The ubiquity of graffiti inside a sharing economy has led lots of people to believe C mistakenly C that it can be employed at will.
“Because graffiti has a tendency to appear in public facilities and frequently results from vandalism, lots of people, including members of the artistic community, have the view that it’s not protected by copyright,” says Tara Parker, an entertainment lawyer at Goodmans LLP in Toronto.
But there is a good chance they are wrong. In fact, with regards to graffiti, crime could very well pay – hard as it might be for many to know a law that permits vandals to profit from their illegality.
“Copyright legislation protects every original artistic work so long as it fixed in some permanent way,” Parker says. “It doesn’t need that the work be created lawfully.”
The Copyright Act offers artists with “moral rights,” which are breached if the work they do is used or modified to so as to damage the trustworthiness of its creator.
Regardless of the legality of graffiti artists’ activity, recent events suggest they’re becoming more vulnerable to assert their rights in court.
In 2015, Alexandre Veilleux sued producer from the popular TV show 30 Vies for featuring his spray-painted graffiti, found on certainly one of Montreal’s main streets, in a show and without his permission. In the U.S., a Brooklyn graffiti artist sued a luxury fashion brand for featuring a form of his graffiti on its clothing.
“Many graffiti artists, like other artists, do not want their street credibility or even the value of their work damaged when you are associated with particular brands or products,” Parker says.
To some degree, graffiti artists may have brought misconceptions regarding their rights on themselves.
“Their attitude to copyright has traditionally been relaxed,” Parker says. “The famous graffiti artist, Banksy, once asserted ‘copyright is for losers.’ “
Financial Post
