May Be A Silly Question?? Graffiti Question?

i think it depends. if it's a youth project that the city hired to make a mural i think it would be protected. if it's vandalism, then no. of course that doesn't stop them from coming to your house either.


---Mike Savad

I think that's an excellent question. I have such photos as well and am not sure about it at all. I would *think* that if there are other elements in the photo it makes sense that's it's ok, since you aren't just copying the graffiti. However, I don't know and have held back on posting such.

Thanks for chiming in Mike and HW. You both have great points and it's still one of those gray areas. :)

Don't think I've ever seen anything like that on the FAA sales page but there is some spectacular graffiti in places that would make a great element if a photo or a photo all by itself.

I've seen people post graffiti pictures with just part of something or like others mentioned. Having different elements in the picture as well but not an entire graffiti piece as the art/photo.

The odds that it would be copyrighted, I should think, are tiny at best. Graffiti is never permanent and should a graffiti artist actually want to try and pursue copyright issues, the art would be gone anyway. It's one of the reasons I love photographing it; besides the skill, colors, and creativity, it's temporary and the only evidence that is was ever there is a photograph.

I agree if it's vandalism, no one is gonna be dumb enough to come forward and make claim, lest they end up in jail!
Here's one that knocked my socks off and I am proudly using it.

I would say no if it was an illegal act.

Like calling the cops because someone steals your crack!

The fact that an artist can own the copyright to a piece of illegally made art that emblazons the side of someone else’s property creates an interesting dynamic when a third party takes a photograph of that graffiti (like the one I took above) and attempts to profit off of it. That’s infringement of copyright and doing so without the artist’s permission could actually result in the artist taking you to court and winning monetary damages (if the artist isn’t concerned about the criminal ramifications, obviously).

http://thelegalartist.com/2013/04/30/illegal-graffiti-gets-copyright-protection-because-it-is-still-art/

I agree with you Marlene and John. I'm talking about when you find full pieces on say a legal wall for graffiti artists. Yes it still changes but is now technically a legal piece of art. ??

You need to actually look at property law.

Graffiti IS copyrighted. ANY form of work of art is copyright from the moment is it is created.

“[o]wnership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied.”

So, the 'canvas' may be legal to sell images of but the graffiti is copyright to the artist.

Thereby lies the rub

The owner of the property may rub it off, pull down the wall etc but they cannot sell copies of the work without permission, nor make copies of it and transform them

That is exactly what I'm trying to say Craig thanks for the link.

One could possibly argue that since the graffiti has remained in tact over x number of years there was an unwritten approval by the owner thus making it in fact a work of art. But, why is it any different than taking a photo of someone's immaculate restored 18th century house? Its painted as well.

edited: Actually you can under certain circumstances.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf

Thank you Isabella for your input. It's official I'll take it then that it's not ok for us to sell photos of entire graffiti pieces as our artwork.

Thank you Isabella for your input. It's official I'll take it then that it's not ok for us to sell photos of entire graffiti pieces as our artwork.

Interesting sidenote.... we actually had a piece up. A photo of a woman next to a piece of graffiti

The graffiti artist sent in a DMCA :)

of course lets see them sue you in court... that should be interesting. yeah, i made that and messed up that whole building...


---Mike Savad

did he have proof it was his? funny...


i think it's best to present it as a part of the scene, rather than the graffiti itself.

---Mike Savad

http://wjlta.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/selling-the-writing-on-the-wall-does-copyright-protect-the-work-of-graffiti-artists/

Be careful when photographing sculptures for commercial purposes — you could quickly find yourself on the losing end of a copyright infringement case and being forced to pay a lot of money.

This happened back in 2011, when photographer Mike Hipple was forced to pay up after shooting stock photos of a public art installation in Seattle. Now it has happened again: a court has ordered the United States Postal Service to pay a whopping $684,844 to sculptor Frank Gaylord for using a photograph of the Korean War Veterans Memorial on a stamp.
http://petapixel.com/2013/09/23/sculptor-awarded-685000-photo-korean-war-memorial-used-stamp/

Not all graffiti is illegal.

That said, if I see illegal graffiti, I will in fact sometimes shoot the wall it is on. Of course I am not shooting the graffiti itself but rather the wall..... Buying that? Not sure I do either but the artist is welcome to sue me if they think differently.

I only use illegal graffitti.
there's tons of legal wall art in tucson....some is quite fantastic.
i can tell the difference...the illegal stuff is usually painted over in 24 hours.

Basically an artist profiting off the work of another artist. If its part of the scene that's one thing, if its the main focus of the image then basically you are selling a photo of another person's artwork.

How is that different than walking into a gallery, photographing the art and posting it for sale?

Anyone who supports graffiti is in a way supporting a criminal and in no way an artist; sneaking around defacing private property for personal gain has never been art. If some of you like to promote it then think how you might feel if someone spray painted over your paintings and photographs. Graffiti "style" is popular now but if you study it it is very poor composition, color and form with the zig zag style of balloon and outlined letters.

Couple of views:

"think about your contribution to a photograph before calling it art, putting it in your portfolio, uploading it to your website and claiming copyright. A good litmus test might be to ask yourself, how much of this is really mine?"

http://blog.bespokephoto.com/2011/01/whose-art-is-this.html

........

Photography preserves a temporary art form: "The history of graffiti and street art are tied to the history of modern photography."

http://blog.talenthouse.com/2014/01/29/a-global-street-art-view-of-photography-oneshot/

.....

If you are a photographer it might be appropriate to have graffiti in a scene as it is in fact reality. In a film where there are tag gangs working then it is an important element I think.

If creation of the art wasn't a crime, then I would say there is a copyright.

If the owner of the building commissioned the work the right is theirs. Work for hire.

The courts do not protect the rights of criminals so vandalism (which is what it is, no matter how nice) wouldn't be protected by any court of law.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/2011/05/surfing-guadalupe-encinitas-san-diego-mural.html


Despite accolades from residents and others -- an online poll found more than 90% of respondents in favor of keeping the mural, compared with nearly 10% opposed -- the city of Encinitas appears poised to remove the "Surfing Madonna" from its unauthorized perch.

In 2009, the city of New Brunswick allowed a "graffiti weekend" during which artists of all types signed up to paint a 2 mile concrete wall below highway 18. For anyone to they are not artists is flat out wrong and is confusing taggers with artists like these.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vZ5W8LnqAk

I agree with you Louise. The Real so to speak graffiti artists have amazing talent and skill. The realism and creativeness that these people can create with a spray paint can is art and amazing!

so, basically we have graffiti artists, wall mural artists and the dreaded illegal taggers.

I don't really give a flying F about copyright on graffiti. I have shot it and sold it. I really like this shot.

Kevin that is pure graffiti at its finest!

Then there's the LEGAL taggers...the construction workers marking their territory!

The image below was shot back in January 2011, and has since been completely redone (painted over) numerous times. It's located in a small side alley, off of a main alley. At any given time, there might be trash cans, empty crates/boxes, pallets, and other assorted trash stacked in this narrow alley. I walked by this location not a week ago, and it has been changed completely again. It changes constantly.

The thing is if these graffiti artist were concerned about copyright and people profiting from their work there is nothing to stop them from buying a 4x8 foot sheet of drywall from the home improvement store and creating their work on that.

That wouldn't be illegal. They could sell it. They would own the copyright.

But it seems the ones that do it, even the good ones, are more about destruction than construction. Even if they are good they are basically just punk kids and they don't deserve the protection of our courts.

Even if the crack was YOURS, the cops aren't going to help you get it back if someone steals it.

What about all the graffiti / tagging that is done on trains? Mobile vandalism as I see it. I was at a r/r crossing the other day, and there was some nice, colorful painting on a majority of the box cars, and I wish I would have had my camera with me. I would have sorted through the shots, processed them, and possibly posted something here for sale.

Greg

I think the railroads should charge advertising space on the side of the cars. After all, they have a large space and a captive audience.

Lol, good idea, John. :)

Likewise, surely there's a law (free speech?) that protects journalistic photographers who capture scenes of illegal defacement of private property! In Kevin's "Door Chicago" image, above, wouldn't the shop-owner have soon cleaned up the mess? Kevin's photo could be useful in convicting the perpetrator(s) of the crime.

As with many laws, "it depends," and higher laws come into play.

As a taxpayer, property owner, etc I hate vandalism for all its senseless destruction and the "look at me" nature of it. Kind of like how I can't stand a quiet moment at the lake or beach destroyed by "look at me" jet skier.

But from an art standpoint, is the canvas used up for discussion? Is it less art because its not done on a traditional canvas? The artwork itself seems to have some value since so many people are moved to take a photo of it.

How about those sidewalk chalk artists? Man, I can't stand those punks. Using the public sidewalks for their own purposes. They even have the gall to put a hat out for money. Every time I take a photo of their work and post it for sale I'm reminded how much I can't stand these freeloaders clogging up the walkways. Why don't they walk into a gallery and start selling their work the right way. Work within the system.

And don't get me started on those sand castle people on the beach. I have risk to getting my tennis shoes wet every time one of these punk kids and their dad starts digging in the sand right at the waterline. Don't they know all that work will be gone the next day?

Well hell, Edward, if we're going to include sidewalk chalk and sand castle art, what about those that draw designs with their fingers in dusty automobiles? Especially if the car isn't theirs. ;)

Oh yeah those "wash me" punks! I forgot about those guys.