Monday, February 07, 2005

New low in photographer harrasment

Little did I know that I was violating copyrights... Posted by Hello


Anonymous said...

Well, the article is correct. The artist has rights to their art, although if the city didn't purchase or negotiate for their rights, they should probably be sued for not retaining them.

If the City owns the rights, then they can legally prohibit you from republishing the photographing representations. Whether they should or not is between you and the city -- write your city councelman, or whatever they have out there in Chicago.

(or just keep bribing the guards)

-- Adam

Wags said...

Wow, well, the guards just ignored me and my siblings when we photographed it. We were the only ones there, and there were at least two guards watching us (one up close). Of course none of us had "professional" looking cameras. It was also around 0F at the time, so I don't think they were in the mood for doing anything other than staying warm.

Kathy Schrenk said...

Well, on the day I was there, there were tons of people (as you can tell), many of whom were taking pictures, and I didn't notice any guards. But maybe that was because I was too busy feeling like I was gonna die because it was so effing hot and humid.

Jack Mercer said...

This is nuts! Send the silver pinto bean back and ask for a refund!

The Theorist said...

The artist does not hold any rights to the "bean". It was contracted with public money for public display and that's just what it is.

Legal - it belongs to the people of Chicago, as it should. Without going on and on, the artist lost all copyright claims when public money was recieved. Yes, it's true.