Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Public Park Designated Copyrighted Space

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the built-with-public-funds dept.

Censorship 770

wiggles writes "The City of Chicago recently completed a $475 million park/civic center known as Millennium Park. One of the central features is a sculpture officially called Cloud Gate and unofficially called "The Bean". The Bean is a giant, 3 story, 110-ton hunk of highly reflective steel. Photographers taking pictures of the sculpture have been charged money by the city. The park district is claiming that pictures of the park violate the designers' and artists' copyrights. Quoth Karen Ryan, the press director for the park's project, "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." In response, Chicagoland bloggers have been posting as many pictures as they can get of The Bean."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Slashdot FUN FACT #6346 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11653790)

9 out of every 10 FP are made not by automated scripts like this, but by hitting F5

It's official... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11653799)

Copyrights have now officially jumped the shark!

Re:It's official... (4, Funny)

Janitha (817744) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653873)


Search for Cloud Gate bean [google.com]

Re:It's official... (1)

voteforkerry78 (819720) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653894)

Its a beautiful structure actually...and they want to have some ONE person claim it. Public ownership of this structure is an obvious solution methinx

How Does This Affect My Online Rights?? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11653808)

Theres nothing to do with YRO here.

And anyways, I love this thinking that just because something was built with public funds means any schmuck can use it for free. Hey that Abrams tank over there was bought with my tax dollars, let me get a ride on it!!!


Re:How Does This Affect My Online Rights?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11653834)

It's in the public area, thus, anyone should be able to take a photo of it without any problems, especially since it cost the taxpayers money. _Their_ money. They should be allowed to at least take a photo of it! And, about YRO. YRO = Your Rights Online. The online part only describes your rights, but the page describing said things are online.

Re:How Does This Affect My Online Rights?? (1)

BridgeBum (11413) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653951)

Would you like to put your digital pictures from your recent Chicago vacation on your web site? Oh I'm sorry, those are copyrighted. Too bad.

Bunch of crap (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11653811)

Windy City, blow me.

What of other works of art? (5, Insightful)

TimmyDee (713324) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653812)

What happens to other publicly displayed works of art? Also, wasn't this payed for by the people of Chicago and thus now owned by the taxpayers? Shouldn't it be up to them to decide how to enforce/not enforce the copyright? Essentially, this is like Ford telling people not to take pictures of their own cars because the designers (read: the company) still own the copyright to the design.


Re:What of other works of art? (5, Informative)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653840)

From TFA:

Update: Brian McCartney sez, "Just a note, the piece was not publicly paid for, it was a gift from SBC Communcations.

So no it wasn't 'payed' for by the people of Chicago it was paid for by SBC.

Re:What of other works of art? (4, Funny)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653913)

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. This means I can charge my brother for toast he makes in the crappy toaster I bought him for his wedding, right?

Re:What of other works of art? (4, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653982)

It's a gift. So what if it wasn't paid for by Chicagoans? It was a gift from SBC to them. So it's now the property of Chicago, of Chicagoans, of the public. BTW, anyone who thinks a gift from SBC to the City is really "free" wouldn't survive a Winter in Chicago - or a Summer, either.

Re:What of other works of art? (5, Interesting)

Slak (40625) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653881)

I was married last year in Chicago (where I reside and pay substantial property and sales taxes), and tried to take some wedding pictures at the Chicago Park District's indoor conservatory. Security stopped my bride and me from being photographed. I was outraged! And Millenium Park is worse, since it was completely overbudget and YEARS late.

But, what do you expect from a city that send bulldozers in the middle of the night to shut down an airport?


Re:What of other works of art? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11654002)

Lord...er Mayor Daley strikes again.

What about the buildings that the bean relfects? (5, Insightful)

sgant (178166) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653902)

The Bean itself is voilating copyrights of the buildings that it reflects...the reflections themselves are "reproductions" of the buildings that are designed by artists and builders.

I think the designers of the Prudential Building should charge the designers and the City of Chicago for the reproduction of their building without their permission.

Re:What about the buildings that the bean relfects (1)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653920)

My copyrights budget just imploded.

Re:What of other works of art? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11653945)

Also, wasn't this payed for by the people of Chicago

No, it was paid for.

Re:What of other works of art? (4, Interesting)

Renesis (646465) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653954)

This actually seems to be fairly common with new buildings and works of art in public spaces.

I was working with some people on some new postcards and they asked me to check out the royalties on a couple of new structures in London they'd taken pictures of.

They'd been burned when they sold postcards of the Louvre. The architect who had designed the Louvre Pyramid [about.com] had complained and they had to pay him about 0.10 in royalties per postcard sold.

Obviously anything over a certain age is copyright-expired, so castles etc are fair game! ;)

Re:What of other works of art? (3, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653968)

How is taking a photo of a sculpture "reproducing" it anymore than taking a photo of an album is stealing the music?

Copies of Copies, Reflections of Reflections (5, Insightful)

brwski (622056) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653985)

This is simply what happens when (and these are not necessarily related):

  1. Everything becomes a commodity,
  2. Representations of things become somehow more valuable than the things themselves.
The first issue expresses itself most clearly in societies where money is held to be both the highest value and the Most Powerful Thing: whoever contols it, and can get their hands on it, clearly has The Power. Thus people seek to control the flow of commodities (which now include ideas, representations, waveforms, etc.) so as to tap into the flow of power, i.e., money. The second issue...well, the second issue is troublesome in its own special way. It also has been dealt with by Baudrillard time and time again. Just check out some of his essays...they're certainly not the final word on the subject, but they cover far more ground that may sensibly be covered here. One might perhaps want to begin with some of the essays in The Transparency of Evil or in Screened Out.

OMFG, READ THE LAW! (3, Informative)

mtrisk (770081) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653990)

God damn. This is fucking appalling!


(c) Exceptions.
The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work in, upon, or in any connection with any item described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of the definition of "work of visual art" in section 101, and any such reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a).


I'm sorry, this just pisses me off. The creator can not do this. The fucking balls and arrogance of some people, goddamn!

Re:What of other works of art? (4, Interesting)

VValdo (10446) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654020)

Try including a shot of the Hollywood Sign [hollywoodsign.org] in a motion picture. Turns out, it's is not just a city landmark, but a trademarked [microla.com] brand [mdientertainment.com] owned by the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce [hollywoodchamber.net] , which cannot be included in a distributed film without paying licensing [globalicons.com] fees.

At least that's what I've read. It didn't show up in a quick trademark search for "hollywood sign" Has any other city landmark (Eiffel tower, etc.) been trademarked like this?


Precedent doesn't support this (5, Interesting)

vijayiyer (728590) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653815)

As far as I know, anything viewable from a public area may be photographed. If the artists want to enforce copyright, they should place their sculptures in an enclosed building.

Re:Precedent doesn't support this (4, Informative)

mikeboone (163222) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653862)

Maybe not in the U.S., but in France you can't sell photos of the Eiffel Tower taken at night [wikipedia.org] .

Pretty sad when everything around you has to be copyrighted by someone.

Re:Precedent doesn't support this (4, Informative)

mark-t (151149) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653896)

Can't sell them, sure, but you can still _TAKE_ them.

Re:Precedent doesn't support this (2, Informative)

gronofer (838299) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653907)

In the UK, there is an explicit statement in the copyright act that photos of sculptures on permanent display in a public place don't infringe the copyright of the sculpture.

Maybe there is something similar in the US copyright legislation.

Re:Precedent doesn't support this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11653932)

It might support it, but city governments are doing everything they can [danamania.com] to force copyright trash on people.

How long until we get our own government copyrighting citizens, and using copyright laws to do what they can't with the patriot act? Doesn't sound so far fetched too me.

Re:Precedent doesn't support this (5, Informative)

Squirmy McPhee (856939) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653933)

As far as I know, anything viewable from a public area may be photographed. If the artists want to enforce copyright, they should place their sculptures in an enclosed building.

Bert Krages, a photographer and attorney, publishes an online guide called The Photographer's Right [krages.com] that pretty well agrees with you. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before this matter ends up in court.

Re:Precedent doesn't support this (2, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653994)

Does this mean that, next time Microsoft's terraserver updates the area (seems to happen every two or three years for major cities), they'll have to pay royalties for the right to show the piece of land "The Bean" is on?

Next thing you know (5, Insightful)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653817)

people will be harassed and intimidated merely for taking photos of public landmarks! [nwsource.com]

Re:Next thing you know (3, Informative)

g00set (559637) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653987)

Here is a first person write up of the incident.

Humiliated, Angry, Ashamed, Brown []

Re:Next thing you know (1)

Amiga Lover (708890) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654018)

The problem just doesn't stop there [danamania.com]

Wow.. people forgetting the role of government (4, Informative)

Staplerh (806722) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653818)

This is outrageous. The funding came from two sources: public and private. The article addresses both. First public:

The city's $270 million is mostly coming from bonds backed by revenue from the underground parking garages, said Lisa Schrader, a spokeswoman in the city's budget office.

Paid for by the citizenry of Chicago. Now, there was also the private source:

In all, about $200 million of the funding came from private contributors whose names are sprinkled throughout the park -- Wrigley Square, Bank One Promenade, BP Pedestrian Bridge, McCormick Tribune Plaza, the Lurie Garden.

Boom, they have their recognition and return on their investment.

My point is that these works of art are being errected in a public place, paid for by public funds and through private sponsorship (that has recieved its due return - free advertising in the form of building nomenclature). It is absolutely absurd that the citizens would be charged money to take pictures in their own damn park! Because that's what it is, they all own it through their tax dollars. Therefore, they should be able to take their damn pictures for free. Otherwise, can the city of Chicago really be providing the best government to its citizens?

Re:Wow.. people forgetting the role of government (1)

Doppler00 (534739) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653952)

I'm more concerned that people would pay $470 million all together for a giant reflective bean.

Seems the money could have gone to a better use.

Re:Wow.. people forgetting the role of government (1)

superskippy (772852) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653989)

To be honest, I don't think it matters who "owns" it. Just because you own something, doesn't mean you can control absolutely what happens to it.

Stupider (4, Insightful)

Mark_MF-WN (678030) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653819)

The entire world is now stupider for having shared a planet with this foolishness.

In a sense, this is a good thing, because it turns more people against the modern bastardization of copyright law. A few more incidents like this and America will be ready for serious reforms to copyright law.

Re:Stupider (1)

Rob_Bryerton (606093) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653995)

Mod parent up.

Speaking as a resident of suburban Chicago (I also work in the city), these types of ignorant abuses are not unusual. As always with Chicago, just follow the money...

The *Bean* ? (5, Funny)

murderlegendre (776042) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653821)

Oh wait.. Chicago, the Windy City. Now I get it.

Re:The *Bean* ? (1)

CybrGuyRSB (410357) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653909)

It's actually one of the coolest works of art I've ever seen in the way it reflects the skyline back at these weird angles.

As for this whole copyright thing, its probably not a big deal. I doubt they would sue any average people taking photos of the sculpture. This will probably just apply to professional photographers who will be making money off of their pictures. This is nothing new, many areas don't let professional photographers take pictures of things in public view without permission.

Re:The *Bean* ? (1)

magefile (776388) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653964)

Maybe they won't sue you - but security will stop you, if you have a nice-looking camera. Even if that's just 'cuz they think, "hey, that camera looks big" (yeah, it's a really old digital. duh!) "i think it must be professional".

Re:The *Bean* ? (1)

snookerdoodle (123851) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653931)

Which requires an obligatory Blazing Saddles quote:

"How about some more beans Mr. Taggart?"
"I'd say you'd had enough!"

Hey, YOU brought it up! ;-)



Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11653958)

a Two? This definately needs to be modded up.


Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11653992)

Thank you!

We paid for it but can't take pictures? (5, Funny)

g0hare (565322) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653823)

This country gets stupider with every second. If only Canada wasn't so bloody cold.

Re:We paid for it but can't take pictures? (1)

Fallen_Knight (635373) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653864)

its not that cold in vancouver BC, snow is pretty rare here!

Re:We paid for it but can't take pictures? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11653865)

Yeah, well maybe if you'd buy us flowers, maybe take us to dinner every once in a while... and why don't we dance like we used to?? You think we're fat, don't you?

Re:We paid for it but can't take pictures? (1)

Phil246 (803464) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653889)

AHA! so thats why americans want global warming to happen ;D

( note to overzealous mods - this IS intended as a joke )

USA is actually better than some other places (3, Informative)

ccmay (116316) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653996)

This country gets stupider with every second. If only Canada wasn't so bloody cold.

The problem is actually worse in a lot of other countries. [8k.com]

For example, in France, a professional photographer must pay 5,000 euros per day for a license to use a tripod when taking photographs of public buildings like the Palace of Versailles. If you can't prove that you are a professional photographer, you may not buy a tripod permit at any price.

Looks like you're the stupid one, after all. But of course, lefty soreheads who belittle the USA are usually ignorant malcontents who don't realize how good they have it.


hmmmmm..... (2, Interesting)

greypilgrim (799369) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653825)

I wonder if I can copyright myself, and then charge people to take pictures of me?

Come on people, let's be serious, since when does taking a picture of something = reproduction?

Re:hmmmmm..... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653851)

Well, as you didn't really create yourself, that would be difficult.

Your parents, however, might be able to.

Re:hmmmmm..... (4, Funny)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653950)

I copyrighted my own voice, so I could charge companies for phone calls when they start with an automated message that says "this call may be recorded for [whatever reason]..."

No. But your parents probably can. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653877)

Seeing as how you are only the current owner of you and not the artists who originally created you.

Re:hmmmmm..... (2, Funny)

pintpusher (854001) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653886)

As the artists who created the DNA of which your current form is an expression, you parents own the copyright to you. They, and only they, may authorise photos of you.

That means mom has to sign off before you can star in porn flicks AND she gets her cut of the profits.

Nothing New (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653832)

The artist who created the Portlandia structure for the City of Portland said he'd sue the city if they wanted to move it to the waterfront. Can't find links to that bit, but remeber it from listening to the radio when they talked about it in 2000. City bought it, artist claims rights to it even after he got paid.

http://www.heritagepreservation.org/PROGRAMS/SOS /4 KIDS/arthist/portlan.htm
http://www.pbase.com/pro cyon_g/image/27208315

Damn them! (1)

voteforkerry78 (819720) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653833)

Isn't there freedom of photography in this country? This is why we should all vote communist!

This is exactly what you get with the *AA culture (1)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653836)

As much as it may sound like the ravings of a paranoid luncatic, the current culture of copyright is proceeding down a disturbing path. Very soon we are going to live in a world where the ideals of free expression and ideological innovation are replaced by the chains of universal IP rights. Every form of communication will be copyrighted, licensed, and regulated. People will fear to speak out or take action on ideas that matter to them for fear of being sued if they duplicate the process of someone else.

Hopefully the unwashed masses will get wind of all this and demand change before it gets to that point though.

Re:This is exactly what you get with the *AA cultu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11653883)

Required Reading [baen.com] .

Public money = no copyright (1)

D3 (31029) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653839)

Sorry Chicago, you spent public money so the place is owned by the taxpayers, not the artists. This was a commissioned work, not art done alone by the artist and intended for sale. The more the city tries to enforce this the more it will cost them in legal fees down the road.

Re:Public money = no copyright (1)

jrockway (229604) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653882)

Even if they didn't spend public money it wouldn't matter. Don't want me taking pictures of it? DON'T PUT IT OUTSIDE IN THE THIRD LARGEST CITY!!!!

Puh-leeze! (1)

Eberlin (570874) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653846)

A sculpture in a public park is copyrighted? WTF? I guess I don't get it. Maybe I should be copyrighted too...and if I ever show up in someone else's photo album, let the royalties flow!!!

So in case you ever visit a theme park or other such place, I'll be the asshole jumping into your family pictures and charging you ten bucks if you choose to develop. Commercial purpose or not, you mofos have to pay me.

Awww crap, better hide this article in the basement. My parents may ask for royalties 'cause their genetic material made ME possible.

Re:Puh-leeze! (1)

voteforkerry78 (819720) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653866)

Yes, and you could probably sue the world for having related genetic material, since we're all descended from that same tribe in Africa. Again, privatization is generally a bad thing! Something beautiful like art should go to the COMMUNITY!

Charging money (4, Insightful)

nuclear305 (674185) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653848)

"Photographers taking pictures of the sculpture have been charged money by the city."

That's about one step short of the RIAA charging me every time I hear a song in a public place...

Somehow I wouldn't be surprised if the city is keeping that money for themselves rather than collecting that money for the artists that created these so-called copyrighted works.

I must also wonder how long this will go unchallenged. I can't see this standing up in court if, for example, the land was paid for using tax dollars instead of private funding.

Re:Charging money (2, Insightful)

creysoft (856713) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654001)

Actually, it's more akin to the RIAA charging you everytime one of their copyrighted songs shows up in an audio/video recording of yours, or the way the biocorps are charging farmers for GM seed ending up in their fields.

The problem is that the law is black and white, and this is such a gray area. How much control should artists have over their work? Should it change over time? What happens in unusual circumstances? What's the difference between taking a photograph of a painting for your scrap book, and taking a hi res Photograph to be used for reproduction?

In this particular instance, I think it's pretty clear. The sculpture itself is copyrighted, which means its three dimensional shape and form are owned by the artist. The authors can't realistically claim copyright ownership on a Photograph of it. They are most likely arguing that photographs are a derivative work of their copyrighted design, but that is (as in an aforementioned example of photographing cars) ludicrous. There is no possible way this can stand up in court. If it does, then there is no way you can take a photograph of anything man-made. Pretty much anything not utilitarian or standardized is sculpture in some form, and therefore copyrighted. By taking a photograph of a typical home, you would be creating a derivative work of dozens of copyrighted sculptures.

People need to stop looking out for themselves and actually spend some time thinking about the consequences of their actions.

retards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11653856)

So if I see a picture of my house in the newspaper, maybe I should sue them because I designed it? and am the copyright owner of it? morons!

Pay no attention to the Bean behind the curtain! (0)

MorboNixon (130386) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653858)

This is awesome.

They build a giant, 3 story, 110-ton hunk of highly reflective steel. and they don't want people to take a picture of it.

They might want to try making it a little smaller next time.

"Picture taking monitored by aircraft."

Re:Pay no attention to the Bean behind the curtain (3, Insightful)

drxray (839725) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653962)

So, does this mean that weather satellites aren't allowed to point at Chicago any more?

The next step in the wrong direction will be... (1)

Jaidon (843279) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653861)

...memory erasure for viewing copyrighted materials. This idea was conceptualized in the short story Paycheck [wikipedia.org] . As absurd as that sounds, ten years ago a story like the one posted here would have sounded equally absurd.

Highly reflective, you say? (5, Funny)

product byproduct (628318) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653871)

Place your own work in front of the sculpture, and sue them because their mirror is replicating your copyrighted work.

My Contribution (2, Interesting)

grendel_x86 (659437) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653887)

Here are my Photos of Millennium Park [perpetuallypissed.com] . Must go take more...

Sigh.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11653892)

(Software) Patents here.. copyrights there.. where oh where is this going to stop?

Sometimes I fear, against the fact that I hope for the better, that a species once named 'common sense' has definitely become extinct.

Oh brave new world?


'Daddy, where were you when everything got either patented or became copyright material?'

Convenient (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11653895)

You know I bet the City of New York could place some tiny but barely visible emblem on top of some building, and then charge people royalties on photos of the Manhattan skyline. Why not? Of course you're still free to take photos of Manhattan! But you have to pay a royalty on photos of that little thingy on top of the empire state building, it's an "artwork". Oh, and it just happens that's going to be visible in any Manhatan skyline photo you take . How convenient.

Balance... (1)

Phoenix-IT (801337) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653897)

Is there a greater example than this that the balance of rights between creators and consumers is out of whack? Law enforcement and legislation seems to tilt further towards creators every day.

My idea. (1)

bs_02_06_02 (670476) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653899)

The city of Chicago offers a permit, $325, which allows commercial photography in ANY city park for one day. You may take personal photos in any park at any time without paying anything. So, I think I'll just shoot away, buy the permit for $325, and "turn pro", releasing all my images on one day.

Oh... most people missed the part about ALL CITY PARKS. That's right. You can't shoot commercially in ANY city park in Chicago. So the Millenium Park "rights" belonging to the artists might hold a little water... but what about the hundreds of other parks? I suppose the trees are copyrighted? Does the park superintendent own the rights to the flower bed designs?

I think people should start a call-in campaign. Don't call the politicians. Call every business in Chicago that depends on tourism and shopping. Restaurants, bars, hotels, and all the ritzy stores on Michigan Ave. Tell them that you were considering a trip to Chicago. That it really would have been a lot of money... but since the fascists running Chicago don't see fit to allow free use of a camera, the trip won't be possible.

Stop the world, please (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11653903)

I'd like to get off now.

Not unique to the US (2, Interesting)

panurge (573432) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653914)

There was a case in France where a photographer make a postcard of a beach scene and the owner of a boat in the photograph sued because he had painted the boat and its number was visible, i.e. it was his copyrighted artwork. I believe the case proceeded to court, but I do not know the outcome.

Having said that, at a personal level I get annoyed if my house or boat are photographed, especially as I know that there are pictures of them on photoblogs on the net, put there without my permission. If the taxpayer had paid for them, and put them in a public park, I really do not see I would have a case.

Re:Not unique to the US (1)

Sheetrock (152993) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653984)

While on the topic of France, you can't take a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night without permission because of the new light display installed and copyrighted in 2003..

I request you remove "land of the free" from your (2, Insightful)

ABeowulfCluster (854634) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653916)

.. anthem.

This Is The Natural Outcome Of.. (5, Insightful)

SirChive (229195) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653917)

...complete and absolute corporate control over a nation's legal framework.

The Eiffel tower, too (5, Interesting)

hellgate (85557) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653919)

BoingBoing recently ran a story [boingboing.net] about the Eiffel tower. Now, because the Eiffel tower was built in the 19th century, there's an extra twist: Only the tower at night (with its recently added lighting) is supposedly copyrighted.

Kibbee (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653921)

I hardly believe that taking a picture of a sculpture could be considered reproducing it. Maybe We'll just have an artist make a sketch of it. It's like Nike charging someone of taking a picture of someone wearing a Nike logo (To my knowledge they have never done this). I know, that's a trademark, but it pretty much amounts to the same thing. Can you even copyright a sculpture? I thought it was just for written works, picture and code. Maybe Levi's should copyright a pair of jeans so nobody can wear jeans anymore on TV.

america ... the fee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11653923)

Welcome to new new world ... so how do you like your owners and overlords?

You overly affluent people are evil. Thanks for selling us out.

pictures as flash objects? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653927)

I'd save the images, but the flickr site displays the images as flash objects. The Muckromedia plug-in doesn't directly allow saving them, unless I save the entire page.

Cartman Land (2, Interesting)

Juvenall (793526) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653936)

This whole thing sounds more like a PR thing then something legit. Think about it. Had there been no copyright on it, no one outside of Chicago would have cared. Now there's a huge outcry and people are posting pictures "out of spite".

Gee, sounds like the whole "Cartman Land" marketing scheme to me.

It's the Tragedy of the Commons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11653939)

...except in this case people are copyrighting and patenting everything in sight. This isn't overgrazing, folks, this is bulldozing the field and sterilizing the soil.

Copyrights and patents are supposed to be a means to foster creativity, not stifle it. Unless we find some way to hold certain aspects of our cultural heritage as a shared resource, we will remove the ability to create new art.

Ebay anyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11653940)

Mabye somebody should start selling photographs of this area of Chicago on Ebay, and if this "bean" happens to be in the background, well I wonder what will happen.

Common sense interpretation of Copyright Law (1)

alnaln (818788) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653943)

If a sculpture is in a public place, you can take a photograph of it. (Assuming US law applies and excepting Military Reservations) You cannot, however, commercially exploit that picture without permission of the copyright owner. This is all simple copyright law. If you are being harassed by any law enforcement officer, please ask them why the Executive Branch is becoming involved in a civil matter. Alteratively, you can explain that you are gathering photographs for the news outlet "slashdot.org." Furthermore, explain that a copyrighted work, in a public place, can be reproduced for Fair-Use reasons, including the gathering and reporting of news.

Hope I'm the first one to say.. (4, Funny)

murderlegendre (776042) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653947)

I for one welcome our fucking gigantic copyrighted chromium-bean wielding overlords.

Maybe Monsanto owns the copyright.... (1)

Bad Boy Marty (15944) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653948)

Monsanto and other genetic engineering firms have been actively pursuing legal action against farmers who save their GM seeds. If this is modeled on a Monsanto GM bean, does that mean that Monsanto has the rights?

Maybe (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653966)

Maybe somebody should charge, these guys [bushbeans.com] , as they are obviously reproducing the artists work for profit.

the bean violates my copyright (0)

sacrilicious (316896) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653969)

I often paint my face, thereby creating unique works of art over which I assert copyright. While standing near The Bean, I was horrified to see that it was making unauthorized reflected copies of my face! I tried to stop it by yelling at it, hitting it with things... but nothing worked. What kind of world are we living in today??

Problem with my parents (2, Funny)

gunix (547717) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653971)

I need help.
Since I'm using my parents DNA, they've sued me for copyright infringement. What should I do? Do you think I can get a license to use it? They have even talked about a patent on sueing your children as a business method.

Seriously, some people must wake up and start thinking!

MY Copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11653972)

Perhaps I should have my car painted and copyright it. Next time a survallence camera takes a picture of me going 5 over the speed limit I'll sue the city for copyright infringement.

What about me? (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653981)

He, I wear my cloths and style my hair in an artistic way, my name was artistically created by my parents.

Show me the money.

If it's on public display the fuck'em.

Slashdot Needs a New Feature (5, Interesting)

EEBaum (520514) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653988)

We need a new feature on Slashdot. For each news story, there should be a "scream in horror, pain, and disgust" button. This way, whenever a story is reported where otherwise well-thinking people do something that makes no logical sense whatsoever, you can simply press the button to register your "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGH."

Each thread would have a scream counter, and perhaps also rate them by severity/incoherence. Perhaps a high-bandwidth version could be introduced in which posters can record their screams, and visitors can listen to all of them together, a la "millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced."

I bring this up because there is an increasing number of stories, like this one, where I think a good scream is necessary, but can't be made into a coherent thread.

This is a conspiracy by the creators (3, Funny)

mark-t (151149) | more than 9 years ago | (#11653991)

To _GET_ people to take pictures of it, thinking they are snubbing the system, then publishing those pictures resulting in free publicity for the artists creation.

This reminds me of... (1)

voteforkerry78 (819720) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654006)

... the Rage Against the Machine song Guerilla Radio, where they say: Transmission third world war third round A decade of the weapon of sound above ground Ain't no shelter if you're looking for shade I lick shots at the brutal charade As tha polls close like a casket On truth devoured A silent play on the shadow of power A SPECTACLE MONOPOLIZED THE CAMERA'S EYES ON CHOICE DISGUISED Was it cast for the mass who burn and toil? Or for the vultures who thirst for blood and oil A SPECTACLE MONOPOLIZED THEY HOLD THE REINS AND STOLE YOUR EYES The fistagons bullets and bombs Who stuff the banks Who staff the party ranks More for Gore or the son of a drug lord None of the above fuck it cut the cord

Publicity Stunt (4, Interesting)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654007)

This was an extremely effective publicity stunt. Since I'm a contrarian that doesn't like to fall for such things, that's all I have to say on it.

Take that, City of Chicago!


Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11654011)

Hear ye, hear ye;

The problem is diversity of citizenship. You have a corporation beknownst "City", uncured exhibit in res as "THE CITY" and it is inside a de jure city; hence the City of Westminster here in the "State" of California. Not related to this slashdot article, but for example.

Diversity of citizenship; corporations are bodies politic, according to their adhesion as mimic to the Law of Nations; and in relation to these united States of America they are citizens of the United States charted within the District of Columbia extending its embassy onto potestate of America by way of its national bank embassy POST OFFICES. When you see a flagpole with a flag, it is a memberSHIP set SALE on the HIGH SEAS OF COMMERCE. All claims made below the high tide mark must be mde in a district court in admiralty proceedings. It doesn't get any simpler. Open a evidence repository with your nearest district court LANDING on soil with purpose of prohibiting fraudulent claims.

I will post a story on my journal [slashdot.org] and then post notice to a Slashdot journalist on my research concluding that a corporation is a person et al. Try not to burden this forum with arguments. To fight a corporation, you can only approach it *as* a corporation and according to the Uniform Commercial Code -- all parties are in agreement; non-acceptance is acceptance of an offer.

Gregory-Thomas (NRAdude [slashdot.org] ) :AFFIDAVIT

copywrong (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654014)

If they were preventing sculpted copies, they might have something to talk about. But photographs are references to the object, depictions of the object, not copies of the object. Then there's the public display - which the public has a right to photograph. If I rob a bank in a trademarked, copyrighted, even patented suit of clothing, can I stop the cameras from recording me? And of course the dimension of public ownership of the object, given to the City, now City property. Photographs of one's property is fair use of one's property. If that somehow conflicts with the object, it should be returned, kicked out of the park. Why should the artist get all the free publicity of publicly displayed art, and try to hog all the other rights, too?

Copyright misunderstanding? (3, Funny)

mcleodnine (141832) | more than 9 years ago | (#11654019)

IANAL (obviously, otherwise I wouldn't we wanking on /.) but is taking a picture of "the bean" a copyright violation or is it just selling/showing images of it put you on the wrong side of the law?

I had a look at the galleries in the links and I'd wager the Number One question asked by tourists is;

Does my ass look big in this statue?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?