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.
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.
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.
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."
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
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.
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...
"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.
It isn't the 'media' using the term 'graffiti' who have things confused. It apparently is all the business owners who have to pay someone to wipe off all those phone numbers and assorted profane lines off the stalls of their restrooms. The people who have to remove the paint that some urban-ape sprayed on their garage wall out in the alley. The people whose carefully restored Victorian houses get sprayed, etc.
No, it wasn't a 'media fabrication' that gave graffiti a bad name. Please desist in pretending that all claims by people whose property has been vandalized is some sort of fraud.
A Good Intro to NetBS
IANAL, but I think this falls under the "your right to swing your arm stops at my nose"
I'd bet that this sort of case has been to court.
There is a law that if you are given something unsolicitated, even artwork, you can destroy it.
Might be fun to tag a building, add a few coats of clearcoating as a "technological access device" and sue under the DMCA when the owner tries to clean it.