Iljadica (2017)

From Copyright EVIDENCE

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing (including video games) Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing) D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Source Details

Iljadica (2017)
Title: Painting on Walls: Street Art without Copyright?
Author(s): Iljadica, M.
Year: 2017
Citation: Iljadica, M., 'Painting on Walls: Street Art without Copyright?', in Darling, K. and Perzanowski, A. (eds.), Creativity Without Law: Challenging the Assumptions of Intellectual Property, New York University Press, New York, 2017, pp. 277–332.
Link(s): Definitive
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: The study consists of semi-structured interviews with 29 creators (consisting of 21 graffiti writers, 6 street artists and 3 others). The study is augmented by supplementary data, including relevant print media and online sources. Thereafter, the data was analysed using grounded theory to infer broader themes.
Data Type: Primary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: No
Comparative Study?: No
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • April 2010 - September 2011
Funder(s):

Abstract

“Although graffiti images are copyright eligible in the abstract, the inherently illicit act of spray painting private property without permission complicates efforts to rely on formal law. Marta Iljadica’s empirical research on the graffiti subculture in London demonstrates that despite its illegality, graffiti writing has rules. Those rules address questions of subject matter, originality, and copying common to any expressive work. But they also extend to concerns unique to the graffiti context. Because graffiti is inextricably tied to the physical environment, it raises questions of placement: which structures are appropriate canvasses for graffiti writings and which are off-limits? And because available real estate is limited, graffiti writers must confront scarcity: Under what conditions is it permissible to cover another artist’s work with your own? So while the rules of graffiti writing parallel those of formal copyright law in some ways, they also go beyond it to confront a set of problems graffiti writers are themselves best suited to address.”

Main Results of the Study

• Graffiti and street artists’ motivation for creation are largely intrinsic and relate to the satisfaction in the process of creation itself, self-expression, and the desire to share work widely in a public space. Copyright’s economic incentives are thus largely irrelevant to incentivising creativity in this community.
• Social norms emulate and replace the need for formal copyright enforcement in this community. For example, the community has rules against literal copying or ‘biting’, but an allowance for the borrowing of abstract ideas and concepts (akin to prohibitions against reproduction, and the idea/expression dichotomy).
• Copying by the public is accepted, and to an extent, encouraged by the community. This acceptance is however rejected where commerciality is introduced, and particularly where there is no compensation to the original street art or graffiti artist.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

The study does not make any explicit policy recommendations.


Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Green-tick.png
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Green-tick.png
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)
Green-tick.png

Datasets

Sample size: 29
Level of aggregation: Individual
Period of material under study: April 2010 - September 2011