4 ms·
> because a graffiti artist and his trolls were able to flag my IG account Super curious about the story behind this..
by flippyhead 8y ago
> because a graffiti artist and his trolls were able to flag my IG account
Super curious about the story behind this..
- nikkwong 8y agoLook no further. https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/37238/does-this-image-with-a-subject-containing-graffiti-in-the-background-infringe-on https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/37238/does-this-imag...
- chrischen 8y agoSeems like people are saying art is art, and copyrighted, even if it was illegal graffiti. That begs the question: 1) what if I start tagging everything possible in public space, and if anyone takes photos of it then I can claim copyright violation or royalties? Evidence in the comments seems to show that this actually works to get settlements. And this was brought up by a commenter: 2) what if a my car window is smashed (as a work of art), and I take a photo of it for evidence? Seems like copyrighting artwork done on public property (or other people's property) is an unfair and unjust invasion of one's personal vision space (it's forcing me to look at it). It reduces my personal rights to take photos of a public area and retain what would be my rights to the contents of a photo by having someone's copyrighted artwork imposed there (often illegitimately). In my opinion, if I am forced—that is to say I have no choice—to see something then it should lose copyright (or be applicable as fair use).