David Chipperfield has asked the Des Moines Public Library to forbid pictures. Bit of a control freak are we, Mr. C? Read & Previously
Photo by Atelier FLIR
David Chipperfield has asked the Des Moines Public Library to forbid pictures. Bit of a control freak are we, Mr. C? Read & Previously
At that time, the architect was very sensitive to photos being taken and the possibility of them being used for commercial purposes, so we added the following:
“Permission to photograph the library reading rooms and other public areas of the building may be granted by the library director or her designee. Photographs and videos may not include library signage or the library logo, and photographing may not disrupt library customers’ use of the library. Library employees on duty may not be photographed for political campaigns. Fees for commercial photographs of the library may be established by the library director, subject to the approval of the Board of the Trustees.”
15 Comments
He needs to learn any publicity is good publicity! As more people see the building, more people are interested in it, whether they like it or not, and thus give exposure to him.
not only that, but it's a public building, paid for with taxpayer dollars...
if d-chips wants to buy the building, he can prevent people from taking pictures.
until then, he's just a major d-bag.
guys - this is pretty standard protocol for a high profile project. chipperfield is trying to protect himself from having someone come in early, shoot some professional shots (before he can arrange for his own to be published) and then rush them back out for sale.
it's more than a little overboard to be enforcing it still, but even if you take away the commercial aspect of the language, why wouldn't the library want to control when/how patrons can take pictures? if it's disruptive, that's a legitimate issue...
@outed: enacting policy so that you can get professional shots of the completed building is pretty shoddy excuse. Chipperfield knows better than anyone the construction schedule of the building and is thus in a prime position to have the building photographed as soon as it's complete.
And the assumption that taking photos is a disruptive act is too binary, in my opinion. Certainly taking photos *can* be disruptive and it *can* disturb someone's right to privacy, but it does not do so by default. To make a one size fits all rule for an act that is anything but uniform is a very sad form of laziness. Particularly in the case of a public building which has – presumably – been constructed for the public good. Shouldn't we take as much cultural profit from that building as possible? Shouldn't a public edifice be as embedded in our lives as possible?
I'm a big advocate for the rights of the architect, but letting the designer of a building specify how it should be used is a bit much. To me it seems like Des Moines was a little star struck and let Chipperfield take advantage of them.
This policy is not very uncommon. I remember my friends and I visited Will Bruder's Phoenix Central Library around '96-97, about a year after it was completed. The security guys told us we couldn't take pictures inside of the library beyond the entrance lobby. For some reason we never bothered to ask why at the time. I hope it was the library's policy and not Bruder's. I agree that it is a bit much when amateur photography is not allowed in a public building, however i can understand it becoming obtrusive and a nuisance when you are trying to read in a library and you begin to hear digital shutter sounds from s dslr or camera phone in the background.
@bryan - hi. i've re-read the actual policy a couple of times now and can't see where it precludes your concerns. i mean, here they are in order:
'Permission to photograph the library reading rooms and other public areas of the building may be granted by the library director or her designee.' - where in this does it say 'the architect may grant...'? also, it's just saying it's up to the director - if people are having issues getting to take pictures, it seems as though it comes back to them.
'Photographs and videos may not include library signage or the library logo, and photographing may not disrupt library customers’ use of the library.' - seems fair enough - they don't want to, intentionally or not, be a potential endorser of whatever the particular photographer is doing for commercial purposes.
which gets us to the 'disruptive' aspect of individuals taking pictures- yes this is a public resource, but is there really a right for any one of us to 'culturally profit' from it if indeed that action is disruptive to others? what's the harm in simply being polite and asking for permission? i agree the staff member in the story over-reacted - something the director was quick to own up to. bad interpretation of the policy doesn't mean it's inherently wrong. (and i'm not sure we'd see totally eye to eye on the absolute 'right' anyone has to a public building, but that's another discussion).
'Fees for commercial photographs of the library may be established by the library director, subject to the approval of the Board of the Trustees' - perhaps this is the most ambiguous to me - i personally interpret this to mean that the library would have its own set of 'official' images which people could purchase for 'official' use (not sure exactly what that would be). what's pretty straightforward, though, is that this is talking solely about commercial photos, not photos visitors are taking for themselves or their own private use.
in the end, i think we both agree that the architect can't specify how a building will be used (which is not what this is). i can understand why he would want to control the public dissemination of images from the outset, but, really, the whole policy seems impossible to police or control. if anything, i'd say the desire for total control over the images is one more naive than anything else.
@outed: it's a bummer that you have to ask for permission and then wait for a reply which is not likely to happen the same day, given you have to ask the library director. Jessamyn's visit is a good example. She was only in town for a few days and because of the policy did not have an approved opportunity to take pictures. If they were in the practice of allowing librarians on duty grant permission to would-be photographers that would be a great solution.
I maintain that photo taking is in no way disruptive by definition. It *can* be, and I wouldn't want that to condone that, but it doesn't have to be. Nor do I think that photographing public buildings is a right... simply that we should aspire to policies which are enabling rather than restrictive. Public buildings and the way we agree to use them should lead by example and embody the spirit of the society we want... in my case that spirit is one of openness and communal use. But as you said, maybe we don't see eye to eye.
Really though, the thing that is most surprising to me is the response from the librarian that Jessamyn posted to her site:
<i>At that time, the architect was very sensitive to photos being taken and the possibility of them being used for commercial purposes, so we added the following... “Permission to photograph the library reading rooms and other public areas of the building may be granted by the library director or her designee."</i>
The implication is that there was a more open photo policy before Chipperfield made his request. In the end, that's what gets me. Not the policy, which is similar to many other institutions, but the fact that Chipperfield's commercial self-interest is the reason that the policy exists. To me, that's an unfortunate fate for a public building.
(and yeah, maybe this is another point where we have a fundamental disagreement, but to me photographing a building is definitely one way of using it. Cue Tschumi.)
Technically all photography is legal on government owned property.
@bryan (isn't it interesting how we've appropriated the twitter lingo here. or vice versa. i digress)
i'll actually agree that, for me personally, it's kind of sad that chipperfield's office caused the policy to be derived, whether the consequences of that were forseen, intended, or otherwise.
but i think we also agree that the library itself is mostly to blame for how the policy is being interpreted and implemented. and is probably, to a large degree, no longer relevant. perhaps a classic demonstration of the brutal difference between policy and bureaucracy?
there is no one to blame but only persons to avoid and don't listen and obey. this is outrageous and belligerent. and, interesting to hinge on his right to photograph the place first.
so, until his ad writers write the building up in friendly publications, i suppose he'd be in favor of no one talking/writing about the building without his and/or next of kin's permission?
conceptually it boils down to that. it is very absurd.
isn't this an infringement on freedom of speech then? he should be extradited put in front of his masterpiece and allowed to be photographed with five dollar instant cameras only!;.)
seriously, it is also interesting case because it makes photographs the center of architectural publicity. that itself is an interesting argument since it goes all the way to drafting room and tells things about how the buildings designed and what kind of design decisions are actually prioritized based on photo shoots. this is a wide spread and common practice mind you.
as i am in process of transcribing what might be the last julius shulman interview, i get mr. shulman talk about how architect paul laszlo used to come to him with his material board and ask him if his selections would actually photograph nicely in future publications.
I don't think the policy is that out of line with the many photography policies of major institutions, both public and private. This particular policy reads that it prohibits taking pictures inside of the main reading room and other public spaces. I've been to other public institutions that do this and Chipperfield isn't the first to prohibit such photography inside.
On a visit to Moneo's Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza in Madrid my friend and I were prohibited from taking pictures inside and we were taking pictures of the building, not the art. But no one said anything to us when we photographed portions of the museum from the outside. At that point, you and the exterior are in the public realm.
Art museums typically do this as well to protect both the commercial image of the museum and the commercial value of the art inside. I think it's a little absurd for a library to do so but the policy could also have a limited time span and perhaps Chipperfield has that exclusion to interiors on all of his buildings.
Architects retain copyright of the architecture and it is our professional right to maintain control of that if we think photos of the building can be used for commercial gains by others, outside of the limited rights we extend to the owner to use the images for publicity. Maybe Chipperfiled doesn't want some local real estate guy using the library as a backdrop for marketing pamphlets.
The idea that the architecture exists in the public domain, free of copyright protection, conflates public domain with public realm. We don't sell our ideas or drawings to the owner, we sell our services. We (architects) still own the drawings and the images associated with those drawings. Taking casual pictures from the outside is of course legal and something you can't control.
Chipperfield is protecting his architecture from being used for commercial gain by others without his permission as he is enforcing the copyright of his architecture being plagiarized by others.
Could the library handle this policy better? Yeah. Just post a sign up front that says 'No photography allowed inside.'
@iamus: I think your conception of the architect's right to copyright is a bit off. I was taught that the architect has a copyright of the drawings and representations of the building that they create but not the building itself (this from my now admittedly foggy memory of professional practices courses).
This protects the architect from having other people replicate the building without paying any fees and the case was famously tested when a developer in the South East (Florida?) asked an architect to design one set of plans and then build a subdivision's worth of copies – without stating that intention from the start.
However, photography, so long as it's conducted from the public realm, and whether it's for commercial purposes or not, is legally acceptable in the US. This article from the American Society of Media Photographers is instructive on the issue. In other words, the architect has no legal right to control photography of their work other than to site that work on a plot of land large enough that it's impractical to take pictures of it without trespassing.
This issue is different in Europe and other places, but in the US them's the rules.
Newsflash!
Both the library and Chipperfield's office have responded. Jessamyn has updated her post here.
I can understand why this guy Chipperfield wants to keep this place on the down low. He just gave DeMoines a cheap knock-off of Rem's McCormick Student Center, at IIT. Shame on you Mr. Chipperfield for being an uninspired con artist.
Very Interesting approach.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.