Tue, February 22nd, 2005 by Thomas Hawk
Stay Free Daily is reporting that Christo's publisher is threatening to prosecute anyone who sells their own original photographs of his mass public art installment, The Gates, currently on display in New York's Central Park.
"Christo's publisher claims a vast new degree of
copyright and trademark protection. They claim they will prosecute
anyone who sells their own original photos of The Gates;
who makes and sells a drawing of The Gates or who even uses the words,
The Gates, without their permission....They also claim to have an
agreement with the media that media sources may only use news photos of
the gates for the period the installation is up. That after that the
media will only be allowed to use "official" photos of The Gates."
First the Eiffel Tower, then the Bean in Chicago. Quite simply unbelievable. PUBLIC ART folks. Although I'm not in New York to take photos of this installment right now I'd love to see Christo try and sue me.
New server!
February 22nd, 2005 at 11:42 pm
Its the same old same. His publishers is not doing it because he wants to protect the integrity of this art but all he wants to do is protect his own bottom line. And about using the words "The Gates" without permission. All I have to say about that is, The Gates The Gates The Gates The Gates The Gates The Gates The Gates The Gates The Gates The Gates. Childish, Yes, but then again, so is Cristo's publisher.
February 22nd, 2005 at 11:42 pm
boooo... booooooooo!
February 22nd, 2005 at 11:46 pm
bill gates, gates barbeque, enemy at the gates, the gates of hell. how much would that cost?
that is crazy. i thought the point of public art was to make it well, public.
February 23rd, 2005 at 1:18 am
good lord, this IS crazy. It's also scary how the media is, apparently, complying with all this, though I find it hard to believe.
February 23rd, 2005 at 2:02 am
I would like to annouce that my not particulary remarkable photograph of The Gates is now on sale, just email me for an 8x10.
I had a lot of respect for Christo before this, and I respect his right to make money from his work, but this is ridiculous.
February 23rd, 2005 at 4:03 am
I'm wondering how much time will pass until someone comes up here to justify this guy's actions without realizing he is throwing stones at his own roof. It's sad to see many so called photographers not only not objecting these stupid laws but defend them. They are helping to kill street photography.
February 23rd, 2005 at 5:42 am
Given all this I'm surprised they even let people so much as look at The Gates (there, I said it, so sue me) and other landmarks. Surely anything visible in public is fair game for photographers?
February 23rd, 2005 at 7:44 am
I am getting my film of The Gates back today. Went a few times over the weekend. On Monday morning, after six inches of snow, I got up early and went to check things out and bumped into a small posse which was circulating around Christo and Jeanne Claude. They were small people really. Cute almost and soort of oblivious to the clamor around them. Just quietly checking out their work in the snow. But smiling and accepting thanks and congratulations and such. It was rainy and dark and I was shooting film but I may have recorded their blur. Anyway, I am neutral on the possibility of lawsuits. I am going to proceed as usual. Post my stuff, exhibit it if is any good, experience litigation if that is truly where this is going. Can't imagine it would go that way unless someone tries to put a book out there, 'The Gates (Unauthorized!' or something such. Somehow I think the blogworld will escape notice...
February 23rd, 2005 at 8:02 am
Dear Christo,
Since your exhibit "The Gates" came to Central Park, I have been dispirited knowing I would not be able to make the trip to see and photograph, in person, your special art installation. Of course, the recent news of prosecution to anyone who sells their own original photos of "The Gates" has effectively removed any desire I previously had of visiting the aforementioned display.
Thank you for continuing to raise the level of absurdity this country and world are now facing regarding copyright and trademark infringement laws. What will you claim copyright ownership of next, the color orange?
I wish you and your publisher many legal battles in regards to your recent proclamation of copyright insanity.
In closing; screw you and the Saphron draped horse you and your publisher rode in on.
Best regards,
Ron
February 23rd, 2005 at 8:46 am
Has anyone actually spoken with the publisher, or seen anything about this Gates copyright business anywhere else? Or is this all just yacking based on the word of some blogger whose source is completely unknown to us?
In short: show me something on paper, from the publisher or Cristo. Until then it's all bullshit, as far as I'm concerned.
February 23rd, 2005 at 9:28 am
~lol, art for art's sake or art for the wallet's sake...what a crock of crapola...as if we need to give any lawyer a reason to file another wasteful lawsuit...hopefully God won't file a lawsuit over all the pictures I have taken of the sky and clouds~
February 23rd, 2005 at 9:51 am
question: i wonder if the city new of this before they gave their approval? it must have come up in some sort of legal contractual mumbo jumbo that must be signed before hand -- if they did, shame on the city for giving their approval. such horse shit.
February 23rd, 2005 at 10:03 am
At least one person has answered this ban with a hell of a sense of humor:
http://www.not-rocket-science.com/gates.htm
February 23rd, 2005 at 10:20 am
They tried this in Cleveland with the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. It didn't work. Shoot and sell to your heart's desire.
February 23rd, 2005 at 10:36 am
~Alec, that link to the Somerville gates installation was FRIGGIN" HILARIOUS!~
February 23rd, 2005 at 10:53 am
"On behalf of the artists, I can say we have no objections," he [the artists' lawyer, Ted Kheel] said. "This project has been so well received, and we want everyone to be able to enjoy it as much as they can."
"Although we probably have a legal right to object to this, we will not," he added.
Excerpt from:
http://www.wgms.com/index.php?nid=65&sid=181836
Case closed.
February 23rd, 2005 at 11:24 am
Thanks, Michal. People do kick up a lot of ill-founded dust in these online forums. This post did get me thinking though that a publishing effort could / should be coordinated using images from 'the people' because it will be such a widely recorded event. There should be enough images out there ( I haven't seen many good ones yet ) to fashion a published record, with payment for inclusion, etc...
February 23rd, 2005 at 12:04 pm
Newsday did a bit about this topic, btw:
http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhattan/nyc-gates0221,0,3432174.story?coll=nyc-homepage-breaking2
February 23rd, 2005 at 12:57 pm
I should clarify that, in my most unworthy opinion, that most of the images of The Gates I have seen so far have struggled to convey the actual experience of the installation. My images are rather anemic also and I didn't mean to sound like I thought all the photographs I have seen are in any way not good. They are perfectly good as photographs. I just feel like the experience is far more grand than the photographic record in this case. Anyway...
February 23rd, 2005 at 3:21 pm
i wonder if these ebay sales are giving them fits?
http://search.ebay.com/the-gates-swatch_W0QQfrppZ50QQfsopZ1QQmaxrecordsreturnedZ300
February 23rd, 2005 at 4:13 pm
~Heather, I have not heard/read the word "Swatch" so many times since I went shopping for one back in the mid 80's when they were all the rage...~
February 24th, 2005 at 5:21 am
Christo, copyright och "offentlig konst"
Först trodde jag att Christos och Jeanne-Claudes förbud mot ickeauktoriserad spridning av fotografier och teckningar av The Gates av copyrightskäl...
February 24th, 2005 at 9:50 am
btezra... and then there was the '90s "beat time" fiasco.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
and these? http://christoandjeanclaude.blogspot.com/