Bullied by Gallery Owner

As you know, I run graffitipix.com, a site that sells pictures of graffiti street art. I recently received a disturbing email from a French gallery owner claiming to speak for all these graffiti artists - who shall remain nameless for the time being - threatening all sorts of actions; going to far as to suggest even "bigger" consequences than legal actions! I dunno, maybe they plan to come to my apartment and beat me up...

This comes from some misleading (intentional?) notion that a gallery owner showing some pictures from an artist somehow 'owns' the rights to anything and everything that artist might have done!

Now let me say, I respect intellectual property. And an artists rights. But we're talking graffiti here! Art intentionally put into the public domain! First, unless you are the photographer, you can no more claim copyright to a picture of the side of a building than you can to a picture of the statue of liberty! Does Michael Jackson write to People Magazine when they publish a Paparazzi's picture on their cover??

Second, what copyright? - graffiti is illegal in most places.

Now in fairness, we inadvertantly posted pictures of some works that were not public access public space pictures. We apologized, and they are all in the process of being removed. But to knowlingly try and bully us away from something we have every right to do, suggesting some dangerous "big" consequences, flies right in the face of what graffiti is all about! Graffiti is about free expression, about transcending boundries, and yes, thumbing their nose at the establishment.

Now that the establishment is making a buck from it, all of a sudden greed kicks in - and worse yet, under the guise of "what the artist wants"! What the artist wanted, at least before the gallery owners got there, was free creative expression. What happened?

Molly

Are copyrights on graffiti illegal?

Let me first say I believe strongly in copyright, and Intellectual Property (IP) protection in general. I believe an artist's work is their work. In an earlier post I talked a bit about copyright issues on graffiti art.

But what are the boundaries on copyrights when it comes to graffiti in a public access public space? (If you're reading this, you know I run graffitipix.com, a site that sells pictures of graffiti. We are careful to use photographs that we took directly or acquired the rights to.)

I recently had the opportunity to talk with an IP expert, and he said something very interesting - for the most part, graffiti is illegal. That is, tagging the side of a building is illegal without express permission from the building owner, and even then most states and municipalities make it illegal anyway. But here is the interesting part: under US law (and many other jurisdictions), you cannot profit from illegal activity. And as J.D. Lasica of "Freedom To Tinker", points out, it is unclear whether you can copyright an image created illegally.

Most would agree generally that the artist owns the rights on the art, the photographer owns the rights to their own photographs.

I've discussed with this with a government legal expert. It's not at all clear whether you can or would want to claim copyright over an image that you've created illegally.

My opinion, based in part on my own research into copyright law as well as my own personal feelings is that that when a graffiti artist tags a building, they are intentionally putting their work into the public domain. You cannot copyright public access public spaces. If you take a picture of the Statue of Liberty, you own the rights to that photograph.

What do you think? Can you - and would you want to - claim copyright on graffiti if it is illegal? And does that invalidate the copyright?

Molly

Copyrights on graffiti art

As you already know, I run www.graffitipix.com, which sells graffiti prints. Prior to launching graffitipix.com I sold these same prints on ebay. I was often asked about copyright issues, namely do I have permission to reprint and sell the work of another artist.

Well, as you might imagine, I've done some very extensive research on the matter prior to launching the business. Here's how it works:

Graffiti artists intentionally put their work into the public domain when they create something on public access public spaces. Public spaces are not copyright-able. If I draw something on the outside wall of a publicly accessible building, anyone can take a picture of it. Whomever took that picture owns the copyright on that picture, and may do with it what they may.

For instance, papparazzi take pictures of stars. They are free to sell those pictures to sleazy tabloids because they own the copyrights on those pictures, not the stars they took the pictures of.

Let me say I am a strong believer in copyrights, and the rights of artists. But when a graffiti artists tags a public space, they are putting those images into the public domain. That is afterall what they are after. When you see a book or mag of graffiti art, the money paid for those pictures went to the photographer, not the graffiti artist. And in the case of graffitipix.com, these are all pictures I or my partner took, or that we acquired from the original photographer.

Molly