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.
The copyright notice is one of the biggest pieces of misinformation in modern law.
There's no requirement for the creator an a work (public or private) to put a copyright notice on his work - instead, original creations are considered copyrighted material until proven/made otherwise.
Of course take-2 is in the wrong, but how wrong are they? They've highly publicized this man's creations, which weren't originally signed, it appears. In other words, they're no different from the originals, and while he isn't getting credit in the game, he isn't getting credit on the street either.
There seems to be a large misconception that all graffiti artists are vandalizing property without prior consent.
Yes, there is a large amount of work that is created by general people who tag anything from subways to bilboards, but 90% of graffiti "artists" actually get city permission to do their work on certain buildings. Some are even commisioned for it.
If you take a look at the guys website, you'll see he's not exactly showing off street signs and railroad cars with his signature scribbled in paint. It looks more like alley ways and school buildings that he was most likely asked to paint or got permission beforehand.
Have you seen a cop show or MTV video lately? Notice all of those blurs on shirts/hats? Those are usually trademarks or copyrights that they don't want to acquire rights to use. Examples could include a Nike hat, a Simpsons shirt, etc. IIRC, on the Dogma special features Kevin Smith's shirt was blurred on some of his extra stuff, and when he was talking about his original distributor on the commentary it was bleeped out. Intellectual property law is a convoluted subject right now, and most are erring on the side of caution to avoid this kind of lawsuit.
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.