Cory Doctorow still has it for Da Bean. He originally claimed that all photographers were being stopped from taking pictures. He knows that isn't true about amateur photographers. The original article said so. I emailed him the quote right after his first post. I never received an answer and he didn't mention it as an update. I can see why. It didn't sound as exciting as "Chicago's public sculpture can't be photographed by the public"!
Yes, this is a copyright issue; but it is more precisely about licensing. The Millennium Park foundation doesn't want anyone else selling postcards of Da Bean. They own the license after purchasing said rights from the artists. The MP officials never claimed the public couldn't take pictures of the sculpture. They just wanted to make sure professionals weren't making money off their backs.
Cory has to understand this. He has a novel coming out in a few weeks. Can I grab one of his famous free downloads, add my own cover and sell a few copies without tossing him a few cents?
I didn't think so.
(Update: Don't miss the comments.)
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.domoni.com/m/mt-tba.cgi/30
1. The artist had no license to sell under US Copyright law, which reserves from protection sculptures that are displayed in public parks.
2. The city had no business entering into such an agreement, precluding as it would art lithos, wedding photos and other pictures of a commercial nature that include -- deliberately or inadvertently -- this sculpture.
3. The city's stated position on this was NOT that the ban extended solely to commercial photographers, it was that it applied ESPECIALLY to commercial photographers: "The copyrights for the enhancements in Millennium Park are owned by the artist who created them. As such, anyone reproducing the works, especially for commercial purposes, needs the permission of that artist." (This statement is incorrect on the matter of copyright law as well, see 1.)
4. The social contract, norms, conventions, and laws for a privately published novel are completely different than those associated with public sculpture, which has had a well-understood set of norms and laws for literally thousands of years.
5. The cost to free speech in the instance of copyright accruing in public spaces is too high to be borne. Had the Chicago Police Riots of 1968 taken place today in Millennium Park before the Bean, and were this nonsensical ban on "commercial" photography indeed legally sound, then the first pictures of police violence against Constituionally protected protest would have been an infringement -- news photography is a commercial act.
# Posted by: Cory Doctorow at February 13, 2005 05:55 AM
I have utmost respect for the work I hear Cory Doctorow does for protecting rights. My issue was with a specific boingboing post. I respect how well he addressed his points to the post at hand; especially in light of seeing some of the "discussions" on groups such as metafilter.
1. I am now better informed. Cory is referring to this law. I had understood this differently. (Note: The artist retains rights to upkeep and destruction with VARA.)
2. I understand that (1) would preclude such acts. But, in reality, doesn't that mean a wedding party could block a person from wandering into a shot? Does an assistant for a wedding photographer have the right to stop me from standing by Da Bean? It seems if they want exclusive access for 30 minutes they should pay the city for the right.
3. See 1.
4. Good point, but the world of copyright is in flux. In the past I couldn't easily replicate a statue or published work. I can now easily do so with a published work. And a model maker can do so with a sculpture. (There was a case that dealt with showing a public sculpture in a film.)
I believe the artist should have that right to profit from reproductions of his/her work. (I also believe that right should end with his/her death, but that's another subject.)
5. "The cost to free speech in the instance of copyright accruing in public spaces is too high to be borne." I completely agree. I also believe "news photography" is protected under press laws and that example is not valid. I have some experience there. I was a news photographer and often had to explain to people I could take pictures of news worthy events.
Finally, my original problem with the post was with statement that "the public" would not be allowed to take pictures of Da Bean. The original news article quoted the opposite. Had that post rallied against the banning of "commercial photographers" I would have linked to it without problem. The focus would have been on artist's rights.
But the boingboing post stated "the public" was banned. Now I see posts all over the net where others are repeating the error. That was never stated by the Millennium Park official. My posts were primarily to state that point.
# Posted by: Domoni at February 13, 2005 03:19 PM
"Finally, my original problem with the post was with statement that "the public" would not be allowed to take pictures of Da Bean. The original news article quoted the opposite."
No, it absolutely, positively did NOT say that. THIS is what the city official who was questioned about this said:
"The copyrights for the enhancements in Millennium Park are owned by the artist who created them. As such, anyone reproducing the works, especially for commercial purposes, needs the permission of that artist."
Note: ANYONE REPRODUCING THE WORKS. Not just "commercial photographers," but ANYONE, "especially for commercial purposes."
# Posted by: Cory Doctorow at February 14, 2005 12:46 AM
In the original article The Bean Police the person quoted was a press assistant for the Millennium Park's project director.
The assistant is Karen Ryan and in the paragraph just below the one you quoted she is again quoted:
"The policy allows students, journalists, and amateur photographers to shoot in the park with no restrictions."
I'd say "amateur photographers" and "the public" are a congruent set in this case. I do not equate "the public" with those who want to sell postcards. I'd say the average person who snaps a few pics is "the public." I'd say emailing those pics to Aunt Daisy or sharing them with friends at flickr is covered with "no restrictions."
# Posted by: Domoni at February 14, 2005 02:41 AM
