Am I being sued?!!!????

[exemplaria]

The fact that people are allowed to pay to come in during certain hours does not make it a public place. By that definition, every privately owned museum, stadium, concert hall or attraction is a "public place", and we all know that's not true.

OTOH, I can find hundreds of photos for sale of "Cloud Gate" (the Chicago Bean), most of which do not mention the artist's name (Anish Kapoor, if you're interested). I can also find plenty for Spoonbridge and Cherry in Minneapolis, or The Sphere in NYC. So it appears if it's in a truly public place there's no issue.

Yes, in fact every privately owned museum, stadium, concert hall or attraction is legally a "public place" since the public has access to it, if they pay to enter. You should spend the time I do, with the law.

I should point out that the definition of a "public place" was made in the US Supreme Court in the Sony case several years ago, and it became part of intellectual rights and copyright treaties with other countries.

skieur

Well yes we've obviously seen your deep knowledge of foreign law, what with being totally and completely wrong about the Eiffel Tower, but don't let that stop you from spouting off like you're an expert.

Listen, neither of us is a lawyer, and what these definitions mean in a vernacular sense is often far different from what they mean in a legal sense. The only legal advice I can give is "Stop pretending you're an expert on things you're clearly not" - no charge, but it's rock solid advice.

 

[skieur]

Oh, well what did I say about the Eiffel Tower that was incorrect?
And you are saying that the US Supreme Court decision and definition on a "public place" is somehow not legal?

Obviously your argument is weak, if you have to put a spin on my so-called attitude rather than dealing with my post.

skieur

 

[Ballistics]

The fact that people are allowed to pay to come in during certain hours does not make it a public place. By that definition, every privately owned museum, stadium, concert hall or attraction is a "public place", and we all know that's not true.

OTOH, I can find hundreds of photos for sale of "Cloud Gate" (the Chicago Bean), most of which do not mention the artist's name (Anish Kapoor, if you're interested). I can also find plenty for Spoonbridge and Cherry in Minneapolis, or The Sphere in NYC. So it appears if it's in a truly public place there's no issue.

Yes, in fact every privately owned museum, stadium, concert hall or attraction is legally a "public place" since the public has access to it, if they pay to enter. You should spend the time I do, with the law.

I should point out that the definition of a "public place" was made in the US Supreme Court in the Sony case several years ago, and it became part of intellectual rights and copyright treaties with other countries.

skieur

Well yes we've obviously seen your deep knowledge of foreign law, what with being totally and completely wrong about the Eiffel Tower, but don't let that stop you from spouting off like you're an expert.

Listen, neither of us is a lawyer, and what these definitions mean in a vernacular sense is often far different from what they mean in a legal sense. The only legal advice I can give is "Stop pretending you're an expert on things you're clearly not" - no charge, but it's rock solid advice.

It's very hard to have a "debate" with him. He twists points and tries to add made up meaning to your posts and then tries to insult your intelligence based on his wild assumptions of said points that you never made in the first place. Your best bet is just to let him pretend he holds vast knowledge and ignore him. According to him, trespassing is a civil, and not a criminal offense. So that right there shows how much reading he does about the law.

 

[skieur]

Yes, in fact every privately owned museum, stadium, concert hall or attraction is legally a "public place" since the public has access to it, if they pay to enter. You should spend the time I do, with the law.

I should point out that the definition of a "public place" was made in the US Supreme Court in the Sony case several years ago, and it became part of intellectual rights and copyright treaties with other countries.

skieur

Well yes we've obviously seen your deep knowledge of foreign law, what with being totally and completely wrong about the Eiffel Tower, but don't let that stop you from spouting off like you're an expert.

Listen, neither of us is a lawyer, and what these definitions mean in a vernacular sense is often far different from what they mean in a legal sense. The only legal advice I can give is "Stop pretending you're an expert on things you're clearly not" - no charge, but it's rock solid advice.

It's very hard to have a "debate" with him. He twists points and tries to add made up meaning to your posts and then tries to insult your intelligence based on his wild assumptions of said points that you never made in the first place. Your best bet is just to let him pretend he holds vast knowledge and ignore him. According to him, trespassing is a civil, and not a criminal offense. So that right there shows how much reading he does about the law.

Your best bet is to read your own posts and stop changing the context and going off on tangents in mid discussion.

skieur

 

[Greiver]

It is against the law to take photo's of art work unless it is posted other wise, although I myself have done so. Art work of any kind is resprentation of someone's product. Just as the photos you take. Keep that in mind when photographing. Also, if this park is serious you would have received a certified letter from an Attorney...not a threat to be contacted by one. I agree, I would contact the park to see if it is a scam. If not, just remove it from your website, not worth the hassle.

The OP posted the email he got from the curator and his reply. It doesn't seem like it was a scam (or it was a really elaborate one), either way it's pretty much been settled.

 

[nonamexx]

It is against the law to take photo's of art work unless it is posted other wise, although I myself have done so. Art work of any kind is resprentation of someone's product. Just as the photos you take. Keep that in mind when photographing. Also, if this park is serious you would have received a certified letter from an Attorney...not a threat to be contacted by one. I agree, I would contact the park to see if it is a scam. If not, just remove it from your website, not worth the hassle.

The OP posted the email he got from the curator and his reply. It doesn't seem like it was a scam (or it was a really elaborate one), either way it's pretty much been settled.

I'm a practising lawyer for around two years and I know that copyright is an extremely tough field. I myself cannot comment on the legalities of these things without references and relevant court rulings.

But here's the point I would make, leaving aside all moral and ethical issues: if the artist is living in another country than yours, it would be very expensive and probably take a long time for any artist to get a court order against you. So you could, in practice, violate the copyright of another person living in another country if you are so minded with little to fear. Even before they can bring you to court, it would cost them a lot more money for them to sue than for you to defend it, since they would have to approach your jurisdiction to file the case and find a good enough lawyer in your country. Also conducting a trial would be expensive, since they would have to appoint a power of attorney to give evidence on their behalf or travel to your country for the case. It would make anybody think ten times before even filing a lawsuit against a person in another country. Most individuals would not bother, but they would try to use scare tactics to make you comply first.

And now, let us assume that even if they file a case in their own jurisdiction and somehow manage to get an ex-parte order, it would not be enforceable against you, since their country's courts cannot possibly enforce any order for your appearance or execution of the order in any case. Besides even ex-parte orders can normally be set aside on application by the defendant in reasonable time and the trial would be re-commenced. All this is speculation. The most probable scenario is that the case would be dismissed at the outset for want of jurisdiction by a sensible judge.

Even in criminal cases, countries are finding it tough to enforce the attendance of accused of different nationalities. In civil suits it would be even harder, because an individual has to go through that process.

Of course, if the other person is very rich and has lots of resources to engage a reputable attorney in your country and also appoint a power of attorney and pay the costs of conducting the case by remote control, then that's a different issue.