On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:13:48 -0500 (EST), D. Glenn Arthur Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. >
Okay, I've read the responding posts (that have shown up <g>) to this original one, and here's what I understand about this rather sticky issue (as it pertains to most Common Law Countries). As with all of my opinions, I reserve the right to be absolutely mistaken about what I say, and invite and encourage those in the know to refute my post in whole or in part. Now, we have several intersecting and possibly conflicting issues here. First of all, there's the public versus private space thing. That's not as simple as it sounds, because there are now privately owned "quasi-public" spaces, such as shopping malls and privately owned gardens and plazas adjacent to, for instance, office buildings. Generally speaking, if you're in a private space, you can be asked to leave by the owners or their authorized agents. They don't need a reason. If they (or their principals) own it, they can ask you to leave. If you're in a public space, basically, you can't be asked to leave or move along, unless you're breaking the law. It's those quasi-public spaces, the privately owned spaces wherein the public are clearly invited to enter and enjoy, that are more problematic. It may be that whilst you can be asked to leave, it can't be for arbitrary or capricious reasons (however, this may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction). FWIW, were it me, I'd ask any security guard or other grunt-like creature for the basis of his authority. The owners can't just give their agents carte blanche to boot out anyone they please. There really should be clear and unambiguous guidelines available, not just boilerplate "and whomever the security guard deems from time to time to be an undesirable element who bugs his ass" sort of thing. I've changed the minds of such power-hungry demi-humans who've asked me to stop shooting (in Toronto's BCE Place, to be exact), by pointing out that many tourist-types were taking photos with impunity with little point and shoot cameras, so why ask me to stop? They responded that I looked like a "pro", and the area had been copyrighted. I simply pointed out that I was shooting a Pentax, and they backed right off! <rim-shot> Seriously, I told them that I was merely an enthusiastic hobbyist with 20 year old equipment, I assured them that I was shooting for my own enjoyment and not for commercial gain, and they backed right off. Which segues nicely into the next issue: Copyrighting of Public Buildings/Space/Art Basically, most if not all public art is copyrighted. A newer trend is emerging, whereby the owners of buildings, especially iconic, well-known ones, are copyrighting their buildings'/spaces' image. So, AFAIK, the Empire State Building and (I think) the Chrysler Building in New York have now been copyrighted, along with many other such spaces. Most newly constructed large public buildings are copyrighted from the outset. This is because images of such places have been used for commercial gain without compensation by so many photographers and other artists. What I understand it to mean is that no one can stop you from photographing those places, or even reproducing those photos. They can stop you from publishing them for financial gain. Technically, I suppose that means that if I took a pic of the Empire State Building, I couldn't turn around and sell it on eBay, or through my website, or anywhere else. But, of course, there's the issue of enforcement. What are the chances that I'll be caught, or that they'd even care that some schmuck from Toronto is selling pix of their building at $20 a pop? Probably not much. Realistically, it means that I can't start the "Empire State Drycleaning Company" and use an image of the building on the side of my delivery trucks. Especially if my company is in NYC. That they'll stop. So, in answer to the initial question, Wimmer should have been allowed to photograph the Bean. They really can't stop him. Whether he can then publish or sell those photos is a whole different issue, but that's beyond the security guards' purvue. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
