Copyright question on graffiti

<p>Can someone advice on whether there are copyright issues linked to shots of grafiti in streets?<br>

I have uploaded an image of various examples of graffiti I fell on in the streets of Shanghai (<a href="../photo/15004312">see here)</a>.<br>

What are the rules of copyright for shots of such type of work on the walls in a city, in various countries?<br>

I'm sure we are many that shoot such type of images, but I have not seen up till now answers to questions concerning copyright issues of such shots.</p>

<p>My take on it would be that it's ok to reproduce. You're not asserting that you created it, only having created the copy of it in your photograph. It is no different from taking a picture of Times Square with a Coke ad appearing in the frame. You're not asserting any rights over the Coke logo, only reproducing it as it appeared in a public place. Also given that in many cases such graffiti is perhaps regarded as wilful damage to a building (ie vandalism), it's unlikely any 'author' is going to take legal action against you for any alleged breach of copyright.</p>

<p>But I could be completely wrong!</p>

<p>I'm inclined to agree with John here, but I'd check with a lawyer just to be sure. And, national laws could be different.</p>

<p>There is a famous grafitti artist in the UK called Banksy. I've seen books featuring his work, also small photographs printed onto block frames for sale at street markets etc. Is this OK under copyright?</p>

<p>Your work is a photograph. The graffiti are not. You haven't even "copied" it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Your work is a photograph. The graffiti are not. You haven't even "copied" it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Correct. A photograph of something which was not in itself a photograph is just an illustration of the subject. People worry about infringing the copyright of buildings by photographing them and some building owners think this is the case but unless you are making an identical (or very similar) building, a photograph of it is not a copy and therefore cannot infringe any copyright.</p>

 

 

<p>Thanks to all of you for your responses.<br /> I'm not sure the "photography/real thing" argument works in all cases and all countries. I cannot sell a shot of the Eiffel tower for example. Pictures of it are protected by copyright.<br /> The graffiti in question is in no way vandalism. It is art, painted on for that purpose designated wooden barriers near the contemporary art city of Shanghai, an old factory area. Graffiti is not something you would see much, if any, on walls elsewhere in the city - at least I have not seen it anywhere else. I would however believe that it is not protected in this case, not only because I show a photo and not the real thing, but also because I chose to present five such shots together in a composite square, which is my choice.</p>

<p>Those DARN French (dare I say it) ...<br>

" c'est <strong>fromage ! </strong>"<br>

:o)<br>

(That's a terrible joke!)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure the "photography/real thing" argument works in all cases and all countries. I cannot sell a shot of the Eiffel tower for example. Pictures of it are protected by copyright.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can sell pictures of the Eiffel Tower taken in daylight. The owners think that you cannot sell a picture of it taken at night as they claim ownership of the artwork in the lighting. Whilst this is true, I would argue that to breach their copyright of the lighting, I would have to make a similar tower with similar lighting on it.</p>

<p> Some discussion here: <a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/fast-company-staff/fast-company-blog/eiffel-tower-repossessed">http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/fast-company-staff/fast-company-blog/eiffel-tower-repossessed</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Your work is a photograph. The graffiti are not. You haven't even "copied" it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry guys, that is not true--at least in the US. In fact, if you look at US copyright law, you cannot copyright a photograph of any 2D work of art, the copyright is in the piece itself and your photograph is not protected (copy shots, shots that are primarily the piece of art, in any case). Specifically, it spells out copy shots of other works of art, like paintings. If you create such an image and post it and someone steals it, you have no copyright protection. I don't know about other countries, but the principle here is that there is nothing done by you that is copyrightable. Now, it is different with 3D works but even though you can copyright those images in most cases, it doesn't mean you have any right to use the image any way you please. I don't think it is an issue to post it but it would be, most likely, an issue to sell your photograph for commercial use and in some cases, even as an art piece (gets a bit more subjective in that case). If a painting or other 2D art is in your photograph but not the only thing, then you most likely can copyright it but you still have the same sort of restrictions as if you shot someone elses 3D work. Even owning the copyright to an image does not give you unlimited rights to its use.</p>

<p>Graffiti is a more complex situation, to be sure. I would talk to an attorney but would also be very cautious of what I did with it, especially if they are copy shots. I don't think the law changes, but there may be case law that has set a precedent for its use. (Since it is most often an illegal act to create it, that may have a bearing). I also don't think posting to a site like this is much of an issue, but you never know.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Since it is most often an illegal act to create it, that may have a bearing</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is the use of an image which determines if it's an infringement or not, not the creation of it.<br>

EDIT: I see what you mean now. The act of creating the graffitti is illegal, not the photographing of it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure the "photography/real thing" argument works in all cases and all countries. I cannot sell a shot of the Eiffel tower for example. Pictures of it are protected by copyright.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My understanding is that the Eiffel tower itself is in the public domain, however, the city installed the lighting and copyrighted that in 2003 as a way to control the image of it, at least at night. When it was built, I doubt there were copyright laws that would have protected it and even so, the time limits would certainly have expired. In the US, you couldn't even copyright architecture until fairly recently. While I can understand individual copyright on design, I have a major problem if we can't make images in public--whether it includes architecture, art or whatever--where that "thing" is not the main focus. I think Fair Use becomes a factor in those cases--but where is the line?</p>

<p>It's an interesting question for an additional reason. The city where I live (Baltimore) has become a city a choice for several commercial motion picture and TV production crews to do location shooting. The crews get some kind of special tax breaks for shooting here. So if their location shooting includes "street art" on walls in the background, would not the artists who created this "street art" be entitled to acknowledgment and compensation? One should note that some of this "street art" was created by individuals who are NOT anonymous, but have been written about in publications, have had their work exhibited in art galleries, etc.<br>

One such "street artist" that I am referring to (and whose work I have also photographed) goes by the handle of "gaia". Some of his work in Baltimore can be viewed <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gaiastreetart/tags/baltimore/">here</a></p>

<p>Bill, most of the time a production company will either get permission or will disguise such things to avoid issue. A friend of mine was sued when he shot an ad in a coffee shop and someone's paintings were in the background of that ad (yes, different but some similarities). I have had to give permission for brochures, that had my images on the covers, to be on the racks in the background of a train station. I had a TV series shoot some scenes behind my old studio there, and they replaced a lot of the "street" art before shooting.</p>

<p>Again, it would be interesting to know if the law treats graffiti as public domain because of the illegal nature of it. But back in Portland, OR, there were a few companies that allowed and organized artists to create their graffiti on their buildings--that introduces a new twist to the whole thing--including some city ordinances being violated.</p>

<p>Here in the US (not sure about elsewhere), it depends on how the image is used. If it's incidental to a photograph of something else (i.e. it happens to be in the background, but the subject is something else), copyrights do not apply. However, as noted above, that doesn't prevent someone from suing you. Anyone can sue anyone over anything. Winning the suit is another issue. </p>

<p>It's also permitted to use the image in a transformative way. For instance, you could photograph a dog peeing on the graffiti and entitle the photo, "art critics." There would be two elements to your photo, the dog and the grafitti, both essential to make the photo work. The photo would be about the act of the dog peeing on the graffiti, and not about the graffiti itself. In that sense, the graffiti would be used in a transformative sense (not intended by the original artist).</p>

<p>Take note, though: I'm not an attorney! If it matters, ask one.</p>

<p>As far as that picture of a Coke™ sign in Times Square is concerned, I wonder if SOPA wouldn't allow Coca Cola to prevent your showing it, at least on the internet?</p>

<p>I always thought it was "Quelle Fromage!"</p>

<p>JDM, I think SOPA could indeed present a problem. If you were to display an original photo here on PhotoNet that happened to have some trace of a copyrighted image anywhere in the background, technically the Justice Department could accuse photo.net of violating copyright protections and compel PN's host and DNS servers to take PN offline. My understanding is that only an accusation is necessary. IF SOPA passes, I would think that all urban photography should be banned on PN. Only landscapes, flowers, and nudes would be safe. (I have to wonder if that might be the idea.)</p>

<p>Regarding the Eiffel Tower issue, any Francophile will tell you in no uncertain terms that if it's French, it's automatically better than anything else.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>technically the Justice Department could accuse photo.net of violating copyright protections and compel PN's host and DNS servers to take PN offline.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unlikely as only the copyright owner can bring action against an alledged infringer.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>As far as that picture of a Coke™ sign in Times Square is concerned, I wonder if SOPA wouldn't allow Coca Cola to prevent your showing it, at least on the internet?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />I don't expect Coca Cola would have a problem with it. After all, they put up their advertisements in public so people can see them, not so that they are hidden from view.</p>

<p>Steve, either the copyright holder OR the Justice Dept could seek this action:</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Again, it would be interesting to know if the law treats graffiti as public domain because of the illegal nature of it. But back in Portland, OR, there were a few companies that allowed and organized artists to create their graffiti on their buildings--that introduces a new twist to the whole thing--including some city ordinances being violated."<br>

There is a similar arrangement in Baltimore, setting aside a space for graffiti artists to showcase their work. It is called <a href=" Alley</a>. Groups have staged live "performance art" using this alley as a backdrop, performances that many spectators photographed. </p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Steve, either the copyright holder OR the Justice Dept could seek this action</p>

</blockquote>

<p>SOPA isn't law yet though.... is it?</p>

<p>Seve, no, it's not law. Pres. Obama opposes it in its current form, but supports some recourse for US copyright holders in principle. The wildcard issue is whether the bill will be reintroduced in the next Congress (likely) and whether our new president (if Obama is defeated) will support SOPA. I think we don't know yet how Congress stands on the issue, and it may take 80% popular opposition to the bill before Congress will oppose something THEY want (e.g. like war in the Middle East).</p>

Intellectual property is copyright protected, be it a photo, graffiti, book or sculpture. A photo of graffiti or of a sculpture would be a derivative work and copyright infringement. Only the copyright holder can make or give permission for a derivative work.

 

The issue of Incidental use may vary from country to country. On HGTV programs made in Canada, pictures on a wall of a room are blurred out; on programs made in the USA the pictures are not blurred out, it is considered incidental use while showing the room.

<p>If you commit an illegal act by destroying someone else's property, no court is going to protect your right to it. Similarly, if the property owner removes your "art" by painting over it, do you think you'll have any luck suing him for destroying "your" art? NO!</p>

<p>Peter</p>