Darren New wrote:
> Plus, making a photograph is reproducing the work, so that's also a
> copyright violation. Just because it's visible to the public doesn't
> mean it's *yours*.  The work was commissioned to get people to go to
> that part of town to look at it. The purpose is defeated if you let
> people copy it.
> 

That is one of those gray areas that I can't find any cases going
significantly one way or the other. If the work is displayed in a
private gallery, private meaning not public but may allow public access
at certain times, certainly there is copyright and it would be
infringement to take a picture. Some galleries want that copyright
restriction for as long as the original is in a private gallery, even
well past the death of the creator and the expiration of the most
lengthy copyright laws.

For a work that is displayed in public, on public land . . . Well, it
would be like Ford* trying to claim copyright infringement over every
photograph of a Mustang**. They could do it if they were brave enough,
but some judge is going to break legal ground deciding the case.

*Car company
**famous model of car that they produced

Post a reply to this message