Photog sued for shooting a street that contained publicly funded art
I dislike this man so much I'm posting a picture.
The Upshot:
This artist is suing for pictures taken of a publicly-funded, publicly displayed sculture in a Seattle neighborhood - even after the photographer complied and destroyed the photos.
From Me:
This guy is a jackass, representative of the copyright jackassery that has been going around a lot lately. Remember when we were kids and made each other copies of tapes to pass around and listen to in school? Remember how they'd sell double-decker tape recorders FOR THAT EXACT PURPOSE?
I don't know about you, but groups like the Mighty Mighty Bosstones sold me quite a few albums and concert tickets due to that exact kind of underground distribution. I'd say that all in all, they more than earned back their monetary loss on the one bootleg tape I was gifted with in 1995 over the last 15 years. I still love them to this day.
What happened to that? If it were up to me, I'd dig up this guy's sculpture, return it to him, and ask for a refund.
Public art is paid for by the public and should therefore be available to the public for whatever they want to do with it.
Conclusion:
It seems blatant to me that music companies, artists, etc are taking copyright infringement suits WAY TOO FAR. Is it blatant to you, though? Is there a flip side to this situation that I'm not seeing?
I'm one of the jackasses that strongly supports copyright but this case, from what I can see, is groundless. There's no reasonable expectation for an artist's work in public space not to be photographed.
ReplyDeleteThe only way I can see a case for that is if the use of the art would serve to replace the original artwork eg if the photos were used in a book illustrating actual dance steps or if the photos were used as plans to create a replica of the sculpture in another city. Failing that the sculptor has no case against the photographer. If it were me, the bastard would be up to his ears in countersuits.
Regarding taped copies of albums, though, are you serious? The fact that someone created and sold a piece of equipment justifies your use of the equipment to make illegal copies? That's like (ooh here comes the straw man) saying that it's OK to shoot someone because people make guns for that exact purpose.
Case law is pretty clear on this: it's OK to create a "backup" copy (which may be a misnomer, because the smarter way to do it is to create a "use" copy and use the original as a backup) of any work you have, but the right to create multiples and distribute them still resides with the creator. If you want to copy something someone else made, you should ask permission.
The fact that the Bosstones eventually profited off you is a handy justification but is really beside the point. It may be smarter for them to encourage distribution (as the Grateful Dead did with their live shows) but it is still their call to make. Making copies of someone else's work without their permission is not OK.
I mean, yeah, I did it when I was a kid too, but there are all sorts of things that I did as a kid that were illegal that never harmed anyone that I wouldn't do now. I trespassed on or through the yards of every neighbor within a half mile. I don't go through other people's back yards without their permission today, and I don't think the fact that I used the entire neighborhood as my playground when I was a kid means that trespassing laws ought to be repealed.
Hi Steve, I see what you're saying but where I'm coming from is more the angle that the recent extremes of copyright enforcement are doing more harm than good to artists, because I think of bootlegs more in terms of free publicity and marketing, and would be interested to see if those illegal copies don't actually do more good than harm overall.
ReplyDeleteSee what I mean?