Author Topic: Pictures of graffiti (Read 3359 times)

KONJINA · « **on:** September 07, 2016, 10:05 »

Hi there,
Maybe dumb question, but do graffiti need to be set as editorial pictures as I'm not the author of graffiti, just the one who made a click? Graffiti is on (what I think is) public building.

Thanks in advance.

cathyslife · « **Reply #1 on:** September 07, 2016, 10:07 »

The taggers would probably say it is copyrighted, even though it is a crime. And some taggers consider it art. You ask a good question, I will be interested in hearing the answer.

JoeClemson · « **Reply #2 on:** September 07, 2016, 10:48 »

Graffiti is generally regarded as original artwork (whatever you or I may think of it). The issues surrounding copyright and reproduction of visual arts is complex and not for the faint-hearted as disputes on the images of same may well end up in a court of law. You may notice that when newspapers print a picture of a piece of art they very often include someone in the picture looking at the artwork. They do this to help keep the right side of copyright law so that it is clear they are commenting editorially on the art, not just reproducing a copy of it.

It is certainly the case that SS require a property release with any picture of a piece of art, specifically including graffiti, and I suspect that most other agencies take the same stance.

KONJINA · « **Reply #3 on:** September 07, 2016, 15:06 »

I get it that they are some kind of artworks, and I respect it and that's one of reasons I'm asking this.

And to be more percise about desription of graffiti: it isn't one of those really big artistic pictures, it's really 2D sketch with simple message around it. I have seen few of them (all the same) in city.

And all graffiti are good for editorial if not for commercial use?

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #4 on:** September 07, 2016, 15:30 »

yes, graffiti have come to be recognized in many cities as art form. some cities even commission graffiti artist to fill walls, electrical boxes,etc..
it used to be that all graffiti is merely vandalism, but for a while already in many countries,
graffiti artists have come to produce some awesome works.
there is in fact, several sites where you find graffiti artists converge,
and i think several books have been published too.

it's been a while since graffiti was just some stupid scribble on the wall by some idiotic gangster wanna-bees,.
i remember my first experience in NYC over 3 decades ago, when i first looked at some of the most amazing "artwork" on the wall by some graffiti artists,
i even got one of them to paint my guitar case, and it was like having jimi hendrix of the wall sign my guitar case, lol

yes, i am glad they are becoming an art form. and yes, it is IP, and you need an IP release.

KONJINA · « **Reply #5 on:** September 07, 2016, 15:45 »

Thanks for answer. In my country I think it is still ilegal to draw them (at least on buildings like in this case, but there are places - walls specialy for them as I heard), but I don't think that will change something.

Is submiting as editorial ok?

MatHayward · « **Reply #6 on:** September 07, 2016, 16:21 »

To contribute images of graffiti at Adobe Stock you would need to submit a property release signed by the graffiti artist and possibly the building owner since the graffiti generally identifies the building also.

-Mat

lostintimeline · « **Reply #7 on:** September 07, 2016, 18:10 »

i submitted images with some graffity on istock and they got rejected even as editorial becouse of the copyright issue.on the other hand last year i took part in a small exhibition and the theme was graffity but i guess it is different on a photo exhibition

Chichikov · « **Reply #8 on:** September 08, 2016, 01:50 »

If graffiti are legal in some countries, they are illegal in a lot of countries.
So asking for a release for a graffiti where this kind of vandalism is illegal means to approve and support illegality.

The fact of supporting an illegal action is a form of complicity. Complicity is punished by law.

The minimum will be to ask a release only for the graffiti realized in the countries where vandalism is legal…

KONJINA · « **Reply #9 on:** September 08, 2016, 02:13 »

Thank you all for answers

cathyslife · « **Reply #10 on:** September 08, 2016, 08:16 »

Quote from: Chichikov on September 08, 2016, 01:50

If graffiti are legal in some countries, they are illegal in a lot of countries.
So asking for a release for a graffiti where this kind of vandalism is illegal means to approve and support illegality.

The fact of supporting an illegal action is a form of complicity. Complicity is punished by law.

The minimum will be to ask a release only for the graffiti realized in the countries where vandalism is legal…

I totally agree. If it's illegal graffiti, there shouldn't be any legal copyrights attached to it AT ALL. If a person hires someone to paint something on their building, that is something totally different. But gang graffiti should not be able to be copyrighted. In fact, if someone makes a copyright claim, they should be arrested and put in jail.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #11 on:** September 08, 2016, 09:15 »

Quote from: Chichikov on September 08, 2016, 01:50

If graffiti are legal in some countries, they are illegal in a lot of countries.
So asking for a release for a graffiti where this kind of vandalism is illegal means to approve and support illegality.

The fact of supporting an illegal action is a form of complicity. Complicity is punished by law.

The minimum will be to ask a release only for the graffiti realized in the countries where vandalism is legal…

in many countries , they stone women to death for divorcing their husbands.
also, many countries, police still go around shooting and beating people.
do you think that should apply for the rest of the world???

there are many so-called legal customs in many countries , which are considered atrocious
in other countries. just because it is illegal in one country or more, does not mean it is valid.
many laws are still considered archaic in many countries where the patriachs old-boy mentality is the voice of the law.

grafitti has come a long way from your gangster wanna-bee spray paint on garage or backalley vandalism. one must be careful not to paint grafitti artist with the same brush as these good-for-nothing of society.

still, if you open your eyes and look, grafitti is becoming more like microstock. to say all grafitti has no artistic protection is to condone with stealing the work of someone's talent.
you don't say the same thing for your own photographs or vectors , do you???
tatoo art is yet another sector of art which many still consider it is ridiculous to expect a tatoo to come attached with a IP and MR.

the world is changing faster than you think.

cathyslife · « **Reply #12 on:** September 08, 2016, 10:54 »

Quote

still, if you open your eyes and look, grafitti is becoming more like microstock. to say all grafitti has no artistic protection is to condone with stealing the work of someone's talent.
you don't say the same thing for your own photographs or vectors , do you???
tatoo art is yet another sector of art which many still consider it is ridiculous to expect a tatoo to come attached with a IP and MR.

The difference between graffiti placed legally and that placed illegally should make all the difference in the world. Illegally = crime. Legally = copyright protection. You figure out which countries allow it legally. The US does not. So far, I havent seen anyone saying ALL graffiti is illegal and therefore deserves no protection. Maybe you misread the above posts?

Chichikov · « **Reply #13 on:** September 08, 2016, 11:10 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on September 08, 2016, 09:15

Quote from: Chichikov on September 08, 2016, 01:50
If graffiti are legal in some countries, they are illegal in a lot of countries.
So asking for a release for a graffiti where this kind of vandalism is illegal means to approve and support illegality.

The fact of supporting an illegal action is a form of complicity. Complicity is punished by law.

The minimum will be to ask a release only for the graffiti realized in the countries where vandalism is legal…

in many countries , they stone women to death for divorcing their husbands.
also, many countries, police still go around shooting and beating people.
do you think that should apply for the rest of the world???

there are many so-called legal customs in many countries , which are considered atrocious
in other countries. just because it is illegal in one country or more, does not mean it is valid.
many laws are still considered archaic in many countries where the patriachs old-boy mentality is the voice of the law.

grafitti has come a long way from your gangster wanna-bee spray paint on garage or backalley vandalism. one must be careful not to paint grafitti artist with the same brush as these good-for-nothing of society.

still, if you open your eyes and look, grafitti is becoming more like microstock. to say all grafitti has no artistic protection is to condone with stealing the work of someone's talent.
you don't say the same thing for your own photographs or vectors , do you???
tatoo art is yet another sector of art which many still consider it is ridiculous to expect a tatoo to come attached with a IP and MR.

the world is changing faster than you think.

The first part of you post has nothing to do with the topic…

Your own words: "to say all grafitti has no artistic protection is to condone with stealing the work of someone's talent". I have the impression that you make a big confusion between "Artistic protection" and "Copyright"

I have lived half of my life in Italy.
I think that I have a little idea of what is Art.
Graffiti is so far from any kind of Art… Microstock too.

My photos and my vectors are not Art they are images to be sold, no more.
I will not offend if people say that they are not Art.
Not being Art they cannot have any "artistic protection"
Being the result of a work to be sold it is normal that this work has protection, copyright.

Did you hear about the Stendhal syndrome?
I seriously doubt that any graffiti or microstock photo could have such effect on people.

Please don't confuse ~~shіt and chocolate~~ Art and commerce…

Pauws99 · « **Reply #14 on:** September 09, 2016, 15:03 »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksy

Some graffiti is art some microstock is art. Microstock is merely a channel to sell pictures it says nothing about the artistic merit of whats being sold. Similarly graffitti is illegally placed painting etc. If someone gives permission for it to be painted on their wall it doesn't give it any more or less artistic worth. Most so called artists over the centuries probably considered they were producing images to be sold.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Pictures of graffiti (Read 3359 times)

KONJINA

cathyslife

JoeClemson

KONJINA

etudiante_rapide

KONJINA

MatHayward

lostintimeline

Chichikov

KONJINA

cathyslife

etudiante_rapide

cathyslife

Chichikov

Pauws99

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors