I also don't see what copyright is being protected. Were I to make a 3-d replica of the sculpture and then try to sell it, that's one matter. But I don't understand how a photograph would impinge on copyright. I assume the sculptor wishes the item to be seen... he erected it in a public park. I assume he knew it would be photographed as well. I don't see how capturing reflected photons from the item is harmful to copyrights.
What about any piece of architecture, building, etc.? They were all designed by someone...
More politically correctness BS.
Tom C.
From: "D. Glenn Arthur Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Copyrighting Public Space? Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:13:48 -0500 (EST)
Folks,
I'm behind on my list reading so I don't know whether this has already been discussed, but just in case it hasn't ... :
<http://newurbanist.blogspot.com/2005/01/copyrighting-of-public-space.html>
"The Reader recounts the experience of photojournalist Warren Wimmer's attempts to photograph Anish Kapoor's sculpture, Cloud Gate (more commonly known as 'the Bean'). When Wimmer set up his tripod and camera to shoot the sculpture, security guards stopped him, demanding that they show him a permit. Wimmer protested, replying that it's absurd that one needs to pay for a permit to photograph public art in a city-owned park."
The explanation (they're protecting the _artist's_ copyright) makes some sense to me as well, but the "guards will stop you if you try to take photos in public" aspect still feels ... troublingly odd.
-- Glenn
