Who really owns public artwork?

Just thought I would pass on an interesting article about

photographing public artworks; it can be found here: <a

href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0330/p15s01-usju.html"

>CSM article</a>. It does a pretty good job describing the

issues... I would say my gut reaction to this is that truly "public"

art falls into the same category as architecture. You can't really

separate the ways that people "use" a public space, and that

includes photography. This is quite different than, for example,

photographing someone's painting and then calling it your own

artwork. Anyone had similar experiences to these Chicago

folks?

A bit different in the UK, for instance, as the UK copyright act clearly states that buildings and artwork on public display in publicaly accessable open spaces can not generate a copyright infringement claim against a photographer (or artist, ect). Without actually saying so in these exact words the implication is that such placement open to veiw by all represents some kind of a general implied license granted to all; who then may, in creating a new work, incorporate a representation of the existing copyrighted one.

As for the City of Chicago in particular... aren't they the ones trying to claim a copyright the city's skyline in it's entirity?

Hunter

<I>As for the City of Chicago in particular... aren't they the ones trying to claim a

copyright the city's skyline in it's entirity?</I><P>No and let's not start silly rumors: that

simply can't be done. Works of art or architecture can be either copyrighted or possibly

trademarked. The copyright laws work for photographers as well as other artists.

<P>Clearly a

lot of the people who are going to chime in on this thread simply don't understand the

distinct difference between the right to photograph "The Bean" and the right to sell that

photograph. And clearly neither do the doofus city officials and security guards mentioned

in the article. maybe the law will change in the future. Laws do that as society changes, but

until the law is changed, the current law prevails.

The tale seems to get a bit taller with each retelling. The original story from the Chicago

Reader is still floating around on the net, although I don't have a link handy at the

moment.

The original "eviction" was when he refused to pay for a permit, and permits were only for

commercial use. Non-commercial use was always free.

In the grand tradition of Chicago graft, the city was trying to get a slice of the pie. At least

the city has generally resisted to urge to ban photography of things in public view under

the pretense of security. It's still a pretty photo-friendly city overall.

Also, I wouldn't be too hard on the guards. I've always found them pleasant & friendly. It's

not their fault they were given bad information and stupid instructions.

-Carl