User:El Grafo/Graffiti

Triggered by Commons:Village_pump#Banksy:

From Template:Non-free graffiti:

“Occasionally graffiti will be kept, using the claim that an author might be denied any copyright relief based on an illegal act; however, there is no evidence of this legal theory being tested.”

When this was last discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Non-free graffiti in 2013, Fastily closed the DR with “Naturally, should anyone find any new contradictory evidence, a new, special discussion should be initiated at COM:RFC to re-evaluate Commons' policies on illegal grafitti.” Times have changed, and much has been written since Template:Non-free graffiti and COM:GRAFFITI have been implemented.

Here's a quick list of recent scientific* literature that I have compiled (please add more). Unfortunately, I do not have the time to actually read through them, but maybe they can be helpful to kick-start a more serious discussion based on what actual experts (both in terms of copyright and graffiti/street art) have to say rather than our collective gut feelings. Maybe we can do it Wiki-style and share the work of reading through the material and summarizing it for everyone else? --El Grafo (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *"scientific" as in "popped up in a Google Scholar search". I do not know which of the journals have peer review, or if that is even a thing in law studies. Although most of them seem to be open access, you may or may not need a library subscription in order to access some of the articles.

Graffity and copyright: Journal articles

• Lerman, Celia (2012). "PROTECTING ARTISTIC VANDALISM: GRAFFITI AND COPYRIGHT LAW". New York University Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law 2.

• Davies, Jamison (2012). "Art Crimes?: Theoretical Perspectives on Copyright Protection for Illegally-Created Graffiti Art". Maine Law Revie 65 (1).

• Seay, John Eric (2012). "You Look Complicated Today: Representing an Illegal Graffiti Artist in a Copyright Infringement Case Against a Major International Retailer". Journal of Intellectual Property Law 20 (1).

• Smith, Maribeth A. (2016). "Tagging the Lanham Act: Protecting Graffiti Art from Willful Infringement". Brooklyn Law Review 81 (2).

• Bonadio, Enrico (2018). "Graffiti, street art and Copyright". Street Art and Urban Creativity Journal 4 (1).
  • Summary: Copyright requires originality, which is given for most graffiti. The Author argues, goes so far to say that “[I]f originality is assessed by people inside the graffiti subculture […] [e]ven tags and throw-ups [compare Glossary of graffiti] that to an untrained eye and outside the graffiti scene happen to seem as banal, meaningless and always similar may be considered sufficiently original […]”. The author acknowledges that the question of whether or not somebody who creates unsanctioned ("illegal") graffiti forfeits the protection of copyright has not been answered finally. He lists several relevant lawsuits (noted below) and argues that copyright should be available for creators of unsanctioned graffiti for various reasons.

• Barbosa & Castro (2019). "GRAFFITI ART COPYRIGHT PROTECTION IN BRAZIL: A SHORT ANALYSIS". Revista de Direito da Cidade 11 (11). DOI:10.12957/rdc.2019.36534.

Graffity and copyright: Books & book chapters

• Iljadica, Marta (2016) Copyright Beyond Law: Regulating Creativity in the Graffiti Subculture, Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing ISBN: 1509902015.

• Schwender, Danwill (2016) "Does copyright law protect graffiti and street art?" in Routledge Handbook of Graffiti and Street Art, Jeffrey Ian Ross, pp. 452−463 ISBN: 9781317645863.

• Bonadio, Enrico (2018) "Street art, graffiti and copyright" in Bonadio, Enrico , ed. Non-Conventional Copyright: Do New and Atypical Works Deserve Protection?, Cheltenham, UK & Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 83−110 ISBN: 9781786434074.
  • → review of this book: Duhanic, Ines (2019). "Copyright in street art, graffiti, porn and ‘Mein Kampf’?". Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 14 (10): 822-823. DOI:doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpz114.

Graffity and copyright: Blogs

• Copyright is for Losers? The Turbulent World of Modern Graffiti. Copyright and Creators (27 May 2014).

Graffity and copyright: lawsuits

(please add specific cases here)

• Reece v. Marc Ecko Unlimited
• Mager v. Brand New School
• Creative Foundation v. Dreamland
• Villa v. Pearson Education
• H&M v. Revok
• Joseph Tierney v. Moschino
• BGH I ZR 68/93: Paintings on the Berlin Wall are subject to the German equivalent of Copyright (page 9)