3 ms·

I would love to hear an opinion on photographing "The Bean" from a photographer that's defending Maisel. ("The Bean" is a sculpture in a public park which is p

I would love to hear an opinion on photographing "The Bean" from a photographer that's defending Maisel. ("The Bean" is a sculpture in a public park which is protected by copyright and, therefore, illegal to take a photograph of. This seems absurd to most people, including photographers. More: http://newurbanist.blogspot.com/2005/01/copyrighting-of-public-space.html http://newurbanist.blogspot.com/2005/01/copyrighting-of-publ...) I wonder if there are photographers that would argue that it should be OK to photograph a copyrighted sculpture and that it should not be OK for another artist to create a derivative work from a photograph ... that would be an interesting argument to hear.

kragen 15y ago
TechDirt has covered cases over photography of sculptures a couple of times: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090804/0116455762.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090804/0116455762.shtml (Di Modica v. North Fork and Di Modica v. Random House, over Charging Bull) and http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090717/1400565585.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090717/1400565585.shtml (Gaylord v. U.S., concerning a postage stamp with a photograph of the Korean War Memorial). In most countries, there's a "panorama exception": http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm#1.6 http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm#1.6 I'm not clear what the situation is in the US.
daimyoyo 15y ago
That seems beyond absurd. Are there any court cases challenging this?
wisty 15y ago
Photographers will argue that 90% of a photograph is composition, not the subject. Even though a pixelated adaptation of a photo is different, it's got the same composition. For example, that Miles Davis photo perfectly lines up his head and hands to fill the square CD cover. It also uses light and shade to make the subject's features really stand out. So through a the lens a photographer sees through (horrible pun), it's very derivative. A pixel artist will disagree, of course. They will say that composition isn't as important as getting the pixels just right. (Actually, bean is interesting because it actually changes the composition).
- greendestiny 15y ago
  I think the pixel version of this artwork is much more derivative than an 8-bit cover version of the music, yet they sort permission from Mile Davis's estate to use his music. Then they settled out of court. I have no idea why this is the internet's latest crusade. If they'd have given 1000 artists (including photographers) the brief of an album cover of Kind of Blue, I doubt any would have been so similar to Maisel's. Give 1000 pixel artists Kind of Blue and ask then to do a straight pixel version and they'd all be indistinguishable. And despite the supposed outrage for the rights and artistic merit of pixel art, I haven't seen any pixel artists stand up for this straight copy of a photograph. I don't think any of them would consider it a particularly enlightening representation of their art form.
duck 15y ago
I hadn't heard of this, wow. Oddly, the last time I was in Chicago I saw a police officer helping out by taking a photo of a group of girls in front of "The Bean" as I was taking photos of it as well.
ojbyrne 15y ago
The rules for taking pictures of The Bean were loosened soon after that article. Wikipedia says: "The city first set a policy of collecting permit fees for photographs. These permits were initially set at $350 per day for professional still photographers, $1,200 per day for professional videographers and $50 per hour for wedding photographers. The policy has been changed so permits are only required for large-scale film, video and photography requiring ten-man crews and equipment" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_Gate#Reception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_Gate#Reception
sunchild 15y ago
It's probably worth reading up on this topic: http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm

kragen 15y ago

TechDirt has covered cases over photography of sculptures a couple of times: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090804/0116455762.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090804/0116455762.shtml (Di Modica v. North Fork and Di Modica v. Random House, over Charging Bull) and http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090717/1400565585.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090717/1400565585.shtml (Gaylord v. U.S., concerning a postage stamp with a photograph of the Korean War Memorial). In most countries, there's a "panorama exception": http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm#1.6 http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm#1.6 I'm not clear what the situation is in the US.

daimyoyo 15y ago

That seems beyond absurd. Are there any court cases challenging this?

wisty 15y ago

Photographers will argue that 90% of a photograph is composition, not the subject. Even though a pixelated adaptation of a photo is different, it's got the same composition. For example, that Miles Davis photo perfectly lines up his head and hands to fill the square CD cover. It also uses light and shade to make the subject's features really stand out. So through a the lens a photographer sees through (horrible pun), it's very derivative. A pixel artist will disagree, of course. They will say that composition isn't as important as getting the pixels just right. (Actually, bean is interesting because it actually changes the composition).

greendestiny 15y ago
I think the pixel version of this artwork is much more derivative than an 8-bit cover version of the music, yet they sort permission from Mile Davis's estate to use his music. Then they settled out of court. I have no idea why this is the internet's latest crusade. If they'd have given 1000 artists (including photographers) the brief of an album cover of Kind of Blue, I doubt any would have been so similar to Maisel's. Give 1000 pixel artists Kind of Blue and ask then to do a straight pixel version and they'd all be indistinguishable. And despite the supposed outrage for the rights and artistic merit of pixel art, I haven't seen any pixel artists stand up for this straight copy of a photograph. I don't think any of them would consider it a particularly enlightening representation of their art form.

duck 15y ago

I hadn't heard of this, wow. Oddly, the last time I was in Chicago I saw a police officer helping out by taking a photo of a group of girls in front of "The Bean" as I was taking photos of it as well.

ojbyrne 15y ago

The rules for taking pictures of The Bean were loosened soon after that article. Wikipedia says: "The city first set a policy of collecting permit fees for photographs. These permits were initially set at $350 per day for professional still photographers, $1,200 per day for professional videographers and $50 per hour for wedding photographers. The policy has been changed so permits are only required for large-scale film, video and photography requiring ten-man crews and equipment" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_Gate#Reception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_Gate#Reception

sunchild 15y ago

It's probably worth reading up on this topic: http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm