…or at least the courts say so.
I’m having a bit of trouble figuring out what is going on here, mostly because I haven’t seen before and after shots, but artist Chapman Kelley is appealing a court decision stating that his 1.5 acre wildflower park is not “original art.” The city of Chicago altered the park in 2004, removing half of his installation, and Kelley subsequently sued the city for $825,000.
Here’s a bit more from artinfo.com:
Kelley is asking the federal appeals court in Chicago to overturn a ruling that his 1.5-acre wildflower piece, in which the flowers are planted in the shape of an ellipse, was not original enough to warrant protection under U.S. copyright law. The City of Chicago reduced the work by over half in 2004, to the dismay of the artist. Kelley says the destroyed wildflowers were valued at $825,000, and he wants the city to pay him for the damages.
There’s also this story from April ’09.
As I mentioned before…some photos of the park now would really help me figure out what’s going on. It is interesting to follow and see if gardens will or will not be considered something that can be copyrighted.
> More work at chapmankelley.com.