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.
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?
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."
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.
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 think the point is the scanned HIS images off of HIS site, or at least thats what i got out of this. "
Actually it was too vague to really get that out. They were saying that they should have known he was an artist because he was publiscized.
It's not clear where the photos came from. If they scanned from a mag or grabbed from his site, they're busted. If they took a photo in the city, then it's not so black and white. They could still potentially be in trouble, but they could still worm out of it. It's just not clear.
"Derp de derp."
"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.
"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
Geez, Canadians get away with everything. It is against the law to eat off of the floor of subway cars in New York City.
You are however more likely to get arrested for sitting on the stairs in the station or putting your backpack on the seat next to you.
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.
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?
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.
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...
Well, Smilebit/Sega managed to get his permission to use his art in Jet Set Radio Future on XBox - I don't think Rockstart/Take two should have any less of an obligation in this department.
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.
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?
Copyright is never released for this reason. If you can't contact the copyright owner (or someone else who has permission to sublicense it), it is impossible to license the work, and it is illegal to use it.
This is one situation the Public Domain Enhancement Act is designed to prevent - people would have to be contactable to maintain their copyrights.
Also, who owns the copyright? The artist who created the artwork or the owners of the building that he created it "for"?
If it's considered a work for hire, the building owner would probably get the copyright. If he did this as a volunteer, or the building owner gave him a donation or tip rather than a payment, the artist probably holds the copyright. But this is something the courts would have to decide.
Even if Rockstar gets the charges dismissed on the basis that the building owner holds the copyright, the owner would gain the ability to sue the company for copyright infringement.
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.
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.
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
"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
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.
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