Graffiti 086: Graffiti and Copyright

Here’s an interesting little story from Susan over at The Bench. She says that “graffiti writers win copyright cases all the time”. Hmm… I wonder how accurate that is. While this particular story is a pretty outrageous example of exploiting other artists’ work (with the raunchy stench of kitsch, to boot), I suspect that a graffiti artist has very few rights when you consider that the work is illegal in the first place.

Does a murderer own a crime scene?

Another interesting point is how can you properly accredit the work of an artist who works under a pseudonym? Or, if the pseudonym is all that is known, and that name is visibly part of the tag, throwie or piece, how can an artist reasonably say that his/her work has not been accredited in a photograph?

Insisting on copyright is kind of hypocritical when you consider that graffiti is a revolt against society and its laws. When a graffiti writer insists on asserting copyright, they expediently use the law for her own purposes, whereas during the act of vandalism itself she showed utter disregard for it.

How convenient.

~ by ostro on February 23, 2009.