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."

Comments

Bunch of crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Windy City, blow me.

Re:Bunch of crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the bean is so reflective, if you were to put a painting next to it, people could look at your painting in the reflection, and thus, the bean would be reproducing your art without your permission and thus it would be infringing on your copyright? How about somebody putting up a live cam of the bean? :P

What of other works of art?

[TimmyDee]

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.

Re:What of other works of art?

[OverlordQ]

From TFA:

Update: Brian McCartney sez, "Just a note, the piece was not publicly paid for, it was a gift from SBC Communcations.

So no it wasn't 'payed' for by the people of Chicago it was paid for by SBC.

Re:What of other works of art?

[Slak]

I was married last year in Chicago (where I reside and pay substantial property and sales taxes), and tried to take some wedding pictures at the Chicago Park District's indoor conservatory. Security stopped my bride and me from being photographed. I was outraged! And Millenium Park is worse, since it was completely overbudget and YEARS late.

But, what do you expect from a city that send bulldozers in the middle of the night to shut down an airport?

Insane.

Re:What of other works of art?

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. This means I can charge my brother for toast he makes in the crappy toaster I bought him for his wedding, right?

Re:What of other works of art?

[Renesis]

This actually seems to be fairly common with new buildings and works of art in public spaces.

I was working with some people on some new postcards and they asked me to check out the royalties on a couple of new structures in London they'd taken pictures of.

They'd been burned when they sold postcards of the Louvre. The architect who had designed the Louvre Pyramid had complained and they had to pay him about 0.10 in royalties per postcard sold.

Obviously anything over a certain age is copyright-expired, so castles etc are fair game! ;)

Re:What of other works of art?

[Seumas]

How is taking a photo of a sculpture "reproducing" it anymore than taking a photo of an album is stealing the music?

Re:What of other works of art?

[Doc Ruby]

It's a gift. So what if it wasn't paid for by Chicagoans? It was a gift from SBC to them. So it's now the property of Chicago, of Chicagoans, of the public. BTW, anyone who thinks a gift from SBC to the City is really "free" wouldn't survive a Winter in Chicago - or a Summer, either.

Re:What of other works of art?

[VValdo]

Try including a shot of the Hollywood Sign in a motion picture. Turns out, it's is not just a city landmark, but a trademarked brand owned by the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, which cannot be included in a distributed film without paying licensing fees.

At least that's what I've read. It didn't show up in a quick trademark search for "hollywood sign" Has any other city landmark (Eiffel tower, etc.) been trademarked like this?

W

Re:What of other works of art?

[bryce1012]

Exactly. I was so upset when I heard about poor Meigs that I swore I wouldn't visit Chicago again until there's an airport operating out there again. This is just one more reason to uphold that vow.

Re:What of other works of art?

[xstonedogx]

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.

Re:What of other works of art?

[runningduck]

I think I am going to paint my roof and then sue the satellite imaging companies for violating my copyright.

Re:What of other works of art?

[shark72]

" What happens to other publicly displayed works of art?"

It depends on the artist.

This is, in essence, what copyright is: the right to determine how your work is copied -- including, in the case of artwork, photographic images. It is entirely the artists' prerogative.

"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."

You are 100% correct. That would be unworkable, so they don't do it.

There is indeed precedent for scultors and artists to ask that their works not be reproduced commercially. About ten years back, the producers of the film "Devil's Advocate" were sued because they used a replica of a sculpture in an unauthorized manner.

"Appalling."

Perhaps. I think it comes down to whether scultures and other visual artists have the same access to copyright law as do programmers, web designers, and other professions that are more Slashdot-friendly, or if it's a "some people are more equal than others" situation. In the artists' defense, he probably asked for this restriction because he did not want to see his sculpture showing up on posters, t-shirts, and other commercial products without getting compensated.

It's the free market that eventually decides things like this. If the city realizes that it's too much of a PITA to deal with this sculptor's requirements, then they'll never buy another sculpture from him, and word will get around.

Re:What of other works of art?

[Captain Chaos]

The light display on the Eiffel Tower at night is copyrighted by SNTE, the company that maintains it. They require fees for the right to publish photos taken at night. You can find more info in the story here and at the official site's FAQ.

Re:What of other works of art?

[Speare]

Commercial photographs of the Eiffel Tower during the day are perfectly legitimate, but commercial photographs of the Eiffel Tower when illuminated are infringing upon the copyrighted lighting design. How fucked up is that?

Re:What of other works of art?

[tomhudson]

Essentially, this is like Ford telling people not to take pictures of their own cars because the designers still own the copyright to the design.

Since when is "rust" copyrightable?

Re:What of other works of art?

[peawee03]

A sculpture is a much more inherently visual medium as compared to an album; therefore, I suppose one could concieveably say making a copy of the visual representation at a given point of the object would be an infringement.

However, as an architecture student, I feel that sculpture (*especially* this one) uses space as its primary medium rather than just the visual; you can, and infact the Bean demands you interact with it in three-dimentional space to fully understand and comprehend this thing. I'd counter argue that only a holographic representation, or an old-fashioned plaster cast would be truly breaking copyright.

Re:What of other works of art?

[Peyna]

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.

Re:What of other works of art?

[Peyna]

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."

Re:What of other works of art?

[Fletch]

The Happy Birthday song isn't owned by Disney, it's owned by Warner Music Group. Snopes has an article on it. (Note that at the time the article was written there was still an AOLTW. WMG is no longer part of even TimeWarner.)

If you've ever been in the middle of one of those embarrassing restaurant wait-staff birthday serenedes, and wondered why they were singing a birthday song you'd never heard before, this is way.

Re:What of other works of art?

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:What of other works of art?

[bechthros]

What are these "bride" things of which you speak, and where can I download one?

Re:What of other works of art?

[miskatonic alumnus]

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.

Re:What of other works of art?

[Peyna]

17 USC 102:

"(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

Re:What of other works of art?

[Dun Malg]

I think it comes down to whether scultures and other visual artists have the same access to copyright law as do programmers, web designers, and other professions that are more Slashdot-friendly, or if it's a "some people are more equal than others" situation.

You're reading too much into the backlash. It has nothing to do with how "friendly" sculpture is to Slashdot readers. All those "friendly" examples you give, think about replaceing "sculpture" with those types of works. Should programmers get a royalty for a photograph containing part of their source code printed out in the background that's neither runable nor readable? Should a web designer get a royalty for a photograph of one page of the web site they designed being visible on the monitor behind the subject of the picture? That makes no more sense than people being chased out of a PUBLIC PARK because they wanted to take a picture of their grandmother with that 30' shiny thing in the backgrounds. It's not about some being "more equal" than others-- it's about applying common fucking sense.

Re:What of other works of art?

[Stephen Samuel]

Works of art (including the originals) can be bought with and without publication rights. I've bought examples of each. Owning the master copy of a record doesn't give you the right to make copies. It's having the contract that transfers (or licenses) the copyright that makes it worthwhile owning the master (other than as a collectible).

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.

Re:What of other works of art?

[Doc Ruby]

Yes, another poster pointed out the requirement for explicit transfer of copyright, and I posted the exact legal basis of their correction. Slashdot's limited threading GUI, and our limited Slashdotter attention span, will probably be offering my hat for eating for a while this afternoon :).

All those other reasons I cited still seem compelling. The public has a right to look, and record what we see, in public places. That right surely trumps the copyrights of a published work. Though I'd bet there are lots of people who would interpret that conflict as "property rights trump the rights of the masses". I believe the French have been embroiled in this controversy for over a decade, under the heading "droit de regard".

Re:What of other works of art?

[ScrewMaster]

The irony of all this is that Chicago is beginning one of the largest buildouts of remote-controlled "security" cameras in the U.S., linked by almost a thousand miles of fiber trunk. They can take all the pictures they want of us, but we can't use our cameras in what is nominally a public park.

Re:What of other works of art?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

It should also be noted: No sculptors have rolled carts up to the thing, pulled out their measuring tape, and tried to duplicate it... a photo isn't a copy of it. Comparing this to a master tape and mp3s, or to a oil painting and prints of it just isn't intellectually honest.

Re:What of other works of art?

[Doc Ruby]

All this copyright of art, that isn't an indistinguishable reproduction, is intellectually dishonest. Every artist, every art historian, every art-aware person knows that artists are the greatest thieves of all time. Some of the greatest value of even iconoclastic art is its contained versions of prior art. That's what makes them cultural artifacts, from which they derive practically all their value. Completely copyrighting art instances is like gelding all horses.

Re:What of other works of art?

[Breakfast Pants]

Doesn't matter. If I want to make postcards of this thing and sell them in gift shops then it matters. The police are stopping every photographer from photographing this thing. Courts have ruled that things like advertisements and other works on public display are not covered by copyright if for instance someone is just taking a picture for their family album, if someone is taking a picture for a news article, or if the work is not the primary focus of a picture or pictorial. When someone takes a picture of a city skyline, they do not have to go paying thousands of architects for the right to do so.

Re:What of other works of art?

[legirons]

"That having been said, there's the concept of 'reasonable use' in copyright law"

You don't even need that. It's a photograph of a 3-dimensional object. Look-up the relevant case-law, it's not covered by copyright.

Re:What of other works of art?

[Grax]

Now the trick is for the overlords to print up t-shirts that they retain the copyright for and then place their people in camera view of any event that they would like to censor.

What if a news event would happen next to this sculpture? Could they deny coverage? If not then who decides what is newsworthy?

I am sorry. Public sculptures, no matter how the court currently views them, should not be protected from photography. There is too much danger to freedom of speech.

Re:What of other works of art?

[midav]

The greedy pigs can stuff it.

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.

Re:What of other works of art?

[srmalloy]

There is a distinct difference between art held in a gallery and art put on public display. When this distinction is blurred we run into the issue of putting an unfair limitation on photographers. If the display is on public lands and the upkeep is paid for from public funds then there should be no legal impediment to it being photographed.

The solution to this is to file a class-action lawsuit (on behalf of all the photographers in the city) back at the city on the basis that posting the sculpture in a public park and attempting to claim copyright infringement on photographs of the park that happen to include the sculpture constitutes a legal taking of the public's right to use the park, and require that the city immediately remove the sculpture, with damages to be paid to anyone who can present to the court a photograph of the park as proof of their use of the park for photographic purposes...

Sometimes stupid lawsuits have their uses...

Re:What of other works of art?

[Moofie]

Then the artist is welcome to kiss both sides of my ass.

Re:What of other works of art?

[ckaminski]

Not so with works for hire. In such cases, it's generally found that the person writing the check usually ends up with the copyright unless prior agreements have been reached.

Re:What of other works of art?

[Alien Being]

You should have told them that you were Abe Frohman.

Precedent doesn't support this

[vijayiyer]

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.

Re:Precedent doesn't support this

[mikeboone]

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.

Re:Precedent doesn't support this

[mark-t]

Can't sell them, sure, but you can still _TAKE_ them.

Re:Precedent doesn't support this

[gronofer]

In the UK, there is an explicit statement in the copyright act that photos of sculptures on permanent display in a public place don't infringe the copyright of the sculpture.

Maybe there is something similar in the US copyright legislation.

Re:Precedent doesn't support this

[Squirmy McPhee]

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.

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.

Re:Precedent doesn't support this

[Seumas]

Does this mean that, next time Microsoft's terraserver updates the area (seems to happen every two or three years for major cities), they'll have to pay royalties for the right to show the piece of land "The Bean" is on?

Re:Precedent doesn't support this

[Colgate2003]

You can take pictures of anything you can see from a public street or public land (as long as you are on said public land). There are specific exceptions for top-secret military installations (see 18 U.S.C. 795). Anything else is fair game.

However, you can't sell pictures of other people's work, including sculpture and architecture, without their permission. The city is breaking the law if they won't let anyone photograph the object, but not if they are just charging people who are trying to sell their pictures.

I am not a lawyer, but I am a photographer who knows his rights.

Re:Precedent doesn't support this

[cpt kangarooski]

No, copyright stands even where works are publicly viewable. You may be thinking of the seperate issue of privacy rights.

There is of course, 17 USC 120 (allowing copyrighted buildings that are viewable from public areas to be photographed without it infringing), but that wouldn't apply to mere sculpture all by itself.

Re:Precedent doesn't support this

[jc42]

Hmmm ... I seem to recall seeing lots and lots of cityscapes in the background of pictures in newspapers, magazines, etc. I rather doubt that for every picture, the publisher has searched out the owner of the copyright to the image of every building (and vehicle) in the picture. Doing that for some of the pictures would cost more than most publishers' annual profit.

It sounds like something that is enforced for people like you and me, but not enforced for corporate publishers.

It might be fun to search out public events that are likely to result in news photos, get your own image into a photo, and then sue the publisher when it's published. Presumably I own the copyright to my own image, after all.

Next thing you know

[RLiegh]

people will be harassed and intimidated merely for taking photos of public landmarks!

Re:Next thing you know

[g00set]

Here is a first person write up of the incident.

Humiliated, Angry, Ashamed, Brown

Re:Next thing you know

[radish]

What I am saying is that the US and MANY other countries are/were attacked by Muslim extremists.
So should we also be chacking up on people who look like the other terriorists who have attacked the US? Let's see. There's those washington sniper guys. They were black, so let's check up on anyone who's black. Then there's Timothy McVeigh - who was (as far as I can remember) a white christian. Better start locking up some white christians then.

I think it's better to be over secure and have a lot of people as a false alarm then to let some real threats through and have another 9/11.

Defending your freedoms by giving up your freedoms? Makes a lot of sense. Moron.

Re:Next thing you know

[Stiletto]

Do you suggest that we just let everyone go about their daily business and not bother anyone even if they look like they are doing something suspecious?

What is suspicious about taking a picture of a landmark? Is it only suspicious if the person doing it has brown skin? What if a brown-skinned person is taking pictures of a house he's thinking about buying? Is this suspicious? Maybe he's waring a scaaaaaary black jacket!!! SUSPICIOUS YET????

How about this: We set up a snitch phone number so nosey racists can call and beg for help because a Ay-rab looking guy is walking around on the sidewalk. Instead of notifying the police, I'll just record the messages and play it for laughs at my next party. I could probably make millions selling comedy CD's!

American scare-dy-cats: Please turn yourselves in to the nearest comedy club. Thank you.

Wow.. people forgetting the role of government

[Staplerh]

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?

Re:Wow.. people forgetting the role of government

[Seumas]

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.

This is depressing. I would rather not have a park than have a park like this, where my city has completely sold out to build it. Using taxes to help a billionaire build a sports stadium (Paul Allen) and name it after their businesses is bad enough.

Remember that episode of The Simpsons, where Homer went around labeling EVERYTHING? Grass, trees, roads, signs, cats, hamsters, cars, mailboxes, windows and picnic tables?

I do not want to take my child to the Bank One public park to play on the Enron monkey-bars, next to the American Express sculpture, while I sit on a Starbucks bench and listen to the splashing water of the WalMart fountains across the McDonald's field, while families around us are feeding bread to the ducks in the General Motors duck pond.

Stupider

[Mark_MF-WN]

The entire world is now stupider for having shared a planet with this foolishness.

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.

The *Bean* ?

[murderlegendre]

Oh wait.. Chicago, the Windy City. Now I get it.

We paid for it but can't take pictures?

[g0hare]

This country gets stupider with every second. If only Canada wasn't so bloody cold.

hmmmmm.....

[greypilgrim]

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?

Re:hmmmmm.....

[pintpusher]

As the artists who created the DNA of which your current form is an expression, you parents own the copyright to you. They, and only they, may authorise photos of you.

That means mom has to sign off before you can star in porn flicks AND she gets her cut of the profits.

Re:hmmmmm.....

[WormholeFiend]

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]..."

Re:hmmmmm.....

[jackbird]

I always figured the wording of that warning gives YOU permission to tape the call, too :).

Charging money

[nuclear305]

"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.

Re:Charging money

[creysoft]

Actually, it's more akin to the RIAA charging you everytime one of their copyrighted songs shows up in an audio/video recording of yours, or the way the biocorps are charging farmers for GM seed ending up in their fields.

The problem is that the law is black and white, and this is such a gray area. How much control should artists have over their work? Should it change over time? What happens in unusual circumstances? What's the difference between taking a photograph of a painting for your scrap book, and taking a hi res Photograph to be used for reproduction?

In this particular instance, I think it's pretty clear. The sculpture itself is copyrighted, which means its three dimensional shape and form are owned by the artist. The authors can't realistically claim copyright ownership on a Photograph of it. They are most likely arguing that photographs are a derivative work of their copyrighted design, but that is (as in an aforementioned example of photographing cars) ludicrous. There is no possible way this can stand up in court. If it does, then there is no way you can take a photograph of anything man-made. Pretty much anything not utilitarian or standardized is sculpture in some form, and therefore copyrighted. By taking a photograph of a typical home, you would be creating a derivative work of dozens of copyrighted sculptures.

People need to stop looking out for themselves and actually spend some time thinking about the consequences of their actions.

Highly reflective, you say?

[product byproduct]

Place your own work in front of the sculpture, and sue them because their mirror is replicating your copyrighted work.

Re:Highly reflective, you say?

[Ingolfke]

Put a decorated mirror in front of it, you might call it a peer-to-peer system.

Re:It's official...

[Janitha]

Ahem..

Search for Cloud Gate bean

My Contribution

[grendel_x86]

Here are my Photos of Millennium Park. Must go take more...

What about the buildings that the bean relfects?

[sgant]

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.

Stop the world, please

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to get off now.

Not unique to the US

[panurge]

There was a case in France where a photographer make a postcard of a beach scene and the owner of a boat in the photograph sued because he had painted the boat and its number was visible, i.e. it was his copyrighted artwork. I believe the case proceeded to court, but I do not know the outcome.

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.

I request you remove "land of the free" from your

[ABeowulfCluster]

.. anthem.

This Is The Natural Outcome Of..

[SirChive]

...complete and absolute corporate control over a nation's legal framework.

The Eiffel tower, too

[hellgate]

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.

Re:The Eiffel tower, too

[kTag]

The thing is, nobody is asking you any money to take a picture of it, even at night!! Biiiig difference.

Cartman Land

[Juvenall]

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.

Hope I'm the first one to say..

[murderlegendre]

I for one welcome our fucking gigantic copyrighted chromium-bean wielding overlords.

Re:Pay no attention to the Bean behind the curtain

[drxray]

So, does this mean that weather satellites aren't allowed to point at Chicago any more?

Problem with my parents

[gunix]

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!

Copies of Copies, Reflections of Reflections

[brwski]

This is simply what happens when (and these are not necessarily related):

1. Everything becomes a commodity,
2. 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.

Re:Copies of Copies, Reflections of Reflections

[brwski]

brkwski: Everything becomes a commodity.

Anonymous Coward: Wrong word there. Commodity means that they're interchangeable and there's no real difference.

Actually, no. Commodity does not only refer to "interchangable" items. Rather, it refers to items which can become exchanged in a commercial transaction.

To ring a change on my original point: I don't mind the statue being something which can be bought or sold; instead, I find the control demanded over even the representation of that statue to be objectionable.

Slashdot Needs a New Feature

[EEBaum]

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.

Re:Slashdot Needs a New Feature

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the problem with your idea, of course, is that all too often the slashdot summary misrepresents the facts in a manner that is intended to cause the "scream" response. This seems to be one of the features in a write-up that the editors actively seek.

Re:Slashdot Needs a New Feature

[saldek]

My name is Howard Dean, and I approve of this post.

OMFG, READ THE LAW!

[mtrisk]

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!

Re:OMFG, READ THE LAW!

[cpt kangarooski]

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.

Re:OMFG, READ THE LAW!

[ivan256]

I'm sorry, but a photograph of a sculpture is not a reproduction of said sculpture. If people were out making photographs of some artist's photographs you'd have a point.

Similarly, you can take photographs of jewlery, but if you take a wax mold and make your own reproductions - even if it's of a piece of jewelery you own - you are violating the artist's copyright. Even in that case though, jewelers get around the other jeweler's copyright my creating their own similar, but not copied, pieces with only subtle differences. Unless the original jeweler has a design patent on some of the unique elements of the design, this is perfectly legal.

The issue here is that the city wants to make money selling postcards and nobody has sued their asses yet.

Re:OMFG, READ THE LAW!

[LoverOfJoy]

hmmm maybe only their parents could be able to copyright them because they are the original creators?

Re:OMFG, READ THE LAW!

[Raul654]

"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.

This is a conspiracy by the creators

[mark-t]

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.

USA is actually better than some other places

[ccmay]

This country gets stupider with every second. If only Canada wasn't so bloody cold.

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

Re:USA is actually better than some other places

[InfallibleLies]

Your comment about how good Americans have it bothers me.

Yes, a landmine in your yard is better than a nuclear missile.

Yes, 100 grams of fat is better than 1000.

Yes, owing a thousand dollars is better than owing a million.

Yes, you're missing the point.

Re:USA is actually better than some other places

[mcc]

Yeah.

Fuck those liberals who demand that America be the greatest country on earth. They should just sit down and learn to put up with mediocrity in all its forms.

True patriots understand that loving America means lowering your expectations of it. If lefties actually appreciated the things that made America great, they wouldn't try to protect them from being destroyed.

Publicity Stunt

[bigtallmofo]

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!

Copyright misunderstanding?

[mcleodnine]

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;

Does my ass look big in this statue?

Re:Copyright misunderstanding?

[Peyna]

17 USC 106 (Copyright holder exclusive rights)

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.

Re:I request you remove "land of the free" from yo

[Solder Fumes]

How about "land of the fee" instead?

Re:What about the buildings that the bean relfects

[jpatters]

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!

you got that right

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:you got that right

[voidptr]

How the hell can you blame the midnight raid on Meigs by the Daley administration (Democratic Mayor of Chicago) on the Bush administration? Daley tried to get rid of that airport since he took office in 1996, under Clinton. The FAA didn't know the airport was gone until the Mayor's office told them after it had been buldozed.

The Bush administration BTW is fining the city of Chicago at least $33,000 for improper notification, and up to about 8 million for improper use of federal airport funds that were supposed to be used at O'Hare.

Re:you got that right

[Bitsy Boffin]

Meigs was a small airport in Chicago. However it was very popular due to it's position, and known world wide as it was the default airport in MS Flightsim for as long as I can remember.

The Mayor didn't like Meigs much, and wanted to get rid of it. But there was, understandably, large opposition to that.

So, he decided that the only way to get what he wanted was to literally go in to Meigs in the middle of the night with bulldozers and destroy the runway.

Many aircraft were stranded at Meigs most (or maybe all) departed using the main Taxiway as a runway.

The FAA wasn't notified of the closure. Presumadly aircraft turning up expecting to land at Meigs were somewhat surprised to find it was no longer servicable.

This reminds me of that time in Papua New Guinea..

[borg]

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.

Re:It's official...

[KarmaMB84]

Isn't the artist infringing hundreds of copyrights by reflecting all thos buildings and peoples' images in his sculpture?

Wee the people

[erroneus]

No, that's not a typo.

Wee the people.

Let that sink in. I'm getting pretty sick of it.

The artist doesn't get it

[jamej]

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.

Ha HA!

[JohnsonWax]

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...

Bullshit

[HermanAB]

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.

White elephant

[jc42]

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.

Chicagoans

[Lord_Dweomer]

Having spent the greater portion of my life growing up in Chicago, I have to say I am beyond outraged. This takes something that could be a great boon for the city in terms of global recognition, and turns it into what will inevitably be a class action lawsuit against the city of Chicago by Chicagoans for something so ridiculous that it would have gotten a Florida tag instead of an Asinine tag on Fark.

Careful about the News Source

[Hack Jandy]

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.

Ready? Here we go. Step 1, read article not posted in /. post:
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.

Re:What about the buildings that the bean relfects

[AdjustableTool]

Or worse still: what if you just stood next to the bean wearing mirror shades? Then you'd owe an even infiniter amount of royalties! So you'll need two lawyers, and then of course a third lawyer to sue the first two for malpractice.

Maybe Chicagoans should organize a mass civil disobedience action, and turn up by the thousands all wearing sequinned jackets and REALLY shiny shoes.

Re:It's official...

[bechthros]

No, the public only has the right to pay for it with tax dollars.

Explain to me again how I can't take pictures of something I helped pay for?

This has already been overturned in case law.

[Slartibartfast]

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.

Re:It's official...

[Mister Transistor]

(In Goofy Deep Voice)

That's Mr. Bean.

Thank you...

List of things.places your can't photograph

[rhu6ar6]

I didn't see this list mentioned yet, the Picture Archive Council of America has a list of things you can't photograph.

NOTICE: Effective Immediately

[rk]

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.

I remember when I worked at a mall. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

I had a walkie-talkie, and a phone and I sat in a booth and told people where the washroom and movie theaters were. Yes, that guy. Yes, it sucked.

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

yes he is

[zogger]

..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.

Copyrighted public works.

[SeaFox]

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.

It's not just Funny, it's Insightful too

[leonbrooks]

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.

Copyright

[cbr2702]

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.

work for hire

[SuperBanana]

Sorry, but you're wrong. The creator of the work holds the copyright.

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.

Photographs of Property

[metoc]

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.

Fair use?

[Capt'n Hector]

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?

Re:work for hire

[FLaSh SWT]

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.

This is just stuipid on so many levels

[DarkOx]

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.

Re:What incredible f'ing bullshit

[fishbowl]

> If it's outside, it's public domain. Period.

Well, the artists do not automatically surrender their copyright to their creative work to the public domain, in particular. But, if the sculpture is in a public place, then you have the right to photograph it. If that right is abridged, then it can be argued that it is *not* a public place, and therefore, not a public park, and if it is not that, then it is private property where some private party may make the rules that visitors must follow -- and if it is not public property then Constitutional protections do not carry the same direct weight they would if it were.

Now, if the People had the situation misreprented to them, that is, if it has been asserted that this is Public Property, then the rights of the people are being abridged. And if they choose to do so, they may petition for this greivance to be heard. It's up to them.

SOunds to me like

[Cyberllama]

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.

Vandalism

[jefu]

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.