calls when they start with an automated message that says "this call may be recorded for [whatever reason]..."
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'
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
How about "land of the fee" instead?
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'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...
What are these "bride" things of which you speak, and where can I download one?
They will never stop until somebody makes the
My parents created me as a work of art. Therefore, the police department cannot make copies of my image or fingerprints or DNA without paying the appropriate licensing fees. It's time to sue.