Pixiq

might I suggest anyone in the Seattle area take a pic and publish it?

I’m with Carlos, the city should remove them and return them to Jack Mackie. I get the feeling that Mr. Mackie’s doesn’t sell much art so he’s got to get all he can out of what he’s sold. Perhaps if he spent his time being creative he’d be happier.

Mackie should be happy that he is getting this much exposure, he more than likely hasn’t worked in years. He looks like a total gomer. Perhaps he is the type who chats up a visiting female tourist and says, “See those dance steps baby, I made those, I’m an artist, think you’re good enough to sleep with me?”

Seems he has his head shoved so far up his own ass he can watch himself swallow. I am going to fly to Seattle, via Vancouver, and take lots of photos of the dance steps which I will publish all over message boards and forum posts throughout the web. Oh to be a tortured artist living off the tax payers dime.

I have real trouble believing this is original. Time to scour old dance textbooks to find out who he stole it from.

Didn’t we go through this exact same thing with the Cloud Gate in Chicago? Yes, I believe we did. Heaven forbid you take a picture of a gigantic shiny bean, nonetheless some footprints in the concrete.

Next time I write my name in wet cement, I’ll be sure to draw a c in a circle next to it. That’ll teach’em.
Jake Stichler´s last blog ..Videos Are Hard

If you’re referring to the 2005 “controversy” regarding Cloud Gate…it was far, far less than reported.

Click my website for some background on that story. It was more about a blogger not doing some simple due diligence. The issue wasn’t photographer’s rights, it was about licensing.

“the policy allows students, journalists, and amatuer photographers to shoot in the park with no restrictions”
Domoni´s last blog ..The Malleable Internet

I’ve danced in those steps before. But never again! But I will shoot the hell out of them next time I see them.

The “artwork” should be removed so that innocent tourists and photographers do not fall into this litigation trap any more.

As an artist, I wouldn’t want someone else to profit from my works of art, no matter how small the amount. Then again I wouldn’t display it permanently in public.

It sounds like the only thing this guy wants is money. He doesn’t care about the art he just wants as much money as fast as he can any legal way he can.

Isn’t it the monetary benefit and not the photos themselves that create the problem here?

IMO it wasn’t right for the photographer to sell the images on the microstock site, but it’s not worth $60k in damages. The artist is really taking advantage of the situation … I know he’s done this to other photogs and companies in the past and he will probably do it again. I have no respect for people who rely on copyright infringement lawsuits as a source or income.

I agree with the others that the city should remove the art and give it back to the artist.
Nicole Young´s last blog ..Rock Star

We should get the ACLU to look into this and take appropriate action.

Nicole- sorry but if its in public, anybody can take pictures of it and sell them. If he doesn’t like that, he should’ve never made them on a public area.

A jackhammer will in five minutes make the whole thing moot. If I were Mr. Hipple and he got a huge judgement against me, I’d be on my way to the tool rental store.

Yeah, the stupid thing should be jack hammered right the Hell out of the sidewalk. The fine for destruction of public property is WAY less than $60K.!
Rob´s last blog ..Valentine’s 2010

This looks like work for hire to me. Put in to place by the public agency that paid for the product. The photographer could now sue the city of Seattle for not properly warning people that if you photograph the item you will be sued.

I look forward to taking pictures of these steps when I am in Seattle next month. Lets see what happens if I put them on flickr and not a Stock Photo site. I think there is a difference there.

May I suggest that posters please review copyright law before they go off half-cocked about this issue.

http://www.copyright.gov

Copyright law exists so creators of art, like Mr. Mackie, can be assured that others cannot use their creations to make money without the creator’s permission. It serves to ensure that creative work, at least for a while, benefits the creators.

Fair use is also provided for–some purposes actually enhance the creator’s interest (such as press reporting) or that of society (such as parody/satire) and may be freely done.

flickr: OK
stock photo sales: NOT

Finally, unless one knows the terms of the contract between the artist and the city, any speculation you are making is likely to be wrong.

I would like to see a photo of a City of Seattle employee, in full uniform with hardhat and sound supressors, using a JACK HAMMER to rip out Mr. Mackie’s dance steps. It would be a perfect photo-op for all of the city council members. heh.