This post appeared in a previous blog and is here for posterity’s sake.
the bean – photo by pachanga
The privatization of the public sphere is continuing unabated. The new Millennium Park in Chicago, the 24.5-acre park on Michigan Avenue, is apparently a copyrighted public space. That’s right, according to the city, the sculptures/park follies and the park itself are copyrighted and those wishing to photograph the park need a $350 “media permit.” Watchout Flickr, all those photographs tagged with millennium and chicago could find you in deep trouble. Read this 28 Jan 2005 article by the Chicago Reader for the full story: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 (via the urbanist). The city claims that no one can take photographs of the park without a $350 “media permit” if they are going to use the photographs for “commercial use.” But according to the city, exempted from the permit are students, journalists, and amateur photographers. Which makes no sense because journalism itself is a commercial use – albeit one protected by the First Amendment. I am pretty sure that you could make a First Amendment case that photographs, regardless of use or intent, is protected speech.
How messed up is our copyright system when you can’t take photographs of public buildings, paid for by public money, without a “permit.” I thought the First Amendment is the only permit you need? Looks like I’m breaking the law with this photo. In fact, I might have. I had this photo taken off of iStock Photo because of “copyright” problems. I never really cared enough to figure out, but I’m sure Calder (or the estate) made a stink about the photo containing the sculpture, probably claiming it was a derivative work. Which is insane.
As for the artist, on one hand I can sympathize with trying to protect their work – but copyright is not the answer. This is a public space, paid with public funds, and you Artist, created a very public piece of art. It seems that there are competing interests at work here: the right of the artist(s) to protect the work versus the right of the people to express themselves in an unfettered way. The fact that this is a public space built by public funds seems to negate the Artist’s claim of copyright (at least ethically and morally). Are there any copyright experts out there?
Fight the fucking POWER! Soon the cops’ll be trolling for Polaroids instead of skateboards.
I know, I can’t wait until I get locked up for taking pictures (pictures!) in the subway.
isn’t flickr just a bunch of amateur photographers? aren’t amateur photographers exempt from the rule? so why are the flickr photos illegal?
I was being a bit hyperbolic in my phraseology – but there is a larger issue. Not all members on Flickr amateur photographers. I would argue that the line between amateur and professional is very slim in many subjects/areas, and in photography there is effectively no distinction at a certain level. I have a camera, I have sold and given away some of my prints, and my work has a chance to get published, but is also now being published on the web. Am I a professional? No, but I’m close. Is the line of professional a matter of cost, or whether or not you make a living as a photographer? Who draws that line, or is it “I know it when I see it?”
I know many people who would gladly use the word amateur to describe themselves, but take professional-grade photographs with professional-grade equipment. Am I participating in journalism if I take pictures of the Idiotarod? It obviously was a newsworthy event, because there were local press and the NY Times photographers there. The issue of amateur-professional is a complicated one, and in this context, superfluous. If one was being pedantic, Flickr is just one step away from linking on-demand photographic services with paypal. The upshot is that if I liked an image I saw on Flickr, I could order a print and the photographer would get compensated (less cost and a Flickr Fee I suppose). I can download and use a Creative Commons titled photograph and make a derivative work already on Flickr. This is commerce – the exchange of goods, services, or an intellectual exchange. So, where is the line between commercial and non-commercial?
And doesn’t the First Amendment trump Federal Law – last time I checked it did. Freedom of Speech is something that needs to be protected, and is not that [the First Amendment] goes “too far” in the rights it guarantees. Copyright was a limited use monopoly granted to the inventor in order for the inventor to be able to economically invest in her work and for the public to receive that work after the limited use monopoly ended. The artist was paid, photographs are not harming the Artist’s economic bottom-line: the artwork was already created and bought with public funds.
i guess it is an issue of where this might lead in the future as opposed to where we are at this moment… I understand that artists want their work to be seen in a specific way, and that they should get compensation somehow. I also understand that if a reporter for the Chicago Tribune who makes a living off of taking pictures of important events/artwork/buildings/etc. should have some type of permit to allow him to do so… I also understand the worry that if a public piece of art can get copyrighted, that opens a door for all artists to copyright all of their public work and cause a serious meltdown of what public really means… but for now, i don’t believe that the law could be interpreted such that grubby is in violation for publishing it on the web, unless he were charging a fee to enter his website, therefore using a public work of art to generate some form of income… and if grubby takes a picture of said art, uses it as his own art and demands a profit from the sale of that photo, then it would make sense that his artwork is derived from another piece of art without which his would not exist, and therefore entitles the original artist to either grant permission for the use of it, or get some form of compensation… if anyone understands what i just said, i give you props…
-b2-