Chicagoist: Millennium Park Photography: The Official Scoop

TheProfessor101

Tue, 15 May 2007 13:21:48 -0600

Does the copyright also apply to the "Wrigley Square and Millennium Monument (Peristyle)"? I didn't see this one listed. Thanks.

DonXSezanXDeXBazar

Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:23:59 -0600

Cutie teasing her pink the squirt from both holes video here ...squirt from both holes...

COLE

Thu, 11 May 2006 02:47:34 -0600

I am Mr COLE from illinois i am getting married to Miss LOWER SMART on the 18 0f july 2006 at Chancellor Walter V. Wendler Southern Illinois and i needed a special photographer who will take a place at the event in july i >will like to know all what it will cost you to get to my location here and the actual amount to take a covarage of 8hour from the chucrh to the recption i really need to know this so that i can contact my father in-law about this cos he his the one paying for this coverage i await your response immedaitely. Thanks & God bless

Sir_Winston

Thu, 03 Mar 2005 04:23:19 -0600

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Jane

Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:16:46 -0600

helping a friend figure out how she can get her bridal party photos taken out on museum campus in a few weeks. i heard that she will certainly need her photographer to have a permit or she'll have to get one. Does anyone know who I can contact at the City to secure such a permit and how much we can expect it cost???

Peter

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:24:36 -0600

Is permission required to distribute photographs of the Pritzker Pavilion? I don't think so. Look at Section 120(a) of the Copryright Act: "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place." If you wanted to build a duplicate of the Pritzker pavilion, you would need permission. But you don't need permission to distribute photographs of it if the photos are taken from public places.

fisking chicagoist

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:18:30 -0600

andrew, If you were paying attention, you would realize that your repetition was gratuitous and unneeded. It does not negate the valid points that others and I have raised here. Thanks to you and the others for trying to shed light on the situation, though.

andrew

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:39:52 -0600

just as rachelle and i both said before, hippo: it's a recap that sums up what we know as of right now. how concrete that is will depend on the city's policies. for the third time: this is a BLOG. continue to act as if we're burying our sources, if it's fun for you, but we link to other blogs where we find our information. just as we link to other blogs, people link to us all the time... and not necessarily to the sources where we find stuff. this is the nature of blogs, where the free-flow of information through multiple sources is legitimate and tangible. you have every right to ask your questions, and we're happy to hear them. that said, if you ask the questions, please make sure you're paying attention to the answers. every concern you've brought up has been legitimately addressed. if you'd like to change your name again and continue to search for other ways we're "hippos," you're more than welcome, but i'm done indulging your whims.

Mr. Smith

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:21:56 -0600

Meth is a helluva drug.

fisking chicagoist

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:09:27 -0600

andrew says: "if you think we're taking credit for "solving" a problem... well, you're just plain reading too much into this." the chicagoist.com article says "Let’s recap: We can all take pictures in Millennium Park, and for the time being, professional photographers and student photographers don't even need a permit." andrew, how else should we all be reading this? ---- rachelle, Linking to a blog that links to a blog that links to the original source is NOT the same as linking to the original source. Why play the grade-school game of "telephone", when it's so easy and helpful to link directly instead? And not linking to the original source in subsequent articles ignores that not all readers will have read all the intervening articles. The point is that another reader criticized chicagoist.com for stirring up controversy where none existed. Chicagoist defended against this by claiming the Chicago Reader started it. Which is all very convenient for chicagoist.com to say NOW. But BEFORE, when it mattered, chicagoist.com was not making such heavy reliance on the Chicago Reader so clear, and thus, the original critic(s) of chicagoist.com on this point were well-justified. ---- Some aspects of chicagoist.com seemed a little contradictory, thus some questions deserved to be asked, that's all. I don't have any problem with chicagoist.com and am not angry. Just sharing my viewpoint, sorry if that bothers you.

erin

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:56:11 -0600

Oh all of this HATE on a lovely, sunny Friday afternoon! When I read "Fisking," I was sort of hoping it would have something to do with Carlton Fisk. As though he was going to "Pudge" us into submission. You're so hep to the blog lingo, Hip. Here's a lolly.

andrew

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:24:50 -0600

oh, hi again, hippocrite! i'll answer all your questions one by one. rachelle's original post on the suspected photo ban did link to several other blogs that were reporting on it. please see: http://www.chicagoist.com/archives/2005/02/08/no_photos_of_the_bean_please.php if you'd like confirmation. as for "chicago's entire internet community," perhaps the word "entire" was an exaggeration. but what's your point? it was on a lot of blogs, and a lot of people in chicago were talking about it online. would quantifying that make it a more legitimate story? does the fact that somewhere in chicago a blog wasn't posting on it change the fact that there was a buzz going on? at the end of the day, this is a blog. we do chicagoist because we like to and because people enjoy it, but we don't intend this to be a primary news source that rivals the trib or sun-times. if you think otherwise, i'm sorry to disappoint you. finally, if you think we're taking credit for "solving" a problem... well, you're just plain reading too much into this. this a story we reported on before, and we wanted to post a follow-up that clarified new information that had come to light. first, we shared information that rachelle found on other blogs, and now, we're sharing information we got through talking to the city. it's all the information we have for now, so we're posting it now... given the past situation and misinformation, who knows if it will change? we clearly mention, in the post, that the city's permit requirement is under review. if it that screams, "problem solved!" to you, and you're upset by it, then go ahead and be angry.

rachelle

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:14:15 -0600

fisking chicagoist, what is up your butt? seriously. we know you're the same person who posted as "Do I Smell Some Hipocrites?" and as "anonymous" in the past. if you have a problem with this BLOG, in general, don't read it. If you really must, then know that in our first post on this we linked to New (sub)Urbanism, who had some Reader scans. and i don't think anyone would argue that a lot of chicago blogs were discussing this issue recently (it was even on larger more worldly blogs like boingboing and kottke) and that there seemed to be no solid resolution. we're not saying this is the be-all, end-all but are just trying to do our part to clarify it more if we can.

fisking chicagoist

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:51:36 -0600

whoa, there Andrew "the reader was the first to break the story" other blogs linked to the reader, some posted scans of the original article. did chicagoist link to these original sources in all the articles that deserve the reference to the original source? "chicago's entire internet community followed up shortly thereafter." interesting. "chicago's entire internet community", you say. What does that mean? That seems like a mighty unusual consensus to form so unanimously in so few days. Did you conduct a survey, or what? "that said, though, the controversy was hardly quelled when multiple sources that tried to get official follow-up from the city ended up with wildly varying reports, depending on when they called and who they talked to." In all seriousness, that's probably the important story here, and maybe some qualified news journalists can get on it. It's troubling that chicagoist.com takes credit for solving a problem that maybe wasn't the problem they thought they solved. It's more troubling that chicagoist.com claims the problem is solved. A verbal promise by someone employed by the city "not to enforce" regulations which still remain on the books is not going to get you very far with a street cop or the judge, when push comes to shove. Leaving the regulation in place gives the city a lot of leverage to strongarm any individuals or groups they don't approve of sometime in the future. There's precedent for it, as different organizers will tell you over the years that have had their permit applications delayed, lost or not approved for all kinds of official "legal" reasons.

Tap

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:41:45 -0600

Followed up on this offline the park doesn't make any direct revenue off the permits. It just covers the cost of extra security, power, ect. The only person who could profit would be the artists.

Domoni

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:58:47 -0600

A lot of the "controversy" started when some sites claimed everyone was banned from shooting Cloud Gate. The original article quoted Ms Ryan - "the policy allows students, journalists, and amateur photographers to shoot in the park with no restrictions." For Millennium Park officials this was always about making a buck through posters, postcards and other reproductions. They never said the vast majority of us couldn't snap and blog away. As for a fee for wedding photographers...I'd be for that. If photographers want to use public land for a private backdrop they should pay to reserve the area. They obviously don't want the public to wander into the shot. They should pay to keep us riff-raff away for a half-hour or so. Their fees would help offset some costs and theoretically lower the tax dollars used to support the park.

andrew

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:49:56 -0600

elo, the reader was the first to break the story, and chicago's entire internet community followed up shortly thereafter. chicagoist is just one of many web sites that posted on it, and are hardly responsible for "making it controversial." that said, though, the controversy was hardly quelled when multiple sources that tried to get official follow-up from the city ended up with wildly varying reports, depending on when they called and who they talked to. you're right: the idea of a millennium park photography ban IS silly... which is why it was worth posting about.

elo

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:39:08 -0600

Let's be very clear--this was only controversial because Chicagoist made it controversial. The cop was clearly overzealous, and I said so in a comment to the first story. Assuming that Millenium Park could have an enforced ban on photography was silly from the very beginning.

GreenFish

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:30:46 -0600

My Shiny! Bean shirt arrived today, much to my excitement. I feel very cutting-edge. **smirk**

phule

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:57:28 -0600

Er, not the city, but the copyright holders. Sorry.

Do I Smell Some Hipocrites?

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:55:41 -0600

There's a lot of misinformation (in general and somewhat in this thread) around about copyright law and fair use. The chicagoist.com/gothamist.com policy seems reasonable and the people here seem to have good intentions. I understand the policy and see now that where there are pictures, the other blog article links are supposed to link back to the original image content. But still... The lack of photo credit and/or direct links to original images and the copying of image content just seems not quite right. Just saying it's shady, not that it's necessarily wrong.

andrew

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:55:27 -0600

i agree, phule, that the RNR hall of fame issue is perfect, but remember... the city has nothing to do with the copyrighting. they won't sue anyone... that would come from the artist. the city's only issue is the permits, and even those may be going away.

phule

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:51:44 -0600

The Rock N Roll Hall Of Fame issue is a perfect one for this discussion. They did sue and they did lose. Professional photographers can take photos of any structure in Millenium Park and sell it. Period. If the City thinks it can try and stop them, let them try. They're going to lose as well.

mike

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:41:10 -0600

Yeah this still smells to me. As far as I can tell, the city is still charging people to take pictures in a public place. Even if it's for commercial use, if it was paid for with tax dollars, it should be everyone's to use as they please.

Dr. Dictionary

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:37:02 -0600

Main Entry: hyp·o·crite Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit Function: noun Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion or is annoying a hell or likes to post too often about nothing at all - See slang: pain in the ass - hypocrite adjective

andrew

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:35:12 -0600

good info, fran and rob. as fran said earlier, i'd love an actual copyright/ intellectual prop. attorney to give their $0.02.

Fran Fruit

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:25:55 -0600

And another thing: The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame sued a photographer for taking pictures of the building and producing posters using the image. They claimed he was infringing on their copyright. (He was also competing with the posters the HoF had commissioned and were selling in their gift shop... wonder if that had anything to do with it?) The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame lost.

rob d

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:24:14 -0600

Since 1990 the copyrights to achitectural drawings changed, but esentially being in public, joined by the public way or otherwise in view of anywhere you could reasonably be expected to walk up to, you can take a picture of it, and its your picture. I understand in europe it might be different, but here the rules are when in or adjoining public space it is fare game. What is illegal is using documentation (photographic or otherwise) to make a reproduction or to claim the work as your own. Otherwise, you could concievably charge even if it is in a crowd of other buildings, it's still reproduced, isn't it? There is a whole lot of smelling going on here.

Fran Fruit

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:16:24 -0600

I can certainly understand any artist defending his or her intellectual property by doing whatever is necessary to prevent someone else from claiming that said property is their own. But making images of a public work -- especially one that was done *for hire* -- and selling them as *interpretations* of the public work -- clearly identified as such -- doesn't seem to me to violate anyone's intellectual property rights. This would include photos printed on postcards and calendars, posters, t-shirts, lunchboxes, mousepads and so on. It would also include drawings and paintings of the work -- as long as the person selling them doesn't claim he or she created the subject of the image. Cloud Gate was commissioned by the city. Kapoor was paid to design and execute it. While no one else can claim to be its author, I don't believe the law gives him the right to control what else happens to it after he's been paid. The words "for hire" are critical to this argument. Aren't there any intellectual property lawyers out there who could give us an informed opinion on this? And PS for the Photobloggers: It's "copyrighted," not "copywritten." Copyright (literally the right to make copies) is not the same thing as copywriting (writing advertising copy). The government can grant a copyright to the person who writes copy -- then it's copyrighted. Just thought you'd like to know.

Do I Smell Some Seriously Bad Grammar?

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:33:42 -0600

I think the policy posted by Jake answers your question. Besides, these pictures were probably taken by Chicagoist's own Rachelle.

rachelle

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:31:08 -0600

you can read our Image/Content Use Policy here, HIP

andrew

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:26:36 -0600

normally, you can find the source of any photo on chicagoist by either a: reading the end of the article or b: running your mouse over any image you're curious about. thanks, tap.

Tap

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:22:26 -0600

Blog photos are protected under the fair use rule. Under the journalism and criticism clauses. The only way chicagoist would be in trouble is if they tried to sell prints of the photo without permission. However it would be good form for them to cite who took the photos. Buildings built after 1990 have a different set of copywright laws than older buildings. So they might not be the best example for copywright laws. I think the major point to take from this article is that the city isn't trying to enforce copywrite law, there just doing what every tourist attraction does asking people to register for pro photo shoots. It just happens that a few overzealous rent a cops took things to far. For an item that is destined to become as iconic as Cloudgate how can you argue against permits for photo shoots. If every Saturday from 12-5 is a battle between bridal parties to get pictures how can tourist and citizen enjoy it.

Do I Smell Some Hipocrites?

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:22:04 -0600

erin, You must have my name confused with some word in the dictionary. or something. Now, how about answering my questions instead of trying to change the subject. Chicagoist.com is appearing to be misappropriating graphic images.

andrew

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:21:37 -0600

rob d, from what i understand, the copyrighting of building images is something that's happened only since about 1990. i am a former architect myself, and have often wondered if frank gehry is pulling in dough by having his buildings be the backdrop of every car commercial in the past 3 years... i'd guess that you could take pictures of a cityscape and sell it on postcards as chicago, but couldn't take a picture of the bean and sell it as a postcard. does that make sense. either way, i thik there must be some sort of statute of limitations on any copyright.

Benjy

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:16:53 -0600

The $350 professional permit fee sounds a bit excessive for how I'm assuming most professionals would be photographing the park. For example, wedding parties wanting pics. I'm assuming that the hired photographer would need a professional permit? But $350 is a lot for a wedding backdrop... it's more understandable if it were to take stock photo that would be sold, or were somebody doing a book.

jake

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:13:10 -0600

all of gothamist's blogs subscribe to the same photo use policy: www.gothamist.com/commentpolicy.php . Basically we don't steal, borrow, or otherwise use copyrighted images. Once in awhile, we may use a portion of a protected image for the purpose of comment or criticism, but never for illustration. if you spot a copyrighted image on our site that has been used in violation of this policy, let me know, and i'll see that it's taken down.

erin

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:01:56 -0600

God I loved that game. All of the little marbles!

rob d

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:00:11 -0600

Hmm, being in the architecture biz, I had always heard that if your building is in the public sphere, then its pretty much fair game to get its photograph taken. Otherwise you'd have to track down every single architect/builder/sculptor each and everytime you published a photo inside or outside a building. And forget about movies and establishing shots. Look at all the artsy photographs of buildings in the Art Institute and other galleries - How many of those do you think have cleared the rights with the person responsible for creating the building? I think where you would get into copyright trouble is if you claimed that it was "your" bean, but otherwise, I think it would be difficult to prosecute. As an example, if you were trying to be an "artist" selling some funky picture of Cloudgate, would that be allowed? Hmm, and I think what you smell is Hippocrites. A bunch of hungry, hungry hippocrites.

erin

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:58:13 -0600

Hipo: Help me understand the hypocrisy of which you speak. I'm a little slow on the uptake, but then again I spell "hypocrite" with a "y" and that "i" may give it all a completely different meaning.

Do I Smell Some Hipocrites?

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:42:18 -0600

Interesting. BUT... with the recent hulabaloo about the copyrights of the bean and all... I have to ask where is www.chicagoist.com getting the images posted in the blogs??? Linking to other people's pictures is one thing, chicagoist.com seems to be serving pictures from its own domain. I'm guessing you didn't personally shoot many of these pictures. Did you pay for them? Do you have the copyrightholders' permission to use them? Are they stolen? ARe you violating someone else's copyright? hmm...???

Manisha

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:27:06 -0600

The copyright issue doesn’t pop up until said photographers attempt to publish images of the copyrighted works without the consent of the artists.This is what I was referring to when I commented on your previous article about No Photos of The Bean, Please. The issue is primarily with professional photographers who may publish the pictures without permission. I posted links in that comment about similar restrictions on the Eiffel Tower by night, Disney characters, and there is even a lone tree on a beach in California that cannot be professionally photographed without permission. It's easy to get riled by this when the issues are not clearly explained or understood or are implemented poorly. I am glad to see this so well explained in the article above!! Thanks!!

erin

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:14:09 -0600

You know, I didn't even THINK of the permit issue. When I got married, those permits were a big concern when staking out locations for our engagement pictures. Our photographer -- Bella Pictures, who ROCKED in every way -- pointed this out to us when we suggested the typical Chicago landmarks. We shot elsewhere. Big props to the city for clarifying this issue, and especially for taking steps to iron out the wrinkles in their methods of enforcing the policy. I think with the advent of amateur photographers with the means to secure professional-like equipment, it's understandable that there was so much confusion.

andrew

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:52:59 -0600

good question, chris. in part of our correspondence with the city, they brought up the issue of fair use, which is basically people that are exempt from copyright laws. they include amateurs, journalists and people using them for "comment or criticism." as long as you're not selling the image or making money off your blog through the image, i think you're safe... if you're seriously worried about it, i'd contact a copyright attorney. or just remove the photo.

Chris

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:48:09 -0600

I snapped a few shots for my photo weblog last weekend. Does putting them online constitute publishing?