This is so terror topography. I hope the sculpture park doesn't become another rape zone.

What other rape zones are you talking about? (I would assume Freeway Park would be one).

I'm sure there will be security to protect the sculptures from any potential rape threats.

I mean Freeway Park, mostly. Which, bummer, because Freeway Park is gorgeous. The most picturesque way to terrify yourself at two in the afternoon.

At least it was, four years ago, the last time I set foot in there.

Would have appreciated if you'd asked before using my photo. It is marked All Rights Reserved on Flickr.

Big security booth at the south end of the middle parcel. You can look in and wave hi and regret that they have a large box of non-dairy creamer and thus the coffee that will keep them awake as they scan their security cam monitors will be undelicious. And then try to find the sweet spot in the middle of Wake to do "it" in. Which reminds me of my friend who smoked pot while riding in Pirates of the Carribean at Disney World. Jen, I'm not sure, but when I looked at the word yesterday I thought it might be "BRY," like, short for Bryan. Which is a crappy tag, I admit.

It was kind of the author to note in this article the Flickr photo group dedicated to images of the Olympic Sculpture Park. It seems, however, that the author was unaware that the images are copyrighted material and require permission of the photographer prior to duplication or republishing of the image. Would the author or The Stranger's editoral representative please contact the photographer for permission and proper credit or remove the image. Flickr photos each have specific licensing agreements, and the one for this was "Copyright 2007: All Rights Reserved."

I agree with your post, but I don't agree with your practice of ripping of a photographer's image without permission or attribution. Responsible journalists, much less a commentator on the arts, should know better.

OK, the tone of these comments is ridiculous, except Cascadeguy. To you, Cascadeguy, I say, I'm sorry. I've been out of it for a few days and now I see your complaint -- what would you prefer I do? Let me know at jgraves@thestranger.com, and I'm all over it. (You could also comment here, but obviously I'm a little slow at reading my comments. Again, I really do apologize. I didn't mean to ignore you! B Mully just drew my attention to the conversation going on over at Flickr, which brought me back here, and, long to short, I want to do right by you.)

The rest of you, chill the hell out. What exactly have I done besides give a good Flickr page thousands more clickers and give a good Flickr photo 200,000 or so more lookers? I see the point about not posting a photograph without the photographer's name -- although why are people using nicknames instead of real names when they want credit as serious photographers? -- but circulating photographs on the Internet (with a link, no less) is not exactly ripping someone off the way publishing an image in the paper with no credit is.

To me, part of what's great about working online is the free sharing that happens. Linking to people is a way to say, go here, pay attention to this other thing, not just to our thing. (Unlike, say, the terminal point of the paper when it comes to journalistic photography.)