New NY State License Plate Revealed—And Required On All Cars
Cops: Columbia Prof Punched Woman In "White Privilege" Brawl
Despite Gay Brothers, State Sen. Diaz Still Anti-Gay Marriage
Cops: Fort Greene Violence Sparked By Chicken Wing Promotion
Flashback: Last Brownstone Standing
In one of those weird societal flip-flops, The New York Times today reports on a group of graffiti artists who are suing to limit the expropriation of their commercial property for public display. The Tats Cru and a dozen other street artists whose work don the walls of buildings all over the city are suing the author, publisher, and an exhibitor of a book about urban murals - aka in NYC. They feel that the expropriation via public display of their work, which is rooted in a culture of communal ownership of public space, has infringed on their property rights.
Peter Rosenstein is a periodontist by trade, but the doctor is an appreciator of graffiti art and undertook an effort to document it in a book, and then later in a display of his photographs at a Chelsea gallery. He claims that he simply loves graffiti and wanted to expose underrepresented artists to a wider audience; plus, why can't he photograph public spaces?
The artists are claiming that Rosenstein's claim that they were unidentifiable or unreachable is disingenuous, because much of their work is clearly marked with copyright symbols and contact information. And then there are the artists' concerns over how they are portrayed, from bad photographs to including community murals in a book about "edgy" graffiti.
Maria Dominguez was especially riled by the book’s reducing some works — including one of hers — to “decorative murals” done by an anonymous “local artist.” She has created many pieces of public art, including a recent stained glass installation at a subway station in Brooklyn. She said it was important for artists to control how their work was displayed. She spoke from bitter experience: In 1987, a mural of dancers she painted with schoolchildren on the Lower East Side appeared without permission in Playboy magazine.“Does this make sense that they used this picture of something created by some poor kids from the community?” she said. “But nothing happened, since I only had a volunteer lawyer. I think he took the magazine and kept it.”
A professor of intellectual copyright law at Columbia University told the Times that public display of an artist's work does not invalidate the artist's commercial rights to the property. However, Rosenstein, who said that he made no profit from his book (which was put out by a university press) or the display, says the murals are in public places and "publishing the photographs was covered under fair use provisions of copyright law, which allow images to be used to illustrate art criticism and reviews."
We can see both sides: If Rosenstein really wanted to "bond" with the artists, why not contact them and find out what they think of their art, while asking for permission? However, does everything in the public arena require permission to be photographed for a book? And something we never knew: TV and film location scouts ask graffiti artists for permissions and releases if their murals will be in a scene (location scouts know more than periodontists about rights issues, natch).
Top photograph of a Lower East Side by Tats Cru (see the copyright?) by peterkreder on Flickr; inset photograph of a Tats Cru member spraypainting a Mona Lisa for the Da Vinci Code movie release by jenchung on Flickr
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
fascinating...that's all you can really say about this dispute. It will certainly be interesting to see how it turns out if it gets to court.
here's a solution, lets just whitewash all the crap off the walls. problem solved for everyone.
Splasher, where are you? save us!
Thanks for being on both sides of this coin, but I think the artists have it all wrong and are actually representing a spirit that, it seems to me, is quite contrary to exactly what tagging/graffiti/street art or whatever you want it call it is all about. It's the free exchange of ideas and images - if someone goes ahead and makes money off of that exchange, well, that's the risk you take by putting your art on a building you don't own in a public location. If these artists owned the properties they painted on, that might be one thing. But to ask money from people when you have used public and private property as your canvas - usually without anyone's consent - is opportunistic at best and cynically capitalist at worst.
If these artists had any true understanding of the importance of street art and its history, they would thank their stars that people show an interest in what they do instead of whitewashing their work away as was the common practice before the tagging became recognized as art in the 80s.
My advice - buy a $30 canvas at Pearl, tag it and sell it.
Two things.
1) Isn't going to court basically them publicly admitting they broke the law? Can we arrest them?
2) I hope the building owners counter sue them for every dime they may win.
um, since when do we need to be signed in to comment?
there's a discussion of this going on at Streetsy too: check it out here.
Gabe, the graf artists in question had permission from the buildings' owners, so you kinda miss the point of the article. It's complicated and well-debated question of the extent of the fair use doctrine. This issue is reminiscent of the copyright issue about taking pictures of the "Bean" in Chicago's Millennium Park (shout out to Chicagoist's coverage: http://www.chicagoist.com/2005/02/17/millennium_park_photography_the_official_scoop.php).
For a good read, check out Lawrence Lessig's book, the Future of Ideas. The first chapter (if I remember) almost speaks directly about capturing other people's copyrighted works on film.
Second, Gabe, no offense but before you preach about the "true understanding of the importance of street art and its history" and "spirit ... of graffiti," I suggest you read the article. Nicer, Bio, BG183, and especially Pink are old school graf artists whose understanding of the art form and commitment to its spirit have never been challenged. Although I appreciate your comments, I am skeptical about your qualifications to give advice about this area.
The author may not have known about the copyright issues, but the publisher should have, even if it is an university press. It's their business to know, isn't it?
Let me get this straight. "Tats Cru" makes money by essentially putting up advertising from Hummer and the like in the public space. They capitalize on the "edgy" image of graffiti to sell their work, but really what they're doing is no different from putting up a billboard. So how is this book different from any other book that documents outdoor advertising?
Outdoor advertising in the public space = bullshit
sellout graffiti = more bullshit
book about sellout graffiti? Who the hell cares?
The New York Times article is very sad. Some apparently well-meaning guy spends years documenting graffiti that mostly will disappear. Then he has a book published by U. Mississippi Press ("Tattooed Walls"), which surely would have made little or no money. However, it will get some of the art shown. Clearly this is a labor of love on the part of the photographer. Then he gets sued and the book gets yanked. Very unfortunate for those artists who did not sue and who had work shown in the book. Their brief chance for having their work publicized is now gone and they were probably not consulted by the other graffiti artists who have now affected their ability to get publicity by killing the book. Obviously if the photographer was able to get permission, he should have tried to do so within reason. But, contrary to the Times article, it ain't always easy to do so. Many pieces are unsigned, without urls or phone numbers, and not done by "world renowned" graffiti artists who can by readily identified by their style. Many artists want to remain anonymous. And a freelance photographer is not a well-financed film crew. Often he shoots quickly and on the run, with little time and ability for research. I have seen many previous pictures of graffiti serving as backdrops in the New York Times and other papers and magazines and although the photographer is credited, the artist is almost never mentioned unless the article is about the artist. Most bizarre is the comment by one of the artists that they want to be able to select which of their pieces they prefer to appear in the book and how they should look. This seems to violate the artistic freedom of the photographer and author of the book, who should be free to choose how his photos look and what is in his book. Instead of being sued and criticized, this guy should be praised. Even though I have great respect for some of the artists mentioned in the Time article, this looks like a bogus lawsuit that is more about money and short-term publicity than the art.
This is a legal issue, not a moral/normative one. Failure to recognize such a basic distinction is what makes this particular public sphere so redundant.
Ah copyright infringement law kablooey!
Now in graffiti version
damn what type of world do we live where graffiti has copyright legal issues. No offense to artists they are very good
I think many of you people commenting about how now we can "bust these graffiti artists", or whatever other nonsense you are spouting, must have a pre-existing prejudice against what is called "Graffiti Art" Instead of realizing that Aerosol Art (A term given by the artists themselves and not Mayor Koch's publicity machine) is indeed a legitmate art form, you still have some stigma (similar to the photographer) that this style of art is gang related or all of it is done without permission. That is an uninformed and bigoted way to approach it. One of the examples, TATS Cru, has actually been doing commissioned murals in public spaces all over the world, but especially NY, for well over 10 years. They have always included copyright and contact info on every mural, and indeed own the images in question. They are in not way using this as a way to get noticed... They already have much more clout in the art world than this Dentist. If this dentist/photographer had used the contact info on the murals any of the he shot with his camera, or contacted ANY aerosol artrist, he would have found that TATS Cru has a wide reputation and also does not allow unauthorized use of their images.
I am sorry, but I feel that this Dentist, who may enjoy graffiti, didn't do his research, and saw how Aerosol Murals and Street Art in General is a very lucrative market. Whether or not he makes money, because it is a university press or not, he was putting out books and having art shows, but displaying someone elses artworks. This is not an individual who was trying to help acknowledge unknown artists, this is someone who is trying to gain notice on the backs of talented, real artists, with a naive hope that the people he was trying to impress had no idea about his subject matter. Even if he 'makes no money' on the book, unless he has recreated himself as a LLC, he is still liable for copyright violartion as author and photographer of the book. And apparently, this is not the first time he has violated artists rights, having had a new york graffiti website in the past where he refused information when informed of his copyright violations. For some reason, he doesn't seem to really have his finger on the pulse of the Aerosol Art movement, so I can't imagine his book being very good (I have heard that he even printed some murals backwards!)
These artists do own their images, these are commisioned artworks...
This is not some 12 year old running around writing his name.
These artists are sometimes paying property owners to paint the wall... so in effect they own the wall..
Or would the guy that paints all those huge whales not own the copyright to his artwork if someone wanted to comeout with a book containing his work....
Some one named Dan said we should whitewash the walls... Go ahead, but you have to contact all the artists first, with 30 days warning. Otherwise you are violating their civil rights, and "vandalising" the murals.
Seriously... These artists, regardless of the media used, are commisioned to do these murals, or at the very least have permission of the building owner. This is not some late night graffiti vandalism. As you can see in the photo of the artist painting the mona lisa, they do this in broad daylight... This is a legal activity...
Anyone who says otherwise is not well versed in copyright law or artists rights...
Regarding guest comment #12 ("This is a legal issue, not a moral/normative one. Failure to recognize such a basic distinction is what makes this particular public sphere so redundant."):
Legal issues often derive from, or are impacted by, moral/normative issues. It is often difficult to separate these frameworks.
I don't know what you mean by "... makes this particular public sphere so redundant." Redundant in what way?
Plenty of little kids in my neighborhood write their names and their "gang" credentials in a "personalized", "stylized", "artistic" manner on other people's walls and buildings. Crime, right?
And before you say "Oh, but that is vandalism/hooliganism..." isn't it art as well? To debate this issue from a legal, or worse, "copyright protection" vantage point is just silly.
If we discount the artistic credibility of mere "stylized scrawlings", in affect, creating a hierarchy of "street art" we sound just like the pompous establishment against which the "graffiti artists" of yore rebelled. Underground art needn't be embraced by the mainstream. That's the point.
give me a F***ken break! public property! get over it!!!
you wanna paint walls and call it graffiti....then be real!!! give it to the streets like its supposed to be. they sound more like commerical artists to me than 'street artists'. what a crock of shiiit!
This attempt to legitimize what the article describes as "aerosol tableaus" created in Tats Cru open-air private atelier under the protective privacy of a mentor's rooftop marks the end of the subversive nature of graffiti, hence of graffiti itself.
The late great PCKID must be turning in his grave. His input in Tattooed Walls, along with the foreword by Stefan Eins of Bronx's Fashion Moda fame and Chico's and De La Vega's contributions defy the contentions, allegations, and accusations of this handful of disgruntled artists who no longer make any pretense of belonging to anything but the mainstream.
David Gonzalez has written a lopsided and misleading article.
"It's called graffiti. We don't ask permission for what we do"
This quote comes from an L.A. graffiti writer in a Reuters article re.Steve Grody's new illustrated book "Graffiti L.A." This subversive sentiment stands in sharp contrast to the posture assumed by the whining authors of the "aerosol tableaus" portrayed in the NYTimes piece.
http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSN2244430920070530?sp=true