Anders Hingel 
, Jan 18, 2012; 02:31 a.m.
Can someone advice on whether there are copyright issues linked to shots of grafiti in streets?
I have uploaded an image of various examples of graffiti I fell on in the streets of Shanghai (see here).
What are the rules of copyright for shots of such type of work on the walls in a city, in various countries?
I'm sure we are many that shoot such type of images, but I have not seen up till now answers to questions concerning copyright issues of such shots.
John MacPherson , Jan 18, 2012; 03:09 a.m.
My take on it would be that it's ok to reproduce. You're not asserting that you created it, only having created the copy of it in your photograph. It is no different from taking a picture of Times Square with a Coke ad appearing in the frame. You're not asserting any rights over the Coke logo, only reproducing it as it appeared in a public place. Also given that in many cases such graffiti is perhaps regarded as wilful damage to a building (ie vandalism), it's unlikely any 'author' is going to take legal action against you for any alleged breach of copyright.
But I could be completely wrong!
Per-Christian Nilssen 
, Jan 18, 2012; 03:16 a.m.
I'm inclined to agree with John here, but I'd check with a lawyer just to be sure. And, national laws could be different.
Rob Sheppard 
, Jan 18, 2012; 04:54 a.m.
There is a famous grafitti artist in the UK called Banksy. I've seen books featuring his work, also small photographs printed onto block frames for sale at street markets etc. Is this OK under copyright?
Jeff Livacich , Jan 18, 2012; 05:13 a.m.
Your work is a photograph. The graffiti are not. You haven't even "copied" it.
Steve Smith , Jan 18, 2012; 05:50 a.m.
Your work is a photograph. The graffiti are not. You haven't even "copied" it.
Correct. A photograph of something which was not in itself a photograph is just an illustration of the subject. People worry about infringing the copyright of buildings by photographing them and some building owners think this is the case but unless you are making an identical (or very similar) building, a photograph of it is not a copy and therefore cannot infringe any copyright.
Anders Hingel , Jan 18, 2012; 07:07 a.m.
Thanks to all of you for your responses.
I'm not sure the "photography/real thing" argument works in all cases and all countries. I cannot sell a shot of the Eiffel tower for example. Pictures of it are protected by copyright.
The graffiti in question is in no way vandalism. It is art, painted on for that purpose designated wooden barriers near the contemporary art city of Shanghai, an old factory area. Graffiti is not something you would see much, if any, on walls elsewhere in the city - at least I have not seen it anywhere else. I would however believe that it is not protected in this case, not only because I show a photo and not the real thing, but also because I chose to present five such shots together in a composite square, which is my choice.
Jim Momary , Jan 18, 2012; 08:00 a.m.
Those DARN French (dare I say it) ...
" c'est fromage ! "
:o)
(That's a terrible joke!)
Steve Smith , Jan 18, 2012; 08:51 a.m.
I'm not sure the "photography/real thing" argument works in all cases and all countries. I cannot sell a shot of the Eiffel tower for example. Pictures of it are protected by copyright.
You can sell pictures of the Eiffel Tower taken in daylight. The owners think that you cannot sell a picture of it taken at night as they claim ownership of the artwork in the lighting. Whilst this is true, I would argue that to breach their copyright of the lighting, I would have to make a similar tower with similar lighting on it.
Some discussion here: http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/fast-company-staff/fast-company-blog/eiffel-tower-repossessed
John A , Jan 18, 2012; 09:59 a.m.
Your work is a photograph. The graffiti are not. You haven't even "copied" it.
Sorry guys, that is not true--at least in the US. In fact, if you look at US copyright law, you cannot copyright a photograph of any 2D work of art, the copyright is in the piece itself and your photograph is not protected (copy shots, shots that are primarily the piece of art, in any case). Specifically, it spells out copy shots of other works of art, like paintings. If you create such an image and post it and someone steals it, you have no copyright protection. I don't know about other countries, but the principle here is that there is nothing done by you that is copyrightable. Now, it is different with 3D works but even though you can copyright those images in most cases, it doesn't mean you have any right to use the image any way you please. I don't think it is an issue to post it but it would be, most likely, an issue to sell your photograph for commercial use and in some cases, even as an art piece (gets a bit more subjective in that case). If a painting or other 2D art is in your photograph but not the only thing, then you most likely can copyright it but you still have the same sort of restrictions as if you shot someone elses 3D work. Even owning the copyright to an image does not give you unlimited rights to its use.
Graffiti is a more complex situation, to be sure. I would talk to an attorney but would also be very cautious of what I did with it, especially if they are copy shots. I don't think the law changes, but there may be case law that has set a precedent for its use. (Since it is most often an illegal act to create it, that may have a bearing). I also don't think posting to a site like this is much of an issue, but you never know.
