There is a sculpture called Cloud Gate and I remembered reading about it a few years ago that the cops were harassing people who stopped to snap a photo of it, because the image/area itself was copyrighted. I foundthis article from 2005 explaining it.
Is this still going on? Is it legal to prevent people from photographing something in public space? Most of what I found through Googling is either old or just an essay about the sculpture. I haven’t found anything that really answers the question.
If this is better suited to CS, mods, please move it there. I intended it more as a question about what is the law and what can be copyrighted, rather than as a discussion about a particular work of art.
In some art museums, you’re not allowed to photograph certain paintings (even in museums that allow photography; for instance, you can photograph most of the collection in the Musee d’Orsay (no flash), but some of their special exhibits of more modern artists do not allow it).
The image of the the art can be copyrighted, especially if the artist is selling photographs of the image.
Isn’t there some specific tree (maybe in California? But maybe not) that nobody is allowed to photograph because some artist owns the copyright of that image (I want to say Ansel Adams but I could be pulling that out of my butt)?
The Lone Cypress in Pebble Beach. Its “image” is owned by the corporation that runs all the golf courses and resorts there, but plenty of people pull over on the 17 Mile Drive and take its picture.
Heh, I was thinking of the Methuselah Tree in the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest since it’s the oldest living tree on Earth. They (the forest service) don’t want people to know which one it is so it wouldn’t be likely vandalized.
No. It’s impossible for someone to hold the copyright on a tree. The Adams estate holds the copyright for the images that Ansel Adams created of the tree, but taking a picture of something doesn’t entitle you to ownership of every subsequent picture of it. Maybe something like a topiary could be subject to copyright (maybe), but the form of a tree is a work of nature and not eligible for copyright.
That’s good to know. It was a long time ago that I heard about the tree thing and I don’t remember the reliability of the source (I don’t remember the source). The person who said it seemed sincere, but could easily have been totally wrong.
The image of the Lone Cypress is trademarked by the Pebble Beach Company (it’s their logo), not copyrighted. The signs state that commercial images of the tree must have permission, including drawings or paintings; private representations are permitted. Not that they have a whole lot of case law backing that idea, though. The tree is on private property, so they can certainly kick people out if they wish.
Yes, it’s a legal gray area. Here’s a list of properties and objects to watch out for, if you’re going to sell the images commercially. Here’s the story of a Seattle photographer who recently settled out of court after selling an image that included “Broadway Dance Steps” to a photo agency. I mostly think it’s a pile of bullshit, but, when in doubt, photographers get releases if they are selling the work commercially. Editorially, different standards apply.
It’s important to distinguish between copyright and trademark. There’s a lot of saber-rattling that goes on regarding trademarks (you’ll hear lots of ads next month referring the The Big Game rather than the Super Bowl®). That’s why folks get lawyerly letters (with little to no case law support) regarding auto hood ornaments or objects such as the Lone Cypress, the Empire State Building, or the Superdome. Those images have value as trademarks. Though the Frank Lloyd Wright people have tried from time to time, no one can seriously raise a copyright complaint about a photo of a building or a sculpture.
A separate issue is whether you agree, when entering on private property such as Disney World, to not create any images for commercial purposes. That’s a matter for contract law, and it’s going to be hard to fight that little placard at the shopping mall entrance.
There’s the legendary story of the artist who had a connipshit in Toronto over his sculpture in the Eaton Centre. Basically he created a flock of Canada geese (sans on-coming Airbus). Really, it was realism art, it looked more like a bunch of wings-spread decoys in flight than “Ahh-ut”.
Anyway, in the spirit of the holidays one year, the center decorated the neck of each flying goose with a big red ribbon and bow. The artist, in the spirit of the holidays, tore a strip off mall management and complained loudly and long to media everywhere.
Frankly, I thought it was an improvement.
This is one of a series of such events that has led to a clever (sarcasm!) Canadian law that an artist has some control over how his art is presented, even if he has sold you the physical piece. Presumably this includes photography and other “transformative” activity.
This is similar to the issue of whether a fleeting glimpse of a logo or hearing a radio of a passing car playing a song, when it appears on TV, is blocked out. In one show (Trump’s Apprentice?) the wall art in the office corridor was blurred. Case law may even back the “fair use” when the piece is incidental, but in the tradition of contingency lawyers everywhere, someone may sue simply expecting to be paid to go away to avoid the costly trial expense.
I suppose the issue for the judge to decide is to what extent you are simply copying a work of art, to what extent you are celverly transforming it into your own, unique piece.
For example, a billboard that shows up incidentally in the background in a cityscape, not the focus of the picture, is obviously not just a reproduction of the work. A picture of a series of bronze dance steps embedded in the concrete is exactly that - a reproduction. Add a dancing couple trying to follow the steps, and you have created something new; but is it enough “new” and sufficiently less than “copy” that the photographer owes nothing to the original sculptor? Obviously, the steps are still central to the composition, it’s a lot more than a couple dancing on the sidewalk.
That’s why we have judges. And lawyers. And laws.
All this applies to commercial use, of course. You can legally photograph (IIRC) anything on public property and where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, and hang it in your living room. All the artist can do (generally) is stop you from getting rich on the back of his art, or wrecking the market for his art.
I think this is probably because the museum is private property. Technically you have the right to take pictures, but they also have the right to give you the boot.
The important thing is that it’s not the act of photographing the object that is frowned on, it’s commercial exploitation of that image. Think of it as like requiring a model release when photographing people. If someone photographs me on the street for their own private use (heh!) or includes me in a street scene, that’s no problem. If they use the photo in giant billboard ads for haemorrhoid cream or sells posters of me then I might object (or at least require my share of the proceeds).
The lighting on the Eiffel Tower is an example that immediately came to mind (I notice it’s on the list that pulykamell linked to).
Native American reservations can be touchy about public photography—including landscape and scenery—if the photographer hasn’t paid for a permit. See, for example, Pueblo Trading at Zuni Pueblo’s FAQ. Most of the Pueblos have a similar system, if they allow photography at all. Sketching or painting may be treated differently than photography. San Ildefonso prohibits sketching, but only charges $10 for photography. (Jemez Pueblo does not allow photography at all, according to the wiki for the Pueblo Peoples. Many Pueblos flat out refuse to have their religious ceremonies or the interiors of sacred buildings photographed.)
IME, the different Pueblos have been very nice and clear about explaining the Do’s and Don’ts regarding photography and appropriate activities. Now, whether a Pueblo’s surrounding landscape can be considered “public” is another question.