graffiti banned from my stock photo houses

not sure if this is of any importance to anyone here, or if anyone cares - but most stock photo houses like istockphoto.com have banned graffit pix as they finally decided that they are in violation of copyright regulations (in the us and other countries), even though they are for the most part 100% illegal

as someone use used to write, and a photographer i can both appreciate this and also despise it - part of the reason most write is to get their name out - having someone take a photo and sell it gets the name out - but benefits the photographer monetarily, not the writer - so this can fall either way

in any event, most all of the graf images from the larger stock houses have been removed from their books except for those w/ written model release forms

copyright regulations? i'm pretty sure copyright regulations state if you take a picture, even if someone elses work is somewhere in the picture, the picture is your work because it's focused on more than just the original art work.

it depends. it could easily be argued that the image in the photo is the art, not the photo itself. especially with graff, since photos are the only way to 'share' the art.

you don't have to be too 'educated' to tell the difference between a portrait, and a photo that happens to have someone randomly in it.

i've contacted photographers after seeing my work on stock image sites and they've never had any problems taking them down for me.

good job on taking the shit down..

the title of the thread somehow got miss-typed - perhaps cuz i was on too much nyquill (i hate being sick)

it should be - banned from stock photo houses - no "my" in there

iloveboxcars - sadly, you are mistaken...somewhat... going by the us copyright site - once an image is conceived (film is exposed to light or digital data is written) the copyright belonds to the person taking the picture so long as no contract before hand has been arranged.

in stock photography, and most photography for sale, there are limitations to this... that is to say, i cannot take a pic of the mona lisa and then turn around and sell it as a stock photograph or print my own copies and sell them because the work within the photograph holds its own copyright... the same goes for maps, text in books and in some cases buildings... i used to do admin work for a large online stock photo/ art site - if you took a pic of your living room and there was a painting on the wall that youyourself did not do, we couldnt accept it... even if you bought the painting, you arnt buying the rights to resell its image, but you may resell the painting itself... its gone so far as the sydney opera house and the eiffel tower (at night, lit up) are prohibitited to have photographs used in a commercial use at all

Unstoppable - you bring up a very good point - for the most part the photo is only to show the graf - but what if im taking a photo of a model in front of some graffiti, and i have a model release form for the model... its a bit of the grey area because in order to resell it, technicly, i need a release form for the artwork behind her, regardless of whether or not my intention was to shoot it or not

haha he called you unstoppable.

hahahahahaham he did...

Ha ha yes he sure did!

dude, he called me unstoppable, did you guys see that?

it's a bit of a grey area that would tend to side with the photographer, not the artist. copywrite rights are not indefinite. there are specific time limits for different mediums. if you do not renew your copywrite, you lose the rights to it and it becomes public domain. this doesn't necessarily apply to graff, but it does apply in general. also, copywrite laws do not apply to works who's creater can not reasonably be determined, which does specifically apply to graff. if you had a big legal wall with names, crew names, and contact info, obviously that is going to be covered. if you have an alleyway crushed with 15 years of random tags and throw ups, it's probably not.

also, there is the issue of placing art in public space, and the concent that such an action implies. for instance, when someone paints a big stupid whale on the side of a building, they can not reasonably expect compensation from anyone who takes a panoramic photograph of the city.

this whole issue has come up in recent years due to graff being used in ad's, and more recently, in video games. raven, the owner of this site, had something in grand theft auto i think (the first or second editions). he talked to a lawyer about it and was told there was little he could do. first he'd have to prove it was actually him, then he'd have to deal with the fact that it was illegal to begin with, then there is the intent of the person who used it, blah blah. all in all, it was more trouble than it was worth. that coming from an intellectual properties lawyer who would have taken his case for free, had he had one.

stock photo houses chosing to not use graff is likely just a decision based on hassle vs. gain and is part of a broader policy effecting any 'art', not specifically graff. either way, it doesn't matter at all to me. i cant think of a single instance where someone using 'stock' graff would interest me in the least.

unstoppable/armchair lawyer oner

ok so i was in a hurry and copy/pasted the wrong name... oops!

if you do not renew your copywrite, you lose the rights to it and it becomes public domain

another big misconception - unless you specify somehow differant, your copyright will be yours as long as you live + 75 years... and you can will your copyrights to anyone you wish, at which time they would continue for as long as that person lives + 75 years

there is very litle at this time that will actually become public domain - sort of like going out west in the US and "claiming land" - it just doesnt happen anymore

some of you may find this usefull as well: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

Fuck who cares , theres plenty of other options .

Where's my royalties check!!!??