Copyright ~ a double-edged sword
At its best copyright is legally-enforced social altruism, or intellectual civil rights – somewhat of a rarity in modern legislation.
See also:
* Artists’ Copyright
* Publishers’ Copyright
* Graffiti and Law
At worst it suffocates intellectual efforts it was created to nurture. In the United States such stifling greed bares its teeth in the Sonny Bono extensions
to U.S. copyright that effectively and retrospectively locks from public free access last century’s near entire cultural output.
Photographed art on GraffitiJunction.com MIGHT or MIGHT NOT breach copyright in the quagmire of overlapping laws.
IF the artist considers their work copyright, can prove it, objects, and seeks removal of material from Graffiti Junction – that is fine with us.
Please let me know by email to gjman at graffitijunction dot com.
Scott Wade’s dirty car art sort of begs the question
of copyright. How many layers of reproduction can
you see? Did you count our website image of Scott?
If the artist already displays their work elsewhere they can reasonably expect Graffiti Junction to remove our copies – especially if they are commercialising their work, or simply protecting their reputation or portfolio.
If, however, the artist is delighted, feels generous, supportive, and seeks to further their fame and our mission, they can kindly send more pictures, sketches, information, and request their name be attached to reproductions of their work on Graffiti Junction (assuming it’s wise or appropriate :0)
Hey, I’ll even give you a page and album.
If you, the artist, has "issues," let us begin with a discussion – not a summons. Email gjman at graffitijunction dot com (not .au!)
Interpreting copyright
Copyright law in most countries strongly supports the rights of street artists. Asserting your rights depends on the legality of the work and commissioning status, amongst other things. The photographer as publisher also has rights – and obligations. This is discussed half-way down the copyright-2 page. Click links at top of that page:
* Photographers’ and publishers’ rights and obligations
Resources
Australian artists seeking guidance on their moral, legal, and ownership rights – especially if they wish to market personal creations on shirts, porcelain, commercial art, etc. – can start with this article from artslaw.com.au and read extensively the excellent information gathered on that site about artistic rights, in whatever medium.
Equally superb is the Australian Copyright Council’s web site, carrying a vast array of briefing documents.
Case Study
Litigation makes the world go round .. a miserable place. If a global corporation is raking in the moolah using your ‘appropriated’ artwork, go get ‘em – if you dare. The smell of money makes us all a little unhinged.
This real life example is encouraging with its common sense:
Netherlands Court Rules ‘No infringement of copyright on graffiti’
The company Codemasters can continue to use an image of the graffiti-covered wall from the Ajax football stadium ‘De Arena’ in its video game ‘Club Football 2005 Ajax’, according to a ruling of 21 September 2005 by the District Court in Arnhem.
Antonius Tellegen, who in 1997 was commissioned by the Ajax football club to paint the graffiti-covered wall, claimed that his copyright had been infringed by the inclusion of shots of the wall in a video game. When the virtual football players move towards the short south-side of the stadium, Tellegen’s graffiti-covered wall comes into view.
However, the court rejected Tellegen’s claim on the grounds that the graffiti-covered wall is both an insignificant and a marginal element in the overall video game. As such, it does not form a substantial part of the marketing of the game. Moreover, the graffiti is now a fundamental part of ‘De Arena’ and all Codemasters has done is simply make the game as realistic as possible. For these reasons, and because Codemasters has already made several conciliatory gestures towards Tellegen, the court felt that there was no infringement of copyright in this instance.
Forums and Discussions
WikiPedia’s reference desk archive has two related discussions on graffiti and copyright. Condensed notes like these often illuminate complex issues in ways missed by reading dry copyright law.
On the UK Digital Camera Magazine forum a lively to and fro ensues after someone asks if they can sell images of graffiti. Opinions hone from broad misconceptions to eventually arrive at quoting copyright law, which really kills the conversation! If you read the three pages, you get the idea that common sense has no place in law when a court is constrained by legislation. The Codemasters case above, on the other hand, is refreshingly common sense.