Public area is public area. Commercial use is commercial use. Both of
these terms (or concepts) have been defined in the law and several recent cases
have tested the limits of these concepts.
We have a similar problem brewing with the "Cloud Gate" sculpture here in
Chicago...the sculpture is in public area but the artist seems convinced that he
retains all rights to any reproduction of it. There have been several
instances that I know of where the owners of distinctive buildings have tried to
have the buildings declared "intellectual property" and fell that they,
therefore, have the right to restrict or charge fees for any use of images of the
building including those taken from public areas. Anyone who has done commercial
work is aware of their responsibility to obtain the proper releases for the
reproduction of property not their own which is used in a commercial
application. Where is the line between what is "commercial" and what is "editorial" or
"educational" or "art"? Consult "Arrington v. the New York Times" for an
exhaustive discussion of this distinction.
The creation of any artwork beyond a self-portrait will become impossible if
this gross stupidity is allowed to continue.
And you might be sued by your parents for the self-portrait when they declare
your face their intellectual property or a composite arrangement of their own
features.
best
argon
Received on Wed Mar 30 08:39:13 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 04/08/05-09:31:02 AM Z CST