One of the things that I notice people doing is letting the cops make law.
We fought a war to prevent that and other things. But we are letting the cops make all kinds of laws that have no existance except in their minds. Unfortunately us little people do not have the funds to fight back and get the courts to set them straight. Presently we have federal laws that violate several of the amendments to the consitution. (I have noticed that those who wish to control others are able to interpet those amendments in ways that no one who understands the English language could possibly interpet them however.)
If that is a temporary display by the generousity of the artist then the artist has the right to protect her designs, but if the city paid for them and allowed her to retain those rights. Then the people of that city needs to fire a bunch of wasters of the tax payers money.
graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" -----------------------------------
D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote:
Folks,
I'm behind on my list reading so I don't know whether this has already been discussed, but just in case it hasn't ... :
<http://newurbanist.blogspot.com/2005/01/copyrighting-of-public-space.html>
"The Reader recounts the experience of photojournalist Warren Wimmer's attempts to photograph Anish Kapoor's sculpture, Cloud Gate (more commonly known as 'the Bean'). When Wimmer set up his tripod and camera to shoot the sculpture, security guards stopped him, demanding that they show him a permit. Wimmer protested, replying that it's absurd that one needs to pay for a permit to photograph public art in a city-owned park."
The explanation (they're protecting the _artist's_ copyright) makes some sense to me as well, but the "guards will stop you if you try
to take photos in public" aspect still feels ... troublingly odd.
-- Glenn
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.6 - Release Date: 2/7/2005
