Author Topic: Graffiti and releases (Read 6852 times)

RaFaLe · « **on:** June 29, 2010, 23:41 »

I recently did a shoot in the city of Johannesburg.
I uploaded to the various microsites and 123rf reject all of my graffiti images because I need a release?

If it's public property, under a bridge in the slums, how can it be that I need a release for colourful graffiti on a pillar or wall?
It's common property, surely.

Other stock sites (like BigStock, Depositphotos) have accepted these images...

Ideas? Suggestions?

Thanks

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** June 30, 2010, 05:02 »

I can't say for any other sites, but iStock 'judges each case on its merits', but is more likely to reject graffiti than accept it. (Some of those which were accepted were made specially for the photo). I was told that even if a vandal graffitied my house, it would likely be rejected as 'someone else's artwork'.
Bring them on if they want to sue me, I replied.
It's a bit ridiculous, but it's their ball.

louoates · « **Reply #2 on:** June 30, 2010, 09:46 »

I've given up on trying to understand the release issue; It goes from obvious to the absurd. You'd think that graffiti is obviously not art but mindless scribbling with the intent to deface rather than edify. That's why you can get arrested for it. But "art"?. I think few common sense judges would fall for that plea. Not so sure about reviewers.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #3 on:** June 30, 2010, 10:22 »

Quote from: Chris.Alleaume on June 29, 2010, 23:41

I recently did a shoot in the city of Johannesburg.
I uploaded to the various microsites and 123rf reject all of my graffiti images because I need a release?

If it's public property, under a bridge in the slums, how can it be that I need a release for colourful graffiti on a pillar or wall?
It's common property, surely.

Playing the advocate, if it's so interesting and valuable to you to want to shoot and upload it, does the illegality of it play into the case?

stockastic · « **Reply #4 on:** June 30, 2010, 10:38 »

I had a nice 'urban wasteland' shot that was rejected by all the big agencies because graffitti. It's an absolutely mindless policy, but apparently they think that an 'artist' who did his work illegally, in a public place, chose to remain anonymous to avoid legal consequences - and obviously wanted public exposure - will suddenly change his mind, identify himself and try to assert control over its reproduction.

donding · « **Reply #5 on:** June 30, 2010, 10:55 »

I had a stop sign with the word WAR spray painted on it rejected because of copyright infringement last year. I re uploaded it last month and it was approved. I guess it depends on the reviewer. It made it on most of the other sites with no problem. I must add that I've never even had one sale on any of the sites.

cathyslife · « **Reply #6 on:** June 30, 2010, 11:19 »

Quote from: stockastic on June 30, 2010, 10:38

I had a nice 'urban wasteland' shot that was rejected by all the big agencies because graffitti. It's an absolutely mindless policy, but apparently they think that an 'artist' who did his work illegally, in a public place, chose to remain anonymous to avoid legal consequences - and obviously wanted public exposure - will suddenly change his mind, identify himself and try to assert control over its reproduction.

That's what cracks me up about it. These so-call artists are committing an illegal act by trespassing and defacing property but they are protected by copyright infringement laws. That's just messed up.

stormchaser · « **Reply #7 on:** June 30, 2010, 11:30 »

Quote from: Chris.Alleaume on June 29, 2010, 23:41

If it's public property, under a bridge in the slums, how can it be that I need a release for colourful graffiti on a pillar or wall?
It's common property, surely.

Ideas? Suggestions?

Thanks

Artist's copyright. This has been round and round in the courts, and any agency who did take them will wind up taking them down eventually.

Newsfocus1 · « **Reply #8 on:** June 30, 2010, 13:02 »

Nothing to stop you submitting graffiti images as Editorial, of course, if they won't accept them as Commercial. Regards, David.

www.shootingstockblogspot.com

stockastic · « **Reply #9 on:** June 30, 2010, 15:15 »

Granting vandals the protection of copyright law is just beyond dumb. What's next? Forbidding the property owner from photographing it for his insurance company? Blocking its removal?

"Artist" my @ss.

stormchaser · « **Reply #10 on:** June 30, 2010, 17:11 »

Quote from: stockastic on June 30, 2010, 15:15

Granting vandals the protection of copyright law is just beyond dumb. What's next? Forbidding the property owner from photographing it for his insurance company? Blocking its removal?

"Artist" my @ss.

You can photograph it all you want, you can't sell it as stock, nor can you put it on a greeting card, make a poster out if it etc.

stockastic · « **Reply #11 on:** June 30, 2010, 22:01 »

Quote from: stormchaser on June 30, 2010, 17:11

Quote from: stockastic on June 30, 2010, 15:15
Granting vandals the protection of copyright law is just beyond dumb. What's next? Forbidding the property owner from photographing it for his insurance company? Blocking its removal?

"Artist" my @ss.

You can photograph it all you want, you can't sell it as stock, nor can you put it on a greeting card, make a poster out if it etc.

So let's say the owner of the building now wants to photograph his own building, and sell pictures of it. Does he have to remove the graffitti first, because he doesn't have copyright on it?

Ridiculous.

stormchaser · « **Reply #12 on:** June 30, 2010, 22:39 »

I would just Photoshop it, much easier than removing it from the building.

ShadySue · « **Reply #13 on:** July 01, 2010, 02:38 »

Quote from: stockastic on June 30, 2010, 22:01

Quote from: stormchaser on June 30, 2010, 17:11
Quote from: stockastic on June 30, 2010, 15:15
Granting vandals the protection of copyright law is just beyond dumb. What's next? Forbidding the property owner from photographing it for his insurance company? Blocking its removal?

"Artist" my @ss.

You can photograph it all you want, you can't sell it as stock, nor can you put it on a greeting card, make a poster out if it etc.

So let's say the owner of the building now wants to photograph his own building, and sell pictures of it. Does he have to remove the graffitti first, because he doesn't have copyright on it?

Ridiculous.

As per my answer above, that's exactly what iStock advised me.

RaFaLe · « **Reply #14 on:** July 01, 2010, 07:51 »

Yup, it's kinda nuts how things work in this situation...
I guess there's reason to it all. How do they know that the graffiti isn't, in fact, legal and therefore not "public property".
In my case, I took photos of public propery, under a bridge.

Well, I give up. Some pretty awesome work, but I'll just keep it for my self

Oh, wait, I don't get to make money off it..

ShadySue · « **Reply #15 on:** July 01, 2010, 08:16 »

Quote from: Chris.Alleaume on July 01, 2010, 07:51

Yup, it's kinda nuts how things work in this situation...
I guess there's reason to it all. How do they know that the graffiti isn't, in fact, legal and therefore not "public property".
In my case, I took photos of public propery, under a bridge.

Well, I give up. Some pretty awesome work, but I'll just keep it for my self
Oh, wait, I don't get to make money off it..

You wouldn't want to be profiting from crime, now, would you?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #16 on:** July 01, 2010, 08:43 »

Quote from: Chris.Alleaume on July 01, 2010, 07:51

Yup, it's kinda nuts how things work in this situation...
I guess there's reason to it all. How do they know that the graffiti isn't, in fact, legal and therefore not "public property".
In my case, I took photos of public propery, under a bridge.

Well, I give up. Some pretty awesome work, but I'll just keep it for my self
Oh, wait, I don't get to make money off it..

submit a few close ups..

stockastic · « **Reply #17 on:** July 01, 2010, 12:04 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 01, 2010, 02:38

As per my answer above, that's exactly what iStock advised me.

Amazing. What a bunch of nervous old aunts.

Ok I'm heading downtown now. I'm going to take shots of some landmarks, then come back later and spray them with my initials so you guys can't take shots to compete with mine.

RaFaLe · « **Reply #18 on:** July 02, 2010, 04:04 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 01, 2010, 08:16

Quote from: Chris.Alleaume on July 01, 2010, 07:51
Yup, it's kinda nuts how things work in this situation...
I guess there's reason to it all. How do they know that the graffiti isn't, in fact, legal and therefore not "public property".
In my case, I took photos of public propery, under a bridge.

Well, I give up. Some pretty awesome work, but I'll just keep it for my self
Oh, wait, I don't get to make money off it..
You wouldn't want to be profiting from crime, now, would you?

Hmmm... Moral dilemma...

stormchaser · « **Reply #19 on:** July 02, 2010, 20:58 »

Quote from: Chris.Alleaume on July 01, 2010, 07:51

Yup, it's kinda nuts how things work in this situation...
I guess there's reason to it all. How do they know that the graffiti isn't, in fact, legal and therefore not "public property".
In my case, I took photos of public propery, under a bridge.

Even though it's public property, in a lot of cases municipalities commissioned third party artists, and not municipal employees, to do specific artwork. And in a lot of cases, contracts were written specifically to enable artists to retain their copyright. It's no dilemma, it's contractual.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Graffiti and releases (Read 6852 times)

RaFaLe

ShadySue

louoates

Sean Locke Photography

stockastic

donding

cathyslife

stormchaser

Newsfocus1

stockastic

stormchaser

stockastic

stormchaser

ShadySue

RaFaLe

ShadySue

luissantos84

stockastic

RaFaLe

stormchaser

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors