|
|
| Re: Time for the MTA to cash in on the graffiti in the system... (548172) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Time for the MTA to cash in on the graffiti in the system... |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat Jan 5 18:10:42 2008, in response to Time for the MTA to cash in on the graffiti in the system..., posted by Christopher Rivera on Sat Jan 5 14:27:48 2008. focusing only on the copyright issue, I'm not at all certain that you are correct that the "artists" have no rights to the work.Going by my (now-lawyerly, but professional) experience with intellectual property, the graffiti is almost certainly "a work of original authorship" within the meaning of Copyright Law. The fact that it was done illegally is a separate issue. The owner of the vandalized property (the MTA, TA or City) certainly has the right to clean or repair their property and to seek redress against the vandals, criminal and/or civil (such as the full expense of cleaning, repair, maybe even damages like loss of use of the subway car while it's being cleaned; but to say that they can simply profit from the work because it was done illegally is a stretch. I would guess that any graffiti drawn after it no longer became necessary for a "work" to display the circle-C could be subject to copyright. Thinking about my business law classes many moons ago, the question was posed: "if someone performs a service for you that you didn't agree to, do you have to pay them for the reasonable value of the service." The answer is usually not. The exception was cited with this example. A kid mistakenly (or even intentionally) mows your lawn, trims your bushes, cleans it all up, and then asks you to pay even though you never requested the service. Do you have to pay him? The answer is "no" if you did not know he was doing it. But suppose, as he's cutting your lawn, you look out the window and see him doing it. You know you didn't ask for the service (and assume no one else in the household did either, or that the lawn cutting was not required by law) but now you see the service being performed. You have the duty to tell the kid to stop what he is doing. If you allow him to continue his work, hoping to get it for nothing, you may well owe money because, by letting him continue, you in effect licensed him to do the work. So what I am saying here is that the use of the vandal's work might arguably be taken as a consent that the work is not vandalism. I know that part is a stretch on my part, but I think lawyer's have succeeded with worse arguments. |
|
|
|