Reading mode: Light Dark

what a bunch of BS

Go to last post
I'd be up for uniting sometime. Regarding the bean though, it is currently under some sort of shelter. My guess is that they are finishing it. When it was unveiled it was incomplete. The seams were pretty visible up close. The original idea was that it was totally smooth. Otherwise, the shelter may be to prevent photography...

Grant
Jason said:
I've wanted to see if we could organize a Chicago chapter anyways,
and maybe meet up at Rock Bottom Brewery or Goose Island once or
twice a summer and then go out and have a location-based photo
challenge. There's plenty of cool architecture, nature,
environmental portrait, and other genres of photography that are
available within a stone's throw of either of those places. Most
of them aren't copyrighted, too.

jb
mooseknuckle said:
http://newurbanist.blogspot.com/2005/01/copyrighting-of-public-space.html

when will this nonsense end? I live in Chicago and I am tempted to
test this myself.

Grant
--
check out my gallery here:
http://www.pbase.com/granthamilton/portfolio

http://www.pbase.com/image/28384676/small
Click to expand...
--
--The good ones are accidents, the rest I come by naturally
http://www.nightyear.net/gallery
Click to expand...
--
check out my gallery here:
http://www.pbase.com/granthamilton/portfolio

http://www.pbase.com/image/28384676/small
 
The basic principles of copyright law are international, but the fine detail varies from country to country. In the UK you can (subject to some privacy issues) photograph anything you wish from a public place, professional or not. In Australia, the law specifically allows two dimensional reproduction of three dimensional objects.

Another aspect of this is that in UK law, breach of copyright is a civil offence (i.e. not criminal) which means it cannot be enforced by the police.

Steve B.
William Griffith said:
I just dug this up....which somewhat contradicts my previous
understanding of what I stated....

Title 17 section 120 of the US code:

(a) Pictorial Representations Permitted.-The copyright in an
architectural work that has been constructed does not include the
right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of
pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial
representations of the work, if the building in which the work is
embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

So, there you have it....Not only can you take pictures of
buildings viewable from a public place, this seems to say that you
can in fact even sell your pictures, and it's just too darn bad
if they don't like it (I'm in a mood tonight, sorry). If you find
that there's sometihng in the code that contradicts this please do
let me know.

I'm actually planning a photo series that would require what I dug
up here to be true for it to work out (I'll let you know how it
goes :)

Bill
:-=>
Click to expand...
 
Grant,

Depending on the weather in March or April, what do you say to trying to put together a small outing on a Saturday or Sunday? I can put together a quick info page and we can just mail out a link. http://www.nightyear.net/DPreviewChicagoChapter.html or something. I've also got a mailserver, so creating an opt-in email list wouldn't be all that much trouble. Phil wouldn't have a problem with that, would he?

jb

I was guessing the bean wouldn't be all that impressive with a 1/2 inch of salt on it, and trying to keep it clean through a Chicago winter would be entertaining but expensive. If it's not them finishing it or protecting it from the evil photographers, it's probably just that chrome and salt don't go well together.

jb
mooseknuckle said:
Grant
Jason said:
I've wanted to see if we could organize a Chicago chapter anyways,
and maybe meet up at Rock Bottom Brewery or Goose Island once or
twice a summer and then go out and have a location-based photo
challenge. There's plenty of cool architecture, nature,
environmental portrait, and other genres of photography that are
available within a stone's throw of either of those places. Most
of them aren't copyrighted, too.

jb
mooseknuckle said:
http://newurbanist.blogspot.com/2005/01/copyrighting-of-public-space.html

when will this nonsense end? I live in Chicago and I am tempted to
test this myself.

Grant
--
check out my gallery here:
http://www.pbase.com/granthamilton/portfolio

http://www.pbase.com/image/28384676/small
Click to expand...
--
--The good ones are accidents, the rest I come by naturally
http://www.nightyear.net/gallery
Click to expand...
--
check out my gallery here:
http://www.pbase.com/granthamilton/portfolio

http://www.pbase.com/image/28384676/small
Click to expand...
--
--The good ones are accidents, the rest I come by naturally
http://www.nightyear.net/gallery
 
If your photo is being used in a billboard...should you lose your copyright to it? Would you think it stupid of the billboard owner, or the photographer if the photographer retained copyright to the image? Or would that be OK, or SOP in your book?

Would you think it OK for someone to photograph the image, and then publish it? How would you treat it if someone took a flat reproduction of that billboard, and used it in another published application?

If you sold an image for use ONLY on the billboard...and the client photographed the billboard and reproduced it as a magazine ad? And if that isn't OK ...why not?

Copyright is a tricky area...and like pure research often seems ludicrous to the outsider looking in, but it can be extremely pertinent to the creators of the works....

Combined with current "security" issues in the USA since 9/11....the net result is lots of questions/edicts/restrictions etc. just looking for an excuse to stop any possiblity of terrorists using images as a "map" for a hit....

I know...any PS camera, and 2 seconds could do the terrorist job....but paranoia strikes deep, and what terrorist would want to attract attention to themselves with a tripod and assorted high end gear.... but seriously....what if it was your photo that was being reproduced?...yes? no?....and if yes....so then how would you go on making a living if your income depended upon making money from the reproductions of your works that you could "sell"?.....if they were all available for free....
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan
 
mooseknuckle said:
http://newurbanist.blogspot.com/2005/01/copyrighting-of-public-space.html

when will this nonsense end? I live in Chicago and I am tempted to
test this myself.

Grant
Click to expand...
There are two different concepts at work here. As a public park, you are free to take photographs. You are simply not allow to sell photographs were the park contents are the main rather than incidental subject. Security and the park directory were wrong in applying copyright law to your noncommercial photography. She says "especially for commercial use" when she ought to have left out the word "especially." The city ought to be slapped with a civil rights law suit.

David
 
I agree, everyone in Chicago should photograph the H*ll out of it and send it to the artist.

This being said I am a believer in sound copyright laws. However when an artist ( in this case ) creates something and was probably well paid for to donate to a city park, he obsolved all his copyrights on such.

The RENT A COPS are just abusing their new found power ( generally because they are probably losers who never had any to begin with ) The city clerk is just an ill-informed automaton too.

Note to artists selling work to the general public, umm "You takes your money and you go then home." Your work if displayed in public is for anyone to appreciate and otherwise capture in imagery.

Imagine if another artist now made an oil painting of that skyline. Is he she suppose to not paint the sculpture or will he she have to pay for the right.

If I lived in Chicago I would be going down there right now with all my CF cards and gear and fill them all up with images to EMAIL the city and the artist.

I guess as a pro, I should go to all my past customers homes and scan their photo albums, why? well not to look for illegal cpoiies of my work ( I'm sure those are there) but to look at household snapshots of the family to see if any of my wall portraits were captured in frame. If so I should demand compensation eh? ;-)
andyfrazer said:
It makes you want to photograph it as much as possible, and send
your work to the artist, just to prove a point.

Thanks for finding this article.

Andy Frazer
Click to expand...
--
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D

http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html
 
HERE HERE!!!
William Griffith said:
I just dug this up....which somewhat contradicts my previous
understanding of what I stated....

Title 17 section 120 of the US code:

(a) Pictorial Representations Permitted.-The copyright in an
architectural work that has been constructed does not include the
right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of
pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial
representations of the work, if the building in which the work is
embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

So, there you have it....Not only can you take pictures of
buildings viewable from a public place, this seems to say that you
can in fact even sell your pictures, and it's just too darn bad
if they don't like it (I'm in a mood tonight, sorry). If you find
that there's sometihng in the code that contradicts this please do
let me know.

I'm actually planning a photo series that would require what I dug
up here to be true for it to work out (I'll let you know how it
goes :)

Bill
:-=>
Click to expand...
--
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D

http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html
 
Richard Katris said:
If your photo is being used in a billboard...should you lose your
copyright to it? Would you think it stupid of the billboard owner,
or the photographer if the photographer retained copyright to the
image? Or would that be OK, or SOP in your book?
Click to expand...
And where are the billboard photography police who prevent any errant photographer from happening to include a billboard in his cityscape photographs?

If the copyrighted work is on display in a public place, copyright prevents commercial use, not picture-taking.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
 
Obviously the US copyright act allows you to sell images if you wish, see a few posts above.

If I donated my photography to a city and was compensated for such, I knew before hand that they were going on display. I obsolve any future rights to forbid anyone to make photographic copies of my work on display. If I write into my deal that the city cannot make professional copies of my work without my approval that is one thing. The public can snap pics of my work for whatever use and that is just my tough luck. Of course I can prevent all of this by not even selling any of my photography to anyone, but then I'd find it hard to eat and provide shelter.

As a further folowup to this thread.

As for terrorism BULLFLOP, GET OVER IT, it's hype and nonsense to steal more rights. NOTHING of any architectural value has not or will not be photographed or otherwise copied. So this idea of stoping photography in some innane idea of beating terrorism is pure LUNACY and society needs to stop this nonsense and fear-mongering.

BTW I googled thse words CHICAGO BEAN ART and found 64,200 hits with numerous photos. So much for copyright and so much for preventing terrorists any info on it.... SHEESH many people need to get on with life and/or get a life.
DRG said:
mooseknuckle said:
http://newurbanist.blogspot.com/2005/01/copyrighting-of-public-space.html

when will this nonsense end? I live in Chicago and I am tempted to
test this myself.

Grant
Click to expand...
There are two different concepts at work here. As a public park,
you are free to take photographs. You are simply not allow to sell
photographs were the park contents are the main rather than
incidental subject. Security and the park directory were wrong in
applying copyright law to your noncommercial photography. She says
"especially for commercial use" when she ought to have left out the
word "especially." The city ought to be slapped with a civil rights
law suit.

David
Click to expand...
--
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D

http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html
 
The Bean sculpture is not a photo. How is a photo of a bean, reproduction of the art work? Reproduction would be a 3D, physical model of the bean.

A photo of a bilboard or a poster of a photo hardly compares to a photo of a sculpture.

serge
Richard Katris said:
If your photo is being used in a billboard...should you lose your
copyright to it? Would you think it stupid of the billboard owner,
or the photographer if the photographer retained copyright to the
image? Or would that be OK, or SOP in your book?

Would you think it OK for someone to photograph the image, and then
publish it? How would you treat it if someone took a flat
reproduction of that billboard, and used it in another published
application?

If you sold an image for use ONLY on the billboard...and the client
photographed the billboard and reproduced it as a magazine ad? And
if that isn't OK ...why not?

Copyright is a tricky area...and like pure research often seems
ludicrous to the outsider looking in, but it can be extremely
pertinent to the creators of the works....

Combined with current "security" issues in the USA since
9/11....the net result is lots of questions/edicts/restrictions
etc. just looking for an excuse to stop any possiblity of
terrorists using images as a "map" for a hit....

I know...any PS camera, and 2 seconds could do the terrorist
job....but paranoia strikes deep, and what terrorist would want to
attract attention to themselves with a tripod and assorted high end
gear.... but seriously....what if it was your photo that was being
reproduced?...yes? no?....and if yes....so then how would you go on
making a living if your income depended upon making money from the
reproductions of your works that you could "sell"?.....if they were
all available for free....
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan
Click to expand...
--
============================
http://www.dspmax.com
 
dspmax said:
The Bean sculpture is not a photo. How is a photo of a bean,
reproduction of the art work? Reproduction would be a 3D, physical
model of the bean.

A photo of a bilboard or a poster of a photo hardly compares to a
photo of a sculpture.

serge
Click to expand...
Richard's example is valid. I don't think the issue here is reproduction, it's copyright. If I were to write a novel and someone else made a movie based on it without my permission, they are violating my copyright even though no 'reproduction' was made. The same is true if you sell a photograph based on someone elses intellectual property (the architect in this case).

There is no easy answer when dealing with copyright, it's a very grey area.
 
mooseknuckle said:
http://newurbanist.blogspot.com/2005/01/copyrighting-of-public-space.html

when will this nonsense end? I live in Chicago and I am tempted to
test this myself.

Grant
--
check out my gallery here:
http://www.pbase.com/granthamilton/portfolio

http://www.pbase.com/image/28384676/small
Click to expand...
but in order to sell the picture or profit from it wouldn't he have to get permission from the artist? If taking photos of paintings in a museum can you then turn around and sell the prints? I have my pictures on display, while not really a public place anyone has access and could photograph my pictures, now would that be wrong of them to do so?

Anyway I wouldn't give you two cents for that big silver bean. :^)
--



Narrow depth of field ahead
Use extreme caution

http://www.pbase.com/paulyoly/root
 
johnmar said:
Richard's example is valid. I don't think the issue here is
reproduction, it's copyright. If I were to write a novel and
someone else made a movie based on it without my permission, they
are violating my copyright even though no 'reproduction' was made.
The same is true if you sell a photograph based on someone elses
intellectual property (the architect in this case).

There is no easy answer when dealing with copyright, it's a very
grey area.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's not valid. If you want to be consistent, you would have to think about the situation where someone takes a mould of The Bean and then creates his own bean using the mould.

Otherwise it doesn't work...

Daniel
 
Still a bad example: for you to win such a copyright violation law suit, you'd have to prove a lot of simularities between the movie & a book.

A photograph of a sculpture hardly represents the sculpture itself, rather, the photograph is an artwork of a photographer who found art in the perspective captured within a photograph. That perspective includes much more than the sculpture. For example, in the picture of that bean in that article, the physical sculpture represents a TINY fraction of the photograph. It's tiny because it's a small object in the picture (roughly 1/7th), further the bean itself has reflections in it which the original artist cannot lay a claim to (reflections of people, reflections of the sky, reflections of other buildings).

In your example, you can equate the bean in that photograph, to for example, a process of a 'murder', in your novel. Yet there are countless movies and books about murder, which may easily match your concept of murder.

serge
johnmar said:
dspmax said:
The Bean sculpture is not a photo. How is a photo of a bean,
reproduction of the art work? Reproduction would be a 3D, physical
model of the bean.

A photo of a bilboard or a poster of a photo hardly compares to a
photo of a sculpture.

serge
Click to expand...
Richard's example is valid. I don't think the issue here is
reproduction, it's copyright. If I were to write a novel and
someone else made a movie based on it without my permission, they
are violating my copyright even though no 'reproduction' was made.
The same is true if you sell a photograph based on someone elses
intellectual property (the architect in this case).

There is no easy answer when dealing with copyright, it's a very
grey area.
Click to expand...
--
============================
http://www.dspmax.com
 
interesting.. appreciate the link and post..

now.. I'm heading up there just to photograph that thing.. going to have fun with them.. :)

hate that kind of BS..
mooseknuckle said:
http://newurbanist.blogspot.com/2005/01/copyrighting-of-public-space.html

when will this nonsense end? I live in Chicago and I am tempted to
test this myself.

Grant
--
check out my gallery here:
http://www.pbase.com/granthamilton/portfolio

http://www.pbase.com/image/28384676/small
Click to expand...
--
some of my shots here
http://www.pbase.com/cpr1954/root
 
let me know. we could always just start a thread here and see what happens in terms of interest...

Grant
Jason said:
Depending on the weather in March or April, what do you say to
trying to put together a small outing on a Saturday or Sunday? I
can put together a quick info page and we can just mail out a link.
http://www.nightyear.net/DPreviewChicagoChapter.html or something. I've
also got a mailserver, so creating an opt-in email list wouldn't be
all that much trouble. Phil wouldn't have a problem with that,
would he?

jb

I was guessing the bean wouldn't be all that impressive with a 1/2
inch of salt on it, and trying to keep it clean through a Chicago
winter would be entertaining but expensive. If it's not them
finishing it or protecting it from the evil photographers, it's
probably just that chrome and salt don't go well together.

jb
mooseknuckle said:
Grant
Jason said:
I've wanted to see if we could organize a Chicago chapter anyways,
and maybe meet up at Rock Bottom Brewery or Goose Island once or
twice a summer and then go out and have a location-based photo
challenge. There's plenty of cool architecture, nature,
environmental portrait, and other genres of photography that are
available within a stone's throw of either of those places. Most
of them aren't copyrighted, too.

jb
mooseknuckle said:
http://newurbanist.blogspot.com/2005/01/copyrighting-of-public-space.html

when will this nonsense end? I live in Chicago and I am tempted to
test this myself.

Grant
--
check out my gallery here:
http://www.pbase.com/granthamilton/portfolio

http://www.pbase.com/image/28384676/small
Click to expand...
--
--The good ones are accidents, the rest I come by naturally
http://www.nightyear.net/gallery
Click to expand...
--
check out my gallery here:
http://www.pbase.com/granthamilton/portfolio

http://www.pbase.com/image/28384676/small
Click to expand...
--
--The good ones are accidents, the rest I come by naturally
http://www.nightyear.net/gallery
Click to expand...
--
check out my gallery here:
http://www.pbase.com/granthamilton/portfolio

http://www.pbase.com/image/28384676/small
 
it is really not that gray...it is called "fair use"

why aren't libraries illegal? they are the biggest file sharers of all!

Grant
johnmar said:
dspmax said:
The Bean sculpture is not a photo. How is a photo of a bean,
reproduction of the art work? Reproduction would be a 3D, physical
model of the bean.

A photo of a bilboard or a poster of a photo hardly compares to a
photo of a sculpture.

serge
Click to expand...
Richard's example is valid. I don't think the issue here is
reproduction, it's copyright. If I were to write a novel and
someone else made a movie based on it without my permission, they
are violating my copyright even though no 'reproduction' was made.
The same is true if you sell a photograph based on someone elses
intellectual property (the architect in this case).

There is no easy answer when dealing with copyright, it's a very
grey area.
Click to expand...
--
check out my gallery here:
http://www.pbase.com/granthamilton/portfolio

http://www.pbase.com/image/28384676/small
 
These kind of stories always amaze me. The security guards focus all their engergies on the guy with the slr, tripod, and huge lens, and leave dozens of snapshooters entirely alone.

Besides, the copyright is only violated if you publish the photo, not from the moment you take it!

Lisa
mooseknuckle said:
http://newurbanist.blogspot.com/2005/01/copyrighting-of-public-space.html

when will this nonsense end? I live in Chicago and I am tempted to
test this myself.
Click to expand...
mooseknuckle said:
Grant
--
check out my gallery here:
http://www.pbase.com/granthamilton/portfolio

http://www.pbase.com/image/28384676/small
Click to expand...
--
LisaFX
http://www.pbase.com/lisafx

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top