Is It a Crime to Photograph a Graffiti Artist at Work?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Damon Knight on May 17, 2010 at 4:31pm

I remember seeing this post when I saw this article online. Evidently Lara has been cleared(!)

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2010/05/la-photographer-cleared-of-criminal...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Nicklin on May 18, 2010 at 10:15pm

I'm confused. How could a person photographing other people in the act of vandalism be charged with the act of vanalism and be forced to pay reparation? did he encourage the graphiti artists to do their work or did he just happen upon the act?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by aydin kirkewoog on May 19, 2010 at 1:53pm

I think the key factor in this case involves the "aiding and abetting" aspect of the charges. In other words, was he helping and/or encouraging the act of vandalism? Some might argue that even the act of documenting vandalism might encourage the subculture. But if that’s the case, how can a show like “Intervention” document illegal drug use, and not be charged with aiding and abetting? Doesn’t the mere act of showing drug use to addicts encourage illicit use?

Based on police reports he wasn't charged for eight hours after being taken in, which makes me think that the police might have wanted this to be a precedent setting case; something that would set an example and deter others. I can just see a bunch of police going over the evidence in a precinct room for 8 hours, trying to see how they can pin charges on this guy, and how well the charges will stick... the charges obviously didn't stick well.

I happen to think that targeting documenters is a very slippery slope. At what point does protecting property turn into suppressing knowledge and understanding? These people are going to tag regardless, so why not learn from them and truly understand the underlying artistic, social, cultural, and political motivations? How do you stop people without learning why they are acting in the first place?

I guess this brings me back to your initial comment... I am confused too!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Snapper on May 19, 2010 at 2:06pm

Yeah, the legal implications of the case are confusing indeed -- particularly when you consider that Lara' first lawyer, the public defender, refused to argue the case on First Amendment grounds, and even the lawyers he eventually hired didn't take that approach.

Although you can hardly blame Lara for taking the plea, I was disappointed because the police were able to succeed in a strategy of intimidation (a high-profile incident which will scare off others who may have had an interest in documenting the world of the graffiti artist), and the court was excused from having to provide more clarity about what's legal in this kind of situation.

• ▶ Reply