Photographing totem poles forbidden without permit
Hart says: "The city of Duncan on Vancouver Island, British Columbia isn't allowing anyone to take pictures of their 80 totem poles, without the city's permission - because of copyright(!?!?).
This is an article from one of Canada's national newspapers The Globe and Mail about it..."
The city policy, created this summer, states that "the use of the totem images in any form requires approval from the City of Duncan." Applicants have to complete a form detailing how totem pole images will be used. After living in China for three years, and seeing how personal rights were violated, Mr. Langevin, who designs learning materials and is well-versed in copyright law, gets a little "touchy" when excessive rules, such as the totem policy, are enacted. "It borders on extortion," he said.
Here are a bunch of nice photos of the totem poles on Flickr. (Shown above, a thumbnail of Josky_TW's beautiful photo which captures four of the totem poles.) Link
the latest
latest episodes
NS! FCK!
a camera flash mob seems like a good idea.
Traditionally (I'm talking about Indian tradition here, not US legal history) the families that carved them are the ones who have the right to determine who can see or take photos of them.
This had to do with the Northwest Indian tribes' religious and cultural traditions, which meticulously governed what could be carved on a pole by which family and when, etc.
Of course, if the families sold them to the city, then these rights no longer obtain. But that doesn't mean those rights transferred to the city.
Then there's the overextension of the concept of copyright by the city seen here, which IMO is ludicrous.
Seems like it's perfectly legal to take photos... as long as you don't use them for anything!
I don't know the laws in Canada but people the United States are not allowed to copy (i.e. photograph) any art without the artist's permission for at least 80 years after the artist has died. They might have similar laws in Canada but that doesn't explain the City's demand of getting permission. Maybe it's because the city commisioned it, it's their copyright?
Anyway, still sounds like a far stretched premise and totally controllative measure. Seriously, what is the point of it all?
Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law at Ottawa University, and active player in Canadian Copyright policy debunked the claims of the city of Duncan, and made it clear that their interpretation of Canadian Copyright law is not supported by fact, and has no legal weight whatsoever.
You can read his interpretation on his blog, www.michaelgeist.ca
I know photographs of public space is a sensitive issue for the Copyleft crowd but the title of this is pretty misleading. The City is not saying you can't take a photo, it's saying you need 'permission for use' which (probably) means commercial use. Having been through Duncan with a camera on several occasions, I've never been accosted by local authorities for popping a lens cap nor do I anticipate I will be in the future. We are not talking about Cloud Gate here, people.
It also sounds like the policy was implemented at least in part because of requests from the public for permission.
Duncan has a population of less than 5,000 people. While the surrounding area (The Cowichan Valley) has about 70,000, the city itself has a very small tax base and they've made a significant effort in the interest of tourism by putting up these 80 totems - Regardless of the legality of the issue (I don't disagree with Michael Geist - he is our resident expert on all things copyright), I'm not unconvinced the city shouldn't be able to have some control over how its vista is used commercially and, more importantly, reap benefit from its use. The city needs to generate money to buy these poles in the first place. Do you think totems grow on trees?
Hmm... maybe that's a bad choice of words.
My Canadian five cents worth - conveniently, it's actually worth a buffalo nickle for the first time in 30 years.
"The City is not saying you can't take a photo, it's saying you need 'permission for use' which (probably) means commercial use."
That's not much of a distinction. It's still not supported by Canadian copyright law, and it's still extremely presumptious.
"I'm not unconvinced the city shouldn't be able to have some control over how its vista is used commercially and, more importantly, reap benefit from its use."
I'm totally convinced that they should not have any control at all over the use of the vista. The view of the city is owned by the city? Is that your assertion? But you probably mean the view of their property. In which case see Canadian copyright law as cited by the relevant sources.
"The city needs to generate money to buy these poles in the first place."
I think that's called taxes. Anyway, this is an illegitimate way of raising revenue.
There's nothing stopping them from selling postcards of it, etc., and making money that way. That doesn't mean they can stop others from doing the same, if I'm not mistaken. Again, the Canadian copyright laws cover this, I'm sure.
I was involved in a discussion on this on Wikipedia. I posted a picture of a Thunderbird from a totem pole from a public park by the BC legislature in Victoria. It was brought to my attention that posting this picture was a violation of Tlingit property law.
I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I'm fairly sure there is no law protecting public art in public parks from public photography.
"Tlingit property law."
Hmmm... I'm intrigued. What's this mean? It's not on a reservation (do they even have those in Canada?). Copyright law can't attach to individual objects, it applies to every object in its jurisdiction. Is there a provison in Canadian copyright law that pertains specifically to Tlingit-owned objects? Or are we talking about the Tlingits' traditions, seperate from Canadian law, which they request others to observe?
Signed,
Confused About Canadian Copyright
Phenom = spam, spam, spam, spam...
You said it. Spam comments are hitting us in shoals. I'll applaud any grief that befalls those idiots at http://v1ds0nly.bl0gsp0t.c0m/ .
It is illegal in Italy to distribute pictures of recent building, sculptures, even landscapes with human-made visible recent artifacts.
Ah, such is copyright.
(recent = the author is still alive or died less than 70 years ago)
Dear Confused About Canadian Copyright,
Would be a traditional law that the Tlingit people follow: Cultural traditions, oral histories, basically something the Canadian Governement trampled over. They could request that the public respect their cultural rights. I guess, from what I understand from the article, is that the City doesn't want to see their poles used in ads or to be taken by someone who will make a profit from the photographed work.
But in essence of copyright law, it is the artist who holds the copy right, not the group of people, nor the city. UNLESS, these poles were commissioned by the city and the artist signed a contract stating they give up all intellectual and artistic rights to the piece... which, from the stand point as an artist, would be highly absurd.
There are reservations in Canada, but the reserve system is DRAMATICALLY different in Canada than it is in the US. I gave an artist talk in Seattle in June, and my work deals with contemporary First Nations (AKA Native American or Indian) issues. In my talk, I mentioned a few touchy points that received amazement and aw from the crowd. I was shocked, because I was talking to the Native American Art Society, and I had just assumed the issues in Canada were the same as the States. Nope, the histories of a similar people, separated by an invisible line, are dramatically different. Anyway, it is my understanding that Native Americans own their reservation land, where as First Nations in Canada don't: the land is owned by the Queen.
At any rate, I think the city has gone a little overboard. Are they going to have some lawyers standing by the poles waiting to hand out court injunctions? I understand the sacred nature of the poles, but this is silly. Way to effectively kill tourism Duncan.
From Canada's Copyright Act:
32.2 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright...
(b) for any person to reproduce, in a painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or cinematographic work
(ii) a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship, that is permanently situated in a public place or building;
Source: http://www.canlii.org///ca/sta/c-42/sec32.2.html