Used with Creative Commons License
Graffiti, Copyright, and Creativity: When Street Art Meets the Law
Street art is no longer just a rebellious expression or a beautification of neglected urban spaces. It’s a dynamic art form, a cultural movement, and, increasingly, a sought-after asset in advertising and marketing. But while graffiti artists see their work appreciated and even monetised, many face legal challenges when protecting their creations. Let’s dive into the colourful world of graffiti, copyright, and the law to uncover how street art fits into intellectual property protections and what creatives should know.
Brands around the world, including some in Australia, have embraced street art for its vibrancy, authenticity, and connection to urban culture. For example:
- Coca-Cola has worked with muralists globally, creating campaigns that fuse their iconic branding with urban aesthetics.
- Maybelline Australia showcased local female street artists in a campaign that brought graffiti into the beauty world.
- Adidas frequently collaborates with graffiti artists, merging sneaker designs with street art culture.
These collaborations highlight how graffiti’s cultural cachet can align brands with urban authenticity. However, the rise in graffiti’s popularity also raises legal issues, especially when brands or businesses use murals without proper permission.
In Australia, copyright automatically protects original artistic works, provided they are expressed in a tangible form (e.g., a painted wall). But this protection isn’t always straightforward when it comes to street art:
- Illegal Street Art: Copyright protects illegal graffiti, but enforcing it can be tricky. An artist might not want to identify themselves if it exposes them to fines or criminal charges.
- Public Property: A mural on a public wall doesn’t automatically enter the public domain. Permission is still required to use it commercially. For example, if a brand features a mural in a campaign, the artist must give consent.
There have been instances of graffiti artists fighting back when their work was used without permission.
For example:
- H&M vs. Jason Williams (Revok): The artist Revok took legal action against H&M for using his graffiti in a campaign without consent. H&M initially argued the work was on public property, but public backlash led them to settle the matter.
- General Motors: A lawsuit was filed when GM featured a mural in its advertising without permission. The court reminded us in that case that copyright applies even to street art.
These cases serve as cautionary tales for brands and a reminder to creatives to know their rights.
What You need to know as Creatives
If you’re an artist or a brand working with graffiti, ensure you have clear agreements outlining rights and usage, document your art with photos and timestamps to establish authorship, seek permission before using public graffiti, and consider licensing to retain ownership while earning income.
The intersection of graffiti and copyright is an evolving area of law.
At DesignWise by Sharon Givoni Consulting, we specialise in helping creatives safeguard their rights while collaborating with businesses effectively. Our team is here to protect your art and ensure you receive fair recognition.
Please note the above article is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice.
Please email us info@iplegal.com.au if you need legal advice about your brand or another legal matter in this area generally.