"But officer, I wasn't photographing the eraser sculpture, I was transforming it."
Photo from The Stranger, via T.Whid, who has been discussing the issue of artists' asserting a copyright interest in public sculpture. He wonders if "perhaps it's the city officials negotiating the sales of these things need some education? They should make certain that they get the rights for the citizens to photograph these pieces. If the artists are going to be so greedy, it’s seems the only alternative." That's absolutely right. Or in the case of the notorious Anish Kapoor mirrored bean, negotiating the acceptance of a "gift" from a major corporation.
There was an artist that made a major movie studio pay big bucks for using an image of his sculpture in one of the Batman movies. There was also an issue with a relief in "The Devil's Advocate" where the studio or production company had to pay the artist for use (or the image was erased from DVDs or something, can't remember).
So, when a major corporation (movie studio) has to pay up to a smaller entity (artist) I'm all for it! But when some Joe wants to shoot his kids in front of The Bean and is stopped, I'm not for it.
It's pretty complicated to figure this all out legally. To me, it's an economic and power relationship. If big, bad corp is abusing poor artist: bad! If big bad artist is abusing poor Joe Public: bad!
Doctorow's shrillness on the issue doesn't help IMHO. What happened in Chicago seemed like a good compromise in the end. They charge pros to buy a media license (just like a film permit in NYC) and everyday Joes can snap away. It was poorly trained security personnel that caused the problem.
I am not a lawyer, so I definitely don't know what I am talking about, but does the law really provide for this? If an object is in a public space I don't see how anyone can stop you from photographing it. If it is on private property, then obviously it can be protected (like the Oldenburg in the private park in Seattle,) but I would think only by hiding it from viewers who might be standing in a public space.
But obviously the law doesn't work this way.
Why is it then that celebrities can't do better in their battle with the paparazzi? Can't Angelina just put a sign around her neck saying "sorry, photography is prohibited"? I'm pretty sure she can't do this, and it even seems like photographers can take pictures of celebrities when they are on private property as long as the photographers don't come onto the property. Why would it be different for works of art? (I see that it is different, I just don't understand.)
If "they" don't want the Oldenburg photographed I say fine - put it somewhere private where no one can photograph it and control access to the property.
How do they deal with things like satellite imagery? Is it the case that you couldn't take a satellite image of Seattle if it was going to include the sculpture? That seems a little extreme. And clearly there are public satellite images of Seattle (and everywhere else except a few military installations.)
If anyone can shed any legal light on this I'd be curious.
We seem to have an evolving idea of the "commons." Once private property rights stopped at the public square but now with everything from highways to soldiers being sold off, there is no "time out zone from commerce" anymore.
Artists could be forces for good in this transition or they could be greedy little shits.
I think the Oldenburg of the quote on the plaque is more correct than that Oldenburg of the lawyers.
Once something is appropriated, especially into another medium, it is transformed.
A photo of a glassy bean is not the same thing as a giant glassy bean in real life.
A crappy sculpture of naked bodies by Frederick Hart is not the same as a crappy writhing CGI image of same. Arguably, in the latter case, he made the "model" and should get a token payment, but somehow I don't think that's what he wanted.
I haven't had my "liberal getting mugged" experience yet of someone profiting from an image or tune of mine without permission, so I'm not particularly conflicted in my view that this sort of shakedown of the public and other artists is wrong.
Hopefully if I ever do have to sue somebody it won't warp me too much.
I wrote that before reading Jim's post. I'll have to reread to see if I responded to it at all.
As for Brad and Angelina, I think the law allows them less of an expectation of privacy (or at least lower bar for defamation) as public figures but they might get better results suing under copyright.
Copyright law is evolving, and is being used in pernicious ways. If you make fun of Un1on C4rbide they go after you on trademark or copyright, because they can't nail you on free speech.
My guess is these assertions of "copyright" to public sculpture haven't been litigated yet. It's just no one wants to be sued, so the cities sic cops on people. Or demand licenses from the "pros."
|
"But officer, I wasn't photographing the eraser sculpture, I was transforming it."
Photo from The Stranger, via T.Whid, who has been discussing the issue of artists' asserting a copyright interest in public sculpture. He wonders if "perhaps it's the city officials negotiating the sales of these things need some education? They should make certain that they get the rights for the citizens to photograph these pieces. If the artists are going to be so greedy, it’s seems the only alternative." That's absolutely right. Or in the case of the notorious Anish Kapoor mirrored bean, negotiating the acceptance of a "gift" from a major corporation.
- tom moody 1-21-2007 9:10 pm
There was an artist that made a major movie studio pay big bucks for using an image of his sculpture in one of the Batman movies. There was also an issue with a relief in "The Devil's Advocate" where the studio or production company had to pay the artist for use (or the image was erased from DVDs or something, can't remember).
So, when a major corporation (movie studio) has to pay up to a smaller entity (artist) I'm all for it! But when some Joe wants to shoot his kids in front of The Bean and is stopped, I'm not for it.
It's pretty complicated to figure this all out legally. To me, it's an economic and power relationship. If big, bad corp is abusing poor artist: bad! If big bad artist is abusing poor Joe Public: bad!
Doctorow's shrillness on the issue doesn't help IMHO. What happened in Chicago seemed like a good compromise in the end. They charge pros to buy a media license (just like a film permit in NYC) and everyday Joes can snap away. It was poorly trained security personnel that caused the problem.
- T.Whid (guest) 1-22-2007 12:17 am
I am not a lawyer, so I definitely don't know what I am talking about, but does the law really provide for this? If an object is in a public space I don't see how anyone can stop you from photographing it. If it is on private property, then obviously it can be protected (like the Oldenburg in the private park in Seattle,) but I would think only by hiding it from viewers who might be standing in a public space.
But obviously the law doesn't work this way.
Why is it then that celebrities can't do better in their battle with the paparazzi? Can't Angelina just put a sign around her neck saying "sorry, photography is prohibited"? I'm pretty sure she can't do this, and it even seems like photographers can take pictures of celebrities when they are on private property as long as the photographers don't come onto the property. Why would it be different for works of art? (I see that it is different, I just don't understand.)
If "they" don't want the Oldenburg photographed I say fine - put it somewhere private where no one can photograph it and control access to the property.
How do they deal with things like satellite imagery? Is it the case that you couldn't take a satellite image of Seattle if it was going to include the sculpture? That seems a little extreme. And clearly there are public satellite images of Seattle (and everywhere else except a few military installations.)
If anyone can shed any legal light on this I'd be curious.
- jim 1-22-2007 12:33 am
We seem to have an evolving idea of the "commons." Once private property rights stopped at the public square but now with everything from highways to soldiers being sold off, there is no "time out zone from commerce" anymore.
Artists could be forces for good in this transition or they could be greedy little shits.
I think the Oldenburg of the quote on the plaque is more correct than that Oldenburg of the lawyers.
Once something is appropriated, especially into another medium, it is transformed.
A photo of a glassy bean is not the same thing as a giant glassy bean in real life.
A crappy sculpture of naked bodies by Frederick Hart is not the same as a crappy writhing CGI image of same. Arguably, in the latter case, he made the "model" and should get a token payment, but somehow I don't think that's what he wanted.
I haven't had my "liberal getting mugged" experience yet of someone profiting from an image or tune of mine without permission, so I'm not particularly conflicted in my view that this sort of shakedown of the public and other artists is wrong.
Hopefully if I ever do have to sue somebody it won't warp me too much.
- tom moody 1-22-2007 12:39 am
I wrote that before reading Jim's post. I'll have to reread to see if I responded to it at all.
- tom moody 1-22-2007 12:42 am
As for Brad and Angelina, I think the law allows them less of an expectation of privacy (or at least lower bar for defamation) as public figures but they might get better results suing under copyright.
Copyright law is evolving, and is being used in pernicious ways. If you make fun of Un1on C4rbide they go after you on trademark or copyright, because they can't nail you on free speech.
My guess is these assertions of "copyright" to public sculpture haven't been litigated yet. It's just no one wants to be sued, so the cities sic cops on people. Or demand licenses from the "pros."
- tom moody 1-22-2007 1:09 am