J n X Photography wrote:
This is like saying the statue of liberty creator needs to be paid for a copyright of the use of her likeness.  I know he's long dead, but what's the precedence for this stuff?  Any lawyers in the house?

Yes, he should have been paid. Those little knockoff statues, as long as the statue was still copyrighted, were pirate copies. However, if it is a picture of the statue in context with the New York skyline, or your nephew in the foreground, then no. You have so be saying something about the art to use it in a context other than the original artist intended. If you are just copying it and saying the copy is your to do with as you please, then you are in the wrong.

Should the estate of Elvis be paid whenever his songs are played up until the end of the copyright? Absolutely. Same principle.

Should Alfred Hitchcock's granddaughter get a royalty check when Psycho plays at 2am on AMC? Yes. Absolutely.

Im'age NY (INY) wrote:
So... bottom lining this... if and when Jesus comes back... he's going to have one hell of a lawsuit???

Nope. Roughly 1,963 years is way past the copyright limitation.

Im'age NY (INY) wrote:
So... bottom lining this... if and when Jesus comes back... he's going to have one hell of a lawsuit???

Don't know about him, but Matthew, Mark, Luke and John might, were it not for the time problem.

TXPhotog wrote:
I would be amazed if he doesn't win a suit against commercial advertisers who are prominently using his art in their ads.  It will be interesting to follow the case, but I certainly feel he has a good one.

this could be a landmark decision...ha ha, get it!  landmark!

as such, those using the sculpture may have some sort of implied permission to use if the landmark might associate the community, as in the wall street bulls or association to that effect.  it might be looked upon as when providing a piece of art for the benefit of the community, there should also be some sort of return to the community for its use without restriction.  kind of like it just comes naturally with the territory in exchange for notoriety of the work.  don't want the pub?  take your statue and put it in your backyard then.  problem solved.

a similar example and it would be interesting to see how it is dealt with is grand rapids, mi.  the identifying symbol of that town is the la grande vitesse by calder.
images of the artwork are found everywhere for those wishing to identify themselves with the community.


 
--face reality

FaceReality wrote:
a similar example and it would be interesting to see how it is dealt with is grand rapids, mi.  the identifying symbol of that town is the la grande vitesse by calder.

I would guess that if a company started using that shot to adverties their product, Calder would have a cause of action against them.

The nice thing about the di Modica case is that we don't have to guess, we only have to wait.  The District Court will take all of the guesswork out of it for us.

BF Burden wrote:
any claim should be well past whatever statute of limitations could be applied.

As it happens, nothing in Title 17 makes reference to what you think "should be".  In fact, it states very clearly what the limitations are, and he is well within what the statute provides for.  Whether or not you think that is the way it "should" be is immaterial.  It's the way it is.

BF Burden wrote:
he should be paying for the realty on which it stands, or its transportation to and from a venue,

Perhaps he should, but that is a matter between him and the City of New York.  However that is resolved, it confers no rights on commercial advertisers who wish to profit from his work.

BF Burden wrote:
and not leaving it unmanned for the better part of a couple decades in the streets of NYC.

Unmanned?  Huh?  So now we need armed guards to protect our copyrights?

I don't think so.

BF Burden wrote:
If you're foolish enough to leave your property in the hands of the world without a little CYA preparations,

The proper "CYA" in this case is to register the copyright, which he did.

Any work which is published, whether in a book, on the Internet, or on the streets of New York, is accessible to the public.  That fact of accessibility does not and should not impair the copyright of the author/artist.  In fact, if it did, the whole point of copyright would be destroyed.

BF Burden wrote:
I for one do not think that the laws of humanity, and especially the laws of this country, are established in any sort of permanence.

Copyright is such a centally important concept that it is provided for in the Constitution of the United States.  That may not be "permanent", but it is durable enough that we don't have to worry about it disappearing any time soon.

Are there any other laws that you think aren't "permanent" (and therefore not all that important, one would assume) because they happen to be "the laws of humanity"?  Laws against murder, for instance?

Granted there are laws which are "more permanent".  The laws of physics, for instance, although exactly what they are seems no more definite than the copyright laws.

BF Burden wrote:
In fact, they morph and change with some regularity. That this case is going to court could change the laws you are better informed about than I.

They do, and it could.  As I noted above, we will get an answer to this case, unlike many of the other speculative copyright issues that we see here on the forum.

BF Burden wrote:
It seems to me like artisans are assuming control not only of their work, but in every domain in which their creation extends beyond themselves which I find to be defeating the purpose of art itself.

I'd very much like to hear what you think the "purpose of art itself" is, particularly as it relates to the livelihood of the artist and his ability to make an income from his work.  How, exactly, is that purpose served by your severe proposed limitations on copyright?

BF Burden wrote:
If I could recite his name I'd offer it here, but it seems like after this he'll no longer be the artist, but the legalitarian.

His name is stated in the original post in this thread, as well as all of the articles referenced in that post.  Perhaps if you read what the issue is about (and thereby learned his name) you could offer a more informed opinion.

I don't know what a "legalitarian" is, but if he wins this case (as I fully expect he will), most artists will think of him as a "hero".

BF Burden wrote:
It seems to me like artisans are assuming control not only of their work, but in every domain in which their creation extends beyond themselves which I find to be defeating the purpose of art itself.

I do not think that is the case here.  The artist is sueing over commercial use of the artwork.

Take you for instance.  In basic terms,  I can photograph you in a public place.  Should you hide at home? 

But I cannot use your image in an inappropriate manner or a commercial manner without your permission along with compensation to you.

Jack D Trute wrote:
But I cannot use your image in an inappropriate manner or a commercial manner without your permission along with compensation to you.

Actually, New York law doesn't require compensation, just permission.  Securing that permission tends to require compensation, however

And it is a different issue.  Using the image of a model is a matter of his civil rights, secured entirely by New York Civil Rights law, articles 50 and 51.  Use of intellectual property (which models are rarely accused of being) is a matter of federal law (Title 17, USC).

But you're right, the principle is similar, even though the specifics are different.

TXPhotog wrote:
Artist, like photographers, make their living by creating and controlling images.  I am astounded that a photographer would not appreciate and support that.

Nice to see someone for a change who seems to have an understanding of copyright law. 

But as to the guy to whom you responded, you may have made an incorrect assumption:  Just because he takes pictures and posts them on MM doesn't mean he's a photographer. 

TXPhotog wrote:
I would guess that if a company started using that shot to adverties their product, Calder would have a cause of action against them.

perhaps, but that's just it.  there are companies naming themselves "calder city this or that" with a calder insignia on the van.  every street sign has a calder printed on it.  maybe the city doles out the rights, i don't know.

the bull.  the suit is primarily against walmart.  as usual with them they are seeking damn the torpedos capital gain.  for those wthin the wall street community named as part of the suit i view the position of the artist equal to what comes from the rear of the bull.  the art has become accepted as part of the community.  not all benefit should be weighed in pure dollars and cents. or in this case lack of sense.  the problem is it's hard to separate walmart from wall street in fair equity on decision.

while the law may find in favor of the artist in this case based purely on "ownership," as a matter of practicality the artist should just let it go.  allow the city to control the rights.  nyc will stampede wal mart very quickly. everybody wins. 

if the artist chooses otherwise, well in helping bring awareness to the artist, the city should say fine, we'll enforce it, if it remains in our town.  but we don't want the headache so get it out of here, we don't want to guard your statue if members of our community can't benefit as well.  if you don't remove it we won't allow the issue to clog the courts, we'll cover it so nobody can take a picture of it.  nobody wins.

who wins that p.r. battle?   

--face reality

FaceReality wrote:
who wins that p.r. battle?

Seems to me that battle has already been fought.  If the city wanted it gone, it would be gone.  It's not.  For all the "shoulds" that come out of your head, the situation is different.

Clearly the city wants it there.  Just as clearly, so do many, many other people.  They want it there because they feel a benefit from its presence.

Isn't that what art is supposed to do?  It seems to me this particular art has been very successful, and the venue in which it is placed values it highly.  Your personal opinion seems to be that the artist should not benefit further from that, and that the city should accrue whatever financial benefits come from the presence of the statue, as well as the obvious emotional ones. 

If you wish to have that personal viewpoint, that's fine, but it isn't law, and it isn't public policy consistent with what the city has in fact done.  Neither is it consistent with the rights of artists to make a living from their art - something about which others take a view very different from yours.

"Should" needs to be carefully limited.  This particular one is only your view.

TXPhotog wrote:
This particular one is only your view.

there is nothing in the articles of reference from the op the city supports the current artist stance.

and yes, i do feel that members of the community such as the brokerage firms that support the artist by showcasing the work should be given some grace in promoting both the community and the work of art.  the statue serves both symbolic meaning and purpose for each.

that's my particualr view.  primarily because without granting those that rub the balls some satisfaction all they are left with is a big prick.

--face reality

FaceReality wrote:
and yes, i do feel that members of the community such as the brokerage firms that support the artist by showcasing the work should be given some grace in promoting both the community and the work of art.  the statue serves both symbolic meaning and purpose for each.

Fair enough.  However, using it to sell products goes far beyond that, and is what the lawsuit is about.