This is where we’ll discuss “Cloud Gate: Challenging Reproducibility, by Jeff Ward in Originality, Imitation, and Plagiarism: Teaching Writing in the Digital Age. I am guessing that many of you have seen this sculpture in Chicago before; this is a photo I took of it last summer.
Even though this essay might seem kind of like a tangent, I really like it and think it’s very much worth including for a couple of reasons. First, I think Ward does a pretty good job of describing just how complicated these issues are, the fuzzy line between what is protected by copyright and what is fair use, and even between what is public and what is private. As this fairly short but complex article suggests, the reasons why copyright and fair use laws aren’t particularly clear is because the defining terms are particularly slippery.
Second, I find Ward’s closing thoughts on the nature of this particular piece of art to be quite interesting– I’m not sure in terms of fair use/copyright or not, but interesting nonetheless. In the last paragraph, he points out that postcards of Cloud Gate have not sold particularly well because “Visitors prefer to photograph their own reflections, to image and imagine themselves in Cloud Gate” (74). That certainly was my experience, as this picture suggest:
This is me from a couple of summers ago.
Yeesh, yes, I can see how complex the idea of copyright is (though I think Ward does an admirable job of demonstrating complexity without completely boggling the minds of his readers). At one point, reading that artist Anish Kapoor “sees his work as an intersection between sculpture and architecture,” I started trying to sort out the nuances of what it would mean, based on the information Ward provided, for something to be both sculpture and architecture (Ward 70).
So, if people are able to make, distribute, and display pictures of architecture (like it says on p. 65), then they should be able to make, distribute, and display pictures of Cloud Gate, since it is kind of architecture. But then the city might argue that it is art and doesn’t fall under the legal definition of architecture. But then that would also give rights to the artist–Kapoor could dispute Cloud Gate being called “the bean” and was considered to be in the right in doing so, because he was the artist and should have the right to name his art. But would he not also then have the right to designate his art as being both art and architecture?
It was about at this point that I reeled away from the computer with a wail and counted my lucky stars that I am not at all involved in copyright law.
Copyright law would, I think, like everything to be seen in terms of black-and-white. Art is art. Architecture is architecture. The public and private domains are safely defined and separated, and everything that falls under “fair use” is neatly labelled and listed in alphabetical order. But of course, the real world exists in a million shades of gray, and those sorts of designations are not 100% clear cut, and may even be different for different people.
All I really know for sure is, if I ever visit Millennium Park, I am taking the little camera and leaving the tripod in the hotel room.
Note to self: never travel with a tripod. Hahaha.
I am sure I have to agree (who wouldn’t) that it would be ever so lovely if copyright law were simple and easily defined.
What occurred to me as I contemplated the nature of Cloud Gate was not so much the intersection of art and architecture (that’s headache material right there), but the fact that it is composed of reflective steel plates. So basically mirrors. Which means the structure is reflecting nothing but public space in the park. I am still contemplating if a mirror’s reflection is depictive, as ultimately the photographs were determined to be, or descriptive? Mirrors are interesting to consider in relation to copyright law. In this case, they are out in the open. What if they weren’t, what if a person videotaped a reflection coming from the mirror in their home, but it was depicting (describing?) someone’s private property (like an adjacent apartment)?
http://visiblycynical.wordpress.com
Ha! Well, don’t thank your stars too quickly, Jackie, because by virtue of the fact that we all as teachers do a lot of work with texts, we are all as teachers on the “front lines” of copyright issues. The “cloud gate” essay is an interesting thought experiment in a lot of ways, but believe me, there are a lot more fuzzy lines in assigning things to read in writing classes for sure!
Shhhh, Professor, shhhh, as long as my students and I keep quiet, no one needs to know.
I agree that there seems to be loop hole after loop hole in copyright law, which is probably why those people make so much damn money.
Honestly I think the artist kind of tripped out over the “bean” name, sure it may have hurt his feelings/pride or whatever, but it’s not like the public was really getting to name his piece. People will always call things as they see them, and honestly, the thing does look like a bean.
I agree that this article did a good job of explaining the complexities of copyright law, fair use, etc (though I found the comic easier to follow). I agree with Dr. Krause that what it really boils down to is the difficulty in defining the terms of these laws. I think we see the same difficulty in trying to define and interpret all kinds of legal texts, but copyright law to me is particularly frustrating. It seems fair to me that Cloud Gate could be considered both art and architecture (I hear buildings and other more obvious types of architecture referred to as a “work of art” all the time). Like Jackie said, in a perfect world, everything would be either black or white and these laws would be a lot easier to sort out. But in reality, architecture can also be art and there are all kinds of blurred lines, which I think often means these issues need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
http://www.daniellebreann.wordpress.com
I think this article lends clarity to the idea of “copy” versus “use,” which the comic referenced in terms of why copyright exists (to protect artists) but did not address as clearly as this article does. I would agree, that we aren’t creating reproductions now as much as we are remixing… okay, so I haven’t watched the Rip film yet nor have I read much on remix but am kind of fascinated by this idea of how remix works in our everyday (as opposed to easily identifiable things like songs or artwork). It helped me to see “copy” separated from “use,” as well as the difference between “description” (a close reading, in a sense…participatory) and “depiction” (a version), reliant on purpose. Still, I can see the downfall as evidenced by “the bean” versus “Cloud Gate;” sometimes a depiction is tied to a specific use.
The notion that a photograph does more than copy reality makes me wonder, especially in light of the examples in the comic, how often this is considered when companies sue for royalties, especially when something like a film or documentary that includes a song is clearly not trying to copy directly nor lay claim to that material.
The limitation or regulation of photography in the mentioned spaces is so fascinating to me – I understand it as a protective measure for other patrons in a public space, but as far as the space itself goes… is a photograph ever trying to be an exact depiction? Maybe. I guess I can see the point that Starbucks made about taking a photo of the floor plan and then creating a facsimile…but then we are brought to a discussion on experience:
I wonder if at some point experience will become copyrighted? Like, can someone copyright the experience of taking a photo of one’s own reflection in Cloud Gate?
http://parablematernal.wordpress.com
I would argue (at this point in time anyway, who knows about in the future) that experience would fall into the same category as an idea when it comes to copyright. As the “Tales From the Public Domain: Bound by Law? Trapped in a Struggle She Didn’t Understand” says, ideas cannot be protected by a copyright, only specific expressions of ideas. That would be my take on it anyway.
I thought a lot about Ward’s statement: “Although commonly described as a form of cheating, plagiarism can be understood as a behavioral activity within a community concerned with the worth of knowledge and the values of academic activities. In particular plagiarism is about attitudes to the ownership of knowledge, and taking appropriate responsibility for the expression of ideas”. To me this was especially interesting because Ward refers to plagiarism as a behavior specific to a community that values rewarding those with academic ideas. I haven’t considered this before. To me plagiarism is just an action mostly lazy people make, but it makes sense that it is more of a behavior that only would be recognized in a society that believes there is such a thing as plagiarism, rather than just borrowing ideas.
This was an interesting read that brought up a lot of questions. For me, copyright is ridiculously hard to “master” because of things like Cloud Gate that can be art and architecture simultaneously. These present a problem because I people can pick and choose when it is art and when it is architecture, even though you can’t actually separate the two. This is when use comes into play, I guess.
Another issue that I think it is hard to wrap heads around is the issue of “public space.” I almost feel like we need a new word for it other than “public” because public provides the sense that the public owns the space, when in fact it seems more like the space was built for the public’s sake. Building something for the public doesn’t give the public rights to it however. Then I tried thinking of spaces that were truly public and I fell a little short (deserts maybe?). Public places like parks are technically owned by the city.
The feelings expressed with the Cloud Gate rights reminded me of the feelings expressed when UM became a smoke-free campus. Whenever public spaces are involved, I think people almost take offense because the nature of “public” seems like it should be unregulated, but in actually that “public” space is owned by some entity somewhere. UM was enforcing a new law on their campus, but students and visitors thought of it as outdoors. Just an interesting dynamic that I feel plays out in many of these copyright controversies.
I totally agree about the difficulty of defining “public” spaces. Even public parks really only offer restricted public access, that is to say they are only open certain hours, there are rules to follow, and one can be ejected from them or incur repercussions for not acting according to the rules.
Taking the public space argument even further: There are public parks and beaches in New York where it is illegal to smoke; public, not private. So I agree with Melissa that the use of “public” inherently carries a sense of ownership or at least being a cooperative stakeholder.
Re: the store layouts that I *think* this article mentioned (everything is a blur!), one of my friends shared this on Instagram tonight: http://instagram.com/p/W-caIxxVY4/
http://parablematernal.wordpress.com