----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: Copyrighting Public Space?
OK PDML Police, it's time to turn this guy in!
Both very beautiful pictures, Yves.
Yeah, that decision is ridiculous. Just think if God copyrighted the night sky.
There are two aspects of copyright that have to be taken into account when considering whether one is guilty of infringing on someones rights.
One, if course, is has a copy been made.
It strikes me as somewhat absurd that a two dimensional rendering of a three dimensional object can be considered a copy in the eyes of the law.
A three dimensional rendering (a model for example) would be a good example of breach of copyright of a three dimensional object.
The other thing that must be accounted is commercial gain.
Copyright law is there to prevent someone from making commercial gain off someone else's work. If there is no commercial gain, there is no injury to the creator of the peice, and hence copyright doesn't enter into the equation.
Add to that, common law dicates that anyone may photograph anything, provided the photography is being done on/from public land.
In addition, taking the belgian example, his lighting is owned by a government, one would presume.
Contrary to popular belief, governments are not self owned entities (at least not in democratic countries, what happens in a dictatorship is different). Govenments are owned by the people who elect them, and support them with their taxes.
What the government buys is, in fact, owned by the citizens of that government.
I submit that if you are stopped from photographing a publicly owned artifact which resides on public property, and you are photographing from a public place, then you are living in a dictatorship, no matter what you may happen to think about your government, and the little game called election that they let you play every few years.
William Robb
