Art in the Park: copyright protected?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0330/p...sju.html?s=hns
If you have to sign up to view it, my apologies.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

Matt Clara wrote:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0330/p...sju.html?s=hns
If you have to sign up to view it, my apologies.

Quotes are from the article (fair use, doncha know!).
================================================== ===

[ are my $0.02 ]

"The city has no plans to interfere with picture-taking tourists, say
Mr. Kleeman and Chicago Law Department spokesman Jennifer Hoyle. They
would be protected by the federal Copyright Act's "fair use" exemption."

[This tourist uses an 8x10 viewcamera on a massive tripod. I vacation
with my assistants who chase people out of the way for my snaps.]

"But even in cases of commercial infringement, enforcing copyright
ordinarily involves suing those who sell violating products, not
preventing them from making copies."

[So, get a policy paper from the city and tell the security people to
read it (assumption here) and then bugger off.]

The issue of works of art that take up so much room in a public venue
and dominate landscapes will lead, I believe, to a finding that they are
public domain simply becasue they are unavoidable to the eye or lens.

Like a building shot from the street.

good article. More stew for the pot.

Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Matt Clara wrote:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0330/p...sju.html?s=hns
If you have to sign up to view it, my apologies.

Quotes are from the article (fair use, doncha know!).
================================================== ===

[ are my $0.02 ]

"The city has no plans to interfere with picture-taking tourists, say
Mr. Kleeman and Chicago Law Department spokesman Jennifer Hoyle. They
would be protected by the federal Copyright Act's "fair use" exemption."

[This tourist uses an 8x10 viewcamera on a massive tripod. I vacation
with my assistants who chase people out of the way for my snaps.]

"But even in cases of commercial infringement, enforcing copyright
ordinarily involves suing those who sell violating products, not
preventing them from making copies."

[So, get a policy paper from the city and tell the security people to
read it (assumption here) and then bugger off.]

The issue of works of art that take up so much room in a public venue
and dominate landscapes will lead, I believe, to a finding that they are
public domain simply becasue they are unavoidable to the eye or lens.

Like a building shot from the street.

good article. More stew for the pot.

Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:10:54 GMT, "Matt Clara"
wrote:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0330/p...sju.html?s=hns
If you have to sign up to view it, my apologies.

I guess the issue depends on whether you have ever created any work of
art you felt compelled to defend.

Copyright, in the US, gives every artist the right to produce copies
or representations of their own work.

Just because I'm an artist and I display my work does that give
another visual artist (a photographer) the right to sell
representations of what I have created?

If that were the case than I could walk into the Chateau Laurier, in
Ottawa, Canada, (for those not familiar) where Yousef Karsh had his
studio and has on display in the lobby some beautiful portraits of
Einstein and Winston Churchill and rephotograph them and sell them.

Tourists can photograph the lobby of the hotel, they can photograph
the prints, but you can bet the hammer would come down the instant
they tried to sell images of the lobby or the pictures. Which is why
the cops in Chicago take great pains to point out that pros (people
who sell their images) shouldn't be photographing the "Bean".

I do agree that prior restraint isn't the best way to enforce
copyright and that isn't the job of the police, but we are talking
about rentacops.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:10:54 GMT, "Matt Clara"
wrote:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0330/p...sju.html?s=hns
If you have to sign up to view it, my apologies.

I guess the issue depends on whether you have ever created any work of
art you felt compelled to defend.

Copyright, in the US, gives every artist the right to produce copies
or representations of their own work.

Just because I'm an artist and I display my work does that give
another visual artist (a photographer) the right to sell
representations of what I have created?

If that were the case than I could walk into the Chateau Laurier, in
Ottawa, Canada, (for those not familiar) where Yousef Karsh had his
studio and has on display in the lobby some beautiful portraits of
Einstein and Winston Churchill and rephotograph them and sell them.

Tourists can photograph the lobby of the hotel, they can photograph
the prints, but you can bet the hammer would come down the instant
they tried to sell images of the lobby or the pictures. Which is why
the cops in Chicago take great pains to point out that pros (people
who sell their images) shouldn't be photographing the "Bean".

I do agree that prior restraint isn't the best way to enforce
copyright and that isn't the job of the police, but we are talking
about rentacops.

"McLeod" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:10:54 GMT, "Matt Clara"
wrote:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0330/p...sju.html?s=hns
If you have to sign up to view it, my apologies.

I guess the issue depends on whether you have ever created any work of
art you felt compelled to defend.

Copyright, in the US, gives every artist the right to produce copies
or representations of their own work.

Just because I'm an artist and I display my work does that give
another visual artist (a photographer) the right to sell
representations of what I have created?

If that were the case than I could walk into the Chateau Laurier, in
Ottawa, Canada, (for those not familiar) where Yousef Karsh had his
studio and has on display in the lobby some beautiful portraits of
Einstein and Winston Churchill and rephotograph them and sell them.

Tourists can photograph the lobby of the hotel, they can photograph
the prints, but you can bet the hammer would come down the instant
they tried to sell images of the lobby or the pictures. Which is why
the cops in Chicago take great pains to point out that pros (people
who sell their images) shouldn't be photographing the "Bean".

I do agree that prior restraint isn't the best way to enforce
copyright and that isn't the job of the police, but we are talking
about rentacops.

And I assume you (or the "rent-a-cops") have some as yet unnamed method of
determining, while I am taking a photograph or even prior, that I am a
"professional" who is taking that shot for profit. Of course they could
determine that by the "pedigree" of the equipment I am using as it is a well
known fact that all photos from "professional" equipment are immediately
destined for sale.
What total, unadulterated bull****.
I guess I should count myself lucky that I didn't get arrested the day I
photographed the Louis Riel statue on the SK Legislature grounds. That was
over 25 years ago. I wonder if "they" are still waiting for the sale --
but then maybe the RB-67 doesn't count as "professional" enough!!!
Best regards,
Bob

"McLeod" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:10:54 GMT, "Matt Clara"
wrote:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0330/p...sju.html?s=hns
If you have to sign up to view it, my apologies.

I guess the issue depends on whether you have ever created any work of
art you felt compelled to defend.

Copyright, in the US, gives every artist the right to produce copies
or representations of their own work.

Just because I'm an artist and I display my work does that give
another visual artist (a photographer) the right to sell
representations of what I have created?

If that were the case than I could walk into the Chateau Laurier, in
Ottawa, Canada, (for those not familiar) where Yousef Karsh had his
studio and has on display in the lobby some beautiful portraits of
Einstein and Winston Churchill and rephotograph them and sell them.

Tourists can photograph the lobby of the hotel, they can photograph
the prints, but you can bet the hammer would come down the instant
they tried to sell images of the lobby or the pictures. Which is why
the cops in Chicago take great pains to point out that pros (people
who sell their images) shouldn't be photographing the "Bean".

I do agree that prior restraint isn't the best way to enforce
copyright and that isn't the job of the police, but we are talking
about rentacops.

And I assume you (or the "rent-a-cops") have some as yet unnamed method of
determining, while I am taking a photograph or even prior, that I am a
"professional" who is taking that shot for profit. Of course they could
determine that by the "pedigree" of the equipment I am using as it is a well
known fact that all photos from "professional" equipment are immediately
destined for sale.
What total, unadulterated bull****.
I guess I should count myself lucky that I didn't get arrested the day I
photographed the Louis Riel statue on the SK Legislature grounds. That was
over 25 years ago. I wonder if "they" are still waiting for the sale --
but then maybe the RB-67 doesn't count as "professional" enough!!!
Best regards,
Bob

"Robert Brace" wrote in message
news:lwq2e.847047$6l.55925@pd7tw2no...

"McLeod" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:10:54 GMT, "Matt Clara"
wrote:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0330/p...sju.html?s=hns
If you have to sign up to view it, my apologies.

I guess the issue depends on whether you have ever created any work of
art you felt compelled to defend.

Copyright, in the US, gives every artist the right to produce copies
or representations of their own work.

Just because I'm an artist and I display my work does that give
another visual artist (a photographer) the right to sell
representations of what I have created?

If that were the case than I could walk into the Chateau Laurier, in
Ottawa, Canada, (for those not familiar) where Yousef Karsh had his
studio and has on display in the lobby some beautiful portraits of
Einstein and Winston Churchill and rephotograph them and sell them.

Tourists can photograph the lobby of the hotel, they can photograph
the prints, but you can bet the hammer would come down the instant
they tried to sell images of the lobby or the pictures. Which is why
the cops in Chicago take great pains to point out that pros (people
who sell their images) shouldn't be photographing the "Bean".

I do agree that prior restraint isn't the best way to enforce
copyright and that isn't the job of the police, but we are talking
about rentacops.

And I assume you (or the "rent-a-cops") have some as yet unnamed method of
determining, while I am taking a photograph or even prior, that I am a
"professional" who is taking that shot for profit. Of course they could
determine that by the "pedigree" of the equipment I am using as it is a
well known fact that all photos from "professional" equipment are
immediately destined for sale.
What total, unadulterated bull****.
I guess I should count myself lucky that I didn't get arrested the day I
photographed the Louis Riel statue on the SK Legislature grounds. That
was over 25 years ago. I wonder if "they" are still waiting for the
ale -- but then maybe the RB-67 doesn't count as "professional"
enough!!!
Best regards,
Bob


If the work of art is in a public place that has no entry fee then you can
do what you like. Its one thing to cry 'no fair' if someone walks into a
gallery where there are signs saying so 'photos' etc. However if you carry
your art work of whatever description out into the middle of a public
thorough fair and leave it there then you got no right to moan if someone
stops to admire it without paying a fee, photographs it or whatever.

"Robert Brace" wrote in message
news:lwq2e.847047$6l.55925@pd7tw2no...

"McLeod" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:10:54 GMT, "Matt Clara"
wrote:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0330/p...sju.html?s=hns
If you have to sign up to view it, my apologies.

I guess the issue depends on whether you have ever created any work of
art you felt compelled to defend.

Copyright, in the US, gives every artist the right to produce copies
or representations of their own work.

Just because I'm an artist and I display my work does that give
another visual artist (a photographer) the right to sell
representations of what I have created?

If that were the case than I could walk into the Chateau Laurier, in
Ottawa, Canada, (for those not familiar) where Yousef Karsh had his
studio and has on display in the lobby some beautiful portraits of
Einstein and Winston Churchill and rephotograph them and sell them.

Tourists can photograph the lobby of the hotel, they can photograph
the prints, but you can bet the hammer would come down the instant
they tried to sell images of the lobby or the pictures. Which is why
the cops in Chicago take great pains to point out that pros (people
who sell their images) shouldn't be photographing the "Bean".

I do agree that prior restraint isn't the best way to enforce
copyright and that isn't the job of the police, but we are talking
about rentacops.

And I assume you (or the "rent-a-cops") have some as yet unnamed method of
determining, while I am taking a photograph or even prior, that I am a
"professional" who is taking that shot for profit. Of course they could
determine that by the "pedigree" of the equipment I am using as it is a
well known fact that all photos from "professional" equipment are
immediately destined for sale.
What total, unadulterated bull****.
I guess I should count myself lucky that I didn't get arrested the day I
photographed the Louis Riel statue on the SK Legislature grounds. That
was over 25 years ago. I wonder if "they" are still waiting for the
ale -- but then maybe the RB-67 doesn't count as "professional"
enough!!!
Best regards,
Bob


If the work of art is in a public place that has no entry fee then you can
do what you like. Its one thing to cry 'no fair' if someone walks into a
gallery where there are signs saying so 'photos' etc. However if you carry
your art work of whatever description out into the middle of a public
thorough fair and leave it there then you got no right to moan if someone
stops to admire it without paying a fee, photographs it or whatever.

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0330/p...sju.html?s=hns
If you have to sign up to view it, my apologies.

Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

No alcoholic beverages No
dogs
No ball-playing
No shooting the bean
City of Chicago
There goes the tourist trade Bob Hickey