What is street art and is there street are in Edinburgh?
Yes, there is.
So, to me street art includes an umbrella of visual art in different forms that can
be found in public places.
And, Edinburgh is a good example.
We don't always think of Edinburgh as the street art capital of the UK, because there
is London and there is Bristol, but in recent years, Edinburgh has seen its fair share of
street art.
And, this includes both graffiti, which we normally identify with street art, but is
only one part of street art, but also murals and other forms of street art that are taking
hold around the city.
I want to use a couple of recent examples, notable examples from Edinburgh.
So, Edinburgh created its first legal street art wall on New Street in Edinburgh, this
was around essentially what was a construction site, and between developers and the Council
and various art groups, a wall was set up on which street art could be painted.
Some of the wall was produced, so it was allocated to specific artists who were invited and asked
to create works there.
And there were other spaces, which were open to public and would be kept rolling, so anyone
could paint it, but they would be sort of rolling works every few weeks or so.
And since then there have been other examples of legal street art spaces.
One of them right now is around a stadium in Edinburgh called the Meadowbank Stadium.
It's a big stadium that was constructed for the Commonwealth Games.
And most recently, in September, there was an event to actually create graffiti on a
wall that measures 330 meters, one of the largest legal graffiti spaces in the UK, near
the Shore in Edinburgh, near the sea in a place called Marine Parade.
What's interesting about these legal street art works are that first they've been created
in consultation with the Council or with real estate owners who own the property, they are
presumed to be temporary sites, because they are there to create a sense of community and
to embellish the site, but they're not going to be there permanently, because they usually
form a wall around what is going to be a future development.
But, they've allowed both the artist community and the wider public to come in and engage
with street art.
And to me that represents not only how street has become mainstream, but how it functions
in a particularly touristy city like Edinburgh.
So, while we're talking about street art, and this is a subject that has attracted more
attention in copyright scholarship recently is, is street art protected, should it be
protected, so maybe we can start by discussing what the position of street art is under French law.
French law, as a broad concept, in which it protects all creation of mind, but the main
requirement is the originality.
Support issues are not a problem, copyright protection does not require a fixation.
An ephemeral nature, like a scripture in sand or in chocolate, does not deprive the recognition
of work.
On the other hand, the principle of the independence of the work and its support still applies.
The more accurate question would be the originality, indeed, it could be put forward that a lack
of artistic inspiration for some works.
However, originality of the work is traditionally defined as the imprint of the personality
of the author.
It has a particular echo in the UrbanAct, which the means of expression of the convictions
and engagements of the artists.
Just think of Space Invader's mosaic signatures, or for example, Atlas labyrinth reflections and Banksy's committed stencils.
And, what do you think, Smita, should works of street artists be protected by copyright law?
That's a very interesting question, Amélie.
Recently, copyright scholars have started to look whether artists need protection empirically.
So, recent research has involved interviewing artists, including graffiti artists, and asking
them whether copyright protection might be necessary in their practice and how else they
protect each other.
Some of this research shows, or argues, that social norms or norms within certain cultural
groups, like graffiti artists, act as an alternative or a substitute to copyright law.
Now, whether norms can always work, as a substitute for copyright law is questionable.
The reason for that is that norms work within a community, right?
So, norms work when there's a shared understanding within a community that we will all not copy
each other's works.
But, norms almost fail when people outside the community are trying to do those things.
So, for instance, a graffiti artist might not copy my work, because there's an understood
norm in the community, but that doesn't mean that a fashion retailer or an advertising
company won't come and make a copy of my work for other commercial purposes.
So, I think that while this norms literature is quite important, it doesn't itself sufficiently
persuade me that copyright law is not important.
I think copyright law does have a role, and I think it has a particularly important role
in two contexts.
The first context is when artists may want to prevent commercial appropriation of the
work, and we have seen some examples this year, particularly, with the incident in the
US with H&M copying works of a graffiti artist.
The other context in which I think the copyright framework has a role is in the context of
moral rights, because just because these artists don't create with copyright as an
incentive, it doesn't mean that they don't want to be identified with their works and
they might not be attached to their works.
I think they do value their works and again as the 5Pointz decision in the US shows, artists may
not want either destruction of their work, or in other contexts, they may want protection
against mutilation or editing of their work, or putting the work in a different context,
a context they did not imagine.
So, while we're speaking on the subject of moral rights, I was wondering if you wanted to
tell us a little bit about moral rights protection, particularly for street artists in France.
Moral rights can protect street artists in French Law, particularly in relation with
withdrawal, erasure, or destruction of the work.
The right of integrity is particularly significant.
I'll give you an example, of the artist C215.
This artist worked in the 13th arrondissement of Paris, who suffered an intellectual hijacking
of one of his frescoes, and a photographed work was used as a banner by a French electoral
party on social media with the addition of the slogan, "En Marche!"
The artist asked for the photograph to be removed, and the French political party removed it.
But, this case did not go to the courts, and there is no decision in France on moral rights
and street art to our knowledge.
But, I think that moral rights could be an option for street artists.
That's very interesting to hear.
As you know moral rights are considered to be quite weak in the UK, because we only formally
introduced them, the right of integrity, quite late compared to many countries in the European Union.
We also have very limited case law on moral rights in the UK.
Amélie, as were talking earlier, and I was giving you the example of some of the legal
art walls in Edinburgh.
Now when we think of graffiti art, in particular, and not all street art, we think of them being
illegal and unauthorised, right?
And a form of vandlism sometimes, especially when it includes just tagging.
So, the issue of street art always brings to mind this problem of conflict between any
rights that the artist might have in their creation, but then also the real property
owner, usually the building owner or the site owner, but then also wider public interest.
You know, is it in the interest of the public to have street art that might function not
as aesthetically appealing, but as vandalism.
So, how do we resolve this conflict between various interests, when it comes to street art,
and do you have any examples from France to offer us?
As you say Smita, graffiti artworks are sometimes illegal, in particular they contravene the
provisions of criminal law in France, which protects, first, the destruction of property
belonging to others, and second, the offense called graffiti crimes.
The chamber of the Cour de cassation, as in July 2017, sanctioned the artist Azyle on
this basis of crime of degradation.
This decision is interesting, because the considerations of general interest and the
private interest of the artist where weighed against the each other, and the discussion
necessarily refers to the conflict between the public order and the copyright.
This is a hot topic in France.
The right still exists for the artist, if their work is created in a legal condition,
but they cannot enforce their rights.
Thanks Amélie for chatting today.
Thank you, Smita.
I think that the topic of street art and copyright will continue to be debated amongst copyright scholars,
particularly as we discuss the issues of public interest, public ownership of spaces
or private ownership of spaces in which these works are created.
And of course, the artists' interests, not just economically, but also personally, to
protect them and their reputations.
I don't think there's any easy solution to some of these conflicts, but hopefully the
law will develop as street art becomes more mainstream and more accepted across urban
city centres around Europe.