Man sued over photos of public art on Seattle street

[laanba]

The article says:

Mike Hipple took photos of those steps, and he's now being sued for the photos that earned him $60.

To me that reads that the photographer took the photos of the art work and made money off of someone else's work of art. The one category of photos that I will not sell are photos of someone else's artwork like the light tunnel at MFAH, any of the sculptures in the sculpture garden or even the globes at Christmas at Discovery Green. That is someone else's work of art not mine.

[texkam]

So if a photo you shoot is hanging in a public space and someone takes a photo of it, AND earns MONEY from the sale of that photo, would that not be cause for a copyright suit?

Yes.

If a photo is bought and paid for by the public and displayed as "public art" and someone takes a photo of it, AND earns MONEY from the sale of that photo, would that not be cause for a copyright suit?

No, but the artist needs to be made aware of this before accepting the commission. MHO.

[jeffkohn]

If a photo is bought and paid for by the public and displayed as "public art" and someone takes a photo of it, AND earns MONEY from the sale of that photo, would that not be cause for a copyright suit?

I keep hearing this term "public art" as if it has anything to do with copyright. But copyright law is quite clear: the creator of a work retains the copyright to that work unless he/she signs it away. The only exception is "work for hire", which requires an employee/employer relationship (independent contractors are not subject to work for hire unless they sign a contract stating so).

Work created by employees of the federal government do not have a copyright, because they are "work for hire" and the copyright would go to the employer; but since the employee is the federal government the works become public domain. But this does not apply to commissioned works by independent artists.