Well, BoingBoing has another post on the Bean controversy they helped to fuel. This time Cory points to a blogger who stated that "the public" wasn't banned from taking pictures of Da Bean.
No, not this blogger. That one.
Cory wrote: "Chicagoist has a good followup on the controversy around the public sculpture in Chicago's Millennium Park (a park that cost Chicagoans $270 million) which photographers were being prevented from taking pictures of (earlier post)."
I appreciate that Cory toned down the rhetoric. Though he never responded to my last comment I believe Cory did get it.
The author at Chicagoist, Andrew Peerless, concludes: "Let's recap: We can all take pictures in Millennium Park, and for the time being, professional photographers and student photographers don't even need a permit. The enhancements in Millennium Park are copyrighted, so we'll keep that in mind if we are a photographer who wishes to publish images of said works."
That sure sounds familiar. I applaud Andrew at the Chicagoist for saying it better and doing some legwork with Karen Ryan at the Millennium Park Foundation.
(Update: An imaginary place tried to get the scoop and got the run around...)
Comments Closed
Due to the proliferation of comment spam, I closed comments on this entry. If you would still like to leave a comment, please use one of my
recent entries. Tell me which entry and I'll move it back here. Thanks and sorry for the extra work.
http://stayfree.typepad.com/stayfree/2005/02/christo_says_do_1.html
Christo's publisher claims a vast new degree of copyright and trademark protection. They claim they will prosecute anyone who sells their own original photos of The Gates; who makes and sells a drawing of The Gates or who even uses the words, The Gates, without their permission....They also claim to have an agreement with the media that media sources may only use news photos of the gates for the period the installation is up. That after that the media will only be allowed to use "official" photos of The Gates.
(check the comments for someone who says this is the norm)
# Posted by: ffej at February 18, 2005 12:24 PM
Boy, this is a lazy as Cory's mis-reporting. I said it wasn't without precedent locally, citing Tishman Speyer's restrictions on commerical use of images of Rockefeller Center. I also said the quote above is bunko. We (and by that, I mean people on the work crew) were encouraged to photograph. We were discouraged from commerical use. No threats were made, though the intent was clear on the part of Jeanne-Claude: she thought it improper that someone should profit from their work without permission. This in and of itself may be interesting discussion, but it has nothing to do with the poor reporting and re-porting of this meme.
# Posted by: Miss Representation at February 19, 2005 09:36 AM
Trying to keep a conversation over multiple sites straight:
I gather that the quote miss representation refers to is one ffej originally reported at Stay Free and then quoted as the first comment above.
The quote comes from an email by NYC activist Robert Lederman. He is quoting Christo's publisher.
Over at Stay Free I reacted to the publisher's claim that Christo wanted to stop people from using the words "The Gates." If true, I find that funny. As for Jeanne-Claude's comment about profit...I agree completely. I don't believe one artist should profit from another's work...unless with permission.
Thanks Miss representation. I agree. This meme has been fraught with misreporting. I'll say it again: The public has not been banned from photographing these artworks. It's all about profit and control of licensing.
Thanks everyone for your comments on this subject. Now I'm off to find where Lederman got his information.
# Posted by: Domoni at February 19, 2005 10:49 AM
