Who owns the copyright after graffiti has been painted over ?

grove39

grove39

Suspended / Banned
Messages
212
Name
Si
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been taking quite a few photos of graffiti lately and one thing popped into my head that confused me slightly. (All the graffiti is legal as it is all inside the tunnel under Waterloo Station in London.)

If i take a photo of a bit of graffiti i obviously must own the copyright to the photo but the copyright to the art must still belong to the artist but what happens when that graffiti is painted over never to be seen ever again ?

Does the copyright to the art still exist even though the actual art doesn't ?

I'm not looking to try and make any money from it but was just wondering how this situation worked.

Thanks
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Being painted over is the best thing that could possibly happen to it it's all s*** anyway ! It may be legal here but in the rest of the country it's just an eyesore and criminal damage.,
Click to expand...

Really? I've seen some absolutely stunning graffiti that I'd certainly consider to be works of art. I'm not talking about tagging or any of that vandalism, but genuinely interesting pieces, whether legally produced or not.
 
Even if the original was painted over or destroyed I expect the credit for the design should still go to the painter. Unless they copied it from someone else.
 
Think of it this way. If you took a photo of a double decker bus with a picture on the side would you still be asking the same question ? or a photo of Mc Donalds with their sign?

You could go on and on about everything that has been designed or that carries a copywrite. In that case no one would ever take any photos
 
Last edited:
Which is an issue at the moment with the freedom of panorama discussions. Where, in some countries, you are not allowed to take pictures of statues and buildings without permission.
800px-Freedom_of_Panorama_world_map.png

You'd better delete those Eiffel Tower pictures before Inspector Clouseau finds out
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
Think of it this way. If you took a photo of a double decker bus with a picture on the side would you still be asking the same question ? or a photo of Mc Donalds with their sign?

You could go on and on about everything that has been designed or that carries a copywrite. In that case no one would ever take any photos
Click to expand...


But the McD sign is a trademark and a different animal.
 
I think theres a difference between the inane tagging that goes on, and some graffiti street art. In Spain I wandered around the back streets of Valencia taking shots of street art, and some of it actually brightens up otherwise sad places
 
Mitzyboy said:
I think there's a difference between the inane tagging that goes on, and some graffiti street art. In Spain I wandered around the back streets of Valencia taking shots of street art, and some of it actually brightens up otherwise sad places
Click to expand...

I agree. When i heard there was a tunnel in London full of graffiti, that is exactly what i was expecting, just loads of stupid tags and a ton of crap graffiti but when i looked it up on Google i realised that it was pretty amazing and decided to take a trip down there one night. The amount of work that goes into this art is much much more than just a hoodie with a spray can.

I aim to go down there every couple of weeks or so to get photos of the new stuff that has taken the place of what was there before because i find it fascinating. These people are hugely talented and having somewhere to do it legally should in turn reduce the amount of stuff that just pops up in places where it shouldn't.
 
I really can't understand the point in taking happy snaps of other people's work. It's not particularly challenging photography just stick it on auto and press the button. What's the point or am I missing something ?
 
Blank_Canvas said:
I really can't understand the point in taking happy snaps of other people's work. It's not particularly challenging photography just stick it on auto and press the button. What's the point or am I missing something ?
Click to expand...


Because i can. Do i really need a reason ?

Seriously, does everything NEED to be challenging to get a photo ?, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. There are lots of aspects of photography that bore me to tears but i will still defend your right to like it.

And BTW, my camera is never on auto so don't assume that it is.
 
Last edited:
grove39 said:
I agree. When i heard there was a tunnel in London full of graffiti, that is exactly what i was expecting, just loads of stupid tags and a ton of crap graffiti but when i looked it up on Google i realised that it was pretty amazing and decided to take a trip down there one night. The amount of work that goes into this art is much much more than just a hoodie with a spray can.

I aim to go down there every couple of weeks or so to get photos of the new stuff that has taken the place of what was there before because i find it fascinating. These people are hugely talented and having somewhere to do it legally should in turn reduce the amount of stuff that just pops up in places where it shouldn't.
Click to expand...


I would agree that graffiti has progressed and would need to be considered an actual art form, some of the pieces are well thought out and executed art that's requires talent and creative imagination, and I respect that and believe if it's an original piece then why should it differ from any other art form and copyright showed remain with the artist, on the other hand I'm not condoning the stereo typical tagging and defacing of buildings/property
 
Blank_Canvas said:
I really can't understand the point in taking happy snaps of other people's work. It's not particularly challenging photography just stick it on auto and press the button. What's the point or am I missing something ?
Click to expand...
Graffiti is sh*t, photographing it is pointless and so unchallenging as to devalue the ability of the photographer..

I'm paraphrasing. Maybe I'm missing something, but is there a valuable contribution buried in any of these responses? Or is this the usual TP b*llocks of I don't understand someone else's motivations/interests so I'll insult them rather than scroll on by to the next thread?
 
Blank_Canvas said:
I really can't understand the point in taking happy snaps of other people's work. It's not particularly challenging photography just stick it on auto and press the button. What's the point or am I missing something ?
Click to expand...
This came up in another thread about other types of art. Where my take on it is I'll enjoy taking a picture if I can add something that wasn't in the original statue or sculpture. Otherwise it's more like a 'record shot'. Which is also fine if you like the content. Especially if you think that content would otherwise be lost forever once painted over.
 
ianp5a said:
This came up in another thread about other types of art. Where my take on it is I'll enjoy taking a picture if I can add something that wasn't in the original statue or sculpture. Otherwise it's more like a 'record shot'. Which is also fine if you like the content. Especially if you think that content would otherwise be lost forever once painted over.
Click to expand...

Some of the work in that tunnel has been there a couple of years and has been photographed many many times but some is gone within hours, yes, HOURS.

When i go to take photos down there i also get to talk to some of the artists and get their views on things which can also be interesting at times too. Some don't mind having their photo taken, some refuse to even let you point a camera towards them and i respect that.

"taking happy snaps of other people's work"

This comment also made me laugh a bit to be honest. If you take a photo of a building, car, cityscape then by definition it's the same thing.
 
Yes. I'm not a fan of car portraits. But photographing 3D work is slightly different. As the angle you choose to view it from is partly your input. Not solely, as a car stylist, and the boss, spend hours looking from every angle. But yours is the lighting and background.

2D artwork, shot head on, is more like reproduction. But the fascination of graffiti is, it could be a unique work of art that is gone in less time than it took to create it.

There is a secret place I go. But they never let me include them in the picture, hooded or otherwise. As to include the artist would make a big difference to me.
 
Last edited:
If a piece of artwork is destroyed by painting over it, then it can't be copied so the copyright issue goes away.

grove39 said:
This comment also made me laugh a bit to be honest. If you take a photo of a building, car, cityscape then by definition it's the same thing.
Click to expand...

No it isn't, because to breach the copyright of a building or car, you would need to make an actual copy. i.e. another similar building or car.

As for a cityscape. That's fair game as no one can own the copyright to that as it's a collection of many things.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Alastair said:
Graffiti is sh*t, photographing it is pointless and so unchallenging as to devalue the ability of the photographer..

I'm paraphrasing. Maybe I'm missing something, but is there a valuable contribution buried in any of these responses? Or is this the usual TP b*llocks of I don't understand someone else's motivations/interests so I'll insult them rather than scroll on by to the next thread?
Click to expand...

Yes. I was just trying to understand the value of recording graffiti ? In isolation they are just that 'record shots' If it was for a project or book I could understand that hence my question. Whilst there are some notable exceptions to the rule. Most graffiti is just pointless vandalism and when carried out on property owned by someone it's criminal damage. The subject of copy write is an interesting one. Producing a so-called artistic doodle on a wall and claiming copy write is effect admitting the offence of criminal damage. If people want to fill up Terabytes of hard drives photographing graffiti , or photographing train numbers, stamps or coins then good for them but it is always interesting to learn the rationale behind it.
 
ianp5a said:
Morally? Or legally?
Click to expand...

The reason i asked the question in the first place was because of a moral issue. I was asked if i would sell one of the photos i'd posted on Flickr (no idea why they didn't just steal it like they usually do) , i refused to sell it on the grounds that i didn't own the art in the photo and it would be wrong of me to make money from something i put no work into.

It was after this that i wondered about the copyright issue that may have arisen if i had sold my photo.
 
I spent some time in that tunnel and was talking to the guys in there. They were quite relaxed about having their work painted over. They accepted that as soon as they had walked away then anyone could come and cover their work over. They were not getting upset about it. They were just treating it as a normal event.

I took this before it was lost forever. Some of the stuff down there is high quality.


A selfie. by Frank Yates2010, on Flickr
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Yes. I was just trying to understand the value of recording graffiti ? In isolation they are just that 'record shots' If it was for a project or book I could understand that hence my question. Whilst there are some notable exceptions to the rule. Most graffiti is just pointless vandalism and when carried out on property owned by someone it's criminal damage. The subject of copy write is an interesting one. Producing a so-called artistic doodle on a wall and claiming copy write is effect admitting the offence of criminal damage. If people want to fill up Terabytes of hard drives photographing graffiti , or photographing train numbers, stamps or coins then good for them but it is always interesting to learn the rationale behind it.
Click to expand...


The place i have taken the photos is a place where graffiti is LEGAL.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
it is always interesting to learn the rationale behind it.
Click to expand...
You haven't made any apparent effort to understand.

When you get beyond tagging a lot of graffiti (at least that I pay attention to) has some serious political messages, representing points of view traditionally excluded from mainstream debate. As an art form it also generally represents groups excluded from establishment art.

But there I go, mentioning the Art word on Talk Photography.. we don't do art or politics or political art. It upsets the conservatives (small "c", not to be confused with the political party).
 
Last edited:
Art is ok. (Especially as Pookey is suspended) . And should be allowed in certain places. But political messages should be left to democracy. Not the bully with the most paint.
 
Last edited:
grove39 said:
You used the words "vandalism" and "criminal damage" and those words would only apply to something "Illegal"
Click to expand...

It is a criminal offence !

However, I'm referring to the wider context. I'm not talking about the Waterloo tunnel as I said earlier, I'm aware of the location you're talking about and I'm also aware it's legal to graffito there.
 
Alastair said:
You haven't made any apparent effort to understand.

When you get beyond tagging a lot of graffiti (at least that I pay attention to) has some serious political messages, representing points of view traditionally excluded from mainstream debate. As an art form it also generally represents groups excluded from establishment art.

But there I go, mentioning the Art word on Talk Photography.. we don't do art or politics or political art. It upsets the conservatives (small "c", not to be confused with the political party).
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong I do understand that it is an 'alleged' artistic form of communication. It is widely acknowledged is it not, that subject art (if we use it in this context) is a visual communication between the artist and the viewer in which he / she is attempting to convey a visual message albeit political, comical or otherwise to the viewer/receiver. It is also universally accepted that communication is a two-way process at which point it can fail and often does. I do get conceptual art I studied it at Paddington Art College alongside Photography in the very early 80s.
 
Steve Smith said:
No it isn't, because to breach the copyright of a building or car, you would need to make an actual copy. i.e. another similar building or car.
Click to expand...

Um, yes it is. To breach the copyright of a painting, you have to paint. A photograph of a publicly displayed work of art is no different in copyright terms to a photograph of a building or car.
 
DemiLion said:
Um, yes it is. To breach the copyright of a painting, you have to paint. A photograph of a publicly displayed work of art is no different in copyright terms to a photograph of a building or car.
Click to expand...

Copyright good luck with that one ! - it doesn't exist with graffiti. Nobody uses the (C) symbol for a start. Nobody is going to admit 'that's my graffiti' on a privately owned wall (not the Waterloo tunnel) and run the risk of criminal damage !

Even Banksy doesn't respect copyright using Micky Mouse and Ronald McDonald in his work !!
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Copyright good luck with that one ! - it doesn't exist with graffiti. Nobody uses the (C) symbol for a start. Nobody is going to admit 'that's my graffiti' on a privately owned wall (not the Waterloo tunnel) and run the risk of criminal damage !

Even Banksy doesn't respect copyright using Micky Mouse and Ronald McDonald in his work !!
Click to expand...
Your random arguments are getting very odd for someone that studied art..
  • The (c) symbol isn't relevant to whether or not a piece of work is copyright.
  • Almost all graffiti is signed, although not every viewer will have the visual lexicon to immediately see it
  • Appropriation and subversion of commercial and cultural symbols is cacepted in a variety of art forms
 
Alastair said:
Your random arguments are getting very odd for someone that studied art..
  • The (c) symbol isn't relevant to whether or not a piece of work is copyright.
  • Almost all graffiti is signed, although not every viewer will have the visual lexicon to immediately see it
  • Appropriation and subversion of commercial and cultural symbols is cacepted in a variety of art forms
Click to expand...

There is no random argument !
 
Off course some people sign their work, some of it is legible and some of it isn't. Why state the obvious? Graffiti is a form of art. It is also criminal damage when applied to someone's property without consent. If people want to bang on about copywrite or intellectual property rights when claiming your graffiti then good luck to you. You deserve to be prosecuted !
 
Last edited:
Blank_Canvas said:
There is no random argument !
Click to expand...
I was being generous and assumed that random chance accounted for the degree of error, contradiction and general WTFness of your comments.

I'm pleased to know my generosity was misplaced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top