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?