Public Park Designated Copyrighted Space 770
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."
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.
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:5, Informative)
The same goes for a sculpture purchased by a city.
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."
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.
work for hire (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:work for hire (Score:4, Informative)
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.
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.
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:3, Informative)
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...
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.
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:4, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:3, Interesting)
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? (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.
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.
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:3, Informative)
"(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 ch
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.
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:you got that right (Score:3, Informative)
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 mayb
Re:you got that right (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
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.
Re:What about the buildings that the bean relfects (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [about.com] 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? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 coun
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.OMFG, READ THE LAW! (Score:3, Informative)
UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 17, SECTION 106A, COPYRIGHT LAW ON WORKS OF VISUAL ARTS [cornell.edu]
(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
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.
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.
Re:OMFG, READ THE LAW! (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:3, Informative)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
" 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 d
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 royalt
Re:What of other works of art? (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:Precedent doesn't support this (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Precedent doesn't support this (Score:3, Interesting)
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 ou
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.
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.
Re:Precedent doesn't support this (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Next thing you know (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Next thing you know (Score:3, Informative)
Humiliated, Angry, Ashamed, Brown [69.93.170.43]
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.
Re:Next thing you know (Score:3, Interesting)
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 rac
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)
USA is actually better than some other places (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is actually worse in a lot of other countries. [8k.com]
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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)
Not unique to the US (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
This Is The Natural Outcome Of.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Eiffel tower, too (Score:5, Interesting)
Hope I'm the first one to say.. (Score:4, Funny)
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.
This is a conspiracy by the creators (Score:4, Funny)
Publicity Stunt (Score:5, Interesting)
Take that, City of Chicago!
Copyright misunderstanding? (Score:4, Funny)
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;
Re:Copyright misunderstanding? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Wee the people (Score:3, Funny)
Wee the people.
Let that sink in. I'm getting pretty sick of it.
Ha HA! (Score:4, Funny)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Chicagoans (Score:3, Insightful)
Careful about the News Source (Score:4, Informative)
Ready? Here we go. Step 1, read article not posted in
Page 1 [interrupt-media.com], Page 2 [interrupt-media.com], Page 3 [interrupt-media.com].
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 [chicagoparkdistrict.com]
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.
This has already been overturned in case law. (Score:3, Interesting)
List of things.places your can't photograph (Score:5, Informative)
NOTICE: Effective Immediately (Score:3, Funny)
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. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Copyrighted public works. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
Fair use? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just stuipid on so many levels (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
SOunds to me like (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's official... (Score:4, Funny)
Search for Cloud Gate bean [google.com]
Re:It's official... (Score:3, Funny)
That's Mr. Bean.
Thank you...
Re:It's official... (Score:3, Insightful)
Explain to me again how I can't take pictures of something I helped pay for?
Copyright (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's official... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:hmmmmm..... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:hmmmmm..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pay no attention to the Bean behind the curtain (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I request you remove "land of the free" from yo (Score:5, Funny)