Reading mode: Light Dark

what a bunch of BS

Go to last post
Prime Rebel said:
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).
Click to expand...
Now that would make some great photos. Shots of rent-a-cops on Segways with a donut in one hand and a gun in the other, chasing a fleeing photographer past the bean. Too cool.

It sounds like something from an old Woody Allen movie.
 
rmhartman said:
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
dspmax said:
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
Click to expand...
--
-Richard M. Hartman

186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
Click to expand...
--
============================
http://www.dspmax.com
 
Jason Rickerby said:
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?
Click to expand...
The trade deficit hit a record $617.7 billion in 2004....roll on the huge crash....
 
Take a photograph of the "BEAN" and remove it "digitally" leaving only the outline and replace with words saying "no photographs - tax payer dollars at work" w/n the outline.

This is protected political speech and you should be able to sell the heck out of the picture.

or have a protest by the "BEAN" and take a picture of the protest of the "BEAN" (you may need a permit for the protest)

if push comes to shove sue the City under Sec. 1983 for infringing on your constitutional rights.
 
Doesn't the article itself breach the 'copyright' by publishing the picture - and maybe even this website for linking to it??? ;-)

In England we would say it's all a load of cobblers mate.
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...
--
http://www.miodem.com
Galleries at http://www.miodem.com/photo/gallery

'The belief that something is NOT impossible is the absolute essence of discovery'
 
The article is fine b/c it is an exception to the copyright rule. The law here has many exceptions.

What I find most offensive is that the State is using my tax dollars to police someone elses legal rights. The artist should have to pay out of her pocket - not the tax payer.

If I am shooting the photograph for a school paper, the State has no right to interfere - really they have no right to interfer until a court tells them to.
 
I'm all for it. Grant (mooseknuckle) is too, and I've mailed one or two others who'll probably show up. Early April, either me or Grant will post a message calling all Chicago photographers. We'll see if we all shoot the bean (not for professional use, of course) what they do. I'm not for doing anything rash or drastic and winding up in a cell, but a little open discourse regarding selective enforcement of the law might not be a bad thing.

Maybe we can turn the group shoots it into a regular thing. If it does, I've got plenty of webspace and some storage, so I can host a website with our DPReview Chicago Chapter. I know I'd love to see how other people would shoot at Brookfield Zoo, or possibly Lincoln Park if it's easier for everyone.

Heh...I love this town. My grandpa Jack Beatty was a lobbyist here way back in the day and used to take us with him around town every once in awhile. My older brother, when he was a baby, had the distinct honor of ralphing all over Daddy Daley. I'd have given anything to have been there with a camera. ;)

jb
Koper said:
I live in Chicago and wouldn't mind getting together with other
members to shooting The Bean too. Pref. Sunday in April would be
nice. So, is really someone goig to put it together? Here is my
link to a few "Beans & other Chic" pictures, mostly from last
September.

http://public.fotki.com/Koper1/chicago
Click to expand...
--
--The good ones are accidents, the rest I come by naturally
http://www.nightyear.net/gallery
 
I doubt there was a law covering it, except
perhaps the Homeland Security Act. IOW I
don't think this was a case of a copyright
architectural work, but rather paranoia about
terrorism (big bridges are Targets).
CLUTCH=SHG= said:
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
Click to expand...
--
-Richard M. Hartman

186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
 
I liked your part about "a good ass-kicking." That's exactly what some of these liberty infringers need. It's gonna get worse if people don't stand up for themselves.
Jason Rickerby said:
Jason Rickerby wrote:
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.
Click to expand...
 
rmhartman said:
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...)
Click to expand...
However, those rarely involve copyright. There are privacy limitations involving what I can do with the shot I took of Brad Pitt as he left the Santa Monica Wal-Mart. There are personal property access limitations that keep me from getting into the Louvre with my Linhoff Teknika. But those aren't copyright restrictions--I can do anything I want with a picture of the Mona Lisa. I can even claim I painted it. Nobody will believe it, but I can claim it.
rmhartman said:
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.
Click to expand...
Depends on who owns the copyright, if anyone does. In this case, my point is that if the city doesn't buy the copyright with a work of art purchased with public funds, they made a grave error and should sell it back to the artist and buy a copy of a classic that has passed into public domain.

Actually, for that and other reasons, I prefer there not be any government patronage of living artists. Seventy years after the death of the creator...yeah, that's about right. If people still think it's good, then it's good, and the government should take steps to preserve it.
rmhartman said:
Copyright law is currently all screwed up what with
"life of the creator plus 70 years" bit.
Click to expand...
The "Mickey Mouse" Law. I like it only if that copyright remains in the hands of private blood or marriage descendants...not corporations.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
 
Lots of publicly-visible items are copyrighted. I know of two offhand - the Eiffel Tower and some tree in California.

The real issue here is the security guards not knowing what they were doing. There is nothing illegal about taking a picture of these objects, only using the image for commercial gain. Take as many pictures as you want of the Eiffel Tower, but don't try and sell them to a magazine.
 
Mig said:
Take a photograph of the "BEAN" and remove it "digitally" leaving
only the outline and replace with words saying "no photographs -
tax payer dollars at work" w/n the outline.

This is protected political speech and you should be able to sell
the heck out of the picture.

or have a protest by the "BEAN" and take a picture of the protest
of the "BEAN" (you may need a permit for the protest)

if push comes to shove sue the City under Sec. 1983 for infringing
on your constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
--
-Richard M. Hartman

186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
 
Wolfeye said:
Lots of publicly-visible items are copyrighted. I know of two
offhand - the Eiffel Tower and some tree in California.
Click to expand...
The LIGHTING on the Eiffel is copyrighted, not the tower itself. The Lone Cypress is trademarked, NOT copyrighted. Anyone who thinks you can copyright a tree has ansolutely zero understanding of copyright--copyright is about protecting something's creator, which for a tree is a matter of religous debate.
 
Cited in Section 101: definition.

An “architectural work” is the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features.

”Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.

It's very clear to me in this case, it's an architectural work.
joshv said:
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.

-josh
Click to expand...
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
If picture worth a thousand words, how many megapixel is it?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.jotographer.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 
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