"Protecting art in the street is an easy-to-understand book guiding street artists and graffiti writers through otherwise intricate legal issues concerning the protection of their artistic outputs"--Back cover

What is the relationship between street art and the law? In this work, Andrea Baldini argues that street art has a constitutive relationship with the law. By subverting laws and norms regulating public spaces, street art is outlaw art.

In recent years, the number of conflicts related to the misuse of street art and graffiti has been on the rise around the world. Some cases involve claims of misappropriation related to corporate advertising campaigns, while others entail the destruction or 'surgical' removal of street art from the walls on which they were created. In this work, Enrico Bonadio brings together a group of experts to provide the first comprehensive analysis of issues related to copyright in street art and graffiti. Chapter authors shed light not only on the legal tools available in thirteen key jurisdictions for street and graffiti artists to object to unauthorized exploitations and unwanted treatments of their works, but also offer policy and sociological insights designed to spur further debate on whether and to what extent the street art and graffiti subcultures can benefit from copyright and moral rights protection.

This article aims at analyzing to what extent UK copyright law is capable of regulating various forms of art placed in the streets. “Graffiti” and “street art” are the main terms used to define these artistic movements.Particular attention is paid to whether the law is able to accommodate the needs of street and graffiti artists, and give them the right tool to protect their interests (for example, against corporations trying to commercially exploit their artworks).The focus is on selected copyright-related aspects which are relevant to street and graffiti art, namely: (a) requirements for protection; (b) authorship and ownership; (c) tangible embodiment of the work; (d) moral rights (with emphasis on whether the integrity right could be invoked by street and graffiti artists to oppose the destruction and removal of their pieces); (e) freedom of panorama exception; (f) illegal works. The article eventually includes some reflections on whether copyright regimes might be considered unsuitable to govern street and graffiti art because of their sharing-based nature.

This book explores how copyright laws are perceived within street art and graffiti subcultures to examine how artists and writers view certain creative aspects of their own practice. Drawing on ethnographic research and fieldwork, the book gives voice to the main actors of these communities and highlights their feelings and opinions toward issues that are increasingly impacting their everyday life and work. It also touches on related and complementary issues, such as the 'gallerisation' or economic exploitation of these forms of art and the curious similarities between the graffiti and advertising worlds. Unique and comprehensive, Copyright on the Street brings the 'voice from the street' into the debate over the legal and non-legal protection of street art and graffiti.

Graffiti and street art images are ubiquitous, and they enjoy a very special place in collective imaginary due to their ambiguous nature. Sometimes enigmatic in meaning, often stylistically crude and aesthetically aggressive, yet always visually arresting, they fill our field of vision with texts and images that no one can escape. As they take place on surfaces and travel through various channels, they provide viewers an entry point to the subtext of the cities we live in, while questioning how we read, write and represent them. This book is structured around these three distinct, albeit by definition interwoven, key frames. The contributors of this volume critically investigate underexplored urban contexts in which graffiti and street art appear, shed light on previously unexamined aspects of these practices, and introduce innovative methodologies regarding the treatment of these images. Throughout, the focus is on the relationship of graffiti and street art with urban space, and the various manifestations of these idiosyncratic meetings. In this book, the emphasis is shifted from what the physical texts say to what these practices and their produced images do in different contexts. All chapters are original and come from experts in various fields, such as Architecture, Urban Studies, Sociology, Criminology, Anthropology and Visual Cultures, as well as scholars that transcend traditional disciplinary frameworks. This exciting new collection is essential reading for advanced undergraduates as well as postgraduates and academics interested in the subject matter. It is also accessible to a non-academic audience, such as art practitioners and policymakers alike, or anyone keen on deepening their knowledge on how graffiti and street art affect the ways urban environments are experienced, understood and envisioned.

Graffiti has long been a target of municipal legislation that aims to preserve property values, public safety, and aesthetic integrity in the community. Not only are graffitists at risk of criminal prosecution but property owners are subject to civil and criminal penalties for harboring graffiti on their land. Since the 1990s, most U.S. cities have promulgated graffiti abatement ordinances that require private property owners to remove graffiti from their land, often at their own expense. These ordinances define graffiti broadly to include essentially any surface marking applied without advance authorization from the property owner. Meanwhile, graffiti has risen in prominence as a legitimate art form, beginning in the 1960s and most recently with the contributions of street artists such as Banksy and Shepard Fairey. Some property owners may find themselves fortuitous recipients of “graffiti” they deem art and want to preserve in spite of graffiti abatement ordinances and sign regulations requiring the work's removal. This Note argues that private property owners who wish to preserve uncommissioned art on their land can challenge these laws under the First Amendment, claiming that, as applied, regulations requiring removal are unconstitutional because they leave the property owner insufficient alternative channels for expression.