Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
Yves, you live in a very pretty town. CW - Original Message - From: Yves Caudano [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 12:30 PM Subject: Re: Copyrighting Public Space? At 00:13 8/02/2005, you wrote: In Namur (Belgium), where I live, I think we are not allowed to publish night pictures of the citadel and of the bridges on the rivers nearby (all public space and the city landmarks) because the artist who designed the lighting claims he has a copyright on it. He won in court against a local photographer if I remember correctly. Examples of copyrighted views would be: http://yvescaudano.be/galleries/showpicture.html?gallery=miscpic=13 and http://yvescaudano.be/galleries/showpicture.html?gallery=miscpic=14 I find very disturbing that it is not allowed to take pictures of the main cityscape at night. Yves -- Yves Caudano, Namur, Belgium Photography website: http://www.yvescaudano.be Physics website: http://physics.yvescaudano.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.1.0 - Release Date: 2/18/2005
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/2/05, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed: BTW many cities do have anti-tripod laws on the books. They claim they are traffic control measures. In such a city you do need a permit to set up a tripod on public property. Note: that is to set up a tripod, not to take photos. What about monopods :-)) Well, then you're a third of a professional photographer, obviously. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
What about monopods :-)) Well, then you're a third of a professional photographer, obviously. No honestly there's just the two of us... AARRHHH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: RE: Copyrighting Public Space?
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/02/08 Tue AM 12:27:57 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Copyrighting Public Space? I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that you cannot stop someone from photographing outside in a public area. If it were truly on private grounds, that's another matter. I also don't see what copyright is being protected. Were I to make a 3-d replica of the sculpture and then try to sell it, that's one matter. But I don't understand how a photograph would impinge on copyright. I assume the sculptor wishes the item to be seen... he erected it in a public park. I assume he knew it would be photographed as well. I don't see how capturing reflected photons from the item is harmful to copyrights. What about any piece of architecture, building, etc.? They were all designed by someone... More politically correctness BS. My first thought would be: How much is the artist paying to have public servants work for him/her? - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com - virus-checked by McAfee - visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
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
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
You have that one right, Cotty. If you use a tripod, you are defacto a commercial photographer,unless you are in a college town where you then are a student doing an assignment(grin). If you do not use a tripod you are a obviously only a snapshooter. BTW many cities do have anti-tripod laws on the books. They claim they are traffic control measures. In such a city you do need a permit to set up a tripod on public property. Note: that is to set up a tripod, not to take photos. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- The photographer referred to above was daft to set up his tripod - if he's shot hand-held, nobody would have batted an eyelid. get away with what you can - publish and be damned! -- 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
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
per Dr Wayne Dyer. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Tom C wrote: RULE # 1: NEVER TAKE A 'NO' ANSWER FROM SOMEONE THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SAY 'YES'. WOOF. Tom C. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Copyrighting Public Space? Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:37:14 -0600 It's what happens when you give a small mind an equally small bit of authority. Sadly, people will shut up and go away rather than exercising their rights. No one wants a confrontation, and so the small minds get bolder. It's the same mechanism that makes dogs bark at people on the other side of a fence. William Robb -- 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
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
At 00:13 8/02/2005, you wrote: In Namur (Belgium), where I live, I think we are not allowed to publish night pictures of the citadel and of the bridges on the rivers nearby (all public space and the city landmarks) because the artist who designed the lighting claims he has a copyright on it. He won in court against a local photographer if I remember correctly. Examples of copyrighted views would be: http://yvescaudano.be/galleries/showpicture.html?gallery=miscpic=13 and http://yvescaudano.be/galleries/showpicture.html?gallery=miscpic=14 I find very disturbing that it is not allowed to take pictures of the main cityscape at night. Yves -- Yves Caudano, Namur, Belgium Photography website: http://www.yvescaudano.be Physics website: http://physics.yvescaudano.be
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
Yeah, him as well. :) Tom C. From: Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Copyrighting Public Space? Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 12:22:52 -0500 per Dr Wayne Dyer. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Tom C wrote: RULE # 1: NEVER TAKE A 'NO' ANSWER FROM SOMEONE THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SAY 'YES'. WOOF. Tom C. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Copyrighting Public Space? Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:37:14 -0600 It's what happens when you give a small mind an equally small bit of authority. Sadly, people will shut up and go away rather than exercising their rights. No one wants a confrontation, and so the small minds get bolder. It's the same mechanism that makes dogs bark at people on the other side of a fence. William Robb -- 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
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
OK PDML Police, it's time to turn this guy in! Both very beautiful pictures, Yves. Yeah, that decision is ridiculous. Just think if God copyrighted the night sky. Tom C. From: Yves Caudano [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Copyrighting Public Space? Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:30:14 +0100 At 00:13 8/02/2005, you wrote: In Namur (Belgium), where I live, I think we are not allowed to publish night pictures of the citadel and of the bridges on the rivers nearby (all public space and the city landmarks) because the artist who designed the lighting claims he has a copyright on it. He won in court against a local photographer if I remember correctly. Examples of copyrighted views would be: http://yvescaudano.be/galleries/showpicture.html?gallery=miscpic=13 and http://yvescaudano.be/galleries/showpicture.html?gallery=miscpic=14 I find very disturbing that it is not allowed to take pictures of the main cityscape at night. Yves -- Yves Caudano, Namur, Belgium Photography website: http://www.yvescaudano.be Physics website: http://physics.yvescaudano.be
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Copyrighting Public Space? OK PDML Police, it's time to turn this guy in! Both very beautiful pictures, Yves. Yeah, that decision is ridiculous. Just think if God copyrighted the night sky. There are two aspects of copyright that have to be taken into account when considering whether one is guilty of infringing on someones rights. One, if course, is has a copy been made. It strikes me as somewhat absurd that a two dimensional rendering of a three dimensional object can be considered a copy in the eyes of the law. A three dimensional rendering (a model for example) would be a good example of breach of copyright of a three dimensional object. The other thing that must be accounted is commercial gain. Copyright law is there to prevent someone from making commercial gain off someone else's work. If there is no commercial gain, there is no injury to the creator of the peice, and hence copyright doesn't enter into the equation. Add to that, common law dicates that anyone may photograph anything, provided the photography is being done on/from public land. In addition, taking the belgian example, his lighting is owned by a government, one would presume. Contrary to popular belief, governments are not self owned entities (at least not in democratic countries, what happens in a dictatorship is different). Govenments are owned by the people who elect them, and support them with their taxes. What the government buys is, in fact, owned by the citizens of that government. I submit that if you are stopped from photographing a publicly owned artifact which resides on public property, and you are photographing from a public place, then you are living in a dictatorship, no matter what you may happen to think about your government, and the little game called election that they let you play every few years. William Robb
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
William Robb wrote: snipped I submit that if you are stopped from photographing a publicly owned artifact which resides on public property, and you are photographing from a public place, then you are living in a dictatorship, no matter what you may happen to think about your government, and the little game called election that they let you play every few years. Exactly the point of episode four of the The Prisoner, entitled Free for All. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own... I am not a number. I am a free man. Tom C.
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
Back in the USSR. All the best! Raimo K Personal photography homepage at: http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho - Original Message - From: Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 7:11 PM Subject: Re: Copyrighting Public Space? One of the things that I notice people doing is letting the cops make law. snip
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
Graywolf wrote: 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. Which war was that? I thought most wars fought are to prevent abroad what is implicitly sanctioned at home. :) Police, prosecutors, judges are all part of the same arm of the law, are they not? The system is set up in a way that allows the system to wield excessive power over the individual. It's only if the individual has enough guts and resources to fight, that the system is checked. Unfortunately that doesn't happen often enough. Yeah, I understand what you're saying and I appreciate the freedoms we presently have, but I'm a little cynical in this regard. If you've seen the 60's cult series 'The Prisoner', you probably know what I mean. Throughout the whole series, the prisoner (Patrick McGoohan) is kept isolated in a small village, never really sure who his captors are. In the end, he is released. But one can't help concluding that the village was simply a microcosm of the world at large and that we're all prisoners of a system that wants us to believe we are free, because it's easier to keep us enslaved that way. Of course I realize there are big differences between different governments and countries... nevertheless... Tom C.
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:13:48 -0500 (EST), D. Glenn Arthur Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. Okay, I've read the responding posts (that have shown up g) to this original one, and here's what I understand about this rather sticky issue (as it pertains to most Common Law Countries). As with all of my opinions, I reserve the right to be absolutely mistaken about what I say, and invite and encourage those in the know to refute my post in whole or in part. Now, we have several intersecting and possibly conflicting issues here. First of all, there's the public versus private space thing. That's not as simple as it sounds, because there are now privately owned quasi-public spaces, such as shopping malls and privately owned gardens and plazas adjacent to, for instance, office buildings. Generally speaking, if you're in a private space, you can be asked to leave by the owners or their authorized agents. They don't need a reason. If they (or their principals) own it, they can ask you to leave. If you're in a public space, basically, you can't be asked to leave or move along, unless you're breaking the law. It's those quasi-public spaces, the privately owned spaces wherein the public are clearly invited to enter and enjoy, that are more problematic. It may be that whilst you can be asked to leave, it can't be for arbitrary or capricious reasons (however, this may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction). FWIW, were it me, I'd ask any security guard or other grunt-like creature for the basis of his authority. The owners can't just give their agents carte blanche to boot out anyone they please. There really should be clear and unambiguous guidelines available, not just boilerplate and whomever the security guard deems from time to time to be an undesirable element who bugs his ass sort of thing. I've changed the minds of such power-hungry demi-humans who've asked me to stop shooting (in Toronto's BCE Place, to be exact), by pointing out that many tourist-types were taking photos with impunity with little point and shoot cameras, so why ask me to stop? They responded that I looked like a pro, and the area had been copyrighted. I simply pointed out that I was shooting a Pentax, and they backed right off! rim-shot Seriously, I told them that I was merely an enthusiastic hobbyist with 20 year old equipment, I assured them that I was shooting for my own enjoyment and not for commercial gain, and they backed right off. Which segues nicely into the next issue: Copyrighting of Public Buildings/Space/Art Basically, most if not all public art is copyrighted. A newer trend is emerging, whereby the owners of buildings, especially iconic, well-known ones, are copyrighting their buildings'/spaces' image. So, AFAIK, the Empire State Building and (I think) the Chrysler Building in New York have now been copyrighted, along with many other such spaces. Most newly constructed large public buildings are copyrighted from the outset. This is because images of such places have been used for commercial gain without compensation by so many photographers and other artists. What I understand it to mean is that no one can stop you from photographing those places, or even reproducing those photos. They can stop you from publishing them for financial gain. Technically, I suppose that means that if I took a pic of the Empire State Building, I couldn't turn around and sell it on eBay, or through my website, or anywhere else. But, of course, there's the issue of enforcement. What are the chances that I'll be caught, or that they'd even care that some schmuck from Toronto is selling pix of their building at $20 a pop? Probably not much. Realistically, it means that I can't start the Empire State Drycleaning Company and use an image of the building on the side of my delivery trucks. Especially if my company is in NYC. That they'll stop. So, in answer to the initial question, Wimmer should have been allowed to photograph the Bean. They really can't stop him. Whether he can then publish or sell those photos is a whole different
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
In a message dated 2/8/2005 10:41:35 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, in answer to the initial question, Wimmer should have been allowed to photograph the Bean. They really can't stop him. Whether he can then publish or sell those photos is a whole different issue, but that's beyond the security guards' purvue. cheers, frank == Thanks, frank. Good talking points (i.e. arguing points if it ever happens to me). Marnie aka Doe Interesting discussion.
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
Hi, In Namur (Belgium), where I live, I think we are not allowed to publish night pictures of [...] I find very disturbing that it is not allowed to take pictures of the main cityscape at night. there is a world of difference between publishing pictures, and simply taking pictures. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 18:56:48 +, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: there is a world of difference between publishing pictures, and simply taking pictures. Precisely! Another thing to remember, is that the laws vary (often significantly) from country to country, and often even within a country. Generally, but not always, the laws tend to be more relaxed in Common Law countries (ie: those whose system of law is based on the English Common Law system) than those based on the European Continental System. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
On 8/2/05, Yves Caudano, discombobulated, unleashed: In Namur (Belgium), where I live, I think we are not allowed to publish night pictures of the citadel and of the bridges on the rivers nearby (all public space and the city landmarks) because the artist who designed the lighting claims he has a copyright on it. He won in court against a local photographer if I remember correctly. Sounds like it might be time for a popular uprising Yves ! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
On 8/2/05, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed: BTW many cities do have anti-tripod laws on the books. They claim they are traffic control measures. In such a city you do need a permit to set up a tripod on public property. Note: that is to set up a tripod, not to take photos. What about monopods :-)) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
On 8 Feb 2005 at 23:08, Cotty wrote: On 8/2/05, Yves Caudano, discombobulated, unleashed: In Namur (Belgium), where I live, I think we are not allowed to publish night pictures of the citadel and of the bridges on the rivers nearby (all public space and the city landmarks) because the artist who designed the lighting claims he has a copyright on it. He won in court against a local photographer if I remember correctly. Sounds like it might be time for a popular uprising Yves ! Too bizarre for words :-/ Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
On 8 Feb 2005 at 12:18, Graywolf wrote: BTW many cities do have anti-tripod laws on the books. They claim they are traffic control measures. In such a city you do need a permit to set up a tripod on public property. Note: that is to set up a tripod, not to take photos. I've heard arguments against the use of tripods based around public safety and liability issues. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
What about them? Tell them it is a walking stick and you just happen to be resting your camera on it. Actually, I no of no laws that specifically mention monopods. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Cotty wrote: On 8/2/05, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed: BTW many cities do have anti-tripod laws on the books. They claim they are traffic control measures. In such a city you do need a permit to set up a tripod on public property. Note: that is to set up a tripod, not to take photos. What about monopods :-)) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- 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
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
It's funny, but last year I went to a museum where they wanted me to check my tripod, as they weren't allowed in. I pointed out it was a monopod and they let me take it in. (I don't think they knew what a monopod was). Cotty wrote: On 8/2/05, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed: BTW many cities do have anti-tripod laws on the books. They claim they are traffic control measures. In such a city you do need a permit to set up a tripod on public property. Note: that is to set up a tripod, not to take photos. What about monopods :-)) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
On 7/2/05, D. Glenn Arthur Jr., discombobulated, unleashed: 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. In London I have been stopped from filming in city parks by attendants proclaiming that I needed permission to film on the private property of [such-n-such] park etc etc. I aplogise for not contacting their press and public relations person, and promptly move 25 feet away out of the gate onto the street, where I set up my tripod and continue filming. Now when they accost me and tell me not to film, I inform them that they are now in 'my office' and to go away. They say they will call the police and I offer the use of my phone. I haven't been arrested. The photographer referred to above was daft to set up his tripod - if he's shot hand-held, nobody would have batted an eyelid. get away with what you can - publish and be damned! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
Hi, 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. People should resist this sort of nonsense. Not easy, I know. Still, how about a mass snapshot - get as many people as possible to go there, set up their tripods and take photographs while sticking 2 fingers up at the jobsworths. -- Cheers, Bob
RE: Copyrighting Public Space?
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that you cannot stop someone from photographing outside in a public area. If it were truly on private grounds, that's another matter. I also don't see what copyright is being protected. Were I to make a 3-d replica of the sculpture and then try to sell it, that's one matter. But I don't understand how a photograph would impinge on copyright. I assume the sculptor wishes the item to be seen... he erected it in a public park. I assume he knew it would be photographed as well. I don't see how capturing reflected photons from the item is harmful to copyrights. What about any piece of architecture, building, etc.? They were all designed by someone... More politically correctness BS. Tom C. From: D. Glenn Arthur Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Copyrighting Public Space? Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:13:48 -0500 (EST) 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
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
People are already doing something like that. Check out this boingboing post: http://www.boingboing.net/2005/02/07/please_add_photos_of.html and the Flickr tag: http://flickr.com/photos/search/tags:cloud+gate/tagmode:any/ j On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 00:05:34 +, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, 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. People should resist this sort of nonsense. Not easy, I know. Still, how about a mass snapshot - get as many people as possible to go there, set up their tripods and take photographs while sticking 2 fingers up at the jobsworths. -- Cheers, Bob -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
It's what happens when you give a small mind an equally small bit of authority. Sadly, people will shut up and go away rather than exercising their rights. No one wants a confrontation, and so the small minds get bolder. It's the same mechanism that makes dogs bark at people on the other side of a fence. William Robb
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
I think that someone is reading copyright law incorrectly. 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 -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
It's what happens when you give a small mind an equally small bit of authority. Wheatfield's got it right. It is much the same with transportation screeners (whom I encounter a lot). What happens when you give uneducated, unintelligent people the opportunity to exercise arbitrary authority? They do! Joe
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
Glenn, This is a pretty bogus article you quote. Here are the pictures I took of 'the bean' on opening day at Millenium Park in Chicago. http://members.aol.com/rfsindg/ship1.jpg http://members.aol.com/rfsindg/ship2.jpg http://members.aol.com/rfsindg/ship3.jpg In the posted comments on the web page you referenced, it is pointed out that you cannot legally copyright a building's image - no real estate broker could take a picture of it! Bill Robb had the right idea, small minded people impressed with their uniforms trying to impose their 'authority' on the public at large. Regards, Bob S. On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:13:48 -0500 (EST), D. Glenn Arthur Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
RULE # 1: NEVER TAKE A 'NO' ANSWER FROM SOMEONE THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SAY 'YES'. WOOF. Tom C. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Copyrighting Public Space? Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:37:14 -0600 It's what happens when you give a small mind an equally small bit of authority. Sadly, people will shut up and go away rather than exercising their rights. No one wants a confrontation, and so the small minds get bolder. It's the same mechanism that makes dogs bark at people on the other side of a fence. William Robb
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Copyrighting Public Space? RULE # 1: NEVER TAKE A 'NO' ANSWER FROM SOMEONE THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SAY 'YES'. Words to live by, people. William Robb
RE: Copyrighting Public Space?
I'll echo Cotty and say that the photographer was unwise to set up his camera on a tripod. Having worked in a museum where I sometimes had to adjudicate on the permissibility of photography in what is after all a public building, it mostly comes down to the impression of either amateurism or professionalism that the photographer's equipment conveys. You'll probably find that the city park involved is administered by some sort of statutory authority, and is not quite the 'public domain' that the street outside the gates is. Sydney residents would be familiar with similar restrictions on photography in the precincts of the Sydney Opera House, to protect the building from uncontrolled commercial exploitation of its image. Similarly, Uluru (formerly Ayer's Rock) is not in the public domain but is under traditional native ownership. It would be unwise to flaunt the professionalism of one's gear there, too. I guess we shouldn't worry. All we need say to the person in uniform is, This is a Pentax, and everybody knows that Pentax doesn't make professional cameras. regards, Anthony Farr -Original Message- From: D. Glenn Arthur Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
Quoting William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It's the same mechanism that makes dogs bark at people on the other side of a fence. And ANOTHER one for the quote file! ERNR
Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
Quoting Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I think that someone is reading copyright law incorrectly. I doubt the people using copyright's name in vain so to speak are reading a damn thing -- incorrectly or otherwise. ERNR
