In related news , a building owner sues a grafitti artist for vandalism
-
-
-
I get where you’re coming from but this piece was commissioned by the building owner
-
So doesn’t that mean the building owner has the right to the painting, not the artist?
-
But I guess what that really means is the owner has a right to that copy of the painting, but not the right to reproduce it as he pleases. It would depend on the agreement he made with the artist then.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If it was a song, there would be no question. If it was scripted words, there would be no question. But art is a question?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Indeed he should be paid
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
No. The graffiti artist's medium was not originally obtained legally. He/she does not own rights to the image as la copyright must be derived from a legally defensible mode of publication.
-
The only exception to this would be commission by property owner to create the art. If the property was abandoned or left in foreclosure then the art assumes partial value relative to its display
-
And there's the hit... It was commissioned
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Hopefully, he not only put a (c) by it but actually registered it with the Cpyright Office.
-
Except that is irrelevent because an artist’s work is copyrighted the moment it is created
-
Graffiti is street art. If this was in a private location, then he would have a case. But street art implies public domain
-
LOL show me the law that says that you dummy
-
You can't just take a photo of someone's commissioned art piece and throw it in your advertisement FOR YOUR PROFIT. It's called copyright infringement and it doesn't matter if the art's hanging on a wall or painted on one.
-
If these kind of actions result in lawsuits, unfortunately, it's generally the corporate entity with deep legal pockets that prevails.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'd say the question should center on whether the artist has standing. If his art was created by trespassing and painting on/with materials to which he did not have a right, I'd say it's public domain.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Yes the artist should be paid.
@GM should know better... But 2018 is all about trying to see how much you can skimp the little guy and get away with it. - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.