Slashdot Log In
Public Park Designated Copyrighted Space
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Feb 12, 2005 03:37 PM
from the built-with-public-funds dept.
from the built-with-public-funds dept.
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This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Bunch of crap (Score:5, Funny)
What of other works of art? (Score:5, Insightful)
Appalling.
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:5, Informative)
So no it wasn't 'payed' for by the people of Chicago it was paid for by SBC.
Parent
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
It's not just Funny, it's Insightful too (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:5, Informative)
The same goes for a sculpture purchased by a city.
Parent
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:5, Informative)
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."
Parent
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Parent
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:5, Informative)
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 [millenniumpark.org]
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.
Parent
White elephant (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:5, Interesting)
But, what do you expect from a city that send bulldozers in the middle of the night to shut down an airport?
Insane.
Parent
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
What about the buildings that the bean relfects? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:What about the buildings that the bean relfects (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Copies of Copies, Reflections of Reflections (Score:5, Insightful)
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.Parent
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Parent
Re:OMFG, READ THE LAW! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:OMFG, READ THE LAW! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:OMFG, READ THE LAW! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Precedent doesn't support this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Precedent doesn't support this (Score:5, Informative)
Pretty sad when everything around you has to be copyrighted by someone.
Parent
Re:Precedent doesn't support this (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Precedent doesn't support this (Score:5, Informative)
Bert Krages, a photographer and attorney, publishes an online guide called The Photographer's Right [krages.com] that pretty well agrees with you. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before this matter ends up in court.
Parent
Re:Precedent doesn't support this (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Next thing you know (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Next thing you know (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Wow.. people forgetting the role of government (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Stupider (Score:5, Insightful)
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* ? (Score:5, Funny)
We paid for it but can't take pictures? (Score:5, Funny)
Charging money (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Highly reflective, you say? (Score:5, Funny)
This Is The Natural Outcome Of.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Eiffel tower, too (Score:5, Interesting)
Slashdot Needs a New Feature (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Publicity Stunt (Score:5, Interesting)
Take that, City of Chicago!
List of things.places your can't photograph (Score:5, Informative)
Photographs of Property (Score:5, Informative)
Judge for yourself.
From http://www.publaw.com/photo.html/ [publaw.com]
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.
Re:It's official... (Score:4, Funny)
Search for Cloud Gate bean [google.com]
Parent
yes he is (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:hmmmmm..... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I request you remove "land of the free" from yo (Score:5, Funny)
Parent