Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Copyright and Vandalism

Copyright, Trade Marks, Patents, Information Law etc

Copyright and Vandalism

Postby Spankymonkey » Fri Mar 24, 2017 8:18 am

Would a work still be protected by copyright if it were an act of vandalism? For instance, A graffitis the wall of B's property, would any breach of copyright occur if that work was photographed by C and then reproduced?

Also, if B chooses not to remove the graffiti, could they be said to 'own' the work?
Spankymonkey
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:42 am

Re: Copyright and Vandalism

Postby shootist » Fri Mar 24, 2017 8:52 am

Breach of copyright has to do more than just copy a work if it is to offend under the Act. With respect to ownership I think a good case could be made that the artwork was a gift by virtue of it's attachment by the 'artist' to the property of another. If the artwork was also a trademark that might complicate both issues.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3540
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Copyright and Vandalism

Postby Hairyloon » Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:17 am

Spankymonkey wrote:Also, if B chooses not to remove the graffiti, could they be said to 'own' the work?

They own the work, but not the copyright.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10018
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Copyright and Vandalism

Postby diy » Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:07 am

A retains all right to the design/works of his creation which may include embedded works of others (including B).
B may do as he pleases with the copy
C may have an exemption (there are plenty to choose from) ranging from fiar use to orphan works
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2575
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Copyright and Vandalism

Postby Spankymonkey » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:23 pm

diy wrote:A retains all right to the design/works of his creation which may include embedded works of others (including B).
B may do as he pleases with the copy
C may have an exemption (there are plenty to choose from) ranging from fiar use to orphan works


"Fair Usage" is an Americanism is it not? I don't believe fair usage is recognised under English law.

I wonder what criminal would be so foolhardy to turn up at the steps of county court to protect his graffiti copyright interests when the police could be waiting to arrest him for vandalism.
Spankymonkey
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:42 am

Re: Copyright and Vandalism

Postby diy » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:35 pm

The term used here is fair dealing, but fair use has a more obvious meaning IMO at least
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/198 ... hapter/III
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2575
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Copyright and Vandalism

Postby Spankymonkey » Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:50 pm

"57 Anonymous or pseudonymous works: acts permitted on assumptions as to expiry of copyright or death of author.
(1)Copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is not infringed by an act done at a time when, or in pursuance of arrangements made at a time when—
(a)it is not possible by reasonable inquiry to ascertain the identity of the author"

That seems to void any claims of copyright infringement from anonymous graffiti artists.
Spankymonkey
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:42 am

Re: Copyright and Vandalism

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:35 pm

No it doesn't. You've only quoted part of the section.

57 Anonymous or pseudonymous works: acts permitted on assumptions as to expiry of copyright or death of author.

(1)Copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is not infringed by an act done at a time when, or in pursuance of arrangements made at a time when—

(a)it is not possible by reasonable inquiry to ascertain the identity of the author, and

(b)it is reasonable to assume—

(i)that copyright has expired, or

(ii)that the author died [F170 years] or more before the beginning of the calendar year in which the act is done or the arrangements are made.


You have to satisfy both (a) and (b). Is it reasonable to assume that copyright has expired? Or that the graffiti artist died seventy years ago?

However, has the OP considered s. 62?

62 Representation of certain artistic works on public display.

(1)This section applies to—

(a)buildings, and

(b)sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.

(2)The copyright in such a work is not infringed by—

(a)making a graphic work representing it,

(b)making a photograph or film of it, or

(c)[F1making a broadcast of] a visual image of it.

(3)Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the [F2communication to the public], of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6294
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: Copyright and Vandalism

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:51 pm

As to ownership, the OP may find this case interesting.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6294
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: Copyright and Vandalism

Postby diy » Fri Mar 24, 2017 8:08 pm

Very interesting read. I wonder if the tenant had previously painted the wall prior to the painting and if that painted wall formed part of the art work? maybe he has a claim :D
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2575
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Next

Return to Intellectual Property

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron