Is it still true that photographing "Cloud Gate" is a copyright infringement?

Factual Questions
21

That’s a very big maybe. In Kelley v. Chicago Park District, the Seventh Circuit said that Chapman Kelley’s “Wildflower Works” in Chicago’s Grant Park was not protected by copyright law or the Visual Artists Rights Act because it was not a “work of authorship” and it was not “fixed” in a perceivable medium of expression.

There’s something called “moral rights” in many countries. In the United States, the Visual Artists Rights Act, which Chapman Kelley failed to get the protection of, an artist has the right to insist that a work of visual art not be altered.

By the way, there is a provision of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §120(a), which creates an exemption from infringement liability for infringement of rights in architectural works:

Gaylord v. United States confirmed that this exemption for architectural works does not apply to a sculpture, specifically, the Korean War Memorial.

22

Ayers Rock is considered sacred by the aborigines; the government caters to them by forbidding its use in commercial photography without permission.

Of course, the tour guide people also make the “it’s sacred, please respect their wishes and don’t climb” speech. (Then they drop you off at the climb entrance) Women are forbidden to climb too. However, it’s a personal choice, and it gets pretty crowded up there, so the number of people, male and female, who give a fig about someone else’s peculiar religious landscape fetish seems pretty limited. I’ve also climbed St Pauls and the Vatican, and the cathedrals in Milan and Florence, so I guess I’m equal-opportunity sacred-spot climber.

I’ve never heard about anyone being told not to photograph Sydney Hah-bah. I assume like most big cities, there are requirements for permits for people who want to block the area with a significant amount of photography equipment?

Many museums, churches, etc. used to be “photography but please no flash”. However, with the ubiquity of modern flash digital cameras, and people unclear on the concept of disabling their flash (and possibly a desire to enhance museum store sales) have banned photography entirely.

Enforcement varies. I recall the area around the Mona Lisa (IIRC that wing) was “no photography strictly enforced”. One day that was true, the next it seems like Inspector Clouseau was in chage. A huge collection of gawkers had cameras out and were snapping away at the Mona until a few too many flashes went off, then one guard said something to the other and they tried to stop everyone.

Similarly, once (about 10 years ago) in the Sistine Chapel the guards were vigilant about no photos. The lighting was poor enough that it ook 1/5sec to get a good exposure; I had to sit on the bench along the wall, and hide the camera braced beside me on the bench to get a good photo. We were back a few hours later and people were snapping and one guy even video-taping the scene; after about two or 3 flashes, the guards waded into the crowd and started telling people to put away their cameras; the rest of the Vatican museum had no restrictions other than flash, same with most churches and museums in Italy.

In the Dalai Lama’s Palace, photography was forbidden (and the lighting sucked). I decided it was not a good idea to tick off Chinese security, possibly get tossed out prematurely or arrested or lose my equipment (they let me carry the camera in). In other monasteries in Tibet, they often have a small fee (15Y = about $2.50) to photograph in some rooms. I read that the entrace ticket fees go to the government cultural agencies and photo fees and donations go to the monks.

I do recall many many years ago I was in the Toronto Art Gallery and a guard pratically dived in front of me to stop me from taking a picture. Anything else was fair game, but apparently this one interesting renaissance portrait was a loan from a private individual and they did not want any pictures.

23

“Touchy until you pay” generally translates as “Interested in money”.

24

Very interesting stuff. So in the case of the stuff bluezooky mentioned, if I used a tripod but was only intending it for my own personal vacation scrapbook, I’d get the boot anyway?

25

It’s pretty friggin’ stupid. That was the problem at Cloud Gate, too. When they enforced the “no professional photographers” rule years ago when it first opened, you’d have the art student kids from Columbia College coming in with their tripods and Pentax K1000s to take pictures, and they’d get booted or hassled by security, while the professional photographers like me would come by with a $5000 camera body and a $2000 lens, and the security guards wouldn’t bat an eye, because we weren’t using a tripod. (Really, you don’t need a tripod in most cases, unless you’re taking long exposure shots or shooting with a large format camera.) Fact is, if I saw somebody taking a picture of Cloud Gate with a tripod and a 35mm-sized or smaller camera in the middle of the day, I would bet heavily against them being a professional photographer. Stupidity all around.

26

That’s a good point. If the lighting is good you don’t need a tripod. Especially if you’ve got a high end camera.

27

In all fairness to the sabre-rattlers, a trademark must be defended while a copyright does not. Therefore anything that may be interpreted by some judge somewhere a trademark infringement has to be fought or the company may lose their trademark.

28

The place I got the most resistance about taking pics was at the Alameda Point Antique Faire. Some of the vendors got VERY upset, despite my assurances that I was far from being a professional. They feared that I would sell the images to HGTV or make copies of their stuff for theme restaurants or something. There were some pretty neat things out there, but the guys severely overestimated any commercial potential my photos might have.

29

Not necessarily. Anything crafty and unique style - art shows, craft shows, and antiques - the sellers will not want you to make a photo, take it to your favourite quilter/potter/capernter and say “make a copy”. Just like show homes that don’t want you to photograph and try to duplicate the decor set up by professional home decorators. If they’re trying to make money off it, why should they let you have the measn to duplicate their look for free?

30

No, they weren’t overestimating the commercial potential of your photos, they were facing the reality of the fact that photographs often find their way to the internet, where knock-off artists can see them. Anyone in a visual medium is concerned about this kind of stuff.

31

I understand the reasons for them not wanting pictures taken. But I paid to get into the Antiques Faire (which is really more like a gigantic flea market), and the Faire itself has no rule against photography. If individual vendors don’t want people taking pictures, they should put up a sign, and I would comply. When I go to museums and galleries, I *always *ask if it’s okay to take pictures, but I’m not going to seek permission from every single person sitting behind a table at a place like Alameda.

32

It’s pretty much understood in the circles I travel that if you’re in a shop/store/workshop/studio environment interior, you never ever take pictures of the wares of a craftsman, artist, or vendor without asking his or permission specifically to take that particular picture, even if there’s no general ban on photography.

Even if you are on the outside of the shop, I would still ask permission, if you are close enough to the wares that you can see details. If it’s something you can see from a distance, then I see no problem in taking a picture without asking permission.

33

..

34

I just remembered that I got told off for taking pictures of an aisle of dog leashes at Petsmart when I was doing an assignment for photo class (on dogs). They made me leave the store. It was kind of weird.

35

Yeah, any private location like that, you are running the risk of them telling you to beat it. If you feel like being on the up and up, talk to the store manager and tell them what you are doing. Otherwise, you may or may not be told to stop, depending on who’s working there and their mood.

36

A professional photo of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame led to a lawsuit: http://courses.cs.vt.edu/cs3604/lib/Copyrights.Patents/Buchholz.poster.HTML

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit shot it down: Pictures of buildings do not violate trademark - Rock & Roll Hall of Fame & Museum v. Gentile Prods., 134 F.3d 749 (6th Cir. Ohio 1998)

Here’s a decent overview of the legal issues involved:
http://www.jurisnotes.com/IP/articles/trademarkblues.htm

37

Can, but not always, such as if it’s a “slavish copy” of a public domain 2-D artwork, and possibly a 3-D artwork. See Bridgeman v. Corel and others. The people who tell you their scan from an art book of Oath of the Horatii is copyrighted are full of shit, and they probably know it, too.

38

Well, come on, I’m pretty sure that the churches you mention welcome you to climb them and provide access to stairs or elevators for that purpose. It’s a little different.

When I went in 2009, they were much more vigilant, repeating the rule against photography aloud every minute or two and approaching violators and telling them not to photograph (flash or no flash).