-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
what a bunch of BS
- Thread starter mooseknuckle
- Start date
...may I suggest you photograph first and drink after. Will probably yield better results.
thePhotoDude
Well-known member
Dont forget to look at this footnote on the above law:
66. In 1990, the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act added section 120. Pub. L. No. 101-650, 104 Stat. 5089, 5133. The effective date provision of the Act states that its amendments apply to any work created on or after the date it was enacted, which was December 1, 1990. It also states that the amendments apply to “any architectural work that, on [December 1, 1990], is unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings, except that protection for such architectural work under title 17, United States Code, by virtue of the amendments made by [the Act], shall terminate on December 31, 2002, unless the work is constructed by that date.” Id., 104 Stat. 5089, 5134.
Time for more research. Why cant they just say stuff in plain english!
There is no law that prevents me from making a movie based on a novel. The law does, limit me in using that movie.
The copyright of a statue limits the use of copies--it does not limit copies. It certainly does not provide for the prior-restraint of an act that may or may not produce a copy. That's why copy machines in libraries are not illegal.
I still question why the government did not insist on getting the copyright of a public work, however. That's something I'm now going to follow most closely in my own local government--if my tax money buys it, I'm going to insist that it goes into the public domain.
--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
Nitecops
Forum Enthusiast
I know the Taliaban blew up the buddah statues (you see what that got them) but what kind of a loser terrorist is going to plan to blow up a stupid silver bean art display? Who would even give a d&# ?
And if it hasn't been reiterated enough, taking a picture of a stupid ugly silver bean isn't the same as making a living off of it.
And if it hasn't been reiterated enough, taking a picture of a stupid ugly silver bean isn't the same as making a living off of it.
There are a lot of good points both in favor of protecting the artist and in favor of the public's rights to photograph a public space.
But I'm mad at the officials of Chicago who didn't specifically spell out in their (the public's) contract with the artist that the artwork would become the property of the city (the public) and therefore would be open for any sort of reproduction that the city wanted to allow. And then the city should darn well allow it to be photographed and reproduced, since it is a publicly owned item. That was just bad work on the part of Chicago's lawyers. They got taken. Or rather the taxpayers of Chicago got taken!
Think about it. One good reason for the city to pay for such artwork is to enhance the city's image. The more photos of something like this that get published, the better the return on the city's investment. They really blew it to not secure those rights for the public. If I was a hotel or restaurant owner in the area, I’d want to see photos of this area published.
The city should completely cover the bean up so that it (the bean) won’t prevent their public space from being photographed. Then, if the artist won’t turn over the photo rights, they should keep it covered or have it removed. They messed up, but they’ve got a chance to fix the problem. I’m quite sure they can find an artist with an equally good sculpture who would be proud to sell their sculpture outright to the city – or maybe donate it. Heck, it’s good publicity for the artist too.
In the meantime, I propose that people find creative ways to photograph the space while leaving the bean obscured. This could be plain old photoshop trickery or nice concepts like, perhaps, a squatting dog placed strategically so that it blocks view of the bean. Maybe an old beer can blocking it, etc. I’d love to see an exhibition of nothing but photos of the park which have the bean either removed or blocked. Such an exhibition could be organized as a fundraiser to purchase a replacement for the bean and to focus attention on the stupidity of a city buying only part of a piece of art.
The same should go for buildings being copyrighted. Sure it’s just fine for the architect or owner to copyright their building. Just not in my city. That could be a building code thing. "There shall be no copyright of any building within the city limits which would in any way prevent or impede the publishing of any photographs taken of public spaces." ... or legal words to that effect.
If I was a city official, shopping for public artwork, I'd make it very clear that if the artist wasn't going to sell their art and all rights to it, then they need not apply. This should serve as a wake-up call to all cities or government entities who purchase outdoor art on behalf of the public. The city should have secured all of the rights to the bean when they bought it and then made it public domain.
The artist has a right to copyright their work and they've got the right to sell the copyright rights separately, I guess. But the City has the right to either obtain those rights or tell the artist or architect to take a hike.
That's my two cents worth from the REAL windy city - out here in Wyoming.
But I'm mad at the officials of Chicago who didn't specifically spell out in their (the public's) contract with the artist that the artwork would become the property of the city (the public) and therefore would be open for any sort of reproduction that the city wanted to allow. And then the city should darn well allow it to be photographed and reproduced, since it is a publicly owned item. That was just bad work on the part of Chicago's lawyers. They got taken. Or rather the taxpayers of Chicago got taken!
Think about it. One good reason for the city to pay for such artwork is to enhance the city's image. The more photos of something like this that get published, the better the return on the city's investment. They really blew it to not secure those rights for the public. If I was a hotel or restaurant owner in the area, I’d want to see photos of this area published.
The city should completely cover the bean up so that it (the bean) won’t prevent their public space from being photographed. Then, if the artist won’t turn over the photo rights, they should keep it covered or have it removed. They messed up, but they’ve got a chance to fix the problem. I’m quite sure they can find an artist with an equally good sculpture who would be proud to sell their sculpture outright to the city – or maybe donate it. Heck, it’s good publicity for the artist too.
In the meantime, I propose that people find creative ways to photograph the space while leaving the bean obscured. This could be plain old photoshop trickery or nice concepts like, perhaps, a squatting dog placed strategically so that it blocks view of the bean. Maybe an old beer can blocking it, etc. I’d love to see an exhibition of nothing but photos of the park which have the bean either removed or blocked. Such an exhibition could be organized as a fundraiser to purchase a replacement for the bean and to focus attention on the stupidity of a city buying only part of a piece of art.
The same should go for buildings being copyrighted. Sure it’s just fine for the architect or owner to copyright their building. Just not in my city. That could be a building code thing. "There shall be no copyright of any building within the city limits which would in any way prevent or impede the publishing of any photographs taken of public spaces." ... or legal words to that effect.
If I was a city official, shopping for public artwork, I'd make it very clear that if the artist wasn't going to sell their art and all rights to it, then they need not apply. This should serve as a wake-up call to all cities or government entities who purchase outdoor art on behalf of the public. The city should have secured all of the rights to the bean when they bought it and then made it public domain.
The artist has a right to copyright their work and they've got the right to sell the copyright rights separately, I guess. But the City has the right to either obtain those rights or tell the artist or architect to take a hike.
That's my two cents worth from the REAL windy city - out here in Wyoming.
Jason198448
Senior Member
I'm still thinking that'd be the oddest most fun event ever. Bring a yardstick and see how many pints you can down and still get the 1/32's to be clear at 10' handheld. IS off, of course. My money would be on RichO, but I don't recall if he's even in the midwest.
I'm the lightweight of my family, so after about 4 pints of stout, I tend to notice quite a bit of color fringing, bad AI focus, and banding even at low ISOs. Any more than that and the error 99 lockups start occurring. The storage corruption the next morning is a killer too.
jb
--The good ones are accidents, the rest I come by naturally
http://www.nightyear.net/gallery
I'm the lightweight of my family, so after about 4 pints of stout, I tend to notice quite a bit of color fringing, bad AI focus, and banding even at low ISOs. Any more than that and the error 99 lockups start occurring. The storage corruption the next morning is a killer too.
jb
--
--The good ones are accidents, the rest I come by naturally
http://www.nightyear.net/gallery
This story is about prior restraint.
Preventing a legal act that "might" be used improperly.
Given that they have not prohibited photography they have taken it upon themselves to equate good equipment with being professional, and then to equate professional with intent to violate copyright, and then act on that perceived intent.
Absent a demonstrable commercial infringement I think the guard, and the City if acting on their instructions, should be sued right out of their shoes.
Preventing a legal act that "might" be used improperly.
Given that they have not prohibited photography they have taken it upon themselves to equate good equipment with being professional, and then to equate professional with intent to violate copyright, and then act on that perceived intent.
Absent a demonstrable commercial infringement I think the guard, and the City if acting on their instructions, should be sued right out of their shoes.
Besides, the copyright is only violated if you publish the photo,
not from the moment you take it!
Lisa
--
LisaFX
http://www.pbase.com/lisafx
Knackerman
Senior Member
In my country, you violate copyright laws if you snap pictures of various art and use the pictures for commercial purpose.
I understand that totally, would you like someone to snap a picture of your photograph on an exibition and then later sell it and earn money from it?
K
--
Weightlifting commentator: 'This is Gregoriava from Bulgaria. I saw her snatch this morning during her warm up and it was amazing.'
http://znapper.fotopic.net
I understand that totally, would you like someone to snap a picture of your photograph on an exibition and then later sell it and earn money from it?
K
--
Weightlifting commentator: 'This is Gregoriava from Bulgaria. I saw her snatch this morning during her warm up and it was amazing.'
http://znapper.fotopic.net
CLUTCH=SHG=
Well-known member
I crossed on a ferry from Conn to NY early in the mourning and it was beautiful out. So I set up my tripod and tried taking some pictures of the sunrise coming over the bridge and some tugs boats. All of the crew and engineers pounced on me as I were commiting tyerrorism. MOFO's said I could'nt take pictures, they gave me no reason. I asked if we were still in the US and the said yes but no pictures. Then I offered to show those mofo'S my military ID I have high level clearance and the still said no. Lousy no good communist mofo. f'ing laws for everything now. Can't even own a dog w/o it being taxed. Everything is illegal except for working and being a good consumer.
--
C A N O N 20 D C P 8 7 0 0
Love this camera
Photo.net supporter
--
C A N O N 20 D C P 8 7 0 0
Love this camera Photo.net supporter
krusadr
Veteran Member
I thought it was already well established that there can be no expectation of privacy from a PUBLIC place. The definition of public place is important here. A city park is IMO as public a place as one can get and unless the photog is dragged away by police under some excuse like anti-terrorism then there can be nothing in law to stop him from pointing his camera in whatever direction he likes.
I recently heard on the radio a story about a family who noticed a neighbour doing something unmentionable at his window while their young daughter played in their back yard. After calling the police the neighbour was arrested for indecent exposure and taken to court. He was however aquitted as it was determined that he could do what he liked in his own house. Debateable but it goes to show that there are some extremely debateable and challengable decisions being made by an extrememly disjointed judiciary.
Surely a work of art displayed publicly - examples - the pyramids in Eqypt, Nelsons column in London, even the front of my house - can be photographed if viewable from a public place. If the artist wanted to keep it under control from photogs it should have been displayed in a private hanger where the condition of entry to view is that no photos can be taken (but then no stupid grant).
As for public money going to the artist I'd say that the public has bought certain rights to that work (nonesense as it is).
This idiot needs a good beating. In the courts or wherever.
I recently heard on the radio a story about a family who noticed a neighbour doing something unmentionable at his window while their young daughter played in their back yard. After calling the police the neighbour was arrested for indecent exposure and taken to court. He was however aquitted as it was determined that he could do what he liked in his own house. Debateable but it goes to show that there are some extremely debateable and challengable decisions being made by an extrememly disjointed judiciary.
Surely a work of art displayed publicly - examples - the pyramids in Eqypt, Nelsons column in London, even the front of my house
- can be photographed if viewable from a public place. If the artist wanted to keep it under control from photogs it should have been displayed in a private hanger where the condition of entry to view is that no photos can be taken (but then no stupid grant).As for public money going to the artist I'd say that the public has bought certain rights to that work (nonesense as it is).
This idiot needs a good beating. In the courts or wherever.
lisafx
Veteran Member
I will assume that, like here in the US, the violation occurs when you "use the pictures for commercial purpose", not when you "snap" them.
Again, the fact that someone takes the picture doesn't assume they are going to make money from it.
We have a principle here to the effect that one is "innocent until proven guilty". To stop someone from taking a photo on the unproven and unlikely chance that they are going to make money from it violates that principle.
Lisa
--
LisaFX
http://www.pbase.com/lisafx
krusadr
Veteran Member
WELL SAID
I'm not a buddist (athiest actually) but I consider that a great act of vandalism and I think that was the turning point in any vestage of sympathy I ever had for the muslims of this world. I was thouroughly disgusted at the time. Little did I know what more was to come.
WELL SAID
That bean is PLAINLY absolutely worthless artistically and in fact it's very existance is an insult to artists everywhere. It's cost to the public and these ridiculous copyrights it has been allowed are an offront to a 'free democratic' nation. Are you listening George W?
krusadr
Veteran Member
Apologies for the comma......
OK, here's the plan...
On a predetermined date, time, EVERYONE show up with all your gear, tripods, grips, remote cables, the works.
Take pictures of whatever, heck, each other! "You see sir, I'm only taking a picture of my friend..." "Oh, the silvery bean, didn't notice it, can that be moved? It's blocking my view."
Just a thought.
On a predetermined date, time, EVERYONE show up with all your gear, tripods, grips, remote cables, the works.
Take pictures of whatever, heck, each other! "You see sir, I'm only taking a picture of my friend..." "Oh, the silvery bean, didn't notice it, can that be moved? It's blocking my view."
Just a thought.
Knackerman
Senior Member
This is about politics and what kind of polictical climate that is the current one, very simple.
It's clear that all this has changed over the past 4.5 years, it should be clear to you who you can blame.
Anyway, I hope it will be better in a few years, if not, I would belive even the Americans will take to the streets to get their contry back.
K
--
Weightlifting commentator: 'This is Gregoriava from Bulgaria. I saw her snatch this morning during her warm up and it was amazing.'
http://znapper.fotopic.net
eclipsechaser
Senior Member
Take your copyrighted photos and hold them up to the bean. Have a friend take a picture of your photo being reflected off the bean. Then, send a nasty letter to the city demanding that the bean "stop reproducing your copyrighted material without written permission or legal action will be taken."
In the face of possibly being sued, they'll either tear down the offending bean, or spend millions of tax-payer dollars developing a non-reflective chrome to coat over the bean.
I have an interesting looking cheeto I'd be willing to part with for half of what that guy got...
In the face of possibly being sued, they'll either tear down the offending bean, or spend millions of tax-payer dollars developing a non-reflective chrome to coat over the bean.
I have an interesting looking cheeto I'd be willing to part with for half of what that guy got...
Actually there is another section of Title 17 that specifically applies to sculptural works. There is no 'public display' exception for sculpture.
So, is the Bean a sculptural work or an architectural work? It would of course be for the courts to decide, but I am betting that for copyright purposes it's a sculpture.
A much more fuzzy case would be Gehry's headdress of twisted steel on top of the Pritzger Pavillion. It's a massive installation of girders and stainless steel, in the usually abstrast Gehry form, sitting on top of a band shell. Architecture? Sculpture?
Suffice is to say, if you take pictures of either, don't license the rights, and have any level of success selling the pics, you will probably find yourself in court.
-josh
So, is the Bean a sculptural work or an architectural work? It would of course be for the courts to decide, but I am betting that for copyright purposes it's a sculpture.
A much more fuzzy case would be Gehry's headdress of twisted steel on top of the Pritzger Pavillion. It's a massive installation of girders and stainless steel, in the usually abstrast Gehry form, sitting on top of a band shell. Architecture? Sculpture?
Suffice is to say, if you take pictures of either, don't license the rights, and have any level of success selling the pics, you will probably find yourself in court.
-josh
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
:-=>
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum