Copywritten Park of Chicago - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/12/2005 09:52:32 PM · #1

Fresh off Slashdot:

Your Rights Online: Public Park Designated Copyrighted Space

Posted by Zonk on Saturday February 12, @03:37PM
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."
//flickr.com/photos/search/tags:cloud+gate/tagmode:any/

alanfreed

Nikon Z9

02/12/2005 10:02:17 PM · #2

The headline should read: "Anal Retentiveness Hits New High"

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/12/2005 10:06:37 PM · #3

... and of course all that collected money would be going into the public coffers to assist to poor beleaguered taxpayers of that metropolis....

jab119

02/12/2005 10:35:12 PM · #4

I just hope they have about 300 cops out there 24/7 to stop EVERY person with any type of camera. Maybe they need to put a big sheet over it to stop people from using a telephoto lens from a building and or an aircraft to take its picture.

James

02/12/2005 10:38:56 PM · #5

Has anyone actually read how the law was written? It is against US copyright law to photograph someone else's art work for the purpose of comercial gain. This is not a Chicago thing.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/12/2005 10:42:50 PM · #6

The problem is a government entity entering a contract with an artist is which the artist is allowed to retain copyright. If it's paid for with public funds, property cannot be left under the control of an unaccountable individual.

I think granting the artist a perpetual, royalty-free license would be a much fairer and enforcable alternative.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/12/2005 10:44:03 PM · #7

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Has anyone actually read how the law was written? It is against US copyright law to photograph someone else's art work for the purpose of comercial gain. This is not a Chicago thing.

The city might well (should) own the copyright under the work-for-hire doctrine; it all depends how the contract was written.

milo655321

Nikon D70

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

02/13/2005 11:56:06 AM · #8

I've photographed all over Millenium Park and was approached once by security asking if was taking pictures for commercial purposes. (See my Faceless challenge submission.) After I replied, "No, these are for my personal and private use," they left me alone. The Bean is behind a curtain and gated off right now as they're getting rid of the visable seams, but I plan on getting my tripod over there sometime this Spring after the unveiling. I don't see how they can stop me if my pictures are for private use and I'm in a public park which my tax dollars paid for. We'll see.

Message edited by author 2005-02-13 11:57:00.

02/13/2005 12:04:36 PM · #9

We have a lot of murals on building near where I live that were paid for by the city and the chamber of commerce. It has always been just fine to photograph these, but not to make postcards or sell prints. It is just because they were paid for by public funds that this is enforced so well. Why should the taxpayers be financing someone elses comercial endeavor? The city sells it's own prints and postcards, the proceeds of which help finance future projects.

Message edited by author 2005-02-13 12:06:31.

photodude

02/13/2005 12:04:39 PM · #10

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Has anyone actually read how the law was written? It is against US copyright law to photograph someone else's art work for the purpose of comercial gain. This is not a Chicago thing.

I disagree. Any artist who puts their work in an outdoor public park gives up those rights. This is very distinct from items not in public places where your license to view them (admission ticket)precludes such behavior. Once the artist agrees to put the item in a public space, they have no more control than the architect or owners of the Sears Tower can restrict commercial use of images on the outside of their building.

02/13/2005 12:08:10 PM · #11

Sears Tower is a building. We are talking about works of art. You need to read US copyright law.

photodude

02/13/2005 12:16:03 PM · #12

You can't copyright the image of a public park.

You can't stop people from shooting what they can shoot from the public street (or park in this case).

The artist has chosen to put the item in a public place. It is a choice they made - which by the way is being done for their own gain.

If they didn't want to expose the item to such photography, they should have exhibited it in a controlled environment.

To ask taxpayer citizens to pay to shoot an image of their park would not be held up in court (unless of course they can find a way to apply the Patriot Act).

vince31874

02/13/2005 12:17:02 PM · #13

I am a little confused.

I don't know how true the statement is but, it says they are "Charging People Money To Take Pictures"

As far as copyrights are concerned, if you publish the photos for your own commerical gain, I can understand.

But what about people taking snapshots for a vacation scrap book or something... I don't think it is fair to tell people "Hey, you need to pay money to photograph your kid in front of this"

I don't know. I just think it is silly.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/13/2005 12:20:14 PM · #14

Originally posted by photodude:

I'm not saying if it is right or wrong. It is US copyright law. I don't think the USA Partiot Act is a just law, but my thoughts on the subject do not in the least any way change the execution of that law.

TommyMoe21

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

02/13/2005 12:23:40 PM · #15

Originally posted by vince31874:

They are not charging the public. I've been there quite a few times.

Actually, for half a billion dollars, the park ain't bad!

02/13/2005 12:25:00 PM · #16

Originally posted by vince31874:

I don't know how true the statement is but, it says they are "Charging People Money To Take Pictures"

As far as copyrights are concerned, if you publish the photos for your own commerical gain, I can understand.

But what about people taking snapshots for a vacation scrap book or something... I don't think it is fair to tell people "Hey, you need to pay money to photograph your kid in front of this"

The article was vague at best. I can't tell if it is true or not that they will limit all photography. Perhaps someone who lives in Chicago can contact the city park service and enlighten us as to the actual wording.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/13/2005 12:44:04 PM · #17

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Sears Tower is a building. We are talking about works of art. You need to read US copyright law.

Many buildings are subject to copyright restrictions -- see this list.

However, it should be emphasized that copyright restrictions apply to commercial use. You can take all the photos you want of your family in front of The Bean for your family album, just don't try and sell them or charge for exhibition or otherwise commercially exploit them.

Message edited by author 2005-02-13 12:44:34.

ElGordo

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon

02/13/2005 01:08:32 PM · #18

There is no doubt that U.S. Copyright Law is antiquated and unrealistic. A major overhaul of these statutes is in order. IMHO, any work exhibited in a permanent, uncontrolled venue should be (de facto) public domain. Sounds like someone in Chicago's parks Administration is a bit over zealous and may be citing laws that do not apply to public works. Picasso's sculpture in Chicago has been photographed since it's unveiling over 30 years ago with no legal consequences of which I am aware.

02/13/2005 01:21:01 PM · #19

Originally posted by ElGordo:

70 years after the death of an artist or writer the copyright becomes public domain. US cpoyright laws were just recently revamped and in fact were strengthened. Picaso's works would fall into the relm of public domain because he has been dead more then 70 years. I fact when they were put on diplay 30 years ago the law only protected copyright for 50 years after the creation of the copyrighted work. If anything they will go in the other direction from what you may wish to see.

As an artist I have a deep apreciation for the emancipation of artists with the enactment of these laws. Otherwise big corporations would own and reap profit off everything we have created.

eckoe

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/13/2005 01:21:35 PM · #20

Copywrite law is designed to protect the financial gain from something an artist created. Honestly, if I made "the bean" and someone went out, set up a tripod, made a postcard and sold 5 bazillion of them, I'd be pretty pissed if I didn't get a dime because without me, they wouldn't have made a dime.

Situated in a public space or not, that's his intellectual property that created it, he deserves to protect it.

ElGordo

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon

02/13/2005 01:24:53 PM · #21

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by ElGordo:
There is no doubt that U.S. Copyright Law is antiquated and unrealistic. A major overhaul of these statutes is in order. IMHO, any work exhibited in a permanent, uncontrolled venue should be (de facto) public domain. Sounds like someone in Chicago's parks Administration is a bit over zealous and may be citing laws that do not apply to public works. Picasso's sculpture in Chicago has been photographed since it's unveiling over 30 years ago with no legal consequences of which I am aware.

70 years after the death of an artist or writer the copyright becomes public domain. US cpoyright laws were just recently revamped and in fact were strengthened. Picaso's works would fall into the relm of public domain because he has been dead more then 70 years. I fact when they were put on diplay 30 years ago the law only protected copyright for 50 years after the creation of the copyrighted work. If anything they will go in the other direction from what you may wish to see.

As an artist I have a deep apreciation for the emancipation of artists with the enactment of these laws. Otherwise big corporations would own and reap profit off everything we have created.

Picasso died in 1973, so the work should still be protected by copyright.

02/13/2005 01:29:45 PM · #22

Originally posted by ElGordo:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by ElGordo:
There is no doubt that U.S. Copyright Law is antiquated and unrealistic. A major overhaul of these statutes is in order. IMHO, any work exhibited in a permanent, uncontrolled venue should be (de facto) public domain. Sounds like someone in Chicago's parks Administration is a bit over zealous and may be citing laws that do not apply to public works. Picasso's sculpture in Chicago has been photographed since it's unveiling over 30 years ago with no legal consequences of which I am aware.

70 years after the death of an artist or writer the copyright becomes public domain. US cpoyright laws were just recently revamped and in fact were strengthened. Picaso's works would fall into the relm of public domain because he has been dead more then 70 years. I fact when they were put on diplay 30 years ago the law only protected copyright for 50 years after the creation of the copyrighted work. If anything they will go in the other direction from what you may wish to see.

As an artist I have a deep apreciation for the emancipation of artists with the enactment of these laws. Otherwise big corporations would own and reap profit off everything we have created.

Picasso died in 1973, so the work should still be protected by copyright.

When was the work created. It would have been under the old law and may indeed still be protected. But just because he chose not to protect his image in such a manner, if indeed he did relinquish those rights, should in no way dictate how other artists choose to protect theirs.

Message edited by author 2005-02-13 13:31:27.

ElGordo

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon

02/13/2005 01:37:13 PM · #23

You are correct NSBCA7. It is my belief that if an artist chooses to create a permanent public display, then it should be available for non-commercial images to the general public. Present law seems to address this a way that is vague and subject to interpretation by the Chicago Parks Administration as a prohibition against all images.

(edit: spelling)

Message edited by author 2005-02-13 13:38:32.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/13/2005 01:46:07 PM · #24

Originally posted by eckoe:

My point was that this should be a point of negotiation in the contract between the public entity and the artist, with the most just compromise being that the artist relinquish the copyright to the public entity (which may itself enforce some restrictions) while retaining a royalty-free license to market the work (or images of it) themselves.

The biggest difference would be that the copyright would be held by a publicly-accountable entity rather than by a single individual. In general, I think that art paid for with public funds and displayed/maintained in a public space belongs in the public domain, and that we all should be equally free to derive whatever commercial benefit we can from it.