Artnews story here. They use it in an ad.
Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento thinks Kapoor is trying to use copyright to censor speech.
IP professor Christine Farley tweets: "The Bean appears for just 1 second, but it takes up almost the entire frame. De minimis?" (For a recent de minimis case, see here.)
And some interesting Twitter discussion among some law professors here (though I really don't get the doubts about copyrightability here). Brian Frye says "surely the use of public art as a backdrop is - or should be! - a fair use." Michael Risch wonders why we should think "people should be free to commercialize photos of sculptures when they can't commercialize a photo of a painting. Other than the fact that you have to pay to see one of them in a museum, it's unclear to me why these are different categories of art." Several people seem to think there should be a statutory exception allowing the use of public art.
