MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Further to my thread about London urban artwork, I'm thinking of making a few prints of some of the better work I've seen around the place. Question is though, who would own the copyright? Me because I took the photo or the artist because he/she created the art in the first place? If the work is in a public place is it fair game to make money from it?
I can't imagine the artist going to the police and complaining that someone took a photo of something he graffitied on the side of a building.
AFAIK you would own the copyright of the image (as you are its creator) unless the graffiti artist had put a copyright mark and associated identification of the owner/creator (really really unlikely) on their work and even then its up for debate if the grafitti has been done without the building owners permission. As you own copyright on your photographic images you can make money from the image of the "artwork"
I think you can make images of public buildings/places etc for your own profit unless you are breaking the law by trespassing to take photos etc and even then its up for debate. Taking photos in an art gallery is another matter...
If you have taken a pic in a public place, then you own copyright of the image. Can be a bit tricky with public artworks sometimes, but I can't see the graffiti artist suing you. After all, pics of Banksy's work sell (Mind you, he stole most of his good ideas off other people in the first place, the plagiarising bastard, so he can hardly complain), so I can't see you having problems with flogging a few.
IE; I can photograph the London Eye, and not get sued if I flog a pic, as it's in the 'public domain'.