User:El Grafo/Graffiti

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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[edit]

  • USA UK 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.
  • Brazil 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[edit]

Graffity and copyright: Blogs[edit]

Graffity and copyright: lawsuits[edit]

(please add specific cases here)

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

Graffity and copyright: general discussion[edit]