When I was in Rome last summer, one of the most amusing and surreal moments was at the Colosseum, where at least a dozen couples were attempting to take wedding photos. I tried to take a photo of the people having their photos taken, but it was so crowded it was difficult to get a clear shot. I can only imagine what it was like for the wedding parties, many of which, a classics scholar friend who spends his summers in Rome told me, fly in from Japan specifically for the purpose of having their wedding photo taken in front of the Colosseum (haven’t these people heard of Photoshop?).
With so many people spending so much money on wedding photos, you’d think it’d be only a matter of time before an enterprising municipality figured out some way to make a buck out of it. Turns out, the city of Chicago already has. Apparently in Millenium Park, you can’t take a photo of the famous “bean” sculpture without a permit. Hit and Run pointed me to this New (sub)Urbanism post about the issue. The explanation the park manager gave for the practice of requiring photography permits was as follows:
The copyrights for the enhancements in Millennium Park are owned by the artist who created them. As such, anyone reproducing the works, especially for commercial purposes, needs the permission of that artist.
This may be true, but who gave the park security force the authority to become copyright police? Isn’t copyright a matter for the civil courts? The park would be on better ground if it approached the issue as one of professional activity. Just as the park won’t let 500 hot dog stands set up on the same corner, they won’t let hundreds of professional photographers set up for business wherever they like. This is a legitimate regulation of professional activity — though if the photographers aren’t actually causing a nuisance, I can see making the case that the park shouldn’t bother with the regulation.
I also wonder whether the artist ever actually benefits from the park-issued photo permits. As Bryan Castaneda pointed out on 2Blowhards a couple weeks back, wedding photographers guard their negatives and digital originals like Fort Knox, charging couples handsomely for every wallet-size reprint of their wedding photos. Does any of this money make its way back to the sculptor who created the backdrop for the photo?
The commenters at New (sub)Urbanist make a big deal about the amount of public money that’s already gone into the park and the sculpture. Surely the city shouldn’t charge additional amounts for public use of that space. Yet the space is a limited resource, and if professionals are making money in that space, what better way to regulate its use than to charge a fee? Don’t call it a copyright fee, though. Call it a “use of space” fee. Let the artist worry about copyright.