Street Art, Graffiti and Intellectual Property: Who Owns Art on the Walls?

In principle, graffiti and street art are protected by copyright law.  Most jurisdictions protect a broad range of original creative expression, some requiring fixation in a tangible form. Copyright generally subsists automatically without the need for registration. Copyright usually protects the intangible essence of a work as opposed to the physical embodiment of it. Thus, an artist who unlawfully paints on a wall may still hold copyright in the image – while the building owner may have the right to remove or destroy the wall.

The perception of street art and graffiti both in the aesthetic and wider cultural sense has modified considerably over recent times. Yet the legal realities surrounding such works are often unclear. Are such works also protectable by trademarks? Is the illegality involved in the execution of many such works definitive when answering these questions? Do artists seek IP protection? Do the creative practices and cultural norms in the street art and graffiti communities reflect or diverge from formal legal protectionⁱⁱ?

Differences between graffiti and street art

Graffiti can range from simple textual ‘tags’, or signatures, to more developed visual expressions, while street art refers to a broad range of visual art created in public spaces. Street art is perhaps the most celebrated of the two with an increasing number of commissioned works, with a recent proliferation of ‘legal walls’ where artists can create without illegality. However, while still a major issue, the law in several jurisdictions indicates that illegality does not always bar copyright protectionⁱⁱⁱ. There are indications of the increased use of copyright agreements in relation to working on free walls and commissioned works more generally.

Can you register graffiti or street art as a trademark?

The answer to the question seems to be increasingly yes. Banksy has had numerous engagements with trademark law; the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) previously held several of his trademark registrations to be in ‘bad faith’ and an attempt to evade restrictive aspects of copyright law, namely the fact that in some jurisdictions maintaining anonymity during infringement proceedings is difficult. However, the EUIPO more recently held in 2022 that Banksy can register a mark despite any such motivations in relation to copyright law and the desire to remain anonymous. In the US, the street artist Shepard Fairey has a trademark registration for his famous Obey design. There may also be protection through limited unregistered trademark common law rights in the US for example^iv. In most jurisdictions, there is requirement of genuine use of a mark during trade, which may limit artist’s ability to trademark their works as many lack the intent to commercialize their works or associated products.

Do moral rights protect against the destruction of street art works?

Moral rights are non-economic rights that can provide protection against some distortions and the destruction of works, regardless of who owns the physical property on which they are created. Still, enforcement may be difficult for anonymous artists or for works created without permission as legal rules vary widely by jurisdiction.

While the moral rights regime in the US under the Visual Artist’s Rights Act (VARA) is limited^v, it does provide a notable instance of where moral rights provided a remedy in relation to the destruction of works of graffiti. The ‘5Pointz case’ concerned graffiti painted on the 5 Pointz Building in New York. It was an unusual situation in that the building owner initially consented to artists painting on the building. The site became internationally famous as a public exhibition of graffiti. In 2013, the building owner, without properly notifying the artists, whitewashed all the works at 5 Pointz. The artists brought an action under VARA seeking to prevent the interference with the integrity and the destruction of their works and in 2018 a federal court awarded $6.75 million in relation to the forty-five works that had been destroyed.

A more recent example of the destruction of a work created illegally is the work Banksy placed on the Royal Courts of Justice in London in 2025 depicting a judge beating a protestor. While this controversial work led to widespread public discourse about the role of street art, legal recourse would be uncertain in this instance given that the work was created illegally and protection against destruction is unlikely under the UK moral rights’ regime.

Commercial uses of street art works

In terms of the engagement with IP in relation to both authorized and unauthorized uses of street art and graffiti works in the commercial context, the picture appears to be somewhat mixed. Association with commercial merchandising of their work can be seen as detrimental to some artists’ credibility and reputation when viewed through the lens of street art and graffiti culture^vi. However, there are instances where artists do engage with commercial entities. For example, Instagrafite, a Brazilian street art collective/agency, engaged in a deal with Nike that involved the use of their artists’ work in the promotion of Nike products on walls in São Paulo. This project turned street art walls into virtual Nike stores.  There are also examples of works of graffiti and street artists being licensed in the UK through the Design and Artists Copyright Society^vii.

While some artists allow others to use their works for personal, noncommercial reasons, many have reacted badly to the unauthorized commercial use of their work^viii. In 2018, the retailer H&M brought an action against the US street artist Revok, alleging his works, as used in their promotional materials without permission, were not protected by copyright due to the illegality involved in their creation. H&M eventually dropped the suit due to public pressure and a threatened boycott of their stores^ix. In 2025, three artists sued Vivienne Westwood in California on a number of grounds including copyright law for the unauthorized use of their ‘tags’ in her clothing designs^x. The French street artist known as ‘Invader’ also filed a suit in the same jurisdiction in late 2025 alleging, amongst other things, copyright infringement through the offer for sale of his works on the website Julien’s Auctions^xi. More recently, the Lithuanian artist, Ernest Zacharevic sued the airline AirAsia in the Kuala Lumpur High Court for copyright/moral rights infringement for allegedly using his designs on aircraft without his permission^xii. The airline eventually agreed to remove the allegedly infringing images from public display in late 2024.

Community norms: law and beyond

While copyright is generally regarded as providing economic incentives that encourage new creation, scholars such as Dr Marta IIjadica have pointed to the fact that street artists’ motivations and practices may deviate at times from this logic, pointing to ‘the limits of copyright law in incentivizing and regulating the production and location of creativity’^xiii. She states of such communities that there is ‘a set of rules running both in parallel to, and beyond copyright (that) suggest a distinct form of regulation, an alternative to copyright for the promotion and protection of creativity and culture’^xiv. These ‘social’ rules relate to many issues from reproduction to infringement of works.

Balancing the interests of street artists and property owners

Street art and graffiti sit at a unique nexus between creativity, property rights, freedom of expression and use of public space. IP law can be of benefit to artists, but the illegality involved in creation and lack of permanence of some works may still be problematic. There is nonetheless increasing evidence of artists using IP law to try and protect their economic and moral interests, particularly against unauthorized commercial uses of their works. A balancing exercise between those interests and those of property owners undoubtedly needs to be conducted, but perhaps an increased appreciation of the cultural relevance of such works, and a deeper understanding of how self-regulation works within those communities could lead to changes in both the drafting and interpretation of the law.