« Rebecca's Dilemma | Main | Happy Birthday Sara! »
June 3, 2005
Responses to Rebecca's Dilemma
So it didn't take long for us to receive a slew of emails repsonding to Rebecca's dilemma. Here's a sampling of some of the response we've received.But first, in case you're interested in what we think, the answer is - try to find the artist and get their approval. If you can't, don't use it. While we love street art, we don't agree with the stance that if it's put up on the street, then it's free game to be used elsewhere. For us, the artist did not intend for the piece to be on a CD cover. They indended it to be on the wall. It's no different then Freaklub getting ripped off by Zara, only much smaller and much more well intended. That said, We think it's terrific that Rebecca reached out and really applaud her for thinking through her decision.
Here are some of the responses we received:
From Law.... "a real artists intention is to share their view/other mediums of things with others, cost is just to get by, and fame is something that people get to by trend, most real artists would be pleased to see their work being celebrated, and 500 cds isn't going to scar that artist if its not the work they intended to portray them"
From BC: "There are some mildly interesting arguments to the contrary, but as a hard-working unpaid street artist, I feel it is correct for Rebecca to use the piece freely. In my opinion, 'Street Art' is no longer the property of the creator when the writer/paster/welder/bomber/finger-duster/cairn-builder, etc., walks away. Grafitti is done for many personal reasons, but it would be naive to ignore a powerful force: FAME! Rebecca is putting fame in their pocket. Who among you can honestly say you are not stoked to see your work show up in unexpected venues.....it's just another way to get over. Who doesn't get off when they see their stuff on a dorkumenter's cameraphone Fickr site? I love the people who flick graff all over the web. At the other end of the spectrum, having your work appear in a mainstream multinational's attempt to be 'down with graff' is still subversive.Still getting over. You can't expect to control it if you left it on the street. Rebecca, you could cover your Respect base by using have a small footnote describing where you 'found ' the piece and make an offer to credit the artist if they come forward. It doesn't have to be on every instance, just somewhere in your media. If any so-called Street Artist got heated about this, they can stay indoors with their commodity, the street doesn't want them. Remember, you're not selling their work, you're promoting it. Props for your ethical considerations. -I work nights.
From Stevo: I would be flattered but a little pissed at the sametime knowing someone used my art without asking. If it was used for a cover sleve for an independent album, I wouldn't be made. For a company logo, not cool! my 2centz.
From Cherubic Meekus: *Is it morally reprehensible to even think about doing what I'm thinking about doing?* The artist may be breaching lawful conduct(which is an issue of morality
itself) but should be entitled to recognition for creating something that has enticed you by its resplendent quality,since you have decided to grace one of your CD covers with the image. Would you plagerize the ''Mona Lisa''? Just because it's graffiti doesn't mean it deserves to be construed as a non-entity which can be plagerized. Anyway, the criterion which you follow is up to you...ive just given my two cents.
From Mark: While I respect the fact that she's seeking advice, using someone else's
art for her logo without compensation or at least getting permission is wrong and could be a liability to her later if the label becomes profitable. If she likes the style, why not get her friend to make something similar that's inspired by the original without being a direct ripoff?? I'm sure there are many many other things that would "work perfectly" as the logo for her label if she was open to them."
From Zeke: "I say NO WAY. Even if you don't know who the artist is, you can't just take
someone's art and make it your logo."
From Doug: "I know the label is just starting, but why doesn't she find another graf artist to do something that she'd like for the label, pay the artist, and use that tag? I don't think it would be a problem to use the tag she likes if she makes an effort to find the person. And if the person presents him/herself at some point after seeing the logo being used, she shouldn't have a problem compensating him/her for the work. What's important is that her hearts in the right place, and that she sends you a pic of the work to put on the site.
From Mill Bot: I leave drawings on small scraps of paper, beer mats and napkins hoping silently that someone will take it home and appreciate it. I think graf can be seen the same way, art for the people by the people. You are putting a child in the street to be fussed over or to be taken advantage of. Personally I'd be flattered if one of my doodles was used as a logo for an art piece, so long as I knew about it eventually. But I think you should't ask someone to draw something simular, that'd be as bad as what happened to Banksy a while back. But in all honesty do you think that when the artist finds out would she/he be prepaired to sue? Or thank you? I prefere the latter, affter all it's always noce to see your kids photo in the paper.
From Simon: Yes, it's morally reprehensible to rip off the work for a CD cover. This is the scale, from best to worst:
- Find the artist, get their permission, pay them small sum and full
credit (full points)
- Find the artist, get their permission, full credit (still good stuff)
- Find the artist, get their permission (ehhh.. why not give credit?)
- Find the artist's name or assumed identity, give credit (dodgy.. but
at least you credit them)
- Just use it (the karma gods will eat your soul)
I know, it's graff, it's put up to be seen, but the writer didn't intend it to be a CD cover.
From jesus fork ewe. "regarding the ethical problem you posted, i say 100% she should use whatever the hell she wants.. it would be a bad move if she misappropriated the image and modified it ever so slightly to make it 'hers'.. hello advertising companies.. but a small to tiny record label using an image that they love and has no idea who made, and who has stated that she would like to credit the artist, yea.. do it.. put a tag under it along the lines of 'copyright of whoever the fuck did this piece of beauty' or something.. and worry a little less, you're going to be sharkfood in the music world soon, i'd start practicing my nonchalance and indifference.. seriously though, power to you for even thinking that this matters..:
From BB: I am under the impression, because i'm a writer, that all graf is fair game when it comes to using it for profit. Each and every writer knows, whether it's
wheatpaste, spraypaint, oil scribe, or mixed media, that his or her art is subject to removal, or buff eventually. So by all means, in my opinion, use it. cheers
From KhingKOBRA: "as an artist this does present an interesting dilemna and I might point out one that we are going to have to confront more and more as the popularity of graf and street art grow... Tradition would say that the artist must recieve credit for their work in the least and compensation whenever possible... However, personally I find this dilema to be much more complex... This actually relates rather heavfily to the issue from late last week regardding property games... However one major difference is the spirit of the issue... Where as Property Games flaunted their theivery Rebecca is conflicted by even the notion of theivery... With this in mind and with the distinct possibility that the graf in question may have been commercially sponsored by the committee connected with the arts fest in question... Thus as an artist I would have to say that it okay to use it in as much as one approaches the use of it via what Lawrence Lessig has refered to as a Creative Commons... Personally I think there is much merit to Dr. Lessig's theory and it is one of the main reasons that I got into street art to begin with... I believe at it's best street art becomes a sort hybrid of Warhyol and Beuys for as Beuys said, " Art is the only true form of revolution" thus this hybrid of Joseph Bueys theories with a more pop sensibily makes ultimately, when paired with a creative commons sensibily, a sort of anti-Madison Avenue...Furthermore in an era when admen coopt our style I think it is even more important for us to embrace this Radical approach of embracing the coopting of art as opposed to a more reactionary approach of "I've gotta get Paid"... So in short... Use it but with respekt!!!
From WM O: "My take is that Rebecca needs permission -- particularly because this is branding for a commercial endeavor, even if on a small scale. Hopefully the Wooster posting will turn up the artists and Rebecca can seek permission. Otherwise, better to have her friend draw something (or perhaps someone else from Wooster will offer). And, I think it is good for Rebecca to raise the issue rather than finding justifications (it is graffiti, it is public, it may be illegal anyway). I have had similar issues come up with (1) I am a photographer and document street art -- and while some of my better photos are of street art, I would not be comfortable showing it as my work or selling it; and (2) some friends saw a piece on a newspaper box and
wanted to know whether it would be ok to take, reasoning that it would disappear at some point anyway. My take was that it was street work -- for the public -- and they should not make it their own and remove it from the public. The time when I think it would be ok would be if they saw the newspaper removing the work and then sought to preserve it (since it was already removed from the public).
From Lee: "I don't believe Rebecca should use the graffiti in any other manner
other than editorial or as reference to produce something with the same flavour (read: homage or similar style; not a copy). Certainly, using it as a logo for a label (read: business) would be highly unethical without hearing from the artist (read: copyright holder)directly.
From Vos B. "Homey says: don't even go there! Just ask your friend to design a brand
new logo (If she's good ofcourse..) And in case you still really, really like this dude's style you gotta ask him to design something like it. Just for you and your label. It will always come out better. Good luck, peace!"
From Anna: "Dear Rebecca, That makes my stomach turn just a little. To use it as a logo, embodying the spirit of your art, assumes some kind of partnership or at least awareness of the artist. Which you don't (maybe can't) have because graffiti is often a hit-and-run operation. However, in light of the fact that ATTENTION for attention's sake is (just) one of the driving forces for lots of graffiti, I suspect that the author of the piece would be pleasantly surprised to see their little piece 'make it big.' Consider: Are you willing to pay royalties to the artist if they find you?
From PECE from Supersentido crew in Santiago, Chile: I was thinking about this matter of taking other people works and ideas to solve creative troubles. I think it's okay if you take it like an inspiration. You could make a remix, for example. Your new artwork could include all the mood of the original but always try to redo it with your own way. I love to inspire other people with my own work. It's like a privilege.
Posted by marc at 6:48 PM in | Recommend this! |
|