camera eye
Senior Member
Tell the park police they can stick that big chrome turd where the sun don't shine.
if it aint shot, go shoot it!
--
if it aint shot, go shoot it!
-
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
Paul Cheang
Senior Member
--
PC writes:
What??? for $270 million dollars of public fund they should have been building posting a "photo spot" sign right there for all the take. What is it in the US nowaday that you need permit for everything you photograph. Sooner or later you need permit to carry camera around your neck outside your home as well. Oh, man... I miss the good'ol US of A.
Paul
BobMcCarty
Member
There was a case a few years ago that involved a photographer and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame...
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/bridge/Philosophy/murray.txt.htm
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/bridge/Philosophy/murray.txt.htm
HowieH
Forum Enthusiast
I was going to make a sarcastic response to your "who you can blame" and "get their contry (sic) back" cracks (really, it's not so bad over here), but then I read your signature and decided that I like you.
Howie
--
Howie
krusadr
Senior Member
mford
Well-known member
... photographer is photographing a tree. I made the trees, I own them and the photographer does not have any rights to photograph them. By the way security guard, I own the air you breath. Pay up or suffocate!
A Chicago Taxpayer pays for renovations, but he cannot take a photo of it. Its sad or it can be funny. It funny if you are not a Chicago taxpayer!
Bill
'New Yorkers like to think that their city is the center of the universe, and after spending some time there, I am not so sure they are wrong.'
Bob Krist from Spirit of Place
A Chicago Taxpayer pays for renovations, but he cannot take a photo of it. Its sad or it can be funny. It funny if you are not a Chicago taxpayer!
Bill
'New Yorkers like to think that their city is the center of the universe, and after spending some time there, I am not so sure they are wrong.'
Bob Krist from Spirit of Place
DRG
Veteran Member
The most recent version of copyright law that specifically prohibits copying an original work, including taking a photograph of it, dates to 1976, with a series of subsequent amendments. And, it is substantially the same as the law in other western countries. None of this has to do with recent limitations on rights post-9/11. However, there is a "fair use" clause that states exceptions, including for educational, journalistic or library archiving purposes, with issues taken into account such as whether the reproduction will be used for commercial purposes or otherwise infringes on the author's ability to earn income from his/her work.
David
DRG
Veteran Member
Here's a link to the legislation enacting US Copyright law:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf
David
fotonisse
Member
The americans continue to amaze me.
They claim to be the most free and liberal country in the world.
And this is how things work over there?!
No wonder USA is going down the drain.
"Well, citizen americans, we think everyone should have the right to own a gun, but to take a snapshot of a public place must be prevented without permission."
You must simply be completely insane to promote such a government.
Tip to the artist: Since you only got some million dollars for that work, why dont you also demand $1 for each visitors eye that is pointed at your artwork? That would be $2 a head. Maybe you could get rich and free then?
They claim to be the most free and liberal country in the world.
And this is how things work over there?!
No wonder USA is going down the drain.
"Well, citizen americans, we think everyone should have the right to own a gun, but to take a snapshot of a public place must be prevented without permission."
You must simply be completely insane to promote such a government.
Tip to the artist: Since you only got some million dollars for that work, why dont you also demand $1 for each visitors eye that is pointed at your artwork? That would be $2 a head. Maybe you could get rich and free then?
fotonisse
Member
By the way, what would happen if a painter sat down with a canvas and produced 2D replica of the shiny artwork? Would he be arrested?
Peter K Wagner
Leading Member
That was the best plan yet!
I would assume that a piece of art commissioned by
the city would fall under the "work for hire" classification.
If he made it first, then they bought it, someone should
check the contract to see whether he retained any rights
to the work.
There are limitations on the photographing of people
in public places, even "celebrities". There may very well
be limitations on the photographing of publically displayed
art (e.g. try going into a fine art museum with a camera...)
However, I've got to admit that there are also limitations
on the limits that can be placed re. a piece of "art" that
is on open-air display.
Copyright law is currently all screwed up what with
"life of the creator plus 70 years" bit.
When you add in the whole new area of Digital Rights
Management (and the penalties for bypassing same, per
the Digital Millenium Copyright Act) you get into a whole
new level of screwed up. (Although if we start discussing
that we run the risk of going waay off topic for this
thread ... although considering that this is a digital
photography forum, it is not entirely off-topic...)
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
the city would fall under the "work for hire" classification.
If he made it first, then they bought it, someone should
check the contract to see whether he retained any rights
to the work.
There are limitations on the photographing of people
in public places, even "celebrities". There may very well
be limitations on the photographing of publically displayed
art (e.g. try going into a fine art museum with a camera...)
However, I've got to admit that there are also limitations
on the limits that can be placed re. a piece of "art" that
is on open-air display.
Copyright law is currently all screwed up what with
"life of the creator plus 70 years" bit.
When you add in the whole new area of Digital Rights
Management (and the penalties for bypassing same, per
the Digital Millenium Copyright Act) you get into a whole
new level of screwed up. (Although if we start discussing
that we run the risk of going waay off topic for this
thread ... although considering that this is a digital
photography forum, it is not entirely off-topic...)
--
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
This area is called "derivative works" in copyright law.
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
--
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
Where it could get interesting:
The Bean is a completely reflective structure. You can not really see The Bean per se ... but you can see a (distorted) reflection of all the buildings around it.
Ok, now what if some of those buildings are copyrighted per the architectural clause of title 17? Is the sculpter of The Bean liable for the reproduction and commerical use of their images???
:-D
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
The Bean is a completely reflective structure. You can not really see The Bean per se ... but you can see a (distorted) reflection of all the buildings around it.
Ok, now what if some of those buildings are copyrighted per the architectural clause of title 17? Is the sculpter of The Bean liable for the reproduction and commerical use of their images???
:-D
--
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
kopper
Leading Member
Tell me, how many billboards have you seen IN public (PUBLIC) parks?
kopper
--
http://www.kopperhead.com/Current%20Photos/CurrentIndex.html
http://www.kopperhead.com/PhotoArchive/ArchiveIndex.html
kopper
--
http://www.kopperhead.com/Current%20Photos/CurrentIndex.html
http://www.kopperhead.com/PhotoArchive/ArchiveIndex.html
kopper
Leading Member
Why isn't anyone asking why the city is spending 270 million TAXPAYER dollars?
Was this money raised SPECIFICALLY for this purpose?
We Americans better realize very soon, that the tax base is only so large, and every dollar taken and spent on one thing is eliminating that dollar from going to something else - such as schools. Our politicians want us to think and accept that they can just keep on taxing us for anything and everything that THEY think will do US good. It's pure bull and has gone way past the law of diminishing returns.
kopper
--
http://www.kopperhead.com/Current%20Photos/CurrentIndex.html
http://www.kopperhead.com/PhotoArchive/ArchiveIndex.html
Was this money raised SPECIFICALLY for this purpose?
We Americans better realize very soon, that the tax base is only so large, and every dollar taken and spent on one thing is eliminating that dollar from going to something else - such as schools. Our politicians want us to think and accept that they can just keep on taxing us for anything and everything that THEY think will do US good. It's pure bull and has gone way past the law of diminishing returns.
kopper
--
http://www.kopperhead.com/Current%20Photos/CurrentIndex.html
http://www.kopperhead.com/PhotoArchive/ArchiveIndex.html
Jason Rickerby
Leading Member
I hate to say it, but as a citizen of America's northern neighbor, I have to say my interest in being spending my tourist dolalrs in the US keeps diminishing.
To be honest, post 9/11, I would certainly have reservations about visiting major New York landmarks, but those events didn't stop me from going to Philadelphia or other US destinations.
My observation is this - why are so many "officials", whether they be army guards, rent-a-cops or ferry captains, so up tight about photography now? I hate to sound naive, but it sounds like too many people, in some form of public service occupation, have bought in to some kind of recent government propaganda about the threat of photographs. (Wait, he's got a camera! Orange Alert!)
I realize that 9/11 has nothing directly to do with the bean - but what would an honest, patriotic American say to a rent-a-cop in a public park in 1999, if said rent-a-cop told you to stop taking pictures? Doesn't "a good ass-kicking", a solid pro-American phrase, somehow come to mind?
Why the heck do all these security people have the time to be worrying about people taking pictures? Does this mean that Chicago has no serious crime to precent, that these security folks should be spending their energy on?
The most distressing thing is that the US government can tell the US people whatever they want, and the majority seem to believe them. (So where are the WMDs in Iraq we heard about so much before the war? You know, the ones the weapon's inspectors couldn't find, but the US intelligence agencies had photographs of? And if photographs are so dangerous, how come the intelligence photographs didn't help find any real weapons? Vote BUSH!)
Again, I'm not trying to sound anti-American or anti-Bush, but it seems that between the "War in IRAQ", pension plan, Halliburton, many Americans are missing the fact their country is looking at a $427 billion deficit this year, and the US dollar/economy isn't exactly fairing well to global competition. It's great that democracy may have a fott-hold in the middle east, but wil you care when you don't have a job?
We should all be able to take pictures of the bean without being harassed be security guards, but that harassment is certainly a distraction isn't it?
Here's hoping you ditch the Patriot Act, and everything like it, sooner rather than later. Constant vigilance is one thing, but harassing citizens in public parks is quite another. Constant vigilance also applies to keeping an eye on your own dictatorship, er, I mean democracy.
Best wishes to you all.
To be honest, post 9/11, I would certainly have reservations about visiting major New York landmarks, but those events didn't stop me from going to Philadelphia or other US destinations.
My observation is this - why are so many "officials", whether they be army guards, rent-a-cops or ferry captains, so up tight about photography now? I hate to sound naive, but it sounds like too many people, in some form of public service occupation, have bought in to some kind of recent government propaganda about the threat of photographs. (Wait, he's got a camera! Orange Alert!)
I realize that 9/11 has nothing directly to do with the bean - but what would an honest, patriotic American say to a rent-a-cop in a public park in 1999, if said rent-a-cop told you to stop taking pictures? Doesn't "a good ass-kicking", a solid pro-American phrase, somehow come to mind?
Why the heck do all these security people have the time to be worrying about people taking pictures? Does this mean that Chicago has no serious crime to precent, that these security folks should be spending their energy on?
The most distressing thing is that the US government can tell the US people whatever they want, and the majority seem to believe them. (So where are the WMDs in Iraq we heard about so much before the war? You know, the ones the weapon's inspectors couldn't find, but the US intelligence agencies had photographs of? And if photographs are so dangerous, how come the intelligence photographs didn't help find any real weapons? Vote BUSH!)
Again, I'm not trying to sound anti-American or anti-Bush, but it seems that between the "War in IRAQ", pension plan, Halliburton, many Americans are missing the fact their country is looking at a $427 billion deficit this year, and the US dollar/economy isn't exactly fairing well to global competition. It's great that democracy may have a fott-hold in the middle east, but wil you care when you don't have a job?
We should all be able to take pictures of the bean without being harassed be security guards, but that harassment is certainly a distraction isn't it?
Here's hoping you ditch the Patriot Act, and everything like it, sooner rather than later. Constant vigilance is one thing, but harassing citizens in public parks is quite another. Constant vigilance also applies to keeping an eye on your own dictatorship, er, I mean democracy.
Best wishes to you all.
Prime Rebel
New member
I was also at Millenium Park last month. The security guards (who are well equiped with Segway's so they can catch you faster) prevented me from taking photos of not only the giant bean, but also of everything else in the park. They said I would need a permit to use my tripod, and that the permit office was closed (of course).
And not without some merit. Any disabled photograhers want to play?
Check the ADA website for the complaint form.
Check the ADA website for the complaint form.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum