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."
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
So no it wasn't 'payed' for by the people of Chicago it was paid for by SBC.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Maybe not in the U.S., but in France you can't sell photos of the Eiffel Tower taken at night.
Pretty sad when everything around you has to be copyrighted by someone.
Can't sell them, sure, but you can still _TAKE_ them.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Bert Krages, a photographer and attorney, publishes an online guide called The Photographer's Right that pretty well agrees with you. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before this matter ends up in court.
No, that's 17 USC 106A. The appropriate section of the law is 106(1), which states that the copyright holder has the exclusive right to reproduce the work. 106 applies to all copyrighted works. 106A merely adds some additional rights with regards to works of visual art; it doesn't supplant 106.
So yeah, if you take a photo of a copyrighted work, it will typically be infringing. There are some exceptions e.g. 107, 120, but no blanket exceptions that seem useful here.
-- 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.
Way to quote only the part of the article that supports your argument. Here's the rest of the blurb:
Brian McCartney sez, "Just a note, the piece was not publicly paid for, it was a gift from SBC Communcations. Not that it matters, it's still totally bogus." Too right -- the public are still paying for this, not just in upkeep, but in the tax-break to SBC, in the maintenance of the object, in the policing to stop photogs, and most of all in the cost to the public nature of its space that comes from having an unphotographable object splatted right in the middle of an otherwise very nice park.
And, as another poster pointed out, regardless of who paid for it and how, it's now owned by the public.
Not only that, but you apparently didn't bother to read the article linked to by the source you quoted.
Here it is: http://www.millenniumpark.org/sbcplaza.htm
From the article:
The sculpture is made possible by a gift from the SBC Corporation.
The article makes no mention of SBC paying for the actual sculpture. It makes reference to a "gift" which could have been the land (since it's called SBC Plaza) or a monetary donation which the city then used to pay for the sculpture.
"I'm sorry, but a photograph of a sculpture is not a reproduction of said sculpture. " - it's a transformative reproduction. There's enough creativity involved (choosing the angle etc) that if it were in the public domain, a picture if it would qualify for copyright; on the other hand, it's close enough to the original that it could be considered either a copy or a derivative work. These are the same issues that were litigated in the Bridegeman art Library v Corel case.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
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.
If I buy a painting from an artist, I have not bought the copyright along with that painting. I cannot make copies of it and distribute it.
The same goes for a sculpture purchased by a city.
What?
Sorry, but you're wrong. The creator of the work holds the copyright. In copyright law "copy" refers to the original work as well as physical copies of it.
17 USC 101, "The term "copies" includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed."
17 USC 106, "Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."
What?
Actually, it seems you are right, and that I am wrong. Your paragraphs don't address the transfer of copyright with the master recording (or any physical instance), but this paragraph does:
Section 202 of the Copyright Act:
"Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from any ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object."
Thanks for straightening me out on that.
--
make install -not war
If you're willing to wait the 150 years (+-50) that it takes for a copyright to expire these days, then you can make all of the copies that you want.
That having been said, there's the concept of 'reasonable use' in copyright law, and taking pictures of something that's been donated to a public park should probably fit in that definition. If I lived in Chicago, I'd probably call their bluff and ask them to take me to court.
If I was in a really snarky mood, and had the time and/or money, I might even file for a declaratory judgment.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I didn't see this list mentioned yet, the Picture Archive Council of America has a list of things you can't photograph.
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.
Actually you've got it backwards (especially if you are using photography as your basis of knowledge).
The creator owns the copyright UNLESS they sign something specifically relinquishing it.
Try www.editorialphotographers.com if you're looking for a website with real insight into photography related copyright matters.
17 USC 113 (c).
In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles that have been offered for sale or other distribution to the public, copyright does not include any right to prevent the making, distribution, or display of pictures or photographs of such articles in connection with advertisements or commentaries related to the distribution or display of such articles, or in connection with news reports.
IANAL, however, it looks like if a work of art is displayed in a public place, it is OK to make pictures of it.