dunce 26 Aug 05

Dumb question, but is the art in the photos considered public domain?

Steve F. 26 Aug 05

Any legal issues anyone can think of with this? Seems like a ridiculous statement given the questionable legal standing of painting on someone else’s building, but can you use someone’s art (the graffiti) free and clear without their permission, even if the art in question is, itself, somewhat illegal?

Darrel 26 Aug 05

Yes, seems to be a number of questions here.

The art, I suppose is copyrighted. The photo of the art may not be, but the subject matter is. Then again, the subject matter is illegal in the first place, so…OK, I’m confused…

star bangled hamburglar 26 Aug 05

Yeah but this is America. Home of the litigious.

dmr 26 Aug 05

Great idea, I frequent a few sites that do this already; street art documentation certainly needs some good homes like this. I wonder if the Wooster has dealt with similar issues.

JF 28 Aug 05

“Street Art” = Vandalism

TRoyal 28 Aug 05

Generalities = exhibit of laziness

JF 28 Aug 05

Generalities? How is painting on someone else’s property *without permission* not vandalism?

Su 28 Aug 05

Jason, it *is* a generality, and you know it. You can’t seriously fail to see the logical error here.

Street Art = Art on public areas
Vandalism = painting someone’s property without permission(for one thing)
Painting on someone else’s(or public) property *with* permission, or on your own property for that matter != vandalism

Matt 28 Aug 05

Graffiti is a destructive activity. It is ugly, and it creates an environment where disregard for people’s rights to safety and property are wantonly ignored. This promotion of urban decay is well understood (Broken Window Theory) by people who know more about life than the publishers of Streetsy.

What is “cool” about destroying property that people work hard for? How would all the Brooklyn Hipsters who like this crap feel if someone came over to their rich parent’s house in the midwest and spray painted profanity all over it?

People who glorify street art are losers.

Su 28 Aug 05

Just to make sure, the point here is that you’re guilty of assumption. You cannot, truthfully, categorically state that everything on Streetsy was done without permission. But let’s allow the assumption, since it’s already out there. And to be honest, it all quite likely was.

How about this project, which is quite literally street art, linked to by the same people behind Streetsy, and sanctioned by the very public departments who would, if they agreed with your initial comment, call it vandalism?

Tom 28 Aug 05

Vandalism - most of the time yes. The graffiti can still be beautiful though. Much of the graffiti is done on buildings/areas which are already poorly maintained and in a bad state. I don’t think that the people that do this would mindlessly go to a brand new building and try and destroy it. Of course there are always exceptions.

JF 28 Aug 05

I don�t think that the people that do this would mindlessly go to a brand new building and try and destroy it.

Oh gawd, it happens all the time (here in Chicago at least).

Jake 29 Aug 05

street art that’s not vandalism

Dan Boland 29 Aug 05

I think anything that’s done with permission is fine, but let’s face it, most of that shit is just petty graffiti. I think I’m not alone when I say that graffiti to me screams “blight.” It’s ugly and often crass or offensive, like the lovely “Kill Your Mayor” tags that sprouted up all over the city when Mayor Daley correctly understood that graffiti is vandalism masquerading as shitty art.

Anonymous Coward 29 Aug 05

Just to murky the water up a little more, what about someone who chooses to create by selectively cleaning an area…

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3379017

MrBlank 29 Aug 05

“Just to murky the water up a little more …”

Hardly. Claning spots to make a picture is not permanent. Sidewalk chalk is worse than that.

sam 10 Oct 05

go look at this guys stuff

www.ghostboy.co.uk