Firstly, yes, I possibly made up the word “infringeable”, but, like Shakespeare’s texts, if someone can understand what I’m aiming for then it is an acceptable word.
But let’s discuss the nuance of the article — an artist who has public wall murals, one saying “Greetings from Buffalo [NY]” in Buffalo, NY has sued a number of different companies who have videos of Buffalo, NY for showing his art without permission.
Here is my thought: Fair Use allows for brief showings of certain items for specified use-cases. IN ADDITION, this feels a bit like trolling … you create a piece of art that is publicly displayed (you likely had to get permission to publicly display it by the city) and it focuses on being part of the city atmosphere (welcoming people to the city), but then you go after those who show the art as being a part of the city’s atmosphere as infringing on your rights? We’re not talking about a piece in an art exhibit or even just in a private space.
Though we protect copyright infringement for content creators, I do think it is also important not to abuse the system that protects your creations. If a sticker artist plasters their stickers all over a public area, be it for art or not, it is now part of the public consumption. There is a balance (like specific large art installations) but I would argue that if an art installation is intrinsically linked to being part of the public sphere and city around it, that maybe that is a line that Fair Use falls into play.
It always falls to the courts to interpret, so we shall see how this one ends up, but, again, copyright protection and law is strongest when approached from a fair place, and abuse by copyright holders themselves does not help the good fight.
PS Featured generative AI image “Public Art” brought to you by “random giraffe-elephant trunk”, “made up animals”, and “I bet this is pieces of famous street art straight up stitched together”.
