Interesting Question about Copyright

[Robert King]

Here is one to ponder.

An artist has copyright over a work the moment it is created, however does
this mean the work is protected from inclusion in a photographic work even
if the artwork is in a public place.

The most immediate thing that springs to mind is graffiti.

Thoughts ?

Robert

[max morrison]

"Robert King" <r.king@ozphoto.com> wrote in message
news:BC164BD9.DBF%r.king@ozphoto.com...
> Here is one to ponder.
>
> An artist has copyright over a work the moment it is created, however does
> this mean the work is protected from inclusion in a photographic work even
> if the artwork is in a public place.
>
> The most immediate thing that springs to mind is graffiti.
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> Robert

Calling graffiti "artwork" is stretching the definition a bit.

[Wolf 359]

No copyright extends to graffitto as it is an illegal activity and not
protected. Copyright would be a 'contract' applied to an illegal act. Which
is illegal, like making a contract between bank robbers working out the
split up of the loot.

Graffitto would only be considered copyright if it was done legally in an
approved area. In which case it would not truly be graffitto anymore but a
mural.




"max morrison" <someone@nospam.net.au> wrote in message
news:3ff002a0$3@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> "Robert King" <r.king@ozphoto.com> wrote in message
> news:BC164BD9.DBF%r.king@ozphoto.com...
> > Here is one to ponder.
> >
> > An artist has copyright over a work the moment it is created, however
does
> > this mean the work is protected from inclusion in a photographic work
even
> > if the artwork is in a public place.
> >
> > The most immediate thing that springs to mind is graffiti.
> >
> > Thoughts ?
> >
> > Robert
>
> Calling graffiti "artwork" is stretching the definition a bit.
>
>

[Scott Coutts]

Yeah, I agree with that, but from an artistic point of view, I think
there is no question that it is artwork. Simple tags aren't, but
graffiti murals are!

Scott.

Wolf 359 wrote:
> No copyright extends to graffitto as it is an illegal activity and not
> protected. Copyright would be a 'contract' applied to an illegal act. Which
> is illegal, like making a contract between bank robbers working out the
> split up of the loot.
>
> Graffitto would only be considered copyright if it was done legally in an
> approved area. In which case it would not truly be graffitto anymore but a
> mural.
>
>
> "max morrison" <someone@nospam.net.au> wrote in message
> news:3ff002a0$3@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>
>>"Robert King" <r.king@ozphoto.com> wrote in message
>>news:BC164BD9.DBF%r.king@ozphoto.com...
>>
>>>Here is one to ponder.
>>>
>>>An artist has copyright over a work the moment it is created, however
>
> does
>
>>>this mean the work is protected from inclusion in a photographic work
>
> even
>
>>>if the artwork is in a public place.
>>>
>>>The most immediate thing that springs to mind is graffiti.
>>>
>>>Thoughts ?
>>>
>>>Robert
>>
>>Calling graffiti "artwork" is stretching the definition a bit.
>>
>>
>
>
>

[David]

I think the politically correct terminology for legal graffiti is "Urban
Art" or "Graffarty".



"Scott Coutts" <scott.coutts@med.monash.edu.au> wrote in message
news:uJ3Ib.69499$aT.61681@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Yeah, I agree with that, but from an artistic point of view, I think
> there is no question that it is artwork. Simple tags aren't, but
> graffiti murals are!
>
> Scott.
>
> Wolf 359 wrote:
> > No copyright extends to graffitto as it is an illegal activity and not
> > protected. Copyright would be a 'contract' applied to an illegal act.
Which
> > is illegal, like making a contract between bank robbers working out the
> > split up of the loot.
> >
> > Graffitto would only be considered copyright if it was done legally in
an
> > approved area. In which case it would not truly be graffitto anymore but
a
> > mural.
> >
> >
> > "max morrison" <someone@nospam.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:3ff002a0$3@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> >
> >>"Robert King" <r.king@ozphoto.com> wrote in message
> >>news:BC164BD9.DBF%r.king@ozphoto.com...
> >>
> >>>Here is one to ponder.
> >>>
> >>>An artist has copyright over a work the moment it is created, however
> >
> > does
> >
> >>>this mean the work is protected from inclusion in a photographic work
> >
> > even
> >
> >>>if the artwork is in a public place.
> >>>
> >>>The most immediate thing that springs to mind is graffiti.
> >>>
> >>>Thoughts ?
> >>>
> >>>Robert
> >>
> >>Calling graffiti "artwork" is stretching the definition a bit.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

[max morrison]

"David" <davidcpclayton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zG7Ib.114$uQ3.5131@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> I think the politically correct terminology for legal graffiti is "Urban
> Art" or "Graffarty".

Or "farty" for short


> "Scott Coutts" <scott.coutts@med.monash.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:uJ3Ib.69499$aT.61681@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Yeah, I agree with that, but from an artistic point of view, I think
> > there is no question that it is artwork. Simple tags aren't, but
> > graffiti murals are!
> >
> > Scott.
> >
> > Wolf 359 wrote:
> > > No copyright extends to graffitto as it is an illegal activity and not
> > > protected. Copyright would be a 'contract' applied to an illegal act.
> Which
> > > is illegal, like making a contract between bank robbers working out
the
> > > split up of the loot.
> > >
> > > Graffitto would only be considered copyright if it was done legally in
> an
> > > approved area. In which case it would not truly be graffitto anymore
but
> a
> > > mural.
> > >
> > >
> > > "max morrison" <someone@nospam.net.au> wrote in message
> > > news:3ff002a0$3@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> > >
> > >>"Robert King" <r.king@ozphoto.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:BC164BD9.DBF%r.king@ozphoto.com...
> > >>
> > >>>Here is one to ponder.
> > >>>
> > >>>An artist has copyright over a work the moment it is created, however
> > >
> > > does
> > >
> > >>>this mean the work is protected from inclusion in a photographic work
> > >
> > > even
> > >
> > >>>if the artwork is in a public place.
> > >>>
> > >>>The most immediate thing that springs to mind is graffiti.
> > >>>
> > >>>Thoughts ?
> > >>>
> > >>>Robert
> > >>
> > >>Calling graffiti "artwork" is stretching the definition a bit.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

[Don]

Try "crap"

regards

Don
"max morrison" <someone@nospam.net.au> wrote in message
news:3ff13e61$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>
> "David" <davidcpclayton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:zG7Ib.114$uQ3.5131@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> > I think the politically correct terminology for legal graffiti is "Urban
> > Art" or "Graffarty".
>
> Or "farty" for short
>
>
> > "Scott Coutts" <scott.coutts@med.monash.edu.au> wrote in message
> > news:uJ3Ib.69499$aT.61681@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > Yeah, I agree with that, but from an artistic point of view, I think
> > > there is no question that it is artwork. Simple tags aren't, but
> > > graffiti murals are!
> > >
> > > Scott.
> > >
> > > Wolf 359 wrote:
> > > > No copyright extends to graffitto as it is an illegal activity and
not
> > > > protected. Copyright would be a 'contract' applied to an illegal
act.
> > Which
> > > > is illegal, like making a contract between bank robbers working out
> the
> > > > split up of the loot.
> > > >
> > > > Graffitto would only be considered copyright if it was done legally
in
> > an
> > > > approved area. In which case it would not truly be graffitto anymore
> but
> > a
> > > > mural.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "max morrison" <someone@nospam.net.au> wrote in message
> > > > news:3ff002a0$3@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> > > >
> > > >>"Robert King" <r.king@ozphoto.com> wrote in message
> > > >>news:BC164BD9.DBF%r.king@ozphoto.com...
> > > >>
> > > >>>Here is one to ponder.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>An artist has copyright over a work the moment it is created,
however
> > > >
> > > > does
> > > >
> > > >>>this mean the work is protected from inclusion in a photographic
work
> > > >
> > > > even
> > > >
> > > >>>if the artwork is in a public place.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>The most immediate thing that springs to mind is graffiti.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Thoughts ?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Robert
> > > >>
> > > >>Calling graffiti "artwork" is stretching the definition a bit.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Scott Coutts]

Why? Because it's not legal?

Don wrote:
> Try "crap"
>
> regards
>
> Don
> "max morrison" <someone@nospam.net.au> wrote in message
> news:3ff13e61$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>
>>"David" <davidcpclayton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:zG7Ib.114$uQ3.5131@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>>
>>>I think the politically correct terminology for legal graffiti is "Urban
>>>Art" or "Graffarty".
>>
>>Or "farty" for short
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Scott Coutts" <scott.coutts@med.monash.edu.au> wrote in message
>>>news:uJ3Ib.69499$aT.61681@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>>Yeah, I agree with that, but from an artistic point of view, I think
>>>>there is no question that it is artwork. Simple tags aren't, but
>>>>graffiti murals are!
>>>>
>>>>Scott.
>>>>
>>>>Wolf 359 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>No copyright extends to graffitto as it is an illegal activity and
>
> not
>
>>>>>protected. Copyright would be a 'contract' applied to an illegal
>
> act.
>
>>>Which
>>>
>>>>>is illegal, like making a contract between bank robbers working out
>>
>>the
>>
>>>>>split up of the loot.
>>>>>
>>>>>Graffitto would only be considered copyright if it was done legally
>
> in
>
>>>an
>>>
>>>>>approved area. In which case it would not truly be graffitto anymore
>>
>>but
>>
>>>a
>>>
>>>>>mural.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"max morrison" <someone@nospam.net.au> wrote in message
>>>>>news:3ff002a0$3@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Robert King" <r.king@ozphoto.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:BC164BD9.DBF%r.king@ozphoto.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Here is one to ponder.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>An artist has copyright over a work the moment it is created,
>
> however
>
>>>>>does
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>this mean the work is protected from inclusion in a photographic
>
> work
>
>>>>>even
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>if the artwork is in a public place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The most immediate thing that springs to mind is graffiti.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thoughts ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Robert
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Calling graffiti "artwork" is stretching the definition a bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

[VH-CBR]

"Scott Coutts" <scott.coutts@med.monash.edu.au> wrote in message
news:MpoIb.70875$aT.54479@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> Why? Because it's not legal?

Because it is crap perhaps? :o)

[Scott Coutts]

VH-CBR wrote:

> "Scott Coutts" <scott.coutts@med.monash.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:MpoIb.70875$aT.54479@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>>Why? Because it's not legal?
>
> Because it is crap perhaps? :o)
>

Sure, some of it is. Some photographs are crap too... and paintings,
sculpture etc. I dont really see how you can put a blanket statement
like that across all graffiti.

http://home.tiscali.be/thihovelaque/nichtmare%20b4%20christmas.jpg
http://www.graffiti.org/sa/faith1southafrica02.jpg

Or what about this guy who paints on the street?

http://www.dodger.com/wenner/images/pic-dies-irae2.jpg
http://www.dodger.com/wenner/images/pic-muses2.jpg
http://www.dodger.com/wenner/images/pic-bacchus.jpg

[ChrisMc]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:23:37 +1100, Robert King <r.king@ozphoto.com>
wrote:

>Here is one to ponder.
>
>An artist has copyright over a work the moment it is created, however does
>this mean the work is protected from inclusion in a photographic work even
>if the artwork is in a public place.
>
>The most immediate thing that springs to mind is graffiti.
>
>Thoughts ?
>
>Robert
>

Poor Robert, you only wanted a simple answer and don't really get it
.... maybe I can help

From what I understand, there are some things you can't take photos
of. I'm primarily talking about V8Supercars here - AVESCO is the
managing body and they say that if I want to sell a shot of a single
car, I need agreement from that team (contract if you will, so they
know I'm selling them). For multi-car shots I need agreement from
AVESCO themselves. This is basically because of the registered
trademark/s captured in the image as well.

I haven't worried about contesting that at all, but I do know several
freelancers who just sell their shots without any agreements at all.

[Ken]

In article <u1s6vvk1if8p22il41vmpespk4js2si1oh@4ax.com>,
ChrisMc <cmcclellau@yahooSPAM.com.au> wrote:

>
> From what I understand, there are some things you can't take photos
> of. I'm primarily talking about V8Supercars here - AVESCO is the
> managing body and they say that if I want to sell a shot of a single
> car, I need agreement from that team (contract if you will, so they
> know I'm selling them). For multi-car shots I need agreement from
> AVESCO themselves. This is basically because of the registered
> trademark/s captured in the image as well.
>

As I understand it in Australia this isn't important unless you use the
photo in association with another product (advertising). Otherwise you
couldn't photograph people drinking out of bottles with logos or with
logos on clothing.

There is probably a contractual constraint, where you buy a ticket and
part of the contract is to limit your right to photograph and/or sell
the photographs. This is the restriction used in art galleries to give
them exclusive rights to images of paintings no longer covered by
copyright law.