M&F has been covering a host of ongoing stories recently pertaining to street art getting stolen, and often resold, almost always without compensating the original street artist.
Well, here is a website just sent in by a M&F follower. The website is selling photography of street art pieces.
Street artists, and we tend to agree with this mode of thought, believe that it is inherently wrong to take photos of street art and then sell those photos. It would seem that the main art is not in the act of the photo, but in the subject art of the photo itself.
On the other hand, street artists, and perhaps street libertarians would argue that once an image goes up on the streets, it is fair game.
As far as legal finesse goes, it would seem that if a street art were to copyright their image, one would have legal recourse against someone blatantly selling photos of your artwork, like this site here. However, in the real world of the streets, anything you put out there can be treated however the photographer decides to treat it.
Wonder if this will have the most effect on the fine art mural genre of street art?
What do folks in the community think? Right? or Wrong? Or is it a gray area?
***Big thanks to Thrashbird for scoping this story and sending it in***
how is this different than licensing your picture out? people license their photos of architecture, art, street photography, etc out all the time. i don't see a harm in this.
ReplyDeleteit's like that guy birdman who goes around "hustling" (hyping) himself everywhere like he is a pre-eminent photographer. he has been trying to sell his photos of street art as his own "art". ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteBirdman just follows the newest trend... First it was "Street-Art" now he's onto the next trend... Birdman is LAME!
ReplyDeletesimple. Placed in public, it becomes public property. It's not stealing, it is capturing. If I take a picture of your car and sell it did I steal your car?
ReplyDelete