Wow, this so doesn't make sense. I mean, even if it were copyright-able, you could still take a photograph of it under fair use, and use it for educational or review purposes. Plus, the only way you can prove copyright infringement is if the marketability of art suffers from supposed infringement. I don't see how you can adversely affect the marketability of a sculture that exists in a public space. Anyway
*nod* One of the comments in the blog implies that the Chicago Reader exaggerated, and that the entire problem was overzealous security guards (of course, since the images aren't viewable without an account, and the article's not up on the Reader sight, there's little to go on). That said, the person quoted in the blog clearly doesn't understand copyright law, and if they're telling the guards to stop photographers, they're in for a nasty lesson.
claiming a copyright is one thing,I doubt it would withstand trial, (but who knows) someone would have to be sued for economic losses to know for sure but the real problem is that it's prior restraint if it is the government (or an agent of the government) then that's a whole 'nother ball of boiling fish wax
§ 120 · Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works⁶⁶ (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.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf
This heated outrage is going on over at one of the photography forums I frequent. I printed out this page and stuck it in my camera bag in case any fool of a hired "security" officer decides to give me crap.
Nice find -- I figured that there'd been fair use interpretations that made the Chicago sitation BS, but it's nice to find it encoded on the legislative side.
"Section 113: (c) In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles that have been offered for sale or other distribution to the public, copyright does not include any right to prevent the making, distribution, or display of pictures or photographs of such articles in connection with advertisements or commentaries related to the distribution or display of such articles, or in connection with news reports."
The Bean is in a public place, paid for by public funds. And, pictures of the Bean have been in newspaper articles, and I'm sure postcards of Chicago.
It appears that a media permit is required for still photography in all Chicago Parks, regardless of how "copyrighted" the space is. The municipal codes of Chicago aren't available, so I don't know where that authority comes from.
In general, the idea of the copyright has been taken way too far. How long before no new expression is possible, because anything would infringe on somebody's copyrighted work?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-09 11:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-09 11:32 pm (UTC)Agreed. I'm headed over there with a camera asap.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-09 11:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-09 11:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-09 11:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-09 11:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-10 02:44 am (UTC)Title 17, Section 120 of Copyright Law
Date: 2005-02-09 11:45 pm (UTC)§ 120 · Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works⁶⁶
(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.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf
This heated outrage is going on over at one of the photography forums I frequent. I printed out this page and stuck it in my camera bag in case any fool of a hired "security" officer decides to give me crap.
Re: Title 17, Section 120 of Copyright Law
Date: 2005-02-09 11:53 pm (UTC)Re: Title 17, Section 120 of Copyright Law
Date: 2005-02-10 07:17 am (UTC)Re: Title 17, Section 120 of Copyright Law
Date: 2005-02-10 07:00 pm (UTC)"Section 113:
(c) In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles that have been offered for sale or other distribution to the public, copyright does not include any right to prevent the making, distribution, or display of pictures or photographs of such articles in connection with advertisements or commentaries related to the distribution or display of such articles, or in connection with news reports."
The Bean is in a public place, paid for by public funds.
And, pictures of the Bean have been in newspaper articles, and I'm sure postcards of Chicago.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-10 01:18 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-10 01:07 pm (UTC)Yeesh.
Date: 2005-02-10 07:01 pm (UTC)Yeesh. Nice to know that tourists will get harrassed for taking pictures of themselves infront of public structures in public places.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-10 09:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-11 03:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-13 04:53 am (UTC)If anyone else would like to read it, it's available for free from the publisher (http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200011/0671319744___1.htm).