The Copyrighting of Public Space

Tags: Art And Photography
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Read Discussion
Reply to All

I recently found that the sculptures in Chicago's Millennium Park are copyrighted which means you can't photograph them:

"The copyrights for the enhancements in Millennium Park are owned by the artist who created them. As such, anyone reproducing the works, especially for commercial purposes, needs the permission of that artist."

link to full article

And photographing the Eiffel Tower at night is illegal as well as Christ the Redeemer is such (nearly):

Eiffel Tower: Repossessed

Famed statue is at heart of copyright fight

Okay that's all perhaps mostly for commercial use.

But I've noticed as long as I photograph that a lot places forbid private photographing, because they want to sell there own stuff. (The most funniest explanation for this I got in the stalactite caves in our neighbourhood: photographing would disturb the animals down there - they must have evacuated them, when taking there own some hundred photos.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link/Embed

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,069 • Replies: 10

Oh, Walter, this is very aggravating. I can see having a photo copyrighted, but not having the park sculpture be.
I'm amazed, this is ridiculous.

Thank you for posting this.

0 Replies

My "Tour Eiffel at night"´photos were done before it was copyrighted :wink:

0 Replies

I've also read, perhaps here on a2k, about people being stopped taking photos - it was probably in Washington DC, but I'm not sure - of buildings, for security reasons. As an avid photographer of city life and land use, I find all these strictures disturbing, but I also find them disturbing for other reasons having to do with the nature of public space and freedom within it.

I'm aware freedom has limits, with falsely crying Fire being a no-no, and obstructing traffic flow not being a great idea, but
claiming people can't photograph what you were allowed to place in their space... is questionable to me.

I know this all revolves around a legal matter of image rights, but I think there should be some limits on those.

0 Replies

At the same time that Works of Art in public places are being "protected" by copyright, it is perfectly legal to take a picture of a stranger--without consent--and then use that picture as you desire.

Do you remember after the Oklahoma City bombing the furor about who "owned" the photograph of the fireman carrying the little girl?

0 Replies

I have heard that the Lone Cypress Tree on the private Pebble Beach Golf Course property in California near Monterey has been copyrighted. It is on a rocky cliff overlooking the Pacific Ocean. It has been a popular tourist stop for many, many years. How does one copyright a TREE? Is this just an URBAN MYTH? There are many images, paintings, posters etc of this tree on the internet.

0 Replies

Obviously there is a plaque near the real Lone Cypress saying that all photography of the Lone Cypress tree is prohibited!.

I doubt that this is regulated by copyright laws, but similar to what you find in museums etc.

0 Replies

Here's a recent article from the Christian Science Monitor on the Millennial Park photo question - Who Owns Public Art?

0 Replies

What a tangle!

0 Replies

Yes, I find it quite interesting.

0 Replies

I guess you can copyright anything but the real question would be how it would stand up in court. My guess would be that public domain would win over in most cases.

0 Replies

Read Discussion
Reply to All

The Copyrighting of Public Space

Related Topics