Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-11-2017, 07:56 PM
astro astro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Taint of creation
Posts: 33,150
Do graffiti sprayers have any legal rights if a business uses their "art" in ads or logos?

Per this story

New 'United Crushers' Beer Raising Red Flags with Artists

What legal rights, if any, would a graffiti artist have if someone copies their works and uses it on advertising and logos?

Quote:
A new beer, named to celebrate Minnesota's new MLS team, is brewing controversy with a group of local artists.

Several men who didn't want to be identified by name say they are part of the United Crushers art collective, a group who years ago climbed on top of the ADM-Delmar #4 grain elevator in Prospect Park and painted their namesake on the side.

Last week, they saw advertisments and an announcement from Surly Brewing that a new pale ale was set to be released March 12 called the "United Crushers" Pale Ale.

The men said they were caught off guard and that "a lot of natural questions arose," like how the brewery came up with the concept and name.

"We don't want to get our artwork just ripped off," one of the men said.
  #2  
Old 03-11-2017, 08:23 PM
kunilou's Avatar
kunilou kunilou is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 23,858
Quote:
Several men who didn't want to be identified by name
It's pretty hard to assert ownership of intellectual property when you don't want to be identified.
  #3  
Old 03-11-2017, 09:16 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by astro View Post
Per this story

New 'United Crushers' Beer Raising Red Flags with Artists

What legal rights, if any, would a graffiti artist have if someone copies their works and uses it on advertising and logos?
A graffiti artist would have the same rights as any (1) author of a (2) creative, (3) original (4) work of expression (5) that has been fixed in a perceivable medium.
  #4  
Old 03-11-2017, 09:18 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 78,554
IANAL.

So far as I can tell, they have the same intellectual property rights as anyone else (though what they're claiming here looks like a trademark right specifically, not a copyright). But the catch is, in order to assert or defend those intellectual property rights, they'd have to first confess to a crime, which they probably don't want to do.
  #5  
Old 03-11-2017, 09:54 PM
Giles's Avatar
Giles Giles is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Newcastle NSW
Posts: 12,894
There seem to be two intellectual property issues here: copyright and trade marks.

As far as copyright goes, the big problem is that the artist(s) don't want to be identified, presumably because that might be subject to both criminal and civil sanctions for damaging someone else's property. However, that would not affect rights under copyright: if you stole paints and canvas, and created a new Mona Lisa, you would still have copyright even though you could be prosecuted for theft, and someone else presumably still owns the materias that you have used.

As far a trade marks go, the use of the "United Crushers" name by the brewers is probably fine. Firstly, the United Crushers Art Collective would primarily engaged in an illegal activity. Furthermore, they aren't sing the name to sell a product or service: no one is paying them for their graffiti. (I can conceive of owners of blank walls paying for graffiti to be painted on the walls, so I might be wrong there.) With an illegal activity not carried on for profit, I don't think you can claim trade-mark rights.

In any case, a brewery is not in the same market as a group of graffiti painters, so the brewers could use the same "United Crushers" trade mark without any risk of confusion between the products.
  #6  
Old 03-11-2017, 10:33 PM
Alley Dweller's Avatar
Alley Dweller Alley Dweller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,934
Graffiti artist "Banksy" has managed to run a lucrative business while remaining anonymous.

Welcome to the wall: artist Banksy opens Bethlehem hotel

Welcome to Dismaland: Banksy's new grotesque art theme park
  #7  
Old 03-11-2017, 10:47 PM
slash2k slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
But the catch is, in order to assert or defend those intellectual property rights, they'd have to first confess to a crime, which they probably don't want to do.
How many years is "years ago"? The statute of limitations for low-level crimes such as theft or vandalism varies from state to state, but is rarely more than five years, and usually less (googling suggests it is 3 years in Minnesota).
  #8  
Old 03-12-2017, 07:22 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 78,554
Quote:
Quoth Giles:

(I can conceive of owners of blank walls paying for graffiti to be painted on the walls, so I might be wrong there.)
Indeed, this is sometimes done to prevent more offensive graffiti. Most graffiti artists will usually respect pre-existing artwork, and not deface it.
  #9  
Old 03-12-2017, 11:50 AM
Projammer's Avatar
Projammer Projammer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SW Arkansas
Posts: 6,352
Usually. But not always.

The Banksy vs Robbo War in Pictures
  #10  
Old 03-12-2017, 01:11 PM
Thin Ice Thin Ice is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 27° 28' N 80° 21' W
Posts: 15,635
If graffiti artists had the same IP rights as any other artist, would that mean the owner of a business whose property had been vandalized could not paint over the offending artwork because that would destroy the artist's intellectual property?
  #11  
Old 03-12-2017, 01:38 PM
naita naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 5,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thin Ice View Post
If graffiti artists had the same IP rights as any other artist, would that mean the owner of a business whose property had been vandalized could not paint over the offending artwork because that would destroy the artist's intellectual property?
Basic IP rights don't cover the destruction of the artwork by someone in lawful possession of it.
  #12  
Old 03-12-2017, 02:01 PM
Hilarity N. Suze Hilarity N. Suze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Denver
Posts: 7,654
My son (who I believe has often taken part in art-bombing, although I don't think he does it any more) has a collection of Banksy (or alleged Banksy) works on coasters. Did Banksy get any royalties for these coasters? Does he want any? Would he even care that we have beers sweating on his works?
  #13  
Old 03-12-2017, 02:19 PM
Trinopus Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,854
By spraying it and abandoning it, aren't they implicitly releasing it to the public domain?

Are there special rules for "transient art," as if someone were to draw a picture in the sand at the beach, knowing the next tide would efface it, but someone else took a picture of it first?
  #14  
Old 03-12-2017, 02:49 PM
Projammer's Avatar
Projammer Projammer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SW Arkansas
Posts: 6,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilarity N. Suze View Post
Did Banksy get any royalties for these coasters? Does he want any? Would he even care that we have beers sweating on his works?
According to Alley Dweller'slinks above Banksy is a has a business presence I'm guessing he's operating anonymously from behind a wall of lawyers and holding companies. I'll bet that if he didn't authorize them beforehand his lawyers have gotten a piece of it by now.
  #15  
Old 03-12-2017, 02:56 PM
outlierrn outlierrn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: republic of california
Posts: 5,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
By spraying it and abandoning it, aren't they implicitly releasing it to the public domain?

Are there special rules for "transient art," as if someone were to draw a picture in the sand at the beach, knowing the next tide would efface it, but someone else took a picture of it first?
I would imagine if someone was a famous artist, and someone else was selling prints of the photos, then yes.
  #16  
Old 03-12-2017, 02:59 PM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,500
Those are the biggest brewing vats I've ever seen ...
  #17  
Old 03-12-2017, 03:17 PM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 4,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giles View Post
As far as copyright goes, the big problem is that the artist(s) don't want to be identified, presumably because that might be subject to both criminal and civil sanctions for damaging someone else's property. However, that would not affect rights under copyright: if you stole paints and canvas, and created a new Mona Lisa, you would still have copyright even though you could be prosecuted for theft, and someone else presumably still owns the materias that you have used.
Huh. That brings up the question-- would the owner of the paints and canvas have any claim toward the "new Mona Lisa"?
  #18  
Old 03-12-2017, 03:21 PM
ftg's Avatar
ftg ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 17,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by naita View Post
Basic IP rights don't cover the destruction of the artwork by someone in lawful possession of it.
There's this thing called "moral rights" that in countries in some cases prevents willful destruction of works without the creators permissions. Europe is fairly generous in this regard.

The US is a Johnny-come-lately to this, enacting the VARA law in 1990. It explicity prohibits such unauthorized willful or negligent destruction for visual works of "recognized stature".

Yeah, "recognized stature" is about as solid as a pile of Jello.

In the case of Banksy art, I think there could be an argument made for "recognized stature". So if Banksy hits your wall, better be careful. Not so sure about the work of this United Crushers art collective.

"Moral rights" laws can also cover the right to publish anonymously, etc. Hiding behind a corporate front with lawyers seems like a better idea.

Reminder: trademark and copyright are different ideas. Giles covers the basics of trademark here. The beer company is quite likely good here.

The term "United Crushers" is too short to be copyrighted on its own. If the original was written in a particular distinctive style and the beer company copies that, then that's a problem. Ditto any artwork/logo from from the original.

Note that there are two levels of copyrights: unregistered and registered. If the collective never bothered to copyright the original (due to time and money), then the best they can hope for is to get the beer company to stop using their artwork (but not name) and a little money. No big payoff for damages, etc.

Last edited by ftg; 03-12-2017 at 03:21 PM.
  #19  
Old 03-12-2017, 04:03 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
By spraying it and abandoning it, aren't they implicitly releasing it to the public domain?



There is no implicit way to "release" a work into the public domain and, arguably, there might not be any explicit way either.

The only certain way for something to become a public domain work is for its copyright term to expire on schedule.

You might argue some kind of implicit license for certain uses however. And people can certainly take photographs of things that are visible in public—that doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it.
  #20  
Old 03-12-2017, 04:37 PM
Trinopus Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
. . . The only certain way for something to become a public domain work is for its copyright term to expire on schedule. . . .
By a wonderful coincidence, I just today participated in one other way: I put it in my will that all my writing (yeah, yeah, I know) goes into the public domain when I die.

But, right, not applicable to the scenario in the OP.
  #21  
Old 03-12-2017, 05:03 PM
Son of a Rich's Avatar
Son of a Rich Son of a Rich is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Barsoom
Posts: 4,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by ftg View Post
There's this thing called "moral rights" that in countries in some cases prevents willful destruction of works without the creators permissions. Europe is fairly generous in this regard.

The US is a Johnny-come-lately to this, enacting the VARA law in 1990. It explicity prohibits such unauthorized willful or negligent destruction for visual works of "recognized stature".

Yeah, "recognized stature" is about as solid as a pile of Jello.

In the case of Banksy art, I think there could be an argument made for "recognized stature". So if Banksy hits your wall, better be careful. Not so sure about the work of this United Crushers art collective.
So under your scenario, you wouldn't be able to paint your own building if "Banksy" vandalized it?
  #22  
Old 03-12-2017, 05:27 PM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 26,209
Practically speaking, you wouldn't want to paint over a Banksy. Not when you can sell it for perhaps a million bucks.
  #23  
Old 03-12-2017, 06:16 PM
Peter Morris Peter Morris is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The far canal
Posts: 12,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
IANAL.

So far as I can tell, they have the same intellectual property rights as anyone else (though what they're claiming here looks like a trademark right specifically, not a copyright). But the catch is, in order to assert or defend those intellectual property rights, they'd have to first confess to a crime, which they probably don't want to do.

IANAL either, but wouldn't Ex turpi causa non oritur actio apply?

From Wiki:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio (Latin "from a dishonorable cause an action does not arise") is a legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue legal remedy if it arises in connection with his own illegal act.
  #24  
Old 03-12-2017, 07:00 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,823
Do graffiti sprayers have any legal rights if a business uses their "art" in ads or logos?

Two years ago a building owner in New York painted over all the exterior and interior wall art that he had explicitly permitted in the years the building was unoccupied. The graffiti artists had copyright interest in their legal graffiti but they had no cause of action to stop the landlord's doing what he wanted with his property.

Last edited by Acsenray; 03-12-2017 at 07:02 PM.
  #25  
Old 03-12-2017, 07:08 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,823
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Pointz
  #26  
Old 03-13-2017, 07:31 AM
muldoonthief's Avatar
muldoonthief muldoonthief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 10,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of a Rich View Post
So under your scenario, you wouldn't be able to paint your own building if "Banksy" vandalized it?
The "moral rights" thing, in the USA at least, only allows an artist to sue for damages if his work is destroyed by the owner - it's not a criminal matter. So Banksy would have to reveal his identity to file a suit - I think a lawsuit by an anonymous plaintiff would be quickly dismissed.
  #27  
Old 03-13-2017, 08:00 AM
ftg's Avatar
ftg ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 17,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
By a wonderful coincidence, I just today participated in one other way: I put it in my will that all my writing (yeah, yeah, I know) goes into the public domain when I die.
As noted, current US copyright law doesn't appear to have any way to officially put something into the public domain. Something like the CC0 license isn't a guarantee of being in the public domain in the future.

You might decide not to pursue any legal matters during your lifetime, but your heirs can ignore your wishes and start filing lawsuits.
  #28  
Old 03-13-2017, 08:18 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,282
(being revised)

Last edited by Bricker; 03-13-2017 at 08:20 AM.
  #29  
Old 03-13-2017, 08:39 AM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by ftg View Post
There's this thing called "moral rights" that in countries in some cases prevents willful destruction of works without the creators permissions. Europe is fairly generous in this regard.
But there's got to be limits on this. Otherwise someone could break into my house, tag my bedroom and I can't paint over it?
  #30  
Old 03-13-2017, 09:13 AM
naita naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 5,658
On page 1953 here case law is cited that says illegally created art is not protected under VARA: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/vie...44&context=flr
  #31  
Old 03-13-2017, 09:15 AM
Max Torque Max Torque is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Raiderville, TX
Posts: 10,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
But there's got to be limits on this. Otherwise someone could break into my house, tag my bedroom and I can't paint over it?
I'm reaching way back to law school on this one, as in more than 15 years ago, but from what I recall back then: in the U.S. anyway, the work has to be a work of some stature, in that it must be recognized by the art community as important in some way. A simple graffiti tag by a random teenager wouldn't meet this criterion at all.

So, if some famous artist broke into your bedroom and painted something on your wall, and it was a "work of stature", you still aren't necessarily stuck with it. And again, this is my barely-recalled, decades-old information: your first step is to notify the artist that you're going to remove it, paint over it, blow it up, whatever. The artist then has 30 days to remove it, rescue it, record and preserve it, or whatever action they want to take. When that time period is up, break out your brushes and fire at will.
  #32  
Old 03-13-2017, 09:22 AM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
A graffiti artist would have the same rights as any (1) author of a (2) creative, (3) original (4) work of expression (5) that has been fixed in a perceivable medium.
Is there an "unclean hands" exception? It seems rather odd for an artist who paints on someone else's private tangible property without permission to have the right to sue even a third party with respect to intellectual property rights in that work.
  #33  
Old 03-13-2017, 11:13 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
Is there an "unclean hands" exception? It seems rather odd for an artist who paints on someone else's private tangible property without permission to have the right to sue even a third party with respect to intellectual property rights in that work.


I said they would have the same rights under copyright law. Copyright law only requires originality, creative expression, and fixation for rights to be earned.

And it conveys only a limited set of exclusive rights—reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, and display. Speaking generally, the injury done to the property owner doesn't result in the property owner somehow getting those rights. As in the 5Pointz case, the property owner certainly can paint over the damage, but that's not a violation of any exclusive right under the Copyright Act.

The creator of a work of "fine art" that is unique or produced in limited series has some additional rights to prevent mutilation or destruction of the work, but I will have to do some research to see how that applies. I would think that the VARA doesn't apply to vandalism.
  #34  
Old 03-13-2017, 11:43 AM
Son of a Rich's Avatar
Son of a Rich Son of a Rich is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Barsoom
Posts: 4,062
Seems like graffiti artists should presume their works to be ephemeral, and anything that encourages them to deface other people's property should be discouraged.
  #35  
Old 03-13-2017, 12:05 PM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 26,209
I think only a handful of graffiti artists produce work of real value (Banksy, Keith Haring, Jean-Michel Basquiat, etc.). Most of those graduate from producing work on other people's property, partly because it's hard to sell such stuff.
  #36  
Old 03-21-2017, 06:13 PM
Peter Morris Peter Morris is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The far canal
Posts: 12,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Morris View Post
IANAL either, but wouldn't Ex turpi causa non oritur actio apply?

From Wiki:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio (Latin "from a dishonorable cause an action does not arise") is a legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue legal remedy if it arises in connection with his own illegal act.
Can any lawyers answer this point?
  #37  
Old 03-21-2017, 07:19 PM
dofe dofe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Morris View Post
Can any lawyers answer this point?


That doctrine is rarely cited in court, and SCOTUS has cautioned against such common law barriers to relief where important public policy may be at issue. Nonetheless, a defendant who owns a vandalized wall and who is now being sued by a graffiti artist could conceivably raise the argument in his defense. AFAIK, no one has raised this argument in the context discussed here (presumably because no graffiti artist has tried to sue a property owner under the copyright act).
  #38  
Old 02-14-2018, 02:18 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,581
Just bumping this to say that it turns out that graffiti art does fall under V.A.R.A., according to this recent decision:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/n...-judgment.html

That is not exactly apropos for the original question of this thread, but the thread had wandered a bit and this particular situation was brought up.

RS
  #39  
Old 02-14-2018, 02:44 PM
electronbee electronbee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 769
Wow. That was a very recent ruling and I'm sure they'll appeal it as it's for $6M.

And, no business owner will ever allow graffiti on their property ever again and will probably prosecute with enhanced fervor anyone who tags their property.
  #40  
Old 02-14-2018, 03:35 PM
Aspidistra Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,828
Totally different jurisdiction, but I now wonder what would happen in the US in cases like

this one.

TLDR version: Well known artist, entertainer and serial pedophile Rolf Harris painted a mural in a shop with the consent of the owner in 1990, before point 3 on that list had become known. After the court case, the owner got a bunch of abuse victims together and they all painted over it.

Does that court case imply that in the US Rolf could prosecute for that?
  #41  
Old 02-15-2018, 07:49 AM
ftg's Avatar
ftg ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 17,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspidistra View Post
Does that court case imply that in the US Rolf could prosecute for that?
He could sue under existing US law, never mind the other court case.

He did it with permission, it's considered "iconic" and well known. So pretty far along on the "recognized stature" scale.

But winning is something else. If* the judge allows the fact that it was removed because of the pedophile thing, a jury is very unlikely to side with him. Probably won't even bother to sue.

Note to people wanting to get rid of notable graffiti: Don't announce it ahead of time. Hope that some paint stripper "accidentally" gets sprayed on it during the night by "unknown" persons.

* OTOH, if his lawyers can get any mention of this banned from the trial, it could go his way.
  #42  
Old 02-15-2018, 09:21 AM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Just bumping this to say that it turns out that graffiti art does fall under V.A.R.A., according to this recent decision:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/n...-judgment.html

That is not exactly apropos for the original question of this thread, but the thread had wandered a bit and this particular situation was brought up.

RS
Quote:
Originally Posted by electronbee View Post
Wow. That was a very recent ruling and I'm sure they'll appeal it as it's for $6M.

And, no business owner will ever allow graffiti on their property ever again and will probably prosecute with enhanced fervor anyone who tags their property.
The article is a bit light on background. The 5Pointz work was done with the owner's permission, and the owner had made hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees for allowing companies to use the site for filming. Moreover, he did not give the artists notice that he was whitewashing their work, so they had no opportunity to record it or attempt to preserve it somehow.
  #43  
Old 02-15-2018, 03:02 PM
RedSwinglineOne RedSwinglineOne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Silicon valley
Posts: 1,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
. The 5Pointz work was done with the owner's permission, and the owner had made hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees for allowing companies to use the site for filming. .
I would think the owner could try to make the case that each individual "painting" is worthless. He could argue that is was the assemblage of the paintings that gave the site its value. By providing the property, and allowing the graffiti to be done, he (the owner) is actually the creator (producer?) of the art as a whole.
  #44  
Old 02-15-2018, 08:26 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by electronbee View Post
Wow. That was a very recent ruling and I'm sure they'll appeal it as it's for $6M.

And, no business owner will ever allow graffiti on their property ever again and will probably prosecute with enhanced fervor anyone who tags their property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
The article is a bit light on background. The 5Pointz work was done with the owner's permission, and the owner had made hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees for allowing companies to use the site for filming. Moreover, he did not give the artists notice that he was whitewashing their work, so they had no opportunity to record it or attempt to preserve it somehow.
Note that in this case, the court found a willful violation of VARA's right to give notice so that the creators have an opportunity to attempt to save or remove the art intact. The statute doesn't guarantee that the artists get to keep the art on site. What was particularly galling to the court was that the property owner hastily whitewashed everything in the eight days between a denial of preliminary injunction and the court's written opinion.

If the landowner had just held off and waited for the court to say that all he owed the artists was 90 days to attempt to remove the art intact or preserve or record it somehow, he wouldn't have been penalized.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedSwinglineOne View Post
I would think the owner could try to make the case that each individual "painting" is worthless. He could argue that is was the assemblage of the paintings that gave the site its value.
He tried that argument. The court rejected it. The court awarded statutory damages because it said that the owner had given up all right to demand actual damages after he destroyed everything hastily. (I'm not certain but I seem to recall the court using the word "petulant" to describe the landowner's behavior.)

Quote:
By providing the property, and allowing the graffiti to be done, he (the owner) is actually the creator (producer?) of the art as a whole.
That would not work under U.S. copyright law. The creator is the original owner of art until it is sold. There is an exception for a work made for hire, but there's no way that would apply here.
  #45  
Old 02-15-2018, 11:12 PM
JpnDude JpnDude is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 1,289
The documentary Saving Banksy discusses this topic somewhat. I saw it last year on Netflix.
  #46  
Old 02-16-2018, 12:07 AM
OldGuy OldGuy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 4,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Torque View Post
I'm reaching way back to law school on this one, as in more than 15 years ago, but from what I recall back then: in the U.S. anyway, the work has to be a work of some stature, in that it must be recognized by the art community as important in some way. A simple graffiti tag by a random teenager wouldn't meet this criterion at all.
Does a work of art by a famous artist immediately become a "work of stature"? Or does it have to be admired, etc. first? If the graffiti is painted over the next morning before it's widely seen has it not yet become a work of stature?

And if a famous artist's work does immediately become "a work of stature" how is a random owner of the property to know it's his/herds?
  #47  
Old 02-16-2018, 08:07 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGuy View Post
Does a work of art by a famous artist immediately become a "work of stature"? Or does it have to be admired, etc. first? If the graffiti is painted over the next morning before it's widely seen has it not yet become a work of stature?
Read the opinion:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20180213997

Quote:
As the Second Circuit noted in Carter II, therefore, the courts "should use common sense and generally accepted standards of the artistic community in determining whether a particular work" is a work of visual art since "[a]rtists may work in a variety of media, and use any number of materials in creating their works." Id.

The same common sense should be utilized in assessing whether the visual work is of recognized stature since "[b]y setting the standard too high, courts risk the destruction of the unrecognized masterwork; by setting it too low, courts risk alienating those . . . whose legitimate property interests are curtailed." Christopher J. Robinson, The "Recognized Stature" Standard in the Visual Artists Rights Act, 68 Fordham L. Rev 1935, 1968 (2000). Thus, as one court has held, even inferred recognition from a successful career can be considered in determining whether a visual artist's work has achieved recognized stature. See Lubner v. City of Los Angeles, 45 Cal.App.4th 525, 531 (1996).

In the present case, the Court need not dwell on the nuances of the appropriate evidentiary standard since the plaintiffs adduced such a plethora of exhibits and credible testimony, including the testimony of a highly regarded expert, that even under the most restrictive of evidentiary standards almost all of the plaintiffs' works easily qualify as works of recognized stature.
Quote:
And if a famous artist's work does immediately become "a work of stature" how is a random owner of the property to know it's his/herds?
If the property owner makes a sincere effort to notify the artist, then the artist has time to sue and get a court to decide whether the work is a work of stature.

Read the statutory language. It seems to me to be a fair compromise between the interests of the artist and the property owner:

Quote:
Section 113(d)(1) of VARA provides that

In a case in which —

(A) a work of visual art has been incorporated in or made part of a building in such a way that removing the work from the building will cause the destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work as described in section 106A(a)(3), and
(B) the author consented to the installation of the work in the building either before the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, or in a written instrument executed on or after such effective date that is signed by the owner of the building and the author and that specifies that installation of the work may subject the work to destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification, by reason of its removal, then the rights conferred by paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 106A(a) shall not apply.2
Section 113(d)(2) provides, in part, that

If the owner of a building wishes to remove a work of visual art which is a part of such building and which can be removed from the building without the destruction, mutilation, or other modification of the work as described in section 106A(a)(3), the author's rights under paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 106A(a) shall apply unless—
(A) the owner has made a diligent, good faith attempt without success to notify the author of the owner's intended action affecting the work of visual art, or
(B) the owner did provide such notice in writing and the person so notified failed, within 90 days after receiving such notice, either to remove the work or to pay for its removal.
Note some key points:

1. The property owner can avoid this whole problem if, at the time he or she consents to the installation of the art, there is a written contract allowing the owner to destroy the work when it's time to demolish the building.

2. The property owner need only make a reasonable effort to notify the author.

3. If the author doesn't remove the work or pay for the removal within 90 days of being notified, then the property owner is off the hook.

Oh, and the judge used the term "insolence" to describe the property owner's behavior in this case, not "petulant" as I suggested before.

Quote:
If not for Wolkoff's insolence, these damages would not have been assessed. If he did not destroy 5Pointz until he received his permits and demolished it 10 months later, the Court would not have found that he had acted willfully.
The property owner wouldn't have had to pay a cent if he had just demolished the building on schedule, rather than whitewashing the art for no good reason while the court case was still going on.
  #48  
Old 02-16-2018, 02:40 PM
OldGuy OldGuy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 4,914
So it appears if I make a really fantastic snow dragon in the middle of someone's driveway, they're out of luck getting their car out of the garage for 90 days (unless the dragon melts first).

Or I can glue paper all over the front of a Wells Fargo bank or an abortion clinic and have it painted. Too bad about that front door of yours. I see all kinds of interesting possibilities for protests.
  #49  
Old 02-16-2018, 02:49 PM
dofe dofe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGuy View Post
So it appears if I make a really fantastic snow dragon in the middle of someone's driveway, they're out of luck getting their car out of the garage for 90 days (unless the dragon melts first).

Or I can glue paper all over the front of a Wells Fargo bank or an abortion clinic and have it painted. Too bad about that front door of yours. I see all kinds of interesting possibilities for protests.
Unless your snow dragon or window art is a work "of recognized stature," that is simply not the case.

The facts in the 5Pointz case are unusual in that the owner of the building clearly profited from the work of the graffiti artists, and the work was arguably of recognized stature:

Quote:
The suit against the owner of the buildings, Gerald Wolkoff, had sought to stop him from tearing down the warehouses to build high-rise luxury condos. The artists had been allowed to paint the murals in a curated system overseen by a building tenant and artist, Jonathan Cohen. Short-term walls were for beginner artists and their work would be painted over from time to time, while long-term wall space was awarded based on competition among artists. Cohen had final say over the duration of all the art work.

Though Wolkoff didn’t sell the art, he indirectly profited when the value of his site increased from $40 million to $200 million, Block said. He also made hundreds of thousands of dollars by charging licensing fees to film at the site.
Link.
  #50  
Old 02-16-2018, 03:09 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGuy View Post
So it appears if I make a really fantastic snow dragon in the middle of someone's driveway, they're out of luck getting their car out of the garage for 90 days (unless the dragon melts first).

Or I can glue paper all over the front of a Wells Fargo bank or an abortion clinic and have it painted. Too bad about that front door of yours. I see all kinds of interesting possibilities for protests.
Highly unlikely.

Quote:
(1) The modification of a work of visual art which is a result of the passage of time or the inherent nature of the materials is not a distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3)(A).

(2) The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of conservation, or of the public presentation, including lighting and placement, of the work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3) unless the modification is caused by gross negligence.
Using a driveway as it was always intended to be used is not gross negligence and damage caused when someone drives over it is part of the inherent nature of the materials or the passage of time.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017