Just looked up some stuff on it and it an 110 ton sculpture made from highly polished stainless steel sheet forged with no seams. Pretty difficult to make I can imagine.
Here is a question that just crossed my mind. With the previous two images I shown, I am not that much worried about copyright, I know the images are mine and anyone can see they are more then just about the sculpture. But the one I attached here, do I own the copyright? I know in certain cases the courts have ruled that photographs of sculptures that aren't artistic in there own way (only documenting the piece) actually belong to the sculptor. I feel this photograph is more about the light and city skyline than the sculpture, but should I be worried about possibly getting sued by the sculptor if I sell this image?
Hi Joe
It's a fine shot, and I can understand your concern/temptation regarding marketing. I don't have a definitive answer to your copyright question, but then nobody ever does: that's the reason lawyers get rich, they deal with situations in perpetual flux and resolve them according to their own rules which nobody else understands. Logic has nothing to do with it. Justice (what's that?) has nothing to do with it. As I've indicated elsewhere, it's a system designed to fleece everybody outwith the game. (I noted recently that somebody in the UK has been jailed for around fifteen years for robbery, but others walk from murder with three. Talk to me about justice.
And no, it is not similar to ripping off photographs.
From my personal perspective, the moment something is put out in the open, presumably paid for by the public purse (the taxpayer), then it should be fair game for any passing lensman to play with and use for his pleasure or business. I would expect that to be the legal position, but if they can now charge one to use images of the friggin' Eiffel Tower, then expect the British red letterbox to be next on the list...
Rob C
