Slashdot Mirror
Graffiti Artist Sues Grand Theft Auto Creators
Thanks to EvilAvatar for pointing to an Entertainment Law Digest synopsis about a graffiti artist suing over unauthorized use of his work in Grand Theft Auto III. The article says that "Christopher Ellis asserts that Rockstar Games and Take-Two Interactive Software copied, used, and distributed his artwork, [made under the name] Daze" in GTA3, and Daze's official website has examples of his work, which was allegedly scanned into Grand Theft Auto's gritty urban environments without his knowledge.
How about we take a poll: Is there anyone out there that doesn't want to sue Take Two or Rockstar games for something? Everyone raise your hands high so we can see them. Nobody? What gives?
- WrexSoul
\/.
vvv
Surely he has given examples somewhere. Can anyone provide the links? This is sort of like a "Man produces largest beer-bottle pyramid" story without a photo. It's intersting, but rather meaningless.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Who is going to call the cops so they can arrest him for defacing public property since he so graciously volunteered his guilt?
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
So, wait a minute. If I go out and spraypaint a building and get caught... does this mean that I sue the makers of GTA or this retard?
I'm thinking on suing Take Two Interactive for blatantly ripping off the work I did for Scarface. Maybe I should take a number?
Oliver Stone
Why shouldn't Take-Two be allowed to make scans of public property? Defacing it with your 'art' doesn't make it yours.
I must say that I'm flabbergasted. A graffiti artist who defiles NY metro cars for the sake of what? Making a name for himself? Wanting to be noticed?
And when he succeeds, and people copy his work, he sues them! He should be happy he is finaly being credited for all the hard work he has done in making the city a less pleasurable place to live in.
Fair is fair. If it is his work they are using, they should have asked him beforehand. And they have to compensate him in some way.
whether this guy wins his case or not, isnt he worried that he might get arrested for vandalism now?
Gyrate Dot Org - "Where high-tech meets low-life"
Lots of the textures in both GTA games are photographic. Since there's little to go on from the article (i.e. which graphic and where it came from) I can only hypothesize.
What I think probably happened was they took some photos of graffiti they found and used them as textures. If so, they probably assumed that graffiti artists (in many cases being vandals) aren't going to step forward and take credit for it. In that case, was Take 2 really that much in the wrong? Yeah yeah, his work is in magazines and stuff. But unless there's a copyright notice, I don't think it's all that surprising that they wouldn't have knowna bout it.
Sounds to me like he should have approached them and said "uh that's my art, can I get some compensation for it?" but now it's a legal battle.
As I said, though, there's little to no info. For all I know, Take 2 scanned his work from a magazine and used it. Since the article didn't go into detail, then everybody's own views of Take 2 are going to surface. "Well, even though I've never played it, I know from what CNN tells me that Take 2 makes immoral games. It's therefore logical that they'd have no moral objections to steal some artist's work. Yep, they better lose badly!"
"Derp de derp."
In some parts, grafitti is considered an artform and there are places where you can paint freely. All graffitti is not vandalism.
Downmix - The Artscene News Source!
"Graffiti artist? Oh you mean person who vandalizes property that doesn't belong to them costing the city money to clean up their crap. "
Graffiti is art, not vandalism. Vandalism is when you paint all over somebody's property without consent. There are a lot of graffiti artists out there who are paid to do that by the people who own the property.
Don't immediately assume somebody who paints a wall is a criminal. You sound just as knowledgable as the RIAA when you do that.
"Derp de derp."
Hmm. There's not nearly enough information in that article for us to judge. However, I'm leaning towards the opinion that if it's work on public buildings, and the game has those buildings in it, then his art's allowed to be shown. I don't think you can copyright the likeness of a building... and even if you could, as it's in public, showing the building as it is in real life would be Fair Use.
Further, if it's under a pseudonym in the first place, then 1) if they've got the signature in the game also then they're even giving him credit (attributing the work to him) and 2) he's got an uphill battle proving something is his and not the work of a copycat.
Further still, if he sprayed that stuff on the buildings without permission, he's shit out of luck. You can't copyright a crime, even if it counts as art and you're famous.
"Graffiti artist? Oh you mean person who vandalizes property that doesn't belong to them"
Not necessarily. I don't know about America, but here in Australia, quite a few schools and towns have "graffiti walls" which are open slather. Generally the stuff that people like doesn't get painted over, but it's all based on community co-operation, there's no wall moderators or anything like that. It really is worth it; some people can do amazing things with a spray can.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
It sounds like an after-the-fact shakedown. Something he alleges to have created happens to get captured into the background for a game.
Ka-ching. He cashes in on it.
Just an aside: 'Graffiti Artists' may be credentialed, and some may even have permission and/or a commission for their 'work' on the street. They legitimize a lot of graffiti that is not legimate by their actions, however.
Why not call it 'mural art' and let loose of the term 'graffiti' which is closely associated with vandalism?
A Good Intro to NetBS
A "lot" is a relative term. I live a half hour drive from New York City, and my 13 year old cousin who visited from California could point out which drawings on the wall were graffiti and which was vandalism. There are relatively few graffiti artists in major cities. I can tell you right now unless you live right next to a college campus or the commerical district, graffiti (not vandalism) is very, very rare.
Good thing Picasso used brushes and not a spraycan, eh chump?
I hope that those on here who are so absolutly certain that graffiti isn't art will remmber their narrow elitist notions of what is and isn't art the next time someone says that vidoegames aren't art either...
Read this and then let me know if all graffiti is still vandalism.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
I live in NYC and commute on the subway every day. Having looked at the examples on this guy's website, I'd rather see this guys paintings in the subway system than the ads for bad beer, bad movies, bad music, and personal injury attorneys.
I think the MTA should be spending their budget on improving service (*cough*second avenue line*cough*) instead of on taking cars out of service for scrubbing. Of course, being an NYC taxpayer and MTA straphanger, my opinion means squat.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Maybe we'll start seeing copyright notices like this:
This graffiti (C) GNAA, 2003. All rights reserved.
You don't own any property, do you? If I put a fence up on my side of the property line, how do you get to decide what color it should be? Do you get to paint a side of my house, just because it faces yours? What about my car? Are you allowed to spray it as I drive by? Can you rip off my clothes if they displease you? Where does it end?
And exactly which walls belong to "all of us"? If there were any such walls, wouldn't "all of us" get to have a say on what's put there? What if "all of us" don't like how some people "express themselves"? Isn't not liking something just another way of expressing oneself, and a valid point of view by your reasoning?
A wall belongs to whomever owns the property. If it's the government, then only duly appointed officials can determine what is allowed on the wall. A public space does not mean anarchy rules it. If anything, rules are strictly enforced to attempt to give everyone as equal use as possible. By definition that means that some won't be allowed to do everything they want - whether it's play extremely loud music, have an orgy in public, or paint walls they didn't pay to build or maintain. These rules are defined by the current status quo - it was once unthinkable for women to show their ankles, or for certain people to use public drinking fountains. When public opinion sways to the point that anyone can paint any wall they choose, then maybe you'll have a point.
If the "graffiti artist" was granted permission by the owner to paint it, then he's essentially the same as any other hired artist. If he didn't have permission, then he'd just be another vandal.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
If you and I share a property line and I want my side of the fence painted white and you want your side of the fence painted red, does it make a lick of difference who paid for the fence? Hell no. So if you share a property line with a public area, the public has the right to paint that fence any color they like, including something a little more interesting than a flat color.
This is operating on the false assumption that the fence is directly ON the property line, which in most cases is illegal. Fences, atleast here, are 100% on the owners property, in which case you have no right to anything.
-- iCEBaLM
If I place my car on said property line, do you have the right to come along and deface the side that is on the public property line? You're the one that sounds like a liberal to me.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Apparently you can sue Take 2 if you run a red light.
That's not a bad idea. Just because a murder is so much worse, if your kid speeds or runs a light or even hits drives to fast into your garage and dents your bumper why not sue? They're all things that happen in the game, aren't they? In fact, given that they are actually required as opposed to shooting randomly, you'd have a better case!
Obviously, I think the death and this lawsuit are bogus. Suing over tickets would actually be a good case, though no lawyer would take it. There are money in all three, but while death involves tragedy and gets sympathy, and this art involves intellectual property which is a hot-button item, the tickets would reveal just how petty all of the lawsuits are. FWIW, even if there were something to this case, the game has been out ample time for him to see it and file sooner.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
Actually, you redefine the position of the property line by putting up a fence. Otherwise, you could just put a fence 1 inch into your property and I would be prohibited from having contact with your fence (because I would be entering your property to do so). The right to paint a fence that faces onto your property is common law.
Walls that face onto public property are not owned by the public, the public merely has the right to paint it any color they want, and no, "duly appointed officials" don't get to decide that, we do.
How we know is more important than what we know.
If you leave your car on my property I can do anything I like to it.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Er, while IANAL, I would think not.
In most jurisdictions, you are responsible for reasonable care for another's property precisely because it is not your own.
Now, you could probably have the car towed to an impound lot (where it will be safe), at the owner's expense (proper signage indicating this is generally required for areas that may be confused with public parking lots). You don't have to suffer it's presence on your property.
But, in general, you can't just treat it as your own.Of course, this is not legal advice, and you should seek the advice of council if this situation applies to you.
You could've hired me.
How about instead of sounding all high and mighty about graffiti art, you go and actually check out this guys art gallery? If you had, (you know, the whole RTFA thing?), you'd see that he has five galleries, one of which is of subway cars, which is definitely a no-no in New York City. Remember the whole Clean Car program? He does have a gallery of commissioned work, which gives his some credit, but there is no question as to whether or not he is a "person who vandalizes property that doesn't belong to them costing the city money to clean up their crap." HE IS. The proof is there for anyone to see on this guy's website!
I admit, I've seen some graffiti that enhanced, rather than detracted from the environs, but you'll be hard pressed to find ANY graffiti artist who hasn't at one time or another "published art" without permission...
I hope the NYPD sees the website for that jackass and follows up on every piece. I SERIOUSLY doubt that he had permission to paint his name all over a bunch of railcars, and I hope the little gold-digging fruit-bat gets nailed to the wall for it.
->RevBob
If this guys work was on a building that didn't belong to him or was in public, sues and wins, does this mean that any architect whose building is used in a game can sue, too?
By building a fence you are defining the property line. In fact, if you don't build a fence you can't charge me with trespass if I happen to wander onto your property.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Soon I will release my protection^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H licensing plan for GTA users so they can use the game legally without fear of being sued for copyright infringement. Stay tuned for details.
What laws are these?
Oh, and second of all, an individual can't make a decision on behalf of the public (unless they are some kind of elected official(s)). Some cities, towns, and home owner's associations have rules and laws about how certain buildings should look, but that is far different from some jerk spray-painting slogans on someone's home (without permission).
There's probably some abandonment laws for stuff like this. If the car isn't reclaimed within a certain period, the finder could keep it.
While people may have to look at those walls they do not own the walls. It would be similar to if I walked up to your house and said I don't like that color I'm painting it blue. Someone owns those walls and they can decide what color it should be. As far as community property goes it should not be one or two random individuals deciding for the community what they should look like, instead the community as a whole should decide what they look like. The fence analogy is just plain wrong because very rarely is a fence placed exactly on the property line. So one person owns the whole fence and they get to decide what color both sides of the fence should be.
I have an idea, if this works, celebrities could just wear a cap with some copyrighted text on it, and no one could ever publish their photos without infringing on some copyright. Hah!
Will people please stop replying with the "exactly on the property line" shit. Listen up: you do have the right to paint your side of a fence, no matter how "exactly" the fence is not on the property line. This is a law that is over 400 years old. It was inherited by just about every country on earth. It's common law. If you'd ever painted a fence in your lifetime you'd know this. As for community property, no-one should prevent me from using community property as I see fit. Destroying community property, on the other hand, is a different story. That's what I call vandalism, when you take a pickaxe to a wall. The wall no longer serves it's purpose (seperating land), and that harms others. Painting on a wall harms no-one.
How we know is more important than what we know.
As an artist myself, I'm completely appalled.
Well, Ringo, why don't you go pull your head out of your ass and start telling musicians that they're criminals for causing noise pollution. While you're at it, tell everyone who likes to stroke the canvas to stop wasting their time manuafacturing pieces that will end up offending people in thrift stores.
Wait, don't stop there! Go tell every sculpturist that they're heinous prics for depriving the earth of it's precious clays and metals.
Being an artist means accepting other forms of art as well. Some of the best pieces I've seen were on brick walls in down-town Denver or the projects of Boulder. With discriminatory artists like you walking around, the types that would vandalize to express themselves are more welcome in my home than you would ever be.
Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last
So if we are to assume that this is true, and that this case is actually won. What is the differnce from someone who takes a picture of a building and in the picture there is someones graffiti? Does this person now have to go out and some how find the artist to ask if its ok that they took a picture of the building and it has their artwork in it? I really would doubt that the games artists would just go out and scan pictures into the game, perhaps I could see them taking pictures of random graffiti and scanning that in. But I would think that the artists would like to display their own tallent and draw it them selves.
Good thing they have a better community than here, it would suck to have an unmoderated wall filled with penis birds, goatse pics, and "first tag" tags.
As far as I can recall from my active writing days, it was all about being part of the underground subculture. When somebody's piece appeared in a movie or a magazine or gained publicity through some other means, it gained the artist respect and credibility in the scene. This was generally regarded as a GOOD THING!
What I see here is some guy - admittedly a brilliant graff artist - who seems to have lost all his integrity and is just selling out.
It is not about the legality or illegality of graffiti as such, but rather about betraying a whole subculture by using the very system, that graffiti started out as a protest against in the first place, solely for personal gain.
This is pretty sad.
Unless, of course, he is just trying to protect himself against the soon-to-ensue "the Graffiti made me do it!" lawsuits.
Note to Americans: Get a real legal system. Yours is obviously broken.
I asked for a refund - and got my monkey back.
If a movie studio can film in a public place, then surely a game company should be allowed to recreate a public space too, without the permisisons of the owners of the buildings?
And said art is part of the public place.
Surely if someone painted a mural on the side of some building in a famous area like times square they could not prevent people from recreating said building in their works, without which it would obviously not be times square?
Also, what about fair use? Thhey may have used the complete work, but they only used a tiny thumbnail of it when you consider how large and detailed it must be on the wall, and how small textures tend to be.
> What laws are these?
It's called "Adverse Possession".
And after looking at his website, and skimming through his art work (which he claims is in the game), i cant see a single one of the images that i have seen in the game, or at least remember i have seen. One thing to mention though is that they both have the same approach of drawing, but they are not copied or scanned as he says, the images in GTA are toally different, as i recall.
The lunatic is in my head
There's another way of saying Zero Tolerance: Zero Freedom.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Often times, a public place requires a permit to film. Not stock footage shots, for example the golden gate bridge in san fran, but say i own "super chow's restaurant" and some porno uses it for an establishing shot, i have a right not to have my restaurant in a porn. I have control over its rights.
"Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
Even if that were the case, Rockstar can't exactly use the excuse, "Well, without this art, it would obviously not be Liberty City!" Although it's meant to be reminiscent of a real city, the two cases are different in such a way that the analogy isn't close enough to work.
Videogames aren't art; they're videogames.
What? You're living in the wall?
Just thought I would mention that lots of graffiti in the Jet Set Radio games were done by this artist. So if you have played them (and why wouldn't you?? Especially the original!), you have seen Haze's work.
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
"A wall belongs to whomever owns the property. If it's the government, then only duly appointed officials can determine what is allowed on the wall. A public space does not mean anarchy rules it. If anything, rules are strictly enforced to attempt to give everyone as equal use as possible."
A lot of people who downloaded MP3s of song they did not buy were also doing something illegal, but it's starting to look like they made enough of an impact, and parts of the music industry are starting to show signs of change for the better because of it.
So while many people do deface property they don't own with their art, maybe those "duly appointed officials" should start to take notice and make some compromise.
As someone who has gone through many cans of paint in the past myself, I'll say that I'd have been happy to legally deface abandoned train tunnels and city property that the public does not see, without worrying about being chased out or nabbed and instead going for easier to hit private property.
Something tells me the answer is no.
Hypocrisy at its best.
Thursdae
In effect, you're saying that any wall that is facing "public" or city property is owned by everybody.
This argument is like telling a police officer that he can't write you a ticket because you pay his sallary.
There's so little difference between politics and jihad lately...
Uh, I haven't seen any posts above yours that are shouting about "Graffiti ain't art danget!!" Some people are questioning copyright, but that's about it. Save your rant for when it's warrented.
Actually, you don't redefine a property line just by putting up a fence. If I buy and acre of land and split it down the middle with a fence, I didn't just suddenly lose half my land (or all of it: each side of the fence to the land owner on each side of the property).
And yes, if my fence (that I bought and installed) is on my property (that I own) then you sure as heck can't touch it (or paint it). I't MINE damnit, not yours!
There's no "common law" saying you can paint (or do anything else to) private property that doesn't belong to you.
Uh, yes he is - right here
Most people don't have a problem with the types of art you mention. But they would if you, say, took bricks from my house to build your sculptures, grabbed my keyboard to make your music, nabbed my white bedsheets to paint your pictures on. Or took my walls to draw you pictures.
If you ASKED me first then that's another story.
that the logos were fuzzed out because the vendors didn't want to pay COPS (or whoever), and COPS or MTV didn't want to give "free" promotion to these brands. Is that not the case?
If they copied photos from his web site or anywhere else and used them in the game then they've infringed someone's copyright. Certainly the photographer's, possibly the artist's too.
But if they went out and took a photo of grafitti that had been sprayed on walls/trains/whatever in a public place then I don't think they've done anything wrong, either legally or morally.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
no but there are several saying it is vandalism. thus implying that it is not art.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not if it's a public place, I can film or take pictures of your place as much as I want and you can't do a thing about it. Of course I can't film the inside.
Walls that face onto public property are not owned by the public, the public merely has the right to paint it any color they want, and no, "duly appointed officials" don't get to decide that, we do.
WTF are you talking about?
You're telling me that if I purchase a building that faces a public area (your choice: a park, a street, a vacant lot, etc), then you have the right to spray paint my building if you don't like the looks of it? Are you smoking crack?
Tell you what, you come paint my building and I'll have you busted for vandalism so fast your little tagger head will spin.
Jesus, kids these days.
I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
Ooh you have been so trolled. Getting trolled by flikx makes you a real winner, buddy.
Can't it be both art and vandalism? For instance, I'm sure someone out there thinks covering a random person with feces would be a great artistic achievement, but I doubt that random person is going to like it.
WAHAHHAAHAHAHA! Do you have any stock? if not, you're plain stoopid... man, I just shit my pants... -- Hairu! Illopalazzo-sama!