Talk:Cloud Gate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Categories 2 Additional photographs 3 photography banned? 4 The Break-Up

[edit] Categories

I have removed the following categories:

• [[Category:Parks in Chicago]]
• [[Category:British sculptors|Kapoor, Anish]]
• [[Category:Contemporary sculptors|Kapoor, Anish]]
• [[Category:Installation artists|Kapoor, Anish]]

This is a sculpture, not the sculptor who made it, nor the park it's in. The relevant categories only contain the parks (not the things in the park) and sculptors (not their sculptures). If there were categories Category:Anish Kapoor or Category:Millennium Park then Cloud Gate could be in those categories. jnestorius^(talk) 09:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous! This is more about you wanting to police what a "category" includes or excludes. Since when are "sculptures" independent of their creators? Categories are always related to other ones. So all we can do is move from more general ones (like sculptures in the US) to more specific or descriptive ones (or vice versa). And this selection is always subjective. (unsigned comment added by User:70.28.8.136)

I think you misunderstand what Categories are for. Click on Category:British sculptors. Look at all the articles in the category. All of them are British sculptors; none of them are sculptures. If you took each article describing a sculpture by one of those sculptors, and added it to the category, the category would become a mishmash of two different things, much less useful as a navigation aid for readers. So, yes, I want to "police" what the category includes.

I agree that sculptures are not independent of their creators (or their locations), but there are already links to Anish Kapoor and Millennium Park in the very first paragraph of Cloud Gate. If someone wants to see other things relating to Anish Kapoor, they will click on the Anish Kapoor article and can then click on the categories (or other links) there, such as Category:British sculptors. It is not true that "all we can do is move from more general [categories] to more specific ones (or vice versa)": readers can click from an article to a category to an article to a category; information should be organised to make this as intuitive as possible. jnestorius^(talk) 16:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The only reason your logic works is that YOU have decided that the category in this case is "sculpture". Others may may conceive of the category as "sculpture in Chicago" or "sculpture by Kapoor" or "works by British artists" or indeed "installation art". I agree that the point is to organize information, but it is also to open it up in as many ways as possible. And the "categories" are another way of linking one piece of information to other pieces. Restricting categories in the way you want to in fact limits information, rather than opening it up. Note that my edits include your categories, while yours exclude mine and others'!

I have to agree with Joestynes's inclination, this article should be removed from the aforementioned categories. This is obvious when you look at the other articles in these categories, which is how I found this article (it's out of place and taints the categories). I think that "sculpture in Chicago", "sculpture by Kapoor", "works by British artists", and "installation art" are all good ideas for categories which this article should be a part of and would make nice additions to Wikipedia. Nolodie 18:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional photographs

I have some additional photographs of the sculpture on my userpage. The colors are a bit brighter, but there are a lot of people in the picture. Spikebrennan 02:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add them to The Commons if you are willing to license them freely. Thanks, Cacophony 02:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't add any pictures of this sculpture to the commons—as derivative works of a copyrighted sculpture they will be deleted as non-free images. --JeremyA 13:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a link that explains the policy for taking and displaying photographs of the sculture. Thanks, Cacophony 17:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a policy issue—it's U.S. copyright law! However, the commons does have a good page explaining derivative works at Commons:Derivative works. Basically, the commons only hosts free images—photographs of copyrighted works are not free unless the copyright holder releases their work under a free licence. U.S. copyright law extends to sculptures, and whilst there is a special exclusion for photographs of buildings (buildings constructed after 1990 are also subject to copyright), no such exclusion is made for photographs of sculptures. —JeremyA 18:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The licensing page at MilleniumPark.org does not prohibit people from taking photographs. It only mentions that a permit is required for commericial use. As Wikipedia is a non-commercial site, I don't really think it applies. There is also an extensive gallery at Flickr, which is a commercial website. How does that differ from a not-for profit website like Wikipedia? Google Image also contains 4,000+ images in its gallery. The issue is very murky at best. GM owns the copyright for the Corvette, but that dosen't mean that nobody can display a photograph of it Cacophony 23:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Whilst Wikipedia itself is non-commercial, all content on Wikipedia must be available for reuse under the terms of the GFDL—which does not exclude commercial use. Jimbo Wales (the Wikipedia founder) has directed that Wikipedia will not accept images that have non-commercial restrictions [1], and, as a result the use of the noncommercial template, {{noncommercial}}, on an image flags that image for deletion. The Wikimedia Commons has stricter rules than Wikipedia, because it does not host fair use images.

The City of Chicago's rules on photography in Millenium Park have nothing to do with copyright. Being able to take a photograph of something, and being able to publish the resulting photograph are two different things. The right to say who can and who cannot publish photos of a copyrighted object belong to the copyright holder—in this case Anish Kapoor. That other websites choose to allow violations of this copyright is irrelevant. Photographs of cars are an entirely different issue as cars are subject to patents not copyright. The images of Cloud Gate that are currently in this article should really be tagged as fair use, and any images uploaded to the commons are likely to get deleted. —JeremyA 00:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. So really all the images on this page should be removed. The same goes for Fremont Troll and Portlandia. At what point do those copyrights expire? Cacophony 04:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyrights expire 70 years after the death of the artist. However, maybe surprisingly, I'm not suggesting removing the two images of Cloud Gate in this article. I do think however that they should be retagged as fair use, possibly using the {{statue}} tag. My main objection was to the suggestion that more images of the bean be uploaded to the Commons, as they are likely to be deleted there. Likewise with the other sculptures you mention—one or two images to illustrate the article are good candidates for fair use, but keeping a more extensive gallery on the Commons would be a problem. JeremyA 04:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. The guidelines at Wikipedia:Fair Use#Policy give the following guidance:

• #3. The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.
• #8 The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.
• #9. Fair use images should be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum.

There are also guidelines dealing with how the copyright attribution should be notated on the image description page. Cacophony 21:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Just curious. Has anyone actually verified who presently owns the copyright? There would have been a contract covering the sale of the artwork to the city, and it's likely that the copyright issue was addressed in the contract. I wouldn't take the artist's word for it that the copyright is still his.

No one here has. But the Chicagoist talked to a Representative of the Chicago City Communications Department before publishing this article. So it seems that the city believes that Anish Kapoor is the copyright holder. —JeremyA 17:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As a citizen who has had extensive dealings with Chicago municipal bureaucrats, I can assure you that all they ever do is pass on hearsay and rarely have a handle of the facts.

I looked up, within Wikipedia, 'the Chicago Picasso', another large public sculpture in the city that dates from the late 1960's. Apparently, there was a lawsuit over the Picassos copyrights. It's thoroughly described at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_Edged_in_Black_Press%2C_Inc._v._Public_Building_Commission_of_Chicago and is known as "The Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago 320 F. Supp. 1303 (1970)". It's no wonder this has become a touchy subject. Not surprisingly, the city of Chicago was wrong in that case. The judge ruled that photos of the sculpture were in the public domain. Someone should look up the actual sales contract for Cloudgate.

[edit] photography banned?

I remember hearing that guards(?) were not allowing people to photograph the Cloud Gate. According to photo.net the ban has been lifted, but it probably deserves mentioniong in the article. Cacophony 02:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the "controversy" section.

[edit] The Break-Up

So Cloud Gate was featured in the movie The Break-Up? I didn't see either the movie or the sculpture. But I have a question: How can a sculpture that was dedicated on May 15, 2006 be featured in a movie released on June 2, about half a month later? Was it really that quick, or has the sculpture been around a long time, just not officially dedicated, or is the date wrong? --QQQ (9-15-06)