photographing peoples work (graffiti)

[tilley441]

As the title says, do you think its right to take credit for photographing peoples work (street art/ graffiti) with out asking them first or even knowing them?


reason I ask is a guy has email me asking to use the pic below in a mag and the last thing i want is to end up being sued for something....





Graffiti Wall 4 by tilley441, on Flickr

[GetCarter]

Always ask.

[tilley441]

looks like ill leave it then, i cant ask someone with no contact details lol

[Super Slo Mo]

How would the original artist be able to prove it was his work? Genuine question by the way, I'm guessing there's no signature as such on it.

[tilley441]

Super Slo Mo said:

How would the original artist be able to prove it was his work? Genuine question by the way, I'm guessing there's no signature as such on it.

thats my point, most graffiti aint legal so they are not going to leave a "card" yet say i go ahead with it and it gets printed and the person that done it comes forward can they legally do anything against me for something they done which was illegal in the first place

[LongQ]

Is this a work that has been commissioned and paid for (in some way) by the owner of the wall and sanctioned by the local authority (whatever that might be)?

If it is then it should be possible to trace the artisit and ask for permission.

If not it's not an approved piece of art work then it's vandalism, in the eyes of the law, and presumably a prosecutable offence. That would make for an interesting court case should anyone claim against you.

Are you seeking some sort of recompense for your agreement to use? If not I would doubt anyone would have a claim that would stand up anyway but realistically if you dump 'art' in a public place it really should be considered fair game for any other use and if unauthorised in the first place is hardly something one might want to 'own'. Unless it is a marketing tool in which case freely spreading the images around the world should really be cinsidered a 'good thing'. Or so I would have thought.

[tilley441]

i wont be getting anything for it being printed (i would not want to be, not my work just my photo) as far as i know of i dont think its been approved by the council although they tend not to remove the bigger non offensive stuff from there, they just turn a blind eye lol

[Pothole]

'work' FFS!

[Simpo Two]

LongQ said:

If not it's not an approved piece of art work then it's vandalism, in the eyes of the law, and presumably a prosecutable offence. That would make for an interesting court case should anyone claim against you.

It's OK to take photos of rioters though, and they're vandals... can't see how you'd be liable for taking photos of vandalised walls.


'Living off immoral earnings' maybe though... you is going to jail bro

[tilley441]

Pothole said:

'work' FFS!

ok......vandalism/art/graffiti/painting or anything else you can think to call it lol

[Super Slo Mo]

I might be wrong on this, but I was under the impression that there were few, if any, restrictions regarding taking photographs of things that are in public places. Of course, it's advisable to get release forms signed from any identifiable persons, if the photo is to be made public.

I'd just publish it and take my chances, but I understand why you may be reluctant.

[AndWhyNot]

I was reading the other day about an exception to copyright laws for (what I interpreted as) this kind of situation. If I can find the link I'll post but might be quicker to google.

From another angle, if you post into some of the graffiti groups on flickr someone might be able to ID it. I know lots of serious street artists and most of them run an anonymous flickr account.

Start here: http://www.flickr.com/groups/englishgraffiti/ either with the discussion forum (tho that looks a bit quiet) or click on 'Members' and contact the admin called Bert

[threespires]

"Ceci n'est pas graffiti"
Best viewed original size.


190/365 - 09 July 2011 - Ceci n'est pas graffiti by Rally Pix, on Flickr

[Famous Graham]

I'd have no compunction about publishing a photograph of grafitti. Much as I wouldn't worry about a photo of a billboard with an advert on it, or a particularly striking shot of the case around the Mona Lisa.

I'm not claiming to be the originator of the subject work, nor am I deliberately depriving said originator of income.

So, fill yer boots.

[TheEnd]

threespires said:

"Ceci n'est pas graffiti"
Best viewed original size.


190/365 - 09 July 2011 - Ceci n'est pas graffiti by Rally Pix, on Flickr

I'm struggling to get the point of that.

[tilley441]

TheEnd said:

threespires said:

"Ceci n'est pas graffiti"
Best viewed original size.


190/365 - 09 July 2011 - Ceci n'est pas graffiti by Rally Pix, on Flickr

I'm struggling to get the point of that.

you and me both

[rxtx]

Pothole said:

'work' FFS!

Why isn't that someone's work?

[herebebeasties]

TheEnd said:

threespires said:

"Ceci n'est pas graffiti"
Best viewed original size.


190/365 - 09 July 2011 - Ceci n'est pas graffiti by Rally Pix, on Flickr

I'm struggling to get the point of that.

It's a surrealist joke ( Magritte).

[TheEnd]

I know the "C'est ne pas une pipe", but I don't see how it relates to a collection of photos thrown together as one, a clichéd police car, and some pink stars.

It would work it is was a painting of pictures of a painting...

[mattdaniels]

You're the creator of the photograph, you've chosen the subject / angle / framing / exposure etc. And presumably took it in a public place. It's your photograph to do with as you wish.