When we first reported the case of artist Jack Mackie against photographer Mike Hipple, CHS wondered if the art at the middle of the controversy shouldn’t be removed from the Broadway sidewalk to protect citizens from further litigation. Is that scenario possible? Unlikely, city officials tell CHS.
After speaking with the Office of Arts and Cultural Affairs, Seattle Department of Transportation and City Council staff, CHS has learned that while the ongoing lawsuit has stirred up a great deal of controversy, it hasn’t sparked any action for officials to change the situation around the Broadway Steps nor in the way the City of Seattle acquires public art.
“In matters of public art, it is standard to retain copyright,” said Ruri Yampolsky, director of the Public Art Program through the office of Arts & Cultural Affairs told CHS. “The city physically owns and takes care of the work but the copyright belongs to the artist. We respect the artist’s right to their own creative capital as defined by the law.”
Whether or not an artist decides to pursue legal action against anyone is up to them individually, not the city, Yampolsky said. Any questions regarding a potential copyright infringement are passed on to the artist individually.
If the City Council or SDOT receives any complaints, concerns or questions regarding public art, officials told CHS they refer the matter to Yampolsky’s department. To date, Yampolsky says there have been no communication from SDOT or the Council regarding Mackie’s Broadway work.
“Oftentimes what can happen is we get a call requesting use of an image, and we always defer those questions to the artist directly,” said Yampolsky.
It’s a call that might have helped Hipple. In the meantime, the photographer continues to raise donations to help pay for his “defense fund.” You can learn more and join his cause on his Mike Hipple Legal Defense Fund Facebook page.
So I can just take some dance instructions out of an old Arthur Murray dance book, have them cast in bronze, call it art, have some city buy it for me, and maintain a “copyright”?
Nice work if you can get it. What have I been doing busting my hump all these years when that’s all it takes to be an artist?
You sound bitter. It isn’t artists fault that you can’t get yourself together and make a business out of creating art.
“…CHS wondered if the art at the middle of the controversy shouldn’t be removed from the Broadway sidewalk to protect citizens from further litigation.”
but mackie’s not suing citizens. he’s not going after just anyone who’s ever taken a picture of his art. he’s taking legal action against another artist who tried to make money off of his copyrighted work. while makie may be going to an extreme in pursing hipple, it’s his right as the artist of the work to go after people trying to profit off of what he’s created.
to put it another way, if chs were to use one of my pictures in a blog post, i’m okay with that (as long as they link back to where they found it). if chs were to just grab one of my photos (without getting my permission), create a banner ad for one of their advertisers and post it on the site, in order to make dollar, then that’s not cool and i would likely bring legal action.
think of it this way: it’s not an artist against a citizen. it’s an art business against another art business.
I agree with zeebleoop, and was a bit confused about CHS’s question. Do we really think it would be a good use of scarce city resources to go around temporarily removing existing public art that so many people enjoy, merely because of a private lawsuit (however meritless) against an artist who is accused of making a derivative work of another artist’s, for profit, without permission? That seems wasteful and unnecessarily reactionary.
Mackie is a douche. The guy who took the photo has tried to settle multiple times. Shit happens, let it go. The dude made something like $60 bucks on his photo and is about to go bankrupt in lawyers fees. This is too extreme. Mackie is looking like the asshole here.
Get over this story already – this is a non-issue. Artists have copyrights – this is nothing new. So now you want to remove get rid of art cause he sued a guy that was selling pictures of his art?
I would vote to get rid of Mackie’s work, his stance is so out of touch. Great job, attacking and destroying a small artist who tried to make amends and pulled the photo in question rather quickly.
I have to agree, this is really making Mackie look like a douchebag.
“Nice work if you can get it. What have I been doing busting my hump all these years when that’s all it takes to be an artist? “
The free market at work, buddy. Try being good at something for a change.
if you take a photo of any art (public or otherwise) and it is for you or your friends (Non-Commertial, educational, or journalistic) then there is no issue. It becomes tricky when someone else is making $ off of your artwork.
Also think about if someone buys a stock photo of your artwork and uses it as a background for a poster or ad that you do not endorse (NRA, Dancing with the Stars etc). There is no recourse and your work continues to act as unofficial spokesperson for something you do not support.