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.

style="font-weight:bold;">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.”

style="font-weight:bold;">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.

style="font-weight:bold;">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.