Stephen wrote:
> I can't quite get my head around how a photograph of a piece of public art can
> be copyrighted. And no I don't mean to open up a discussion ;)

Certainly the photograph can be copyrighted. :-)

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.

Would you object to someone building a copy of your public artwork and 
putting it somewhere else?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:08:52 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Stephen wrote:
>> I can't quite get my head around how a photograph of a piece of public
>> art can be copyrighted. And no I don't mean to open up a discussion ;)
> 
> Certainly the photograph can be copyrighted. :-)

Indeed upon creation there is an implied copyright already applied. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>>> The US do have some crazy copyright laws.
>>
>> There's capitalism for you!
> 
> NO, THIS IS CAPITALISM. BUT YOU DO TEND TO FIND IT IN LICENSE AGREEMENTS 
> FOR SOME REASON...

"CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL"

"...but even with cruise control, you still have to steer"

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:08:52 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> I can't quite get my head around how a photograph of a piece of public art can
>> be copyrighted. And no I don't mean to open up a discussion ;)
>
>Certainly the photograph can be copyrighted. :-)
>

I know.

>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.
>

I would have thought that the more people that saw the photograph, the better to
fulfil the purpose.

>Would you object to someone building a copy of your public artwork and 
>putting it somewhere else?

No, I would be chuffed.

Seriously I would be pleased. I would like to be credited but if I saw any of my
PovRay images on the web I would be over the moon. But then, chance is a fine
thing.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SBC_sculpture_daytime.jpg
> 
>   Almost looks like raytraced, but seems to be just a photo.
> 

It's pretty, but a little too big and lonesome all by itself IMO. A 
mathematical "zoo" with a variety of shapes would have been cooler. Also 
could use a bit of greenery around it. The sculpture garden in DC is 
kind of anticlimactic and blah (except for the fountain in the center), 
so maybe the idea wouldn't work.

-Mike

Post a reply to this message

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

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:45:41 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:

> 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.

IIRC, didn't Toyota try to get its logos removed from websites that were 
critical of their products?  Or some other manufacturer?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> For a work that is displayed in public, on public land 

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html

You can copyright a building. I don't see why you can't copyright a piece of 
sculpture in the public. At least currently in the USA.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian schrieb:
> 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.

Hmm... just found this on http://www.copyright.gov/:

"Mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any
other copy or phonorecord does not give the possessor
the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership
of any material object that embodies a protected work
does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright"

So no, the galleries have /no/ copyright on the work, i.e. they can 
/not/ prohibit anyone from copying it by virtue of using a camera.

(They /can/ possibly prohibit use of cameras on their premises, but 
that's another issue...)

All this valid for the US only of course. And IANAL.

Post a reply to this message

> Would you object to someone building a copy of your public artwork and 
> putting it somewhere else?

What about if someone aimed a video camera at your artwork and displayed it 
on a big TV across the other side of town?

What about if it was visible on Google maps?

IMO once you make something available to the public (ie they can just see it 
for free with no restrictions) then you can't really do much about people 
copying it.  If you want to enforce restrictions then make it impossible for 
people to see until they have agreed to your terms and conditions.  This is 
what happens when you go to watch Formula 1, even the free testing sessions 
which are "open" to the public, you still need to get a ticket and agree to 
the T&Cs before you are allowed to enter (this includes agreeing not using 
any photos or videos for commercial purposes).

Post a reply to this message