Photog sued for shooting a street that contained publicly funded art
I dislike this man so much I'm posting a picture.
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.
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.
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?