Back to Metroland's Home Page!
 Site Search
   Search Metroland.Net
 Classifieds
   View Classified Ads
   Place a Classified Ad
 Personals
   Online Personals
   Place A Print Ad
 Columns & Opinions
   Comment
   Looking Up
   Reckonings
   Opinion
   Letters
   Rapp On This
 News & Features
   Newsfront
   Features
   What a Week
   Loose Ends
 Lifestyles
   This Week's Review
   The Dining Guide
   Leftovers
   Scenery
   Tech Life
 Cinema & Video
   Weekly Reviews
   The Movie Schedule
 Music
   Listen Here
   Live
   Recordings
   Noteworthy
 Arts
   Theater
   Dance
   Art
   Classical
   Books
   Art Murmur
 Calendar
   Night & Day
   Event Listings
 AccuWeather
 About Metroland
   Where We Are
   Who We Are
   What We Do
   Work For Us
   Place An Ad

We Fought the Law

Metroland infringed a bunch of copyrights last week!

Last Thursday an artist/friend/client left a message on my voice mail: ďTake a look at Metroland and then call me.Ē I could tell by the tone of his voice that something was definitely up. So I grabbed a copy and immediately saw what it wasóit was the summer fashion layout.

Every shot involved a piece of public art. Models in summer duds were splayed around sculptures by local artists like Leigh Wen, mi Chelle Vara, Jim Lewis, and Peter Barton, all part of the Downtown Albany BIDís Sculpture in the Streets exhibit. And every shot infringed the artistsí copyrights in their sculptures.

So youíre probably thinking ďHey! Wait a minute! Those things are out on the street! You mean we canít take pictures of them? This is silly!Ē

I agree itís silly, and thatís part of why Metroland wonít get in trouble, but hereís the deal: Each sculptor has a copyright in his or her work, and that means each has a bundle of exclusive rights, including the right to display the work, the right to make derivative rights, and the right to make and distribute copies. By submitting the sculptures to Downtown Albany BID, the artist impliedly gave BID permission to display the work. But thatís about it. The artists didnít give Metroland, or anybody else, the right to create or reproduce two-dimensional versions of their three-dimensional works. In other words, they didnít give you permission to take pictures of the sculpturesóor use them in fashion spreads.

In public-art contracts that Iíve dealt with, there is usually an explicit grant from the artist to the sponsoring entity for the entityís use of photographs of the work for promotional or fundraising purposes. But Iíve never seen a grant like that to the general public.

This certainly didnít occur to Metroland before running the spread, and thatís not surprising. Metroland even credited all of the sculptors on page 23 of last weekís issue, which doesnít excuse the infringement, but it shows at least intent to try to do the right thing. I wonder how many of the sculptors even batted an eye at this use of their work, given that the purpose of public art is to engage the public. Itís not like my phone was ringing off the hook, and had there been a big controversy, Iíd have heard about it from the artists, or from Metroland, or both. The artist who called me mentioned being perplexed as to whether this was even an issue, and just wanted to discuss it with me.

I suppose if the sculptures had been used in advertising or something tasteless, the offense would be a little more obvious. But folks tend to assume that art thatís out in public belongs to the public, and thatís not an irrational thing to think. I mean, how many local bands, looking for a change to the usual urban-street/old-brick-wall promo photo, have come down to the Empire State Plaza and done photo shoots around the sculptures there? Like, maybe, every one? And the Sculpture in the Streets exhibit makes for a nice backdrop for a fashion shoot. But itís still infringement, if the artist wants to get porky about it.

What makes this even weirder is that the law allows the non-advertising publication of photos of people shot in public places without permission. This means, yes, the sculptures have greater rights than people! Strange but true! The law says folks donít have an ďexpectation of privacyĒ when theyíre out in public, so itís OK to photograph them and publish the photos. The sculptures are protected by copyright, and one canít copyright oneís own image, not that people havenít tried.

What would happen if one of these artists got all lathered and lawyered-up and decided to make a federal case out of this? Other than the artist looking pretty dweeby, not much. First, the sculpture would have to have a registered copyright before this thing could go to court, and the registration would have to have preceded the infringement for there to be any possibility of a significant damage award. Unique sculptures like these arenít the sort of thing artists rush to get copyright registrations for, itís just not necessary. Second, itís hard to see any court being terribly moved by the gross injustice of having a work used in a fashion shoot without permission, so the likelihood of a big damage award is pretty slim.

So, if youíre one of the sculptors and youíre all POíd about this, donít call me. Besides, Iím a little conflicted out. Ya think?

óPaul Rapp


Send A Letter to Our Editor
Back Home
   
 
 
Copyright © 2002 Lou Communications, Inc., 419 Madison Ave., Albany, NY 12210. All rights reserved.