Graffiti I.D.?

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by Sanford, Jun 13, 2020.

  1. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    Lots of Graffiti I.D. in this one: thank goodness that the bicycle forms the main part of the Image.


  2. Or does the photographer? And, if so, which one?
  3. OK for journalism, not for advertising or calendars. FYI, "calendars" were paper versions of your device calendar. One page for month, each page usually featuring a different photograph. Used to be a nice source of additional income for some photographers.
  4. Huh?
  5. Yes they do and if that tree is the main element of a photo and you used it in a commercial way you would be in violation.
  6. I’m not sure that’s correct as a blanket statement, since trademarks apply within a scope. If I used a photo of that tree to advertise saplings from a nursery without any mention of Pebble Beach, for example, that may well be far enough removed from golf to avoid infringement. I won’t be the one to test it, but trademarks aren’t absolute.
  7. What am I missing? Given that tagging and most graffiti is illegal (at least done without permission) how can it be trademarked? One cannot make gain or profit off of an illegal act. If someone (A) robs a bank and B comes along and 'steals' A's ill-gotten money, A cannot accuse B of theft and expect compensation.
  8. Believe me, you’re not missing anything. It’s just another of many ideas tossed out into the vast sea that is the Internet instead of posting or talking about photos.
  9. OK, I will let this graffiti photo of mine do the talking for me ;)

    20190404 545 Chelsea Art Dist NYC.JPG
  10. DFE894D2-565F-424B-81BA-4B92D990466A.jpeg
    Canon P Jupiter 12 Retropan 320
    michaellinder and luis triguez like this.
  11. Or does the photographer?

    A bastardized Elvis Costello: This Year's Model
    samstevens likes this.
  12. Like I said, if the main element is the tree, you can't use it for basically any commercial use. This according to the trademark lawyer that spoke to us. This is something I don't worry about because I don't do any commercial type work but I find the concept interesting.
  13. You would have nothing to worry about.
  14. Trademarking has nothing to do with copyright. A trademark has to be registered, whereas copyright exists in an 'artwork' from the moment of its creation. No registration needed, nor any commercial purpose.

    Copyright can be transferred, waived or traded, and is usually deemed to belong to the commissioner of the work(s). I.e. if you're paid to take a photograph, then copyright of the image belongs to your client by default. Unless some contractual arrangement of variance is in place.

    If no other party or artwork is involved, then copyright naturally belongs to the originator of the image, written work or 3 dimensional creation.

    So, nobody needs to 'trademark' any work of art to own its copyright. Legally or illegally created.

    Consider how you'd feel if someone walked into a gallery where your photos were on display and started snapping copies of them. Would you have had to have registered 'trademark' in those pictures to sue the snapper for beach of copyright? Absolutely not!
  15. I’d be flattered.
    Sanford likes this.
  16. How can copyright protect defacement of property?
    Are buildings with artistic expression incorporated into the architecture protected from photography?
    Sanford likes this.
  17. ...which is exactly the response of the graffiti artists I've talked with.
    michaellinder likes this.
  18. Sam & RodeoJoe: Perhaps we gan get one of the Elves to ask HQ for a legal opinion. Until such an opinion that is clearly worded and emphatic regarding the position taken, I'm going to keep on photographing graffiti with only one qualification; it has to be interesting.
    tholte likes this.
  19. "In case of fire, break glass with fist, if necessary"?

    Last edited: Jun 30, 2020

Share This Page