Thirty years ago, hip-hop music was called “noise”, and graffiti will follow the same trajectory. The perception of street art has already changed radically. Graffiti is beautiful because it`s how someone expresses their story or dreams. A word or number can mean the world to someone. People have their own personalities, thoughts, and experiences, and sometimes graffiti can be their way of showing it to the world. Artists can be vandals, but that doesn`t mean vandals can`t be artists. Art doesn`t have to be legal to be art. I wouldn`t mind waking up one day with graffiti on my wall. [112] In the case of graffiti, registration is not illegal under copyright law, since according to 17 U.S.C. § 101, fixation requires only “the authority of the author,” but not that of the owner of the material medium containing the work. However, the act of coercion may still be unlawful under current criminal law.
[32] He told the Wall Street Journal, “Despite some color changes, in my opinion, the cartoon character was clearly taken from a work of art I legally sprayed on a wall in Münster in 2001. [.] I have absolutely no idea how this graffiti ended up on the Olympic stage, but I know I can`t accept anyone copying my work, the work I have to live on. Despite their illegal status, graffiti artists and their work deserve the same respect as other artists. The illegality of graffiti is not the problem – the law is important to protect property. But just because it`s illegal doesn`t mean we can`t appreciate it and look at graffiti with the same mindset that we look at any other art form. [110] This may explain the judgment in Villa v. Brady Publishing, in which the court ruled that graffiti photographed and published in a book without the artist`s consent was copyrighted. Villa v. Brady Publ`g, nr. 02 C 570, 2002 WL 1400345, at *3 (N.D.
Ill. 27 June 2002). Mitchell illustrates why it makes sense to reward graffiti artists with copyright on the one hand and punish them with criminal penalties on the other: Just as Mitchell was subject to obscenity laws, graffiti artists are subject to vandalism laws. However, their works can still be protected by copyright, as vandalism does not exclude copyright protection. [110] As one commentator noted, “the defendant`s unethical conduct would be vandalism, an act for which the artist can be prosecuted,” but which “is not the subject of [copyright] infringement proceedings.” [111] However, the clean hands analysis in Mitchell differs from the analysis in a typical graffiti case in that Mitchell`s illegality lay in the content of the work, whereas the illegality of the graffiti usually lies in the fixation of the work. [112] However, this difference should not affect the analogy; In graffiti, the method of fixation itself could be considered part of the subject of the work. The fixation of the work provides a context that could be considered part of the message of the work and its content. Moreover, in both cases, the author`s misconduct does not defeat the purpose of copyright to promote originality through exclusive rights. [113] [47] Interview with Jonny Robson, co-founder of Graffitimundo, Buenos Aires, Arg. (December 2011). Graffitimundo is an organization dedicated to raising awareness of the rich heritage and vibrant culture of street art, based in Buenos Aires. See About Us, Graffitimundo, graffitimundo.com/about-us/ (last visited 6 April 2013).
[50] See N.Y. Penal Code § 145.60 (McKinney 2012) (“1. For the purposes of this section, “graffiti” means engraving, painting, covering, drawing or otherwise marking public or private property with intent to damage that property. 2. No person may affix graffiti of any kind to a public or private building or other property belonging to a person, company or partnership, or to a public institution or instrument without the express permission of the owner or operator of such property. The production of graffiti is a Class A offence.”). Other states such as California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington also criminalize graffiti activities. See Ralph E. Lerner & Judith Bresler, Art Law: The Guide for Collectors, Investors, Dealers, and Artists 947 (2005).
Mitchell Bros. Film Group (“Mitchell”) held the copyright to an adult film screened without permission at the Cinema Adult Theater (“Cinema”). When Mitchell filed a copyright infringement lawsuit, Cinema claimed that the work was not protected by copyright because its content was obscene. Cinema further responded that Mitchell could not sue on the basis of the dirty hands doctrine.
