•  
  •  
 

University of Miami Law Review

Abstract

Street art and graffiti are pervasive artforms found throughout the world and throughout history. While the artforms have been associated with crime and vandalism in the past, they have increasingly been featured in different capacities from art galleries to corporate marketing campaigns. With street art’s growing recognition and popularity, corporations have begun to use the medium to target new customer bases. In some situations, the use of artwork in marketing campaigns is unsanctioned by the artist. Therefore, courts have now begun to examine the balance between copyright protection for street artists and the corporate use of street art. Section 120(a) of the Architectural Works Copyright Act of 1990 (AWCPA) provides a limited panorama right to take pictorial representations of architectural works that are visible to the public without fear of copyright infringement. Specifically, the Central District of California and the Eastern District of Michigan have grappled with the copyright protections for street art appearing on buildings in the background of ad campaigns and Section 120(a).

This Note argues that the exemption found under Section 120(a) should be limited to noncommercial uses of street art in order to balance street artists’ copyright interests with the relative resources of companies that wish to use the artwork. Limiting Section 120(a) to noncommercial uses would also align with the congressional intent behind the exemption and would be analogous with other Berne Convention signatory countries who also provide a limited panorama right for noncommercial uses. Courts and the general public have recognized the valuableness of street art and graffiti. Therefore, street art should receive increased copyright protection similar to other artforms.

Download

Share

COinS