JB Posted February 22, 2002 Share Posted February 22, 2002 Does anyone know the legalities on publishing pictures of grafitti? Say, for example, someone took a picture of a tag or some shit that was on public property and then published it in a magazine. Would the artist of the grafitti have the right to sue or anything? Or is it illegal to patent, copyright or trademark anything that is illegal. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sect one Posted February 22, 2002 Share Posted February 22, 2002 very good question im curious now too im leaning towards no though cause its liek on other peopels property Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASER1NE Posted February 22, 2002 Share Posted February 22, 2002 no that doesnt apply , you cannot copyright things that arent legal ................however if you steal flix from a website and use them in your mag , they can sue you.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mud_buddha Posted February 22, 2002 Share Posted February 22, 2002 illegal stuff is probably outside of the realm of copyright (and if it technically isn't you'd be a damned fool trying excercise your rights.) The photograph of the illegal work is, however, protected by copyright as soon as it produced (any completed original work of art is automatically afforded some protection under copyright laws.) . Legal walls, blackbooks, canvases would be afforded the same protection. With those you could also apply for more copyright protection through the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisdexic Posted February 22, 2002 Share Posted February 22, 2002 good to know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE PROPHET Posted February 22, 2002 Share Posted February 22, 2002 Originally posted by mud_buddha illegal stuff is probably outside of the realm of copyright (and if it technically isn't you'd be a damned fool trying excercise your rights.) The photograph of the illegal work is, however, protected by copyright as soon as it produced (any completed original work of art is automatically afforded some protection under copyright laws.) . Legal walls, blackbooks, canvases would be afforded the same protection. With those you could also apply for more copyright protection through the government. MUD BUDDHA IS RIGHT. 1 ANY ILLEGAL WORK IS NOT GROUNDS FOR COPYRIGHT. 2 A PHOTO OF ANYTHING, THE PHOTO ONLY, NOT THE WORK IS AUTOMATICALLY COPYWRITTEN TO THE PERSON WHO TOOK THE PICTURE. 3 ALL LEGALS AND CANVASES ARE COPYWRITTEN TO THE ARTIST BY FIRST NAME ONLY OR IF YOUR WRITER NAME AND OR CREW IS REGISTERED. 4 IF ITS ILLEGAL, AND SOMEONE USES THE IMAGE WITHOUT CONSENT YOU CAN EXCERCISE YOUR RIGHT BY BEATING THE MOTHERFUCKERS ASS THAT USED YOUR SHIT. :mad: ITS STILL VERY EASY TO SNAKE IMAGES. SOMEONE CAN TAKE YOUR FLICK, RUN IT THROUGH PHOTOSHOP, CROP THE IMAGE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT AND CHANGE THE COLOR SATURATION SOME. BOOM THERES NO WAY YOU COULD PROVE OR IT WOULD MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT TO PROVE THAT WAS YOUR IMAGE THAT WAS STOLEN. ALSO COSTLY MAKING IT NOT WORTH IT. WHEN I RELEASE MY GRAFF PROJECT IM WORKIN ON, IM PUTTIN UP A WEBSITE TO PROMOTE IT. IM GONNA HAVE TO PUT UP SAMPLE IMAGES OF MY FLIX. THEY HAVE TO BE GOOD QUALITY. SO MY PARTNER WHO WORKS WITH DISNEY IS PUTTIN A KIND OF WHAT WOULD BE A WATERMARK ON THE FLICK. HE AND I WOULD ONLY KNOW WHERE ON THE IMAGE THE MARK WOULD BE. REAL SMALL. MAKING IT EASIER TO NOTICE IF SOMEONE HAS STOLEN MY IMAGES. THATS ALSO A BIG REASON WHY I DONT LIKE GRAFF ON THE NET. FOOLS AND MAGS SNAKE SHIT FOR THEM SELVES. ITS COOL IF ITS FOR YOUR PLEASURE. SHIT I HAVE A WHOLE COLLECTION BUT I WOULDNT USE THEM. THERES LIKE 3 MAGZ IN CIRRCULATION RIGHT NOW THAT I KNOW SNAKE SOME IMAGES WITHOUT PERMISSION. THEYLL REMAIN NAMELESS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOVAGIRL Posted February 22, 2002 Share Posted February 22, 2002 i guess if you wanted to you could flik all your shit and seal it in an envelop and mail it to yourself...then find the money, lawyer, and the time to pursue your claim of ownership...but the illegal shit is illegal shit and you would probably have to own up to that fact in court before seeking copyright protection...photographers have all rights as long as it's public property... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mud_buddha Posted February 22, 2002 Share Posted February 22, 2002 You don't need a lawyer and you don't need to mail it to yourself. For the "legal work" the form is relatively simple to fill out (1 page the last time I did it) and the application costs $25. Getting a lawyer involved for copyright stuff is overkill. Patents and Trademarks are another story entirely. But, remember, as soon as a work is completed you have basic copyright protection. You can put the little © and claim ownership without doing anything at all. You pay for greater levels of protection/ safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kodak Posted February 23, 2002 Share Posted February 23, 2002 well they have to get permission from the writer. but most of the time they dont, but if your a real writer you would be glad to be in a public magazine. i mean its more people that get to see your piece! hell yeah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobius Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 paint the biter when the situation arises. nothing goes bette with his pepe's than a fresh coat of jungle green Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.