I was reading about amateur photographers in Tel Aviv refusing to accept that they couldn't take pictures of a building visible on a public street (see The Patry Copyright Blog: Israeli Flashmobs and Pictures of Works of Architecture), and it reminded me of a couple of summers ago when guards or the sculptor, or someone tried to stop tourists in Chicago from taking pictures of "the bean," this fabulous reflective, monstrously large, bean-shaped sculpture in a public park there. The Internet was plastered with pictures of the bean, despite the assertion of a right that ran counter to common sense. People take pictures of things like the bean. They just do. People frankly can't believe anyone has the right to prevent such a thing. Where is the harm, they wonder.
These are examples of people just saying no to overbroad claims of copyright protection. Check out the photos of Opera Tower as mobbed by photographers, and the bean, in Chicago's Millennium Park (205,000 images). This is one of the risks of passing laws that run counter to common sense and fairly run-of-the-mill human behavior -- increasing disrespect for the law. It is regrettable, but more importantly, it is preventable. Congress needs to stop the bloating of our copyright laws.
Comments (4)
On dozens of occasions in recent years I've been interrupted while attempting to photograph from public places those things anyone can see with one good eye. Most often I'm interrupted and questioned by some poor, underpaid private security guard working on behalf of a real estate owner. It is tedious at times, and most often appears to be a combination of security paranoia and overreaching property rights.
Posted by Walter Dufresne![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://chaucer.umuc.edu/blogcip/collectanea/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 13, 2008 9:04 AM
Posted on March 13, 2008 09:04
What's fascinating about the bean example -- especially as it appears in a photograph like this one -- is that its reflection of the Chicago skyline relies, of course, on reproducing "borrowed" images of architectural works that are themselves presumably copyrighted.
To then insist on the sculpture as a piece of discrete, owned intellectual property seems to fly in the face of the very nature of the bean. (Not a sentence I ever thought I'd write!)
Posted by Ryan Jerving | March 13, 2008 10:36 AM
Posted on March 13, 2008 10:36
Very interesting topic. I'm constantly amazed at the lack of common sense and the irrational thinking of so many...
Posted by Christopher Myers | April 2, 2008 11:31 PM
Posted on April 2, 2008 23:31
I would have to say that this is taking copyright laws a little to far. I have never heard of not being able to take pictures of something as you wish here in the states. Though I do know that some other countries have such strict policies.
I was actually watching a show today about the Soviet Union and how they were imprisoning people during the cold war for taking pics of certain areas. They considered it an act of treason.
Posted by Real Estate License | May 6, 2008 11:26 PM
Posted on May 6, 2008 23:26