Man sued over photos of public art on Seattle street

the world is slowing caving in on its self from people like that

so if this goes through, wouldn't a lot of people be up a creek? You have tourists taking photos of the famous bull on wall street? what about all the different sculptures in most parks... my grandfather won an award with a photo of a statue in Denver, with the capitol in the background, from like the forties, would that count as well? or not? there are no people in a lot of these photos that people take
ah, and what about architecture? aren't the designs of the architect copyrighted? they could be, its a form of art, and then any appraiser taking a photo of the builing could be liable? they are making money, and not from the architect?
man, this could get sooooooo out of hand...scary!

The Boss wrote in post #9566905
so if this goes through, wouldn't a lot of people be up a creek? You have tourists taking photos of the famous bull on wall street? what about all the different sculptures in most parks... my grandfather won an award with a photo of a statue in Denver, with the capitol in the background, from like the forties, would that count as well? or not? there are no people in a lot of these photos that people take
ah, and what about architecture? aren't the designs of the architect copyrighted? they could be, its a form of art, and then any appraiser taking a photo of the builing could be liable? they are making money, and not from the architect?
man, this could get sooooooo out of hand...scary!

Tourists won't have a problem unless they are selling the images, there is no issue with shots for your own photo album.

Yes, architecture is copyrighted. Many famous and distinctive buildings place restrictions on commercial usage of their image and will back that up with legal action if they see fit.

Even products such as cars are copyrighted, if you take a pic of a car and make a poster for sale (which is specifically a picture of the car) then that is copyright infringement and the manufacturer may come after you (if it's Ford, they have a history of fairly zealous hunting down of people selling unauthorized pics of their cars - even shutting down the Mustang Owners Club's club calendar, until an agreement was reached between both parties).

If you want to profit from somebody else's design efforts, you need their permission - and possibly to negotiate a licence deal where you pay a percentage of the profits over.

What do you think property releases are for ?

I'm sure you like having copyright protection for your pictures, so why object to others having the same protection just because it may mean that you can't profit from their efforts.

There is no need to get silly about this.

The Boss wrote in post #9566905
so if this goes through, wouldn't a lot of people be up a creek? You have tourists taking photos of the famous bull on wall street? what about all the different sculptures in most parks... my grandfather won an award with a photo of a statue in Denver, with the capitol in the background, from like the forties, would that count as well? or not? there are no people in a lot of these photos that people take

Copyright laws prevent infringing publication or distribution of copyrighted materials, not tourist snapshots. If you don't intend to publish or distribute the copyrighted work, there is no problem.

In the US, at least, the copyright law regarding architectural copyright explicitly exempts photography of the building. It prevents other architects from copying the plans and other builders from copying the building, but it does not prevent photography of the buidling.

Now, there may be trademark laws that apply to certain trademarked views of buildings (such as Disney's Fantasyland castle), but those are different laws from copyright.

No, your reaction is getting out of hand.

Over $60 what a joke.

I wonder the "art" piece is sold to the city. does the creator still has the right? I understand photography you can grant different rights to buyers. How was the original contract the art creator had with the city? If I make an paper airplane and sold it to a 5 year old boy. The boy's father took a picture of it in flight and selling it... Does that entitle me to some money(for the sake of argument i have my trademark on it and clearly identify that I made it).

too much thinking... this is getting ridiculous... Good thing photography is just a hobby and I dont sell my work...

OMG, Joe McNalley will get sued by the persons who designed those coins that were in a shot he's been selling for years and made over $30,000 from - it's certainly a new age isn't it. It's all about entitlement now isn't it. Excuse me, you're breathing my air in my store and you are't buying anything so I'll have to charge you for that air!

If Sherrie Levine can escape lawsuits unscathed, this Hipple guy shouldn't have any trouble...

This issue was settled years ago when the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame & Museum filed a federal lawsuit charging that Cleveland photographer Charles M Gentile infringed on its trademarks by selling unlicensed photographs of the museum. The case went to the Supreme Court and the museum lost. The museum, like the dance sculpture in Seattle, is in the public domain. That doesn't mean someone can come along and copy it and produce a similar sculpture to sell somewhere, but photographing the sculpture displayed in a public venue is fair game. And, yes, the photos can be sold.

fotografr wrote in post #9568407
This issue was settled years ago when the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame & Museum filed a federal lawsuit charging that Cleveland photographer Charles M Gentile infringed on its trademarks by selling unlicensed photographs of the museum. The case went to the Supreme Court and the museum lost. The museum, like the dance sculpture in Seattle, is in the public domain. That doesn't mean someone can come along and copy it and produce a similar sculpture to sell somewhere, but photographing the sculpture displayed in a public venue is fair game. And, yes, the photos can be sold.

You are talking about a trademark case. This is a copyright case. Totally different law.
Totally wrong conclusion.

rogazilla wrote in post #9568012
I wonder the "art" piece is sold to the city. does the creator still has the right? I understand photography you can grant different rights to buyers. How was the original contract the art creator had with the city? If I make an paper airplane and sold it to a 5 year old boy. The boy's father took a picture of it in flight and selling it... Does that entitle me to some money(for the sake of argument i have my trademark on it and clearly identify that I made it).

In most cases, local governments do not purchase a transfer of the artist's copyright. In this case, in fact, each piece of sidewalk art was actually inscribed with the artist's copyright notice...which tells you that the city did not purchase its transfer.

RDKirk wrote in post #9569148
In most cases, local governments do not purchase a transfer of the artist's copyright. In this case, in fact, each piece of sidewalk art was actually inscribed with the artist's copyright notice...which tells you that the city did not purchase its transfer.

In that case, then I'm not sure I want my government purchasing any art work with my money anymore.

photoguy6405 wrote in post #9571245
In that case, then I'm not sure I want my government purchasing any art work with my money anymore.

Unlike the federal government, state and local governments can own copyright on the material the create--if that's true in your jurisdiction, then it doesn't make a difference whether it's a government-owned copyright or a privately owned copyright.

Why, exactly, do you believe you have a right to copy someone else's work and make a profit on it anyway?

RDKirk wrote in post #9569126
You are talking about a trademark case. This is a copyright case. Totally different law.
Totally wrong conclusion.

Tell you what. Watch the case unfold, and if it ever even gets before a judge (unlikely), see what precedent is cited. I'm sure most people on this forum are familiar with the Chicago Bean Sculpture. Can you imagine the artist trying to prohibit photographers from photographing that thing and selling the images? That's unrealistic in the extreme.