Forbidden images -- polishing The Bean ...

[dmr]

For those who know of, or are following the story of Cloud Gate in Millenium Park in Chicago, the sculpture that is forbidden to photograph, here's an update. A couple weeks ago I was attending a conference in Chicago, and on Friday afternoon I kinda snuck away and wandered around with the camera, as I'll often do in Chicago. 🙂

Last year about this time the sculpture was unfinished, and seams were evident. As of that time I wasn't aware that you weren't supposed to photograph it, otherwise I would have taken more shots. 🙂

This year The Bean is in view, and they are in the process of polishing the soldered seams, making a continuous mirror finish.

As for enforcement of the photography ban, there was none to speak of. I wandered around the sculpture for maybe 10 minutes or so shooting several frames. After a while I did seem to attract the attention of the security guard, who was definitely watching me, but never stepped up and said anything.

Anyway, here's the progress of the bean, Kodachrome 64 this year. 🙂

The second frame below shows an inset of the first showing the guard watching me taking the shots. The third shows him as well. 🙂

 

[ch1]

How could it be forbidden to photograph a sculpture on open-air public display?

So long as there is public access permitted (i.e. you're not trespassing) I don't see how such a ban could be promulgated, much less enforced. It's not as if you "wandered" into a restricted area such as a military base or something like that.

 

[RayPA]

Interesting thread title. I thought someone had come up with yet another metaphor (spanking the monkey, etc.). 😀 "The Bean" looks like a giant drop of mercury. I knew nothing of this and the history, so thanks for posting the details, and the images.

🙂

 

[dcsang]

Interesting thread title. I thought someone had come up with yet another metaphor (spanking the monkey, etc.). 😀 "The Bean" looks like a giant drop of mercury. I knew nothing of this and the history, so thanks for posting the details, and the images.

🙂

heh.. and here I thought "Polishing The Bean" was some sort of new Yo-Yo trick.. 😉

Dave

 

[djon]

Yikes! What a, uh, er...thing? Amazing. Does it make sounds?

I failed miserably to usefully photograph (needs to be an aerial photo) a mirror field (geothermal power from the Sun) in the Mojave Desert...maybe a half mile square, filled with 6' tall mirrors.

Remotely on Kirtland Air Force Base ( Albuquerque) there is a Reagan-era "Star Wars" fantasy that reportedly destroys vehicles using reflected/focused light...big trouble for the bad guys if they drive their white Toyota pickups over here and happen to wander into range of this thing, then sit there patiently, waiting for destruction.

 

[dmr]

Interesting thread title. I thought someone had come up with yet another metaphor (spanking the monkey, etc.). 😀

Oh, so that's why it's gotten so many hits in such a short time. 🙂 I thought everybody just liked my photos of it. 🙂

"The Bean" looks like a giant drop of mercury. I knew nothing of this and the history, so thanks for posting the details, and the images. 🙂

You're very welcome. 🙂

Yes, it does look like a blob of mercury, or a metallic jelly bean. I don't know why I'm fascinated by this thing, but I am.

I heard that photography of it was not allowed in a thread on this forum last year. I would think that if photography >REALLY< was prohibited, there would be "No Photos" signs or signs with a circle-slash-camera icon or something.

From what I understand (IANAL) is that the ban is due to claim of copyright of the image of the sculpture, but they do not enforce it for what appear to be casual tourist shots. They tell me (the ubiquitous "they") that if you use a tripod or appear to be a professional photographer, the guard will confront you.

 

[XAos]

Methinks the artist is just trying to create a stir with the unenforced no photos rule, to generate more interest. Could be. Of course it could be to prevent word from getting around that they took the city for a boatload of money and its just a big blob.

 

[ben]

Methinks the artist is a douchebag who takes him/herself way too seriously.

Ben

 

[bmattock]

It's not quite as it seemed at first. What is? Although there *is* a controversy, it is about who owns all the rights to copyrighted work, the buyer or the seller, not about photography of the sculpture per se.

The sculpture was created by a British sculpter, Anish Kapoor, and sold to SBC Communications, who donated it to the City of Chicago for their Millenium Park. The sculpter forbids commercial photography of the sculpture - she claims he controls how the sculpture can be used and that it is a copyrighted sculpture. The courts have agreed.

The park itself (http://www.millenniumpark.org/) now claims on their website that they only prohibit 'large scale' photography, and they go on to describe what that is according to them and how a permit can be obtained. Basically, we're talking about tripods and such being prohibited.

Warren Wimmer, a commercial photographer, set up a tripod and tried to take photos there, and was stopped by security guards. That's how this thing got started.

There are lots of photos of The Bean online, and many folks think they're 'sticking it to the man' by taking and displaying the photos. To the best of my knowledge, they are comitting no crime by taking and uploading the photos.

The real question raised by the CloudGate is the one of copyright - if the park is a public space owned by the city of Chicago, then do not the residents of Chicago own ALL the rights to the sculpture? How can the artist still own some of the rights when he sold the piece to SBC Communications?

Well, if I sell something I write to a magazine, I don't lose ownership of it. Generally, the magazine gets only the rights we have negotiated for - typically one-time printing in North America and their website ONLY. Once that is done, I own the work again and can sell it again, etc.

Same for photos! You generally don't sell ALL the the rights to your work when you sell the photos. In fact, you aren't selling the photos, you are selling the right to display the photos for a specified period of time, under a specified set of conditions. Although you can sell ALL rights to the photos if you wish.

So...if a sculpter creates a sculpture and sells it, are they selling the object and all rights to it, or are they selling the RIGHT to display it under specified conditions?

I find it a fascinating discussion of private vs public property laws, copyright concepts, and ownership ideas.

Some might find it interesting to also note that if you are a commercial photographer, you are generally prohibted from taking photos in national parks and forests without a permit, either.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[RJBender]

The state of Illinois owns a Frank Lloyd Wright house in Springfield ( http://www.dana-thomas.org/home.htm ) and they don't allow photographs inside the building.

R.J.

 

[ywenz]

I must say that I didn't know they were going to polish out the seams when I first saw the bean last summer. I saw it agan not too long ago and it is much mroe impressive. Still overall, Millenium park is hopelessly a pathetic park. There are a couple of intesresting focal points and everything else is pretty subpar

 

[dmr]

The park itself (http://www.millenniumpark.org/) now claims on their website that they only prohibit 'large scale' photography, and they go on to describe what that is according to them and how a permit can be obtained. Basically, we're talking about tripods and such being prohibited.

Hmmmm ... the way I read it, it seems to me that tripods >ARE< (now) allowed ...

Millennium Park was created for the enjoyment of the people of Chicago and the city's visitors and guests. In order to protect general public access to the park and ensure maximum enjoyment by park guests, usage permits are required for all large-scale film, video or photography shoots.

Large-scale film, video or photo shoots are defined as those that include any or all of the following:

1. additional lighting or equipment set up that involves more than a camera tripod.

2. electrical needs involving cables, outlets and/or generators

3. talent, models or crew that interfere with public access (groups larger than 10)

4. backdrops or set pieces

5. canopies or tents

"Anything more than a tripod" appears to be the hair to be split here. 🙂

Also the "Rules and safety" page has just one very terse paragraph.

I also find it fascinating (and sometimes frustrating and even scary) as to what people say cannot be photographed. One I keep hearing about is a restriction of night shots of the Eiffel Tower in Paris.

Those that are scary are the cases that involve people being hassled for taking innocent casual photos of things like bridges and railways, and now even people in public.

 

[Pherdinand]

dmr, you are just telling everyone on the WorldWideWeb that you've committed an illegal act - and provide photographic evidence. Be careful, be very careful!
😀

 

[jan normandale]

It always boils down to money. The reason for this attempt to control the image is so I cannot take a photo and put it on a calendar or post card or limited print and sell the image of the artist's work. The owner of the work wants the income attributable to the work.

Pix of my aunt standing in front of the work... who cares. No money there.

 

[ch1]

The state of Illinois owns a Frank Lloyd Wright house in Springfield ( http://www.dana-thomas.org/home.htm ) and they don't allow photographs inside the building.

R.J.

This is understandable. Most museums, concert halls etc. expressly prohibit photos both for copyright and security reasons. Imagine being able to take a lot of photos of "Old Masters" paintings hanging in The Louvre or New York Metroolitan Museum in order to plan an art theft!

I do understand, now, that the sculptor in question can copyright The Bean (or blob or whatever) and thus prohibit commecial exploitation (i.e. without license) of the image.

That's a more rational explanation than just saying it is "banned" to photographers in general.

However, it would be an interesting "test" case for someone with a tripod who is prohibited from taking a photo to file a lawsuit.

Usually copyright infringement is based on the subsequent commercial sale of the image and not on the "subjective" decision of a security guard that some photographers seem like "harmless tourists" and others seem like commercial "exploiters"!

Oh well, back to work!

 

[zuikologist]

Sounds like a publicity stunt from the artist.

 

[ch1]

Sounds like a publicity stunt from the artist.

There's certainly an element of that too. After all, if you took a wide-angle photo that included the thing but had other elements (e.g. buildings, a hot dog cart, passers-by etc.) in it - it might be difficult for the artist to claim copyright infringement unless she could prove "intent" to violate the copyright.

But remember, a lot of folks put copyrights on their photos, even on some Gallery shots here - so I can sympathize to some extent with the sculptor - although the public placement of the work does compromise it's "exclusivity".

 

[RJBender]

This is understandable. Most museums, concert halls etc. expressly prohibit photos both for copyright and security reasons. Imagine being able to take a lot of photos of "Old Masters" paintings hanging in The Louvre or New York Metroolitan Museum in order to plan an art theft!

The St. Louis Art Museum allows you to take pictures in the museum, but you can't use a flash.

I do understand, now, that the sculptor in question can copyright The Bean (or blob or whatever) and thus prohibit commecial exploitation (i.e. without license) of the image.

That's a more rational explanation than just saying it is "banned" to photographers in general.

However, it would be an interesting "test" case for someone with a tripod who is prohibited from taking a photo to file a lawsuit.

How much do you think the legal fees would be? Are there any law firms that you know of that handle these types of cases.

R.J.

 

[RJBender]

There's a FLW urn in the Dana Thomas house that the state of Illinois bought for $250,000. If I recall correctly, their reason for not allowing photographs was due to copyrights owned by the FLW family.

R.J.

 

[bmattock]

The St. Louis Art Museum allows you to take pictures in the museum, but you can't use a flash.

How much do you think the legal fees would be? Are there any law firms that you know of that handle these types of cases.

R.J.

In the Boston museum we visited last year, they would let me take photographs of some paintings and sculptures, but not others. I asked a guard what the dealio was, and was told that some belong to the museum and some are on loan to the museum. The museum allows photographs of the ones they own.

My only objection was that they didn't put up any signs - like "Photography ok in this room" or "Don't take photographs in this room." I'd have been happy to obey them if they were there. But they apparently thought it was better to hire a bunch of security guards to rush over and tell me not to take a photo when it was not ok, and to ignore me otherwise. I got twitchy after awhile, I tell ya.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks