Graffiti... protected by copyright laws?

[Richard M. Coda]

I have a question. A group of us were driving around Phoenix the other morning looking for photographs. We came upon this abandoned building that had some interesting graffiti. We stopped and there were actually graffiti "artists" working on the building. The owner of the building came out and and we talked for a while. Interesting guy... he rents the building our for movies etc. He had hired these guys to paint on his building. He said it looks a lot better than a beat up old building. And that the "artists" were "world-famous". We asked if we could take photographs of the walls, and the "artists". The "artists" were very concerned about copyright infringement (even though they sounded like they were trying to use $10 words, albeit the wrong words), and they wanted to make sure that none of us photographic "artists" would benefit financially by selling these photographs. One of us asked if he could get a portrait of any of the "artists" in front of their work. (Ironically, and unbeknownsed to them, this photographer is a County Sheriff's Officer, and we were right across the street from the County Jail!). They all declined, except for one. I believe they were afraid of getting arrested, caught in the act.

So, except for the private property/trespassing issue (which did not come up, the owner allowed us to photograph, gave us a tour of the place and invited us back)... is public graffiti covered by copyright laws for the purpose of a photographer capturing it and profiting from it?

Thanks,

Rich

[Peter Mounier]

Just my opinion here...
Graffiti is not protected because it is illegal. A public mural painted with permission in the style of graffiti can be protected just as any other work of original art.

Peter

[BrianShaw]

If the building owner hired them to paint up his building, doesn't that make it a situation of "commissioned murals" rather than graffiti? Graffiti is a crime... this sounds like art! I would assume that the "artists" would have a very tough time protecting their copyright (if one really exists) for a work that is in public view. I hope there is a lawyer who will reply -- the answer to this type of question might take more than someone who can spew $10 words... but also someone who looks good in a $1000 suit.

[Richard M. Coda]

A snap of some of us speaking with the owner of the building. Note the 4th Ave. Jail across the street in the background.

[Peter Mounier]

"I would assume that the "artists" would have a very tough time protecting their copyright (if one really exists) for a work that is in public view."

What's more public than the internet? Just because you post a picture on the internet doesn't mean you'll have a very tough time protecting your copyright.
If they put a copyright symbol in the painting, followed by "all rights reserved" and post the date of the copyright, they will have protection. If they then follow up with registering their art with the copyright office, they should be able to collect monetary damages if the copyright is violated.
Again, this is just my opinion, and I'm not a lawyer.

Peter

[BarryS]

Like any other type of pictorial art--grafitti is protected by copyright. There is *no* requirement for registration or display of the copyright symbol or any accompanying text. The copyright is secured when the work is created.

[Deane Johnson]

Another question might center around the owner of the building hiring them to do the work. Who retained rights to the work? Was there a formal written agreement as to whether the owner or the artists retained the rights?

[BrianShaw]

What's more public than the internet? Just because you post a picture on the internet doesn't mean you'll have a very tough time protecting your copyright.

Actually, it might, I would think. First one must determine that the copyright has been violated (how does one do that... short of seeing youur image show up, for example, in a magazine?). Then one must sue to collect damages. That sounds like a tough time to me. I mgiht be wrong, though.

In the mural situation, any bloke walking down the street can see and snap a pic of the graffiti/artwork. It would be a different situation if it was in a gallery with "no photography" signs posted. I don't mean to quibble, but that is all I meant. You are right... posting art on the internet is quite similar to posting art on the side of a building.

I believe in the value and justness of the copyright law, but it seems as weak-kneed as the law requiring automobile drivers to have licenses and insurance - the protection is there, but many people violate those laws and get away with it.

[tim atherton]

"unofficial" graffiti probably wouldn't be protected as you generally can't copyright something that's illegal.

But in Canada - and many other jurisdictions - if the graffiti was "official" and commissioned for the building, you could still generally photograph it, as there are exceptions to copyright for publicly situated art (eg, statues, sculpture, murals or whatever). It isn't an infringement of copyright to photograph or film them

[Peter Mounier]

I suppose it would be impossible to keep anyone from photographing your mural, but not so hard to determine if someone is using the image to generate profit from it. If someone intends to generate profit from it they would have to make it available to the public. As soon as it shows up in a magazine, other than for editorial comment or other exceptions to the laws, the profit motive would be obvious.

Peter