Muff's Modules & More

[odecahedron]

i work in a shitty retail store 3 days a week... the rest of my time is (mostly) divied up into wiggling and making art. the latter being a tangible (although often inconsistent) revenue stream, what little does trickle in from originals/prints sold and design work etc helps immensely to living costs and being able to enjoy things like real food, clothes, and occasionally ...modular synthesizers.

a n y w a y

i just got alerted to an old commissioned exterior artwork that has been photographed and re-appropriated as a postcard for sale in a country-wide chain store in New Zealand. i knew nothing of it. i dont particularly care cos the work is ooold, but the ethical debate remains...

who deserves the credit regarding photos of street art? where is the line drawn between the photographers work and the original artists work? how is it decided?

im aware that work inpublic spaces is open to everyone - but iun my situation the photographer is capitalizing with out due credit, im sure im far from the only artist that has experienced this kind of thing, and im aware polarized opinions probably exist - its interesting

discuss...

[Vsyevolod]

Well I'm of the mind that propery = theft, and intellectual property also = theft. Give it away, let it go, get paid, don't get paid...

Like I said, this is not the most common nor appreciated opinion you'll find...

...you asked...

Stephen




.

[odecahedron]

yeah, in this case it seems like more a double whammy "fuck you" to me - the artist, and the store owner who commissioned it and paid me for the work. then here's some dude with a camera and a lazer-copier doing NOTHING artistic with the photo (straight crop of the work) and distributing them for a profit. kinda feels grimey, but im not getting irate - im just genuinely interested to see ppl sviews on this grey picture.

ive seen plenty of photos of street art that has retained photographic artistic integrity, tho as said - its a blurry line and drawn in different places for different ppl. a dirtect crop of work being sold as if the photographer was the original artist is boo-hiss to me. especially when i get whacked with a 2k power bill and am rackin my brain for ideas of alternative income streams.

generally speaking: people have been known to take photos of banksy works and sell them in this way (postcards etc) flying "under the radar" so to speak - (until they get nabbed).

[sduck]

I've put out a ton of lousy photography over the years, and once in a while I see or hear of it being used in whatever odd place. Usually I get asked, and I give them blanket approval, as long as I get some kind of credit if possible. If they don't ask, I usually shoot them an email, along the lines of I'm glad you like my shot, here I am if you want to give me credit, if not it's cool. I gave up on trying to make money from this way back in high school, so I'm just throwing it out there for fun now.

[odecahedron]

yeah - i dont see how its possible to "police" it, i dont expect ot see any coin from it. i hate kickin gup a stink about this kind of thing - but im ONE of many artists whose work this guy has taken photos of, only to release as his own merchandise. the back of all these cards reads "unknown artist" - this just seems like a cop-out... NZ is a very small community (esp where street art is concerned) and it was never going to stay under the radar for long.

[Just me]

Sell copies of photos of the art with the artist name on the front and back.
Or
Let the retailer know it isn't "Unknown Artist". Retailers are VERY leary of anything that might get them involved in ANY legal action.

[ndkent]

My gut reaction is the exploiter thought they could get away with publishing art for free assuming it was not commissioned art. You know like if it really was vandalism then the artist would be liable for other issues if they claimed it as their creation. And of course being in a different country makes action costly and difficult.

I believe whomever asked you to paint it though would be in a much better legal position. It's on their property not public property, correct? Another potential factor is I assume you art is the entire subject and not say a street scene including your art because that could come under fair use. Also what they did probably isn't a crime , it's a civil dispute afaik

If it bugs you find out who did it and ask for compensation firmly but politely. If they ignore you you have some options to make some no cost trouble. Like letting the chain store know that you'll let arts organizations know. Don't violate any laws like imply a threat

[iamgoldman]

in the context of our current dominating culture: sue because you can

[flo]

[slovo]

I think if we're talking about graffiti then there is sort of a presumption of wanting to be anonymous. But if you want to promote it you should give it a chance and do some promotion. I know that you're not interested in making it a legal action now, but I believe you cannot enforce copyright ever unless you work to establish precedent -- that you have made it know that it is yours and you care about attribution.

[odecahedron]

im not a grafiiti guy thats for sure - it was more a mural than a "piece" = sometime what i draw ends up on the street. dont really care either way for anonymity or overly self promotion (which is ironically both graffiti traits) - what bugs me here is the principle. "here, have some other guys work, that'll be $5.95 a pop thanks, thanks" ... and as said - not just mine.

found out today the card-makers trading company-name is no longer active and was deregistered years ago - it seems bunk, tho it was formerly registered to the same zipcode as the head office of the chain-store that is offering these things. , starting to look dodgier by the second. i emailed acouple of the stores politely to enquire about a contact for the card makers and keep getting hot-potatoed from one office to the next.

[Dr. Sketch-n-Etch]

Here's an idea: Call up the retailer in question, explain the situation, and come to a mutually beneficial solution. For example, just getting your name on the postcard might bring you immeasurable benefit in the form of increased exposure, new commissions, etc.

It never hurts to ask!

[Stereotactixxx]

This seems to be done by someone with no sense of ethics whatsoever,
so it seems unlikely you will see any money from it without taking legal actions.

I really hope this will be solved for you without too much hazzle,
since you didn't ask for the trouble this brings you.

[EATyourGUITAR]

It is my opinion that anything you see with your eyes you have a right to take a picture of. anything you take a picture of, you have a right to show it to other people. anything that costs money (printing), you have a right to take money for it. your not the only one invested in this postcard business. he/she didn't travel, take pictures and publish them in zero time with zero expenses so it makes sense that they feel they have a right to recoup some of that money if not all. in the United States, you can win any legal battle if you have the right amount of money and time in court regardless of whats wright or wrong, sometimes in blatant contradiction to the law. so who cares if it is legal or not. the definition of what is legal by law is a manufactured one that changes every day.

in my opinion, if you harass him in any way that takes too much of his time or makes him regret his actions as a photographer, you are actually doing more to destroy this person and is his art before he has a chance to manifest his life's work or make a living doing it. you may think it is easy and profitable to take a picture but it is not. if it was, everyone would be doing it as a career.

I have respect for you as an artist but I don't think you would like an architect coming up to you and telling you that you made his building look ugly. everyone is someone else's fan or hater. maybe you can let the situation inspire you to make more art?

[richard]

There are legions of photographers trucking around Berlin publishing images of other people's work/lives/ideas. Whole books of graffiti and alternative art. Surely all of it without permission.

Not quite the same but I even found a picture of me and my friends sitting on a bench outside the kino where we do Basic Electricity drinking a beer on the bench in the Easyjet magazine as I was sitting on the plane. Quite a strange feeling, apparently we are one of the main reasons to come to Berlin now!

For sure neither the photographer nor easyjet asked permission to use our image. I find that to be both rude and a form of theft. No idea of the legal situation tho.

[Stereotactixxx]

In the end it all boils down to whether it's legal or not.
In a democracy you can think what you want,
but you can't do whatever pleases you.
Breaking the law is just pissing democracy right in the face,
and theft of intellectual property shurely can't be legal in any civilized country.

And that is simply because a big chunk of the modern society relies on it.
Without it, it's just back to the coal mines for a lot of us,
producing old fashioned (and natural resource-consuming) physical products.
And there will off course be less and poorer culture to enjoy in our spare time.

[daverj]

In the art world photography of art has been a major subject for many years. In general international copyright laws side with the artist if the photograph shows mainly the artwork, and side with the photographer if the artwork is in a public place and is not the major focus of the image. But it's gone back and forth in various legal battles and changes every few years.

As far as publishing photos of art, since usually the artist owns the visual rights to the art (even when somebody else owns the actual art object), and the photographer owns the rights to the photograph of it that they took, publishing a photo of art usually requires permission from both, and profits for the publishing are typically split between them.

[EATyourGUITAR]

[Stereotactixxx]

OK, I haven't seen the original or the photograph of it,
but I got the impression that the photo was just a reproduction of the original work in a new format.
That is sort of like ripping the sound off of Titanic and releasing it as a CD.
Shure, it takes some skills and some money to release it, but it shure ain't art.

And yes, I still stand by my statement above, but that is off course only applicable to my general "text book definition" of democracy and with the assumption that artwork is considered intellectual property, and that theft of it is illegal. Photos can absolutely also contain original intellectual property, but I'm sensing that this is not the case here, and anyway, this photo contains someone else's intellectual property without permission.

However, I should perhaps have been careful expressing my feeling about this matter, since they border on politics, and this isn't the place to discuss that. Sorry about that.

[daverj]