Man sued over photos of public art on Seattle street

Man sued over photos of public art on Seattle street

What do you reckon about this -

http://www.komonews.co​m/news/local/83618997.​html

Whats the world coming to.......

I think that Mackie has lost his ever-loving mind. I really hope that the courts throw this BS out.

Does smell of money grabbing to me.

Dang I'm getting myself copyrighted right away! Got to stay ahead of the curve.

What a stupid lawsuit.

It has been generally established though, that a picture of just a work of art is copyright infringement. That the photographer made money from the shots that showed nothing but the art work gave the artist a good case.

If the shots had showed people using the dance steps, then that would be another matter as the art would be a part of a wider scene, so a different work entirely would have been created.

Selling pics of the art is a copyright issue, just like if I photographed your photograph and sold the result.

Looking at the pic included in the article, it seems like a clear cut case, the photographer was selling a copy of the art, albeit in a different medium, he was still profiting from the artists work.

I have seen much sillier cases.

I feel in 30 years that the sculpture has been in the ground more then 1 person has profited in some way from the sidewalk art.

sandpiper wrote in post #9556656
If the shots had showed people using the dance steps, then that would be another matter as the art would be a part of a wider scene, so a different work entirely would have been created.

From my understanding, this is the photo that has caused the law suit -

http://www.petapixel.c​om …ands-photog-in-hot-water/

It does show someones feet in the picture.

I agree that this is a frivolous lawsuit. However, Mackie is using the same laws of copyright that we hold so near and dear. How the lawyers spin it is what makes the difference.

I wonder if the whole thing was instigated by some lawyer who saw dollar signs?

So what happens to photographers who photo street scenes and graffiti ? A lot of murals and stuff like that too.

This is a perfect example of why I believe copyright laws are too restrictive and draconian... though I'm sure I may be in the minority here.

its really true that america is the land of lawsuits...

Haha. This is ridiculous. It's a picture of "public" art. If the artist didn't want anyone to see it or take pictures of it, it should have been "private" art. Seems to me the picture is art in and of itself and the photographer has the right to do what he pleases with his art. Did the "public" art guy put a copyright notice on all of those art pieces? Me thinks not.

getbent wrote in post #9558237
Did the "public" art guy put a copyright notice on all of those art pieces? Me thinks not.

That is not necessary to hold the copyright only to warn people that what they are viewing is copyrighted. I've read about some pretty weird lawsuits that have been successful in the US. I wouldn't necessarily bet against this one even though I don't agree with it.