Legal implications of street art as a ‘democratized’/’open’ form of art

Abstract

The prestige of street art as an artistic expression has increased year after year. The analysis of its legal implications must take into account the difficulties in reaching a general operative concept of street art and the need to legally frame the creation, preservation and transaction of street art productions. Since the legal concept is not equivalent to the theoretical concept or the history of art, each State and even each municipality can create their own legal concepts, acting in accordance with these specific concepts in order to control production, to punish execution as vandalism or, in contrast, to protect works produced as part of their cultural heritage. Although street art is created in and for open spaces, usually as an ephemeral art,
the commercial interest in street art productions raises questions of due diligence during its transaction, such as those related to ownership, authenticity and even provenance. As an expression of an artistic movement started about half a century ago, can street art works be equated with “traditional” works of art (such as “goods” or “merchandises”), being subject to ownership, commercial sale and copyright, or must they be appreciated as artifacts that can be preserved as part of the cultural heritage or, alternatively, starting from the specific artistic and creative intent of the artist, be understood as a type of works of art that require the creation of new legal categories and forms of understanding its meaning?