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.

Comments

I don't think so.

[Xenothaulus]

I looked through Daze's work and nothing was recognisable. Now, I realise that I can't say for absolute sure that it's not in there, but I've played both GTA3 and GTA:VC extensively (read: too many hours to think about) and I believe I'd've recognised something. So I reckon one of two things:

1. He's lying and hoping to settle out of court to make some bucks. or 2. It's so hidden that only someone who painstakingly explored every single area would have discovered it.

Given the extremely low odds of either "Daze" himself discovering it, or said player in case 2 also being a such a fan of Daze's art that they recognise it on site and are able to get in contact with him and tell him about it and then show the requisite proof, I'm going with scenario 1.

Re:Public Property?

[NanoGator]

"Why shouldn't Take-Two be allowed to make scans of public property? Defacing it with your 'art' doesn't make it yours. "

That's a touchy aspect of public work. If I'm making a movie and there's a copyrighted poster on the wall of the set that was there when I arrived, am I breaching copyright?

When I read your post here, the first thing I thought of was the makers of the Spiderman movie getting into legal trouble because they digitally removed adverts in NYC. So if you use the work, you're in trouble, if you don't, then you're in trouble. WTF?

I'm an artist. Copyright's supposed to help me. But to this point it's simply scared me.

tricky

[evilWurst]

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.

Re:Huh?

[LordLucless]

"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.

Re:Huh?

[isaac]

Graffiti artist? Oh you mean person who vandalizes property that doesn't belong to them costing the city money to clean up their crap. Oh I understand. Nothing says high art like someones name spelled out in tons of colors on the side of a subway car.

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

Re:So....

[nick_davison]

Even assuming that work is legitimate, at what point can the games company be assumed to have made every reasonable effort to contact the creator?

If there is no statement of ownership, no reasonable means of finding out who did create it, the building owners/occupiers no longer have a record, it was created under an untracable alias, etc. At what point can they be considered to have done everything reasonably possible to contact him and get to use it by default? Does there ever come a point where being uncontactable releases copyright?

Also, who owns the copyright? The artist who created the artwork or the owners of the building that he created it "for"? If you had someone paint a mural in your lobby, unless there was a contract - which I'm assuming most graffiti artists don't use - wouldn't the building owners, not the artist, own all further rights?

Re:Public Property?

[BrookHarty]

You know Intellectual property laws are messed up, when you cant show real people using real products without bluring of the names/logos. You cant even mention the name of the product without approval. Amazing freespeech has taken this kid of hit.

Funny thing is....

[unclethursday]

One of his graffiti pieces depicts Secret Squirrel. I wonder if he got permission from the owners of Secret Squirrel (Hana Barbara? I forget) to use Secret Squirrel in his artwork.

Something tells me the answer is no.

Hypocrisy at its best.

Thursdae