Public Space, Private Statue, Mixed Message

Over at the New (sub)Urbanism blog, Steven Crane, tells the tale of a modest, private, copyrighted statue in Chicago's new Millennium Park:

The [Chicago] Reader recounts the experience of photojournalist Warren Wimmer's attempts to photograph Anish Kapoor's sculpture, Cloud Gate (more commonly known as "the Bean"). When Wimmer set up his tripod and camera to shoot the sculpture, security guards stopped him, demanding that they show him a permit. Wimmer protested, replying that it's absurd that one needs to pay for a permit to photograph public art in a city-owned park.

Ben Joravsky, the author of the Reader article, attempted to contact park officials for an explanation and received a response from Karen Ryan, press director for the park's project director:

"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."

Crane notes that the park was built with more than $270 million in public funds. Not sure of all the issues here, but this may be one reason, besides the weather and the Cubs, why Chicago has slipped to number three among American cities.

Whole bit here.

Update: Please note that Steven Crane is not associated with the Web site above, but is being quoted.

Comments

[Doc]

Similar to public museums which do not permit photography of exhibits, pieces of art for commercial reasons...either the museum, the artist, or the owner of the piece may retain those rights.

Wonder if NYC's Central Park or the Smithsonian does this. :/

[Serafina]

There's controlled entry at a museum, however. It may be open to the public, but it's still private space. Different rules apply to photography in truly public spaces like streets and parks.

[Pete Guither]

I don't agree with it, but I think it's a little more common than you'd think, and not all that consistent in reasoning.

Central Park in New York requires a permit to take wedding photography, the Bronx Zoo restricts the use of tripods (their definition of commercial photography). I was taking a picture of friends in front of the fountain at Lincoln Center in New York and a security guard told me that commercial photography wasn't allowed (I had set up a tripod out of my backpack).

Some federal parks have added restrictions or permits for commercial photographers (again, often defined by tripod use).

[Agammamon]

I would have thought that a public museum displaying publicly owned exhibits (as opposed to, say, displaying someones private art collection) prohibit photography mainly because its pretty damn unpleasant to look at an exhibit of egyptian burial artifacts with 6K flashbulbs going off.

The park is paid for with public money, and the art in it is paid for with public money - so its all owned by the public (unless they're going to tell us the artist can pick up and take home the scuplture)and should be available for commercial exploitation by said public.

[Doc]

Aggie, You're right about the flash..that's why "no flash photography" but as Pete points out, the 'no tripods' rule also helps them control people who want to do commercial photography.

The 'reproductions rights' on a work of art is an interesting thing. It's an important point when people buy art for investments. They may own the work, but the artist might retain rights for reproduction (in books, postcards, etc.).

[Bubba]

Unless we know the circumstances of the art donation/sale, this is a pointless argument. If the artist donated the work, or sold it below market value, it's not unreasonable to expect restrictions on subsequent commercial use.

[Steven Crane]

Cool... but you make it sound like I WROTE it, when all I did was link y'alls to the article. Maybe my 1-AM email was incoherent. 🙂

[Skeptikos]

First off, I must use a word that I haven't used in decades. You dork. That's population that makes chi town "3rd". Jeeze louise, how pitiful, I've been to ny and la, and frankly, I'd rather spend some time in a texas jail.

Secondly. Are you saying that one gives up ones property rights if what you do is seen in public? Do I have the right to images of the rolling stones? Only for certain purposes if I understand my property law. Does Reason lose it's copyright protection if someone happens to read it in a public place. Your pikin at nits amigo. There are great arguements against M park here in Chicago, this isn't one of them. And it cheapens the real ones to be so, shall we say...Fox News about it.

Thirdly, I and several hundred others have taken pics with prof level equipment, it's only dullards like this guy that have problems. He was setting up a tripod? Try that at the next music show you go to.

[Russ D]

Get up on the wrong side there, Skeptikos?

The city spent all this money to attract vistors and then hires asshole cops to harass them.

[Urbanist]

Thanks for the link to my site. As Mr. Crane suggests, Steven Crane did not author that post. A correction would be appreciated.

[smacky]

Well, was it verified that the public funds are paying for the security guards? It seems like people are assuming that the city is paying those guards. Maybe the artist is paying those security guards through an agreement with the park, in order to protect his property, which he may have loaned to the public park. Or conversely, maybe the city is paying the guards, under an agreement with the artist to exhibit his work free of charge (pending no images of it are captured for resale profit). So what's the prob with that?
In defense of the artist, the whole park is not "the Bean", that's just a big attraction of it. I was an art museum guard for a "public" art museum (free admission, but partially funded with gov't dollars), but I worked for a private security company that the museum housed. On the other hand, the museum was paying us with museum funds, which I am pretty sure were funded with taxpayer money. (from the city arts fund, or whatev.)

[Mark Draughn]

How typical of the City to get some art for a public place and not secure the rights that would allow for public photography.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. This is the same city where if you want to remodel your home yourself, and you want the electrical and plumbing work to conform to City code, you have to buy copies of the code from private publishing firms. These parts of the code are not published on-line like the rest of the city code.

[mark]

If you have no expectation of privacy in a public space, how can sculpture in a public space be considered ptivate?