Graffiti Photography - When is it plagiarism?

Spug

Spug

Messages
81
Name
Stan
Edit My Images
Yes
I have recently been taking some close up photos of walls in derelict buldings that have been spray-painted. I have been looking for square abstracts that just include a very small section of the original paint and perhaps some of the texture of the wall including cracks and peeling paper. Each image is based on an area that is perhaps 6 inches square. No graffiti artist would ever be able to recognise his or her work, and my photographic end product is a series of images that resemble work by some of the abstract expressionist painters (e.g Rothko).

I might mount and frame one or two for display in my own home. However if I use them elsewhere (e.g. public exhibition, photo competition, photo distinction) might I be accused of plagiarism? Would this be a reasonable accusation to make? Could/should this type of work be disqualified from photo competitions or exhibitions?
 
I don't think it's plagiarism really. Especially if your photo brings something else into the mix. Graffiti is in the public domain in my opinion.
If you wanted to perhaps you could make a note of the artist's tag and credit them?
 
Well for a start like you said i doubt they would notice 6'x6' and if they did i dont think they would like to come forward as it is vandalism, unless its on a wall that allows it.
 
Interesting question that one. If you take a photo of a property you're free to use it, does it make a difference if someone has painted on it? I suppose it would if the person had sought to protect the work in the same way that there are certain buildings that you can't use images of for profit without permission.

Subjective judgement really.
 
Hi. I 'd have thought that as long as you don't sell copies of their 'artwork' and pass it off as your own, its fair game.
 
nope, its all good, just look at the flood of banksy cards, frames, canvas etc you can buy anywhere, no one has paid him royalites for using it, its all public domain... (y)
 
Thanks for your responses everybody. They are much appreciated and very helpful in helping me reach a decision as to where, when and how I will use these photos.

My concerns were not really about whether the vandal(s) would come forward and claim copyright, which is extremely unlikely, but whether other photography professionals (e.g. exhibition selectors, competition judges) might object to the use of such images. I am now beginning to think that there is no reason why they should.
 
missemanuel said:
nope, its all good, just look at the flood of banksy cards, frames, canvas etc you can buy anywhere, no one has paid him royalites for using it, its all public domain... (y)
Click to expand...

What I was going to say....Banksy stuff is being sold all over the place. Public domain AFAIK.
 
From another point of view......

If a painter & decorator has painted a building and you took a picture of it, would the decorator have any grounds to complain about this? I think the answer would be no and in fact, if they'd done a good job then they'd probably be all for you taking pictures of their handy work.

Graffiti artists are effectively doing the same thing as a decorator, they are applying paint to a buliding, albeit in a more intricate and artistic manor but usually illegally!

Personally I think it's fair game :LOL:
 
Copyright is about protecting original intellectual property, and 99% of the time that means protecting the artist's commercial interests. Copyright infrigement means copying an original work, reproducing it in the same way, and passing it off as your own - to the detriment of the original artist.

Is it 'confusingly similar'? If your work is substantially different, and you have made it a new and original work in its own right, in a different medium, then no problem.

The medium is important. For example, you might take a very exact photo of a sculture, but it would be reproduced as a print, not a copycat sculpture. That puts some clear water between the two, but might still leave the question of how much original 'art' existed in the photo. Tricky. Also strongly related to what the sculpter might have lost due to your photo. Copyright is about money at the end of the day.

A good test, of both the moral and legal positions - is anyone going to be upset by this? Not just the taking of a photo, but what you subsequently do with it. Like puting up on Flickr is not the same as selling framed prints.
 
Agree with what Hoppy said. If you were just taking a photo of it then that would be copyright infringement, particularly if you were trying to sell it. Compare it to if you took a photo of a painting - not really your own work, is it? Why would the laws be different just because the painting's on a wall instead of on canvas?

But since what you have described is substantially different to the original I would say that it's not copying at all, but making a new piece of art.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top