Graffolution D2.2 Regional, Cultural, Ethical, Privacy and Legal Aspects and Influence Factors Report

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

PROJECT

Acronym: Graffolution Title: Awareness and Prevention Solutions against Graffiti Vandalism in Public Areas and Transport Coordinator: SYNYO GmbH

Reference: 608152 Type: Collaborative project Programme: FP7-SEC Theme: SEC-2013.7.2.1 – Open Topics for Small & Medium Enterprises for frequent petty crimes that are of high impact to local communities and citizens

Start: March, 2014 Duration: 24 months

Website: http://project.graffolution.eu E-Mail: [email protected]

Consortium: SYNYO GmbH, Research & Development Department, Austria, (SYNYO) University of Barcelona, Dept. of Constitutional Law and Political Science, Spain, (UB) University of Arts London, Design Against Crime Research Centre, UK, (UAL) Sine-Institut gGmbH, Dialogue of Science and Practice, Germany, (SINE) Ferroccarrils de la Generalitat de Catalunya, Spain, (FGC) London Borough of Islington, Council of Islington, UK, (LBI) Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer, Security Division, France, (UIC) Eticas Research & Consulting, Spain (ETICAS)

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

DELIVERABLE

Number: D2.2

Title: Regional, cultural, ethical, privacy and legal aspects and influence factors report

Lead beneficiary: UB

Work package: WP2: Graffiti vandalism research, stakeholder analysis and solution elaboration

Dissemination level: Public (PU)

Nature: Report (R)

Due date: September 30, 2014 (re-submitted the 5th June 2015)

Submission date: September 30, 2014 (re-submitted the 5th June 2015)

Authors: Mariona Tomàs, UB Raquel Prado Perez, UB Marion Müller, SINE Sebastian Kleele, SINE

Contributors: Lorraine Gamman, UAL Paul Ekblom, UAL Marcus Willcocks, UAL Matthew Malpass, UAL Bernhard Jäger, SYNYO Gemma Galdon Clavell, ETICAS Liliana Arroyo Moliner, ETICAS

Reviewers: Marion Müller, SINE Peter Leitner, SYNYO

Acknowledgement: This project has received Disclaimer: The content of this publication is the funding from the European Union’s Seventh sole responsibility of the authors, and in no way Framework Programme for research, technological represents the view of the European Commission or development and demonstration under grant its services. agreement no 608152.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...... 6

Methodology...... 7

a) Desk research ...... 7

b) In-depth interviews with stakeholders ...... 7

c) Ethics ...... 17

1. Introduction of the countries and context of graffiti ...... 18

1.1 Introduction of the country – basic data ...... 18

1.2 Structure of public transport facilities...... 23

1.3 History & Evolution of Graffiti...... 34

1.4 The magnitude of the phenomenon ...... 40

2 Socio-cultural aspects and influence factors ...... 47

2.1 What is “graffiti”?...... 47

2.2 Who are graffiti writers ...... 51

2.2.1 Origins, social background, gender, educational level ...... 51

2.2.2 Individual and collective identities...... 54

2.3 Social impact and social perception of graffiti ...... 57

3 Regional aspects and influence factors ...... 62

3.1 Public spaces & Graffiti activity...... 62

3.2 Mapping Graffiti: is there a spatial logic? ...... 65

4 Ethical and Privacy aspects ...... 69

4.1 Ethics of graffiti prevention ...... 69

4.2 Gathering & sharing data on graffiti writers ...... 83

5 Legal framework ...... 92

5.1 Study of the legal framework concerning graffiti vandalism & sharing data on graffiti writers in the four researched countries ...... 94

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

5.2 Link between graffiti and ASBO or incivility ...... 103

5.3 Discussion on problems of legal framework ...... 110

6 Conclusions ...... 116

6.1 A comparison between the four researched countries...... 116

6.2 Final considerations on aspects and influence factors...... 121

7 References ...... 122

8 Appendices ...... 132

8.1 Appendix 1 ...... 132

8.2 Appendix 2 ...... 138

8.3 Appendix 3 ...... 140

8.4 Appendix 4 ...... 142

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Number of stakeholders by categories for each country ...... 8 Table 2. Number of contacts and interviews per stakeholder group in Austria ...... 11 Table 3. Number of contacts and interviews per stakeholder group in Germany ...... 12 Table 4. Number of contacts and interviews per stakeholder group in Spain ...... 13 Table 5. Number of contacts and interviews per stakeholder group in the UK ...... 14 Table 6. Population and density by country ...... 18 Table 7. The ten most populated Austrian cities (2014) ...... 19 Table 8. The ten most populated German cities (2014) ...... 20 Table 9. The ten most populated Spanish cities (2013) ...... 21 Table 10. The ten most populated cities (2011) ...... 22 Table 11. Train operators on franchised rail networks in UK (+ precedent sectors from British Rail) ..32 Table 12. Data and sources in each country ...... 40 Table 13. Graffiti vandalism complaints reported to the police...... 41 Table 14. Reported number of damages and costs from public transport services ...... 44 Table 15. Different costs related to graffiti in the UK ...... 45 Table 16. Differences between countries’ punishments ...... 101 Table 17. Differences between some Spanish municipalities ‘punishments ...... 105 Table 18. Influencing factors of writing graffiti at social, cultural and regional level...... 121

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Overview of train and underground system in Vienna and surroundings...... 24 Figure 2: Number of passengers transported with buses, tramways and subway (in millions) ...... 25 Figure 3: Linked transport systems in Germany in 2003...... 26 Figure 4: Relationships between different actors of Madrid's public transport system ...... 29 Figure 5: National Rail Network...... 31 Figure 6: Urban Rail in the UK ...... 33 Figure 7: Graffiti incidents in FGC (2010-2013) ...... 43 Figure 8: Map showing counts of ‘legal walls’ by UK location ...... 66 Figure 9: SprayCity Map ...... 67 Figure 10: The FGC app for incivility reporting ...... 86

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This deliverable covers relevant issues regarding regional, cultural, ethical, privacy and legal aspects of graffiti. The document is informed by the experiences of four countries: Austria, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom. Common patterns as well as dissimilarities are considered in order to provide a general and comprehensive picture of the phenomenon of graffiti in these European countries. The first section consists of an introduction of each of the participating countries covering four main aspects. First, it presents an overview of the population distribution and territorial division of each country. Second, it describes the structure of public transport facilities of the participating countries, since most of graffiti are done in public transport networks. Third, we analyse the history and evolution of graffiti in relation to the pace of development, the way graffiti are being introduced, the pioneers of the movement and the evolution of graffiti. Fourth, the report reflects the magnitude of the phenomenon in each country. This overview provides both a general scope for each country and an understanding in which social fabric the phenomenon of graffiti is embedded. Section 2 analyses the socio-cultural aspects and influence factors of graffiti. In the first place, we provide the different existing definitions of graffiti. Secondly, the section provides a portrait of graffiti writers in relation to elements such as age, educational level, social class or gender. We also analyse the importance of graffiti in building individual and collective identities. Finally, the report states the social impact and social perception of graffiti, since it is a social phenomenon with different interpretations. Section 3 covers the regional aspects and influence factors. First, it analyses the specificities of graffiti as an urban phenomenon, providing the reasons why writers prefer urban settings. Second, the report provides an understanding of the lack of a specific spatial logic in writing and the inexistence of graffiti maps. Section 4 deals with ethical and privacy aspects and influence factors. First, we analyse the ethics of graffiti prevention, since there are some controversial aspects that need to be considered. Among them, the report highlights the existing debates between vandalism and street art, permission and legality, graffiti and advertising, criminalization of young people. Second, we examine several issues regarding the gathering and sharing of data on graffiti writers, such as surveillance technologies used for graffiti writers’ identification, the creation of databases, the collection of data and the way they are shared and matched. Section 5 discusses and evaluates legal aspects referred to graffiti. First, the report provides a study of the legal framework concerning graffiti vandalism in the participating countries. Second, the report examines the link between graffiti and anti-social behaviour or incivility. Finally, it discusses the existing problems of the legal framework in each of the countries. The final section of the report summarizes the most important findings regarding regional, cultural, ethical, privacy and legal aspects of graffiti.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

METHODOLOGY

The following deliverable is based on the one hand on desk research, on the other hand on semi- structured interviews with stakeholders in the field of graffiti. All results and data have been gathered in the four participating countries: Austria, Germany, Spain and United Kingdom (in alphabetical order)1. As we detail at the end of this section, for interviews full compliance with the relevant teams' institutional codes of ethics was achieved, for example in securing the informed consent of participants and in providing confidentiality and anonymity where appropriate.

a) Desk research

Desk research included statistical data, literature review (see D.2.1) and country-specific references, press articles, documentaries and other audio-visual material. As will be noted in the following sections, press articles, blogs and internet sources have been key to produce this deliverable since little literature has been produced yet on this issue regarding the participating countries.

It is worth mentioning the importance of blogs and Internet sources to understand the situation of graffiti in each country, in particular the usefulness of news to track history, evolution and social tensions around graffiti.

As stated in 1.4, there are no comparable European statistics on graffiti. Data are hardly available and come from each of the four participating countries, mainly from two sources: criminal statistics and data coming from transportation operators. In spite of the limitations of the analysis, these data are illustrative of the importance of graffiti in each country. We have been careful in specifying the source in each case (see the footnotes referring to the source in every table).

b) In-depth interviews with stakeholders

In total 85 (stakeholder interviews were conducted in four selected countries (Austria, Germany, Spain and the UK). In-depth interviews were conducted with stakeholders from public administration, police/law enforcement, transport operators, the social and cultural domain on graffiti and from enterprises as well as graffiti writers.

1 We have selected these four countries because of the involvement of the academic partners within the project – all of them with a social scientific background.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Table 1. Number of stakeholders by categories for each country

Country Stakeholder group Total Austria Germany Spain UK

Social work / cultural projects 3 4 6 3 16 / civil society (SWCS)

Police / Law Enforcement 3 3 2 3 11 (PLE)

Public Administration 3 4 3 3 13 (A)

Transport Operators / Authorities 3 4 4 2 13 (O)

Enterprises / Private Companies 3 0 3 4 10 (E)

Graffiti Writers 5 5 5 7 22 (G)

Total 20 20 23 22 85

Recruitment process Stakeholders were chosen due to their specific knowledge or expertise about graffiti in their country, as well as their role and /or duties.

Recruitment plan

In order to achieve a substantial and heterogeneous research group containing of the central and relevant stakeholder groups dealing with the topic graffiti the consortium first gathered the central

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT stakeholder groups (including graffiti writers)2. In order to ensure the comparability during analysis it was agreed upon that each partner should recruit according the same following guidelines:

On the whole a minimum of 20 members of stakeholder groups should be interviewed. Thereby the following “main”/“most important” stakeholder groups were set where in each case a minimum of three interviews should be conducted:

- State/local authorities (A): minimum 3 interviews - Police/law enforcement (PLE): minimum 3 interviews - Social work/cultural projects/civil society (SWCS): minimum 3 interviews - Transport Operators (O): minimum 3 interviews - Graffiti Writers (G): minimum 5 interviews

Code for the quotations: the first letter(s) are indicating the nature of the stakeholder: G for graffiti writers; O for transport operators; A for state/public administrations; PLE for police / law enforcement; SWC for social work/cultural projects/ civil society; E for enterprises and private companies,; the second (and third) letter is the country (E for Spain, U for UK, G for Germany and A for Austria); finally the number according to the order within the given stakeholder type.

The stakeholders for the remaining (minimum) 3 interviews could be decided optionally according to the requirements per partner. Optional stakeholder groups were for example: industry; school/university; community safety & local area partnerships; property owners/developers/infrastructure owners; cleaning companies/restorations enterprises/anti-graffiti producers; manufacturers and suppliers; local businesses/business improvement districts; local residents, neighbourhood watch.

Also regarding the group of graffiti writers a few recruiting criteria were set up in order to ensure equally heterogeneity within the group and a certain comparability between the four countries. The group of interviewees should include: 1 older – 1 younger person3, 1 low-income/non-privileged background/origin – 1 medium/high income/privileged background/origin person; 1 person who used to do graffiti in the 80s-90s; 1 woman and 1 convicted offender.

Contacting the field – ways of approaching the different stakeholder groups

Stakeholders should be chosen due to their specific knowledge or expertise about graffiti in their country, as well as their role and/or duties.

2 An equal treatment of ALL stakeholders regarding the composition of the research group as well as all the aspects of the further research process (e.g. in form of establishing a common guideline for ALL stakeholders) was a central focus the whole consortium agreed upon already in the Kick-off meeting and was following throughout the whole project process. 3 There were no guidelines fixed about age, but it should be made sure to recruit different 'generations'.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

The four partners proceeded in a similar way in order to approach the different stakeholders.

Basis for the recruitment of the non-writers was in most cases desk research to identify potential stakeholders of the different target groups and in single cases already established personnel contacts (mostly Austria, Germany, Spain). A main problem in Austria was that there are a limited number of stakeholders that can be addressed. For instance concerning transport operators there are a handful of bigger operators that control most of the transport. But also in the field of police/law enforcement or local authorities it was time intensive to identify the responsible individuals and arrange interviews. In several cases it was necessary to call several departments of organizations to identify individuals who were able to provide valuable insights for the project.

In the case of the UK most of the stakeholder recruitment was through networks and individual contacts which already had been established relationships with or knowledge of4.

In the case of Spanish transport operators FGC was contacted and asked to provide contacts of transport operators all over the country.5 Some contacts with Spanish stakeholder groups Police/law enforcement (PLE) and State/local authorities (A) were also done with the help of FGC. In the case of the German transport stakeholder contacting one important contact was made by UIC.

In all the four countries identified persons/institutions were first contacted by email (see recruitment letters in original language for all countries in Appendix 1)6 followed by phone calls and/or further emails. In several cases organizations were contacted also by phone in order to be able to identify the responsible person. In addition contacted persons/institutions were asked to forward the invitations to other relevant stakeholders (use of a snow ball-effect) (especially Austria Germany, Spain).

In comparison to the other stakeholder groups the recruitment process of the graffiti writers7 was all in all more time intensive and sometimes difficult regarding the approaching. Already established contacts to writers and/or and word of mouth played a central role during the recruitment process.

In the case of the UK recruitment contacts were already existing to a number of writers through the above mentioned networks. In order to ensure the set balance profiles (see above), additional requests for further recommendations were also made, largely starting from those same contacts

4 For example through the Designing Out Crime Association (DOCA); Graffiti Dialogues Network - representing 100+ graffiti writers, crime preventors, academics and creative practitioners, who had previously contributed to UAL research in related areas of study; through Global Street Art; Moniker Projects; Keep Britain Tidy. 5 In that case FGC approached first the officers by email and put UB in cc. From that first contact on, we were making the appointment and resolving doubts prior to their acceptance for being interviewed. 6 The contact emails differ a bit regarding the respective stakeholder group and were fine-tuned depending on the stakeholder. In some cases a short factsheet was sent along with the email (Austria, Germany). 7 Which at the time of recruitment process the consortium was referring to as ‘sprayers’.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT and networks, plus others known to the UAL team8. In Austria contacts to a graffiti shop owner and a graffiti gallerist were useful as they invited writers and provided further information to get in contact with writers or arranged dates and places for the interviews. In Spain, too, mainly social contacts were used to approach the writers. In order to fulfill the quotas three graffiti writers were contacted initially and, seeing their characteristics, they were asked to help us to find two other informants with the specified characteristics.9 In the case of Germany one contact to a former writer could be established by UAL, some contacts via a graffiti shop, a workshop and via the wider network of the institute. Similar to Spain the fulfilling of the set criteria was reached by starting contacting writers and trying to achieve still missing criteria by targeted recruitment via contact persons.

After having established a contact (via a contact person for example) an adjusted email was sent to the respective writer, often including a project flyer (see Appendix 1).

Response rates and refusals – reasons

All in all10 about 150 individuals/organisations were contacted and on the whole 85 interviews were conducted across the four countries Austria, Germany, Spain and the UK.

In Austria 54 individuals/organisations were contacted and 20 interviews were finally conducted.

Table 2. Number of contacts and interviews per stakeholder group in Austria

Number of interviews/contacts Austria Interviews Directly contacted

Social work/ cultural projects / civil 3 12 society (SWCS)

Police/Law Enforcement (PLE) 3 7

State/local Authorities (A) 3 11

8 3 of the 7 UK graffiti writers interviewed were known beforehand. 9 At this point it was difficult to continue and all people approached were rejecting their participation. It was impossible to contact any girl or woman. There was a key player in this recruiting in order to get access to older graffiti writers and to build trust with one in the “illegal” side. This key player is the founder of Montana Colors, the company providing graffiti supplies all over the world. After having interviewed him, he helped regarding the further recruitment of writers by sending emails to his contacts. 10 As also contacted stakeholders supported during the recruitment process by contacting other stakeholder members and especially in the case of writers contact persons were supporting the total reach is hard to assume.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Transport Operators (O) 3 9

Graffiti Writers (G) 5 9

Enterprises/private companies (E) 3 6

Individuals refused to take part based on following facts:

- Don’t think that they were the right person/organization to talk to (A, PLE, T)

- Lack of time or resources to give an interview (A, PLE, T)

- A lack of trust (e.g. a graffiti shop owner who supported the recruitment reported for instance that there was recently an article about the local graffiti scene that created annoyance in the scene and thereby there was a lack of trust to give interviews), in most cases just no response to the invitation was given (G)

In Germany 32 individuals/organisations were contacted and 20 interviews were finally conducted.

Table 3. Number of contacts and interviews per stakeholder group in Germany

Number of interviews/contacts Germany Interviews Directly contacted

Social work/ cultural projects / civil 5 6 society (SWCS)

Police/Law Enforcement (PLE) 3 3

State/local Authorities (A) 3 4

Transport Operators (O) 3 3

Graffiti Writers (G) 5 10

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Individuals refused to take part based on following facts:

- a lack of time (SWCS)

- not being competent enough for answering the questions (A)

- a lack of trust: fears that anonymity is not being ensured; missing acceptance of the project’s ambitions and contents; (G)

Most of them answered quite quickly to the email and showed interest. In some cases other contact persons were named and sometimes it took quite long to get in touch with the respective person. The main problem was in some cases to find a date for the interview or to find a new date for the interview when dates were cancelled. One institution in the PLE-group was quite serious about the controlling of the consent form and anonymity aspects.

In Spain 39 individuals/organisations were contacted and 23 interviews were finally conducted.

Table 4. Number of contacts and interviews per stakeholder group in Spain

Number of interviews/contacts Spain Interviews Directly contacted

Social work/ cultural projects / civil 6 9 society (SWCS)

Police/Law Enforcement (PLE) 2 5

State/local Authorities (A) 3 5

Transport Operators (O) 4 7

Enterprises/private companies (E) 3 4

Graffiti Writers (G) 5 9

Reasons for refusals were the following:

- Lack of time, no responses (SWCS, A, O)

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

- Stating not be allowed to participate unless a superior authorize their participation (PLE)

- (not responding)

- A lack of interest in the project (E)

- Lack of confidence, lack of agreement with the project perspective, fear to be “caught” after collaboration, suspicion was the main reason behind their denials (G)

In the UK 32 individuals/organisations were contacted and 22 interviews were finally conducted.

Table 5. Number of contacts and interviews per stakeholder group in the UK

Number of interviews/contacts UK Interviews Directly contacted

Social work/ cultural projects / civil 3 5 society (SWCS)

Police/Law Enforcement (PLE) 3 7

State/local Authorities (A) 3 4

Transport Operators (O) 2 5

Enterprises/private companies (E) 4 3

Graffiti Writers (G) 7 8

Of those who were not able to interview, the main reason given was lack of availability. A small number of interviewees were also introduced to us by some of the candidates who interviewed earlier-on. A small number of graffiti writers/street artists also expressed specific concern over the project’s integrity and felt offended by early use of the term ’sprayer', and one high profile UK candidate, pulled out on this basis.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Data collection: In-Depth Interviews with Stakeholders

Interview setting - Interview situation - Interview conduction

Semi-structured interviews were based on one commonly agreed interview guideline, used for all stakeholders, including graffiti writers. The guideline covered the following topics: understanding/definition of graffiti, relationship to graffiti, experiences/motifs, impact, the legal framework, prevention strategies/measures, exchange/networking, outlook/future approaches and needs towards graffiti. It was also explored the idea and the potential of a joint graffiti platform provided by the Graffolution project in the examined countries (see appendix 2).

Interviews were conducted in the specific national language11. The interviews were conducted at different locations: most of them at the workplace of the respective stakeholder member, and the remainder at the respective institution conducting the interviews. The average duration of an interview was about 60 to 90 minutes. The interviews were recorded12, transcribed, and analysed.

Data analysis

Analysis of the data was done on a common coding list by all partners (see appendix 3) and in the respective national language. Analysis programs atlas.ti and MAXQDA were used during the analysis process. Interview quotations were translated by the respective partner.

During the recruitment and interviewing some of the graffiti writers criticized the use of the term ‘sprayer’ in the project description. The consortium in consequence quickly revised the communications to refer to graffiti writers, as a more neutral and widely understood term. Literature sources appear to concord with this, as they predominantly use other terms such as graffiti writer, artist, graffitist and more. In order to give transparency to the consortium’s dealing with the different terms used for those who produce graffiti there are some explanations and discussion statements made in the following13:

How do we characterize those who produce graffiti?

For the purposes of Graffolution research and deliverables, we have predominantly referred to the term ‘graffiti writer’, as one of the least-biased and most readily understood terms we could identify. Inevitably it is not without its problems. Some crime prevention practitioners consider this term too flattering, while some who make graffiti prefer to be referred to as artists, or some indeed vandals.

11 In the case of Spain interviews were done in Catalan and Spanish. 12 In the case of Spain, two interviewees (graffiti writer and a representative of public authorities) have not agreed in being recorded, so notes were taken instead. 13 See also D2.1, chapter 4.1.5

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

However the reality is that many of the related practices have either direct or associated connection with, writing letters or words using graffiti styles, approaches and methods. Hence our use of the term ‘graffiti writer’ does not in itself intentionally prejudicate in favour, of or against, the individuals who make the graffiti interventions in public areas and/or transport contexts. Rather the term refers to the material practice itself. We could have equally used other terms, such as ‘graffitist’ (not common in English, although its translations work well in some other languages), ‘graffiti painter’, ‘graffiti producer’ other comparable, near-impartial terms but we did not see fit to introduce additional lexicon here in this, already jargon-dense territory.

Within the deliverables, we have also used other more loaded terms ranging from ‘offender’, to ‘perpetrator’, through to ‘tagger’, ‘street artist’, and more. In these cases, it is typically because we are referring to perspectives taken by others.

How the graffiti producer is labelled and characterized between dutyholders and stakeholders depends totally on the discourse being adopting, and if – as suggested – we need awareness and agility to switch discourses as appropriate, there can be no single ‘right answer. However, it may be possible to establish a convention to create as much terminological stability as possible. It may also be necessary to simplify things for end-users of Graffolution outputs, though over-simplification and fudging will incur penalties in the long run.

 From the perspective of the judicial/enforcement setting, the graffiti producer is variously a suspect, a perpetrator/offender, the accused party or defendant in court, the convicted or the cautioned. Statistical tables of arrests, criminal proceedings etc. usually give clear definitions of which of these roles are being presented although unfortunately they do not present the offence of graffiti as a distinct category.

 From the perspective of civil crime prevention, the graffiti producer is an offender or potential offender. The status here partly depends on the targeting strategy: universal (where everyone is equivalently a potential offender), selective (where we can identify those at elevated risk of offending, e.g. on the basis of risk factors such as having friends who do illegal graffiti) or indicated (where we have someone whom we know has done illegal graffiti, and perhaps has been convicted for it. (These categories are used by Wilson and Lipsey (2007) and correspond to the less helpful ‘primary, secondary and tertiary prevention categories introduced by Brantingham and Faust (1976) and used by van Dijk and de Waard 1991.)

 From RJ or civil law perspectives, it is possible there are alternative terms; certainly in civil law the parties to the conflict may be less strongly negatively labelled.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

 From the perspective of graffiti practices as interrogators of alternative forms of spatial justice (Harvey, 2009 and Soja, 2010) or practice-led agonistic democracies, those who produce or generate most prolifically may well be described as champions or activists.

 From the perspective of graffiti as one or more community/ies-of-interest, whose activities and status are predominantly heeded and defined among peers (in-person and remotely), graffitists are typically referred to in terms of frames that relate to their experience and status-achieved - ‘toys’ (inexperienced) and ‘kings’ (most experienced and respected among peers) – and/or in terms of their methods of practice – e.g. ‘taggers’ (who leave unauthorized graffiti signatures, ‘tags’, irrespective of quantity) ‘bombers’ (who paint as many surfaces with as much visual impact as possible within/across an area); ‘artists’ (referring either more favorably to, or to the intention of, many kinds of graffiti producers), ‘crew’ (graffitists who coordinate together in making their interventions).

c) Ethics

This research project involves humans and therefore it conforms to the EU data protection and privacy directive. Informed consent forms have been provided to participants before interview started (see Appendix 4). Those informed consents (attached at the end of the document) contain information about participation, confidentiality and anonymity, along with the risks and benefits for participants. All personal data collected is kept secure and no personal data will be kept for longer than necessary for the purposes for which it was collected. Personal data which is no longer required for the purposes of the GRAFFOLUTION project will be definitely deleted. The files obtained under the form of transcripts have been duly anonymized and securely stored. This research does not involve research on human embryos and foetuses, nor animals.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION OF THE COUNTRIES AND CONTEXT OF GRAFFITI

1.1 Introduction of the country – basic data

In this section we cover introductory aspects to each of the participating countries such as population distribution and territorial division in order to have a general scope for each and an understanding in which social fabric is embedded the social phenomenon of Graffiti. The four participating countries are Austria, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK). All four countries are old members of the EU, being Austria the last country to have joined the Union in 1995.

An introduction to each of these four countries is provided in this chapter, starting with population in millions and its distribution according to the population density, which provides a general idea of the size of the country. A comparative display is shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Population14 and density15 by country

Austria Germany Spain UK

Population (in M) 8.5 80.7 46.5 64.3 (2014)

Density 102 229 93 257* (inhab/km2) (2012) * 2010

As the numbers show Germany is the most populated country of the sample (and actually the most populated of the EU as well). The UK is the second (and the third one in the EU) with a higher density of inhabitants, while Spain is half populated than Germany and Austria has only 8,5 million inhabitants but is approximately as dense as Spain.

Each country presents particularities in terms of its territorial division. The four countries are subdivided in different numbers of regions under logics that are closely related to their historical development. The following sections cover the different levels of government, the divisions of the territory and the main urban agglomerations.

14 Source: Eurostat. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&language=en&pcode=tps00001&tableSelection=1& footnotes=yes&labeling=labels&plugin=1 [27.08.2014]. 15 Source: Eurostat. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tps00003&plugin=0 [27.08.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

AUSTRIA Austria is a federal republic and the country is divided in nine states (called Bundesländer). The capital and largest city of Austria is Vienna, with almost 1,7 million citizens. The following table gives an overview of the most populated cities in Austria:

Table 7. The ten most populated Austrian cities16 (2014)

City Population Vienna 1,691,468 Graz 222,326 Linz 181,162 Salzburg 150,269 Innsbruck 112,467 Klagenfurt 90,610 Villach 58,882 Wels 57,946 Sank Polten 49,001 Dornbirn 43,013

Most of the population lives in the north-eastern states (Vienna, Upper and Lower Austria). Actually Vienna has the largest population on the smallest area. The difference regarding the number of inhabitants between Vienna and Graz is impressive: the second most populated city in Austria is more than 7 times smaller than the first one.

GERMANY Germany is a Federal Republic. All in all Germany comprises sixteen states which are collectively referred to as “Bundesländer”. Each state has its own state constitution and is largely autonomous in its internal organisation. Because of differences in size and population the subdivisions of these states vary, especially as between city states (“Stadtstaaten”) and states with larger territories (“Flächenländer”). At a municipal level Germany is divided into districts (“Kreise”), consisting of rural districts (301 in 2009) and urban districts (102 in 2009). Arranged by their area, the three largest states are Bavaria, Lower Saxony and Baden-Württemberg.

16 Source: Statistik Austria (2014): Bundesländer. http://www.statistik.at/web_de/ klassifikationen/regionale_gliederungen/bundeslaender [06.08.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Referring to its agglomerations, Germany has thirteen cities with a total population of more than 500.000 and almost 80 cities with more than 100.000 citizens. Table 8 shows the ten biggest cities of Germany in terms of population, being Berlin (the capital of the Republic) the biggest one.

Table 8. The ten most populated German cities17 (2014)

City Population Berlin 3,400,000 Hamburg 1,700,000 Munich 1,400,000 Cologne 1,000,000 Frankfurt 700,000 Essen 588,800 Dortmund 587,600 Stuttgart 81,100 Düsseldorf 568,900 Bremen 527,900

It is noteworthy that most of the larger cities are located at the edge of the country, especially in the west and southwest where many of the agglomerations are along the Rhine.

SPAIN Spain is a parliamentary monarchy since 1978. The State is territorially organized into three levels of government: central, the regional tier or 17 Comunidades Autónomas (Autonomous Communities, plus two Autonomous Cities, Ceuta and Melilla, with fewer powers than the AC) and the local tier (formed by 50 provinces and 8113 municipalities).

The distribution of 45 million Spaniards is not equal in the territory. There exist densely populated urban areas on the coast and in Madrid in contrast with a pattern of lower density development in the central zones of the country. Indeed, there are thirteen cities with more than 300,000 inhabitants, whereas more than 85% of the municipalities have less than 5,000 inhabitants (data from 2013). Table 9 shows the ten most populated cities in Spain:

17 Source: Wikipedia: Deutschland. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland [07.07.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Table 9. The ten most populated Spanish cities18 (2013)

City Population Madrid 3,207,247 Barcelona 1,611,822

Valencia 792,303

Sevilla 700,169

Zaragoza 682,004

Málaga 568,479

Murcia 438,246

Palma Mallorca 398,162

Las Palmas 383,050

Bilbao 349,356

The two main cities in Spain are Madrid (the capital) and Barcelona. As per the numbers in the table, there is an important difference between the first two and the rest of the cities shown.

UNITED KINGDOM The "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" known and referred to as the UK encompasses England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Although the United Kingdom, as a sovereign state, is a country, England, Scotland, Wales, and to a lesser degree, Northern Ireland, are also regarded as countries, though they are not sovereign states.

The UK is divided into thirteen main regions including; Channel Islands, East Anglia (Eastern England), East Midlands, London, Northern Ireland, North East, North West, Scotland, South East, South West, Wales, West Midlands, Yorkshire & Humberside and the Republic of Ireland. According to the Office

18 Source: own elaboration with data from INE (Statistics National Institute). http://www.ine.es [06.06.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT for National Statistics’ analysis (201219) local authorities (or equivalents) with the largest percentage population increases, over the period 2001 to 2011, are particularly concentrated in London, the South East, East Midlands, East England and Northern Ireland. The Office for National Statistics UK describes in its report (2013a20) urban areas as built-up areas. Across England and Wales there are 5,493 built-up areas and these vary widely in terms of population with the smallest areas having a population of just over 100, and the largest (Greater London) having a population of over 9.7 million. In England and Wales there are four major built-up areas (Office for National Statistics UK, 2013a: 4). These are: • Greater London built up area (BUA) – 9,787,400 usual residents • Greater Manchester – 2,553,400 usual residents • West Midlands – 2,441,000 usual residents • West Yorkshire – 1,777,900 usual residents There are seven large built-up areas, which are Bristol, Leicester, Liverpool, Nottingham, Sheffield, South Hampshire and Tyneside. Their populations range from Bristol as the smallest (508,900 usual residents) to Liverpool (864,100 usual residents for the BUA) (Office for National Statistics UK, 2013a: 4). Within medium areas Brighton and Hove, Bournemouth/Poole and Cardiff are the largest with over 400,000 usual residents. The majority of the medium areas (35 areas) had a population of fewer than 200,000 usual residents. Worcester has the smallest population in this group with 101,700 usual residents (Office for National Statistics UK, 2013a: 4). It is important to note that built-up areas cover a larger space than regional entities. This means, for example, Greater London BUA population is larger than Greater London regional entity. Table 10 offers a more detailed breakdown of the most populous cities in England and Wales (with regards to regional entities).

Table 10. The ten most populated cities21 (2011)

City Population Greater London 8,173,941 (regional entity) Greater Manchester 2,682,528 Birmingham 1,073,045 Leeds 751,485 Sheffield 552,698

19 Source: Office for National Statistics (2012). 2011 Census: Population Estimates for the United Kingdom, 27 March 2011. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_292378.pdf [29.08.2014].

20 Source: Office for National Statistics (2013a). Characteristics of Built-Up Areas. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_316219.pdf [29.08.2014]. 21 Office for National Statistics (2013b, January 30). Table QS102EW - 2011 Census: Population density, local authorities in England and Wales. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-and-quick-statistics-for-wards-and-output- areas-in-england-and-wales/rft-qs102ew.xls [01.09.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Bradford 522,452 Liverpool 466,415 Kirklees 422,458 Croydon 363,378 Cardiff 346,090

1.2 Structure of public transport facilities

As mentioned in the previous section, each of the countries participating in Graffolution has a different profile in terms of territorial organization. Under this heading we will provide information about the institutional configuration and competency distribution among different levels of government regarding public transport facilities. Despite the differences among the countries in the sample, a common trait is that public transportation is leaded to a greater or lesser extent by public and private organisms. The best way to approach these differences is to present them separately.

Austrian public transport facilities The public transport in Austria is legally based on the Öffentlichen Personennah- und Regionalverkehrsgesetz 1999 (ÖPNRV-G) (own translation: Public near-transport and regional transport law 1999). This law builds the organisational and financial basis for the whole public transport in Austria. It was negotiated with the Austrian states, municipalities and transport organisations and came into force in January 2000. Besides others the law regulates the transport planning, transport fees and quality aspects (e.g. support for handicapped persons)22.

In 2013 47 railway companies existed in Austria at both national and regional levels. However, a part of them are only operating in the area of cargo transport or infrastructure. The most influential company regarding public transport on a national level is the ÖBB (Austrian Federal Railways)23. The ÖBB is owned by the Republic of Austria and divided into several businesses such as passenger transport, freight service, infrastructure among other sections. Also highly relevant for the national public transport is the ÖBB Post Bus AG (a sub-company of the ÖBB)24.

On a national scale the ÖBB is most important as they are by far the biggest public transport services. On a regional level there are besides the ÖBB also further operators owned by the municipalities and or in combination with privately held organisations (e.g. Salzburger AG)25. There are also some

22 Source: Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie (2013): Nahverkehr. Recht. http://www.bmvit.gv.at/verkehr/nahverkehr/recht/index.html [08.09.2014]. 23 Source: Schienen Control (2013): Jahresbericht. IhrRechtam Zug. Schienen-Control. http://www.schienencontrol.gv.at/files/jb2013_schienen-control_final.pdf [06.08.2014]. 24 Source: ÖBB-PostBusGmBH (2014): Das Unternehmen ÖBB-Postbus GmbH. http://www.postbus.at/de/Services/Unternehmen/index.jsp [08.08.2014]. 25 Source: Salzburg AG (2014): Beteiligungen und Töchhter. http://www.salzburg-ag.at/unternehmen/beteiligungen-toechter/ [08.09.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT privately owned railway organisations, having a market share of 12,2% of the total26. For example since 2011 the Westbahn (a sub-company of the Rail Holding AG) operates between Vienna and Salzburg and has a staff of 200 persons27. In addition to the train services there are particular public transport associations in every state.

Figure 1: Overview of train and underground system in Vienna and surroundings28

The public transport service of Vienna (Wiener Linien) holds the most complex transport system in Austria. This includes 78.5 kilometres subway, 172 kilometres tramway (sixth biggest in the world) and bus lines with a total length of 700 kilometres. In 2013 the Wiener Linien had over 900 million

26 Source: Schienen Control (2013): Jahresbericht. IhrRechtam Zug. Schienen-Control. http://www.schienencontrol.gv.at/files/jb2013_schienen-control_final.pdf [06.08.2014]. 27 Source: Westbahn (2014): Über die Westbahn. https://westbahn.at/unternehmen/ueber-westbahn/ [08.08.2014]. 28 Source: By Horst Prillinger. License: Creative Commons 3.0 Österreich. http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.prillinger/metro/m/largemap-s.html [29.08.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT passengers – 2.5 million rides every day. The public transport in Vienna is the most preferred means of transport (39%) in comparison to other options (car: 28%, bicycle 6%, foot walk 27%)29.

The interplay of public transport systems for Vienna is very complex as it combines bus lines, subway, tramways, trains which are partially also supported by private companies (e.g. privately owned bus companies). The graphic above indicates for instance just the subway and railway network as well as special lines as the city airport train for Vienna and the surrounding areas. The diagram below shows the number of passengers transported with buses, tramways and subway since 2002.

Figure 2: Number of passengers transported with buses, tramways and subway (in millions) 30

German public transport facilities As the public transport system in Germany is characterised by a large variety and complexity, the important criteria here is to distinguish among passengers and freight transportation (that might be of lower interest for the Graffolution project).

Furthermore the passenger service is divided into short-distance public transport (“Öffentlicher Personennahverkehr – ÖPNV”) – which is defined by law as urban, suburban and regional transport with a general reach of not more than 50 kilometres or a travel time of no longer than one hour – and long-distance traffic which includes all kinds of transport that exceed the previous definition.

29 Source: Wiener Linien (2014): Unternehmensprofil. http://www.wienerlinien.at/eportal2/ ep/channelView.do/pageTypeId/66528/channelId/-47395 [07.08.2014]. 30 Source: Wien.gv.at (2014): Öffentlicher Verkehr – Statistiken. https://www.wien.gv.at/statistik/verkehr-wohnen/oeffentlich/ [08.09.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

According to that definition railway or bus services can be classified either as long- or as short- distance public transport like trams or subways, depending on the routes they serve. Therefore the ÖPNV is a central element to guarantee the mobility of the major part of the general public.

According to that, in all cases being them long or short distance, there are two major actors in the field of public transport in Germany. On the one hand the repository (the state or the municipality) and on the other hand the transportation company. This is aggravated by the fact that “the German transportation companies are characterized by a very heterogeneous structure as there are municipal companies, subsidiaries of the Deutsche Bahn (DB) and a large number of private companies from the “global player” to the small family business”31.

Furthermore, in the most states, the short-distance public transport is organized in linked transport systems and integrated fares. This has the advantage that all public transports of the same system can be used with the same ticket. A negative aspect is that almost every region has its own prices and regulations. Consequently, the short-distance public transport system in Germany suffers from a high level of complexity that is shown in Figure 3, which gives an overview of the large variety of linked transport systems in Germany.

Figure 3: Linked transport systems in Germany32 in 200333

31 Eichmann, Volker: “Nahverkehrsplanung unter neuen Rahmenbedingungen. Erfahrungen aus demTellus- Projekt“, DeutschesInstitutfürUrbanistik, Berlin, p.2. 32 The grey regions are operated by only one single linked transport system (corresponding to the number). The white regions are operated by two or more linked transport systems. 33 Source: Breidbach, 2005. https://kobra.bibliothek.uni-kassel.de/bitstream/urn:nbn:de:hebis:34- 200602226976/1/Ver%C3%B6ffentlichung_Diss_Breidbach.pdf [03.07.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

As already mentioned before, long-distance transport service is defined in the way that it exceeds the regulations for short-distance services. Further regulations do not exist but it can basically be divided into railway and bus services.

In both fields the German railway company Deutsche Bahn (DB) plays a central role. The Deutsche Bahn basically is a stock corporation but in full possession of the Federal Republic of Germany and therefore a public corporation under private law. It has more than 1.000 subsidiaries and more than 300.000 employees in 130 countries – 196.000 of them work in Germany34. Accompanied with the transformation of the Deutsche Bahn into a – at least formally – corporation under private law in 1994, it has also been enacted that the DB has to give other transport companies access to its railway system. This should enable other transport companies to establish a railroad sector and thereby create more competition in the market. Nevertheless, in 2012 – 18 years after the reformation – the Deutsche Bahn still had 99% market share and de facto the absolute monopoly.

The reasons why it is so hard for other companies to enter the market of long-distance transport services are once the high amount of investment that is necessary to buy a transport fleet. Second, in opposite to short-distance transport the national government does not provide any financial help what increases the financial risk dramatically. And last but not least the DB still owns the train stations, the railroad system and the power supplies. According to that, there is always the risk that the Deutsche Bahn could prefer its own subsidiary instead of the competitor35.

In 2011 the German government adopted an amendment that should liberate and fundamentally reform the long-distance transport market as it gave the right to any company to establish a long- distance bus service on any route they wanted. Since the amendment became effective in 2013, the market for long-distance bus services is developing consequently. According to the federal association of German bus companies, “it has to be calculated that 50-100 medium-sized bus companies are planning to enter into the new market. The bus fares are expected to be about 30% cheaper than the train fares”36.

In order to protect the short-distance transport – that is given financial support by the states – from the new established bus routes, long-distance bus services are only allowed to provide routes with a distance of more than 50 kilometres or a travel time of more than one hour between the stops. As this limitation clearly relies on the definition of the ÖPNV, the intention of the government comes out to liberate the long-distance transport market on the one hand but on the other hand also to secure its segregation from short-distance transport37.

34 Source: Deutsche Bahn (2014): “Kennzahlen 2013“. http://www.deutschebahn.com/de/konzern/konzernprofil/zahlen_fakten/kennzahlen2013.html [03.07.2014]. 35 Source: Bund, K. (2012): “Das letzte Monopol“, Zeit Online. http://www.zeit.de/2012/11/Bahn-Fernverkehr [03.07.2014]. 36 As above. 37 Source: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (2012): “Linienbusse dürfen künftig auch im Fernverkehr fahren“. http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/liberalisierung-linienbusse-duerfen-kuenftig-auch-im-fernverkehr- fahren-11890187.html [03.07.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Spanish public transport facilities: The Spanish political decentralization process of the 1980s involved many areas of responsibility, including public transport. The distribution of responsibilities for public transport between the State and the Autonomous Communities is articulated in the Spanish Constitution. On the one hand, it grants the state exclusive jurisdiction over railways through the territory of more than one region. On the other hand, the Constitution determines that the Autonomous Communities may assume responsibility for railways and public transport which lie exclusively in the territory of the Autonomous Community. In practice, we find national and regional corporations regulating public transport, which is operated by both public and private companies. At the national level, RENFE (Spanish Network of Railway) is the state-owned passenger and freight rail transport operator overseen by the Ministry of Development (Fomento). RENFE operates freight and passenger trains of the Spanish national railway infrastructure company ADIF, another state- owned company under the responsibility of the Ministry of Public Works and Transport. ADIF is charged with the management of most of Spain’s railway infrastructure (tracks, signs and stations). Before 2005, both companies were united; the European Union requirement to separate the natural monopoly of infrastructure management from the competitive operations of running train services forced the separation into two companies. RENFE manages suburban trains, long-distance trains and high-speed trains.

At the regional level, we find different agencies in each Autonomous Community depending on the structure of urban agglomerations. In some cases there are specific metropolitan and regional agencies of transport (such is the case for Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Bilbao, and Seville) which provide the services, coordinate the different operators and set the prices. These agencies cooperate with the representatives of the Spanish State in relation to the national railway network and infrastructures (Tomàs, 2011).

So as to get a better portrait we focus on the two main urban agglomerations: Madrid and Barcelona. In Madrid, the public body responsible for the coordination of public transport is the Regional Consortium of Public Transport of Madrid, created in 1986. The consortium gathers representatives from the state, the regional government, the municipalities, public and private companies of transport (trains, tramways, buses and subway). The Consortium is responsible for the public transport of the whole Autonomous Community of Madrid. This consortium involves two companies of underground, three bus companies covering different ranges and track concessions. Each of these agents runs their own fare and tickets system. The following figure shows the different actors involved in the public transportation system of Madrid:

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Figure 4: Relationships between different actors of Madrid's public transport system38 In Barcelona, the Metropolitan Transport Authority (MTA) is a consortium created by the Catalan government in 1997 to assemble the existing metropolitan and municipal bodies of public transport services in the urban agglomeration. This comprises the Metropolitan Region of Barcelona extended to the limits of the local rail services and other surrounding counties, including 253 municipalities and serving 5.5 million of total 7.5 million Catalan inhabitants. The Administrative bodies making up the consortium are the Generalitat (Government) of Catalonia (51%) and local administrations (49%), comprised of the Barcelona City Council, the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona (MAB) and the Association of Municipalities with Urban transport services of the Barcelona Metropolitan Area (AMTU). There is also the presence of representatives of the Central State Government (with no vote) and non-profit associations (as observers). The MTA has also other functions related with mobility such as the preparation and evaluation of plans for mobility, the elaboration of reports regarding urban mobility plans, service plans and studies for the evaluation of general mobility, and the promotion of the culture of sustainable mobility among the public, among others.

Since January 1st 2010, as a result of the agreement between the State and the Generalitat, RENFE suburban services in the Catalan territory are managed directly by the regional government. The management of the national network was added to the existing Catalan network of trains (Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat de Catalunya, FGC). FGC manage two metropolitan lines, one rural line, and some buses, cable cars and aerial railways. The network of metro of Barcelona and the neighbouring municipalities is managed by another public company: TMB (Metropolitan Transports of Barcelona).

At all levels, each of these companies has to take care and make its own decisions and actions to tackle graffiti in their facilities and carriages. Unlike Madrid, the consortium of Barcelona has an

38 Source: Comunidad Transportes de Madrid. http://www.ctm-madrid.es/servlet/CambiarIdioma?xh_TIPO=1 [26.06.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT integrated fare system and a single card serves for almost any mean chosen. It results in a much more friendly system for the users.

UK public transport facilities The UK transport system has, since the 1990’s, been made up not exclusively of public bodies but composed of an extensive collection of public-private partnerships. The Department for Transport (DfT) is the UK Government ministerial department working with transport relevant actors to support the UK transport network. DfT is supported by 21 agencies and public bodies. Following privatisation in the 1990’s UK towns, cities and regions have each hosted their own train and bus service operators, plus a small handful of UK cities offer either metro or tram services. The rail network infrastructure is now managed and owned by Network Rail (previously Railtrack).

National Rail is the collaborative body now representing all Britain’s passenger train companies. The National Rail network consists of 10,072 miles (16,209 km) in Great Britain as well as 189 route miles (303 route km) in Northern Ireland. This network carries over 18,000 passenger trains and 1,000 freight trains daily. Since 1994, the rail network of Great Britain has been connected to mainland Europe via the Channel Tunnel.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Figure 5: National Rail Network39

Historically, all the UK networks were run by British Rail (BR) but between 1994 and 1997, the whole UK system has been privatised. From 1948 to 1997 British Rail operated most of Britain’s trains and became an independent statutory corporation in 1962 (the British Railways Board), following the

39 Source: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/css/OfficialNationalRailmaplarge.pdf. [02.09. 2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT nationalisation of the previous "Big Four" UK railway companies – LNER, LMS, GWR and SR – and subsequently oversaw the transformation of the UK rail network until its privatisation in the 1990s. In 1982, British Rail passenger services were split into three core sectors: InterCity, Network South East and Regional Railways. Then, between 1994 and 1997, British Rail was privatised, as track and infrastructure passed to Railtrack in 1994 (now Network Rail) and, later, passenger services were franchised in 25 blocks to private-sector operators. Freight services were sold outright. Overall, ownership and operation of the network became highly fragmented, as operations were split between more than 100 companies40. Today, there are twenty nine train operators (TOCs) of franchised and a small handful of ‘open access’ passenger rail services in the United Kingdom. The operators running franchised services are indicated in Table 1141.

Table 11. Train operators on franchised rail networks in UK (+ precedent sectors from British Rail)

Key urban commuter rail networks are focused on the following UK cities, also represented in Figure 6:

40 Source: http://www.rail.co.uk/british-railway-history/british-rail/ [02.09.2014] 41 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_operating_trains_in_the_United_Kingdom [02.09.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

● Belfast - Belfast Suburban Rail ● Birmingham - London Midland City ● Bristol - Greater Bristol Metro and First Great Western ● Cardiff - Valley Lines ● Edinburgh - First ScotRail ● Glasgow - First ScotRail ● Leeds -MetroTrain ● Liverpool -Merseyrail ● London - London Underground and London Overground (with Crossrail under construction) ● Manchester - Northern Rail and First TransPennine Express

Figure 6: Urban Rail in the UK42

42 Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Urban_rail_in_the_UK.jpg [02.09.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Each of these network hubs consist of several railway lines connecting city centre stations of major cities to suburbs and surrounding towns. Train services and ticketing are fully integrated with the national rail network and are not considered separate.

Local bus services cover the whole country. Since the deregulation the majority (80% by the late 1990s) of these local bus companies has been taken over by one of the "Big Five" private transport companies: Arriva (part of Deutsche Bahn AG), First Group, Go-Ahead Group, National Express Group (owners of National Express) and Stagecoach Group. In Northern Ireland coach, bus (and rail) services remain state-owned and are provided by Translink.

Transport for London (TfL) is responsible for the day-to-day to operation of the UK Capital's public transport network, managing London's main roads and planning and building new infrastructure. They manage London's buses, the Tube network, Docklands Light Railway, Overground and Tramlink. They also run Barclays Cycle Hire, London River Services, Victoria Coach Station, the Emirates Air Line and London Transport Museum. TfL report that approximately 24 million passenger journeys per day are made across the city’s transport network. They also control 580 km of main roads and regulate the city’s taxis and congestion charge scheme. TfL used to be known as London Transport when they were a public entity but now they are a public-private partnership, principally funded by several sources.

1.3 History & Evolution of Graffiti

The origins of graffiti are rooted in Pompeii (Italy43) and have existed in varied forms all along history44, but graffiti as understood in this project began in New York City (Castleman, 1984). There was a subculture where Graffiti was born, due to the inequalities that minorities were living in that moment and their needs for protest45. Graffiti was not only the act of painting a subway, it belonged to the Hip Hop movement. This includes three elements: painting (graffiti, tags, and walls), dancing (popping, locking, top rocks, down rocks, power moves, freezes…) and music (rap, mc´s, dj´s, etc.). It was one of the means of expression for those social sectors as explained by this fragment of the documentary Style Wars: “Rapping and breaking became the prime expressions of a new young people's subculture called ''hip-hop.'' Graffiti is the written word. There is the spoken word of rap music... (rap music playing) and then there's the acrobatic body language of dances like ''breaking”. (Style Wars, 1983)

43 Source: Ancient roots of graffiti in Pompeii http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/13/from-ancient-graffiti-to-modern-street-art-roman-walls-tell-the- story-of-the-city/ [24.07.2014]. 44 Source: “Misteries of medieval graffiti in England’s Churches”, BBC News England. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-28035013 [19.07.2014]. 45 Source: “Great Art? The Graffiti of New York Subway”, BBC News Magazine. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28638691 [08.08.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Among those countries surveyed in Graffolution, the origin for all was the act of tagging as illustrates this English graffiti writer: “The original form of graffiti was obviously tagging, where people put their names on the walls to get recognition, to have a voice. It was an important movement, but now has sprung into street art and has evolved very rapidly into many forms of evolved art” (GUK4).

As graffiti was born in New York subways, the spreading channel was mass media more than direct contact, particularly in those countries not belonging to the AngloSaxon culture. Movies and documentaries such as “Style Wars (1983)”, but also “Wildstyle” (1983), and “Beatstreet” (1984)46 where the main source of contact with graffiti writers overseas. A significant fact is their presence in mainstream mass media in all four countries, which can be considered the first milestone.

The UK was the first country to adopt this form of social protest in the late 70s, followed by Austria and Germany, while in Spain it started in the early 80s. What is clear for all of them is that after starting it has registered an important increase that lasts until today (maybe with the exception of Germany which registered a low decrease after the Breakdance hype). In the following paragraphs is drawn a short history for each country about the origins of graffiti.

Austria has a special case of a pioneer tagger named Kiselak that lived in between the XVIIIth and XIXth centuries (1799-1831) and spread his name tagged all over the country. He was a magistrate, mountaineer and travel writer and got well known for painting or scratching his name onto important places and objects during his travels. There are still some places (e.g. in Lower Austria) where his tags can be found. Besides political graffiti that happened at all times (e.g. 1938 after the invasion of German troops in Austria) there are documents from decorative graffiti from 1976 as people protested against the demolition of an old avant-garde theatre. Regarding the graffiti researcher Norbert Siegel the first graffiti activist in Vienna was called BADY MINCK at this time. In the early 90s the decay of the Yugoslav nation was strongly reflected on walls in form of graffiti. Typical symbols (e.g. the Serbian cross) can still be found on walls in Vienna (Siegel, 2013). One of the first known taggers of the presence was “STYLE” who was probably also member of one of the first writer crews (called ÖBB) in 1991. Some of the old STYLE graffiti survived for more than 15 years (Institut für Graffitiforschung, 2004).

In Germany a first appearance of graffiti can be located in the 1970s, especially in Western-Berlin. At this time Western-Berlin was a centre for alternative and socio-critical people who lived in the large number of empty houses that characterised the cityscape. Thereby, the front of the occupied buildings often had been sprayed with political slogans. According to that, this sort of graffiti can't be compared with the first graffiti in New York where the prevalence of the own name should create some kind of individuality and provide fame for the writer, whereas these first German graffiti functioned as a political statement to underline the segregation of the squatters from the society they criticized.

46 It is based on Style Wars of the previous year.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Maybe the most outstanding and therefore most famous place for graffiti was the Berlin Wall. Starting with modest beginnings in the 1970s, the popularity of the location became very high from 1983 to 1986 until in 1987 there was no more free space left. Thereby the intentions to use the Wall as a place for graffiti were very different and reached from political statements regarding the division of Berlin to more pragmatic reasons as the wall provided plenty of space for paintings and the chance to immortalise oneself on such a special part of history. One circumstance that encouraged this development was that the Berlin Wall had been erected on the territory of former East Germany so that West German executives showed only little interest of what happened to the Wall. This went so far that artists from all over the world were invited to design the Berlin Wall – including a media conference after they had finished their work. The first appearance of graffiti in the style of the “New York Subway Graffiti” in Germany can be located in the years 1983/84. Furthermore the upcoming popularity of Breakdance also supported the widespread of graffiti - and thereby especially writings – as they were a permanent part of the video clips broadcasted on TV.

In Spain, due to the existence of a dictatorship from 1939 to 1975, the phenomenon of graffiti arrived in the mid-1980s, later than in the rest of Europe. According to Berti (2009), the pioneers of graffiti are to be found between 1984 and the beginning of the 1990s. In this initial period, mainly young people discovered the existence of graffiti through films, music and books linked to the Hip- hop movement. At this moment, graffiti is a complement of these activities; it is not until the beginning of the 1990s that graffiti becomes autonomous (Reyes, 2012). Breakers groups and then graffiti writers proliferated in the late 1980s mainly in the “Golden Triangle”, formed by the cities of Madrid, Barcelona and Alicante (Berti, 2009). In the case of the two main Spanish cities, different groups of young people started experimenting with graffiti, creating some crews (Flecheros in Madrid; Trepax in Barcelona), much influenced by the US and French trends. Differently, in Alicante, a middle-sized touristic city, the discovery of graffiti came, for the locals, thanks to the foreign graffiti writers. Rapidly Alicante became the vanguard of graffiti in Spain and graffiti writers exchanged experiences and knowledge among the main cities. In this first period, public television played an important role: the only public TV channel introduced the transmission of films, shows and documentaries related to Hip-Hop and break-dance movements (Reyes, 2002). They became a cultural model for youngest Spaniards, seeking new fresh air after the long dictatorship, censure and repression. At the institutional level, some art exhibitions started introducing some graffiti pieces (like ARCO-1985 in Madrid), but they were slightly accepted. To sum up, the beginnings of the graffiti were limited to a small number of people.

In the UK graffiti came in the late 70s. Bucky Turco and Aymann Ismali, writing for the online magazine Animal New York, explain that graffiti in the UK appeared within a few years after it started in New York and describe: “...it was FUTURA who did the first stylized piece in Europe, specifically under an elevated roadway in London [UK] called the Westway while on tour with the Clash. The band commissioned him to paint backdrops live on stage while they played. The year was 1981” (Turco and Ismali, 201347). Guardian journalist, Bob Stanley (2012), reports that one of the UK first ‘graffiti artists’ was Walter Kershaw, who was painting whole-building mural style pieces in the

47 Source: Animal New York. http://animalnewyork.com/2013/meet-inkie-uk-graffiti-king/ [02.09.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

1970’s. Nancy Macdonald (2002) describes that London graffiti writers were particularly active on the underground system in the late 80s.

A common feature is that tagging in more or less elaborated ways was the starting point. The political contents of early graffiti are also noteworthy. A distinctive pattern followed in the UK on the order of things: while for Spain, Austria and Germany graffiti came along with the culture of Hip hop and breakdance, in the UK first came graffiti as a stand-alone and afterwards the rest.

Another characteristic of this first phase is the impact of graffiti on public spaces and transport. In Germany, in 1984 the first city train got sprayed in Munich and one year later, the first “whole train” had been sprayed. At the same time, the first writer-crew with two female members called “The United Force (TUF)” formed up in Dortmund. In 1989 spraying city trains got very popular and after a while there were hardly any trains left without graffiti. According to that, for example writers from Dortmund had to drive to other cities in order to find trains which hadn´t been sprayed yet. And as the writers already had their first experiences with the police, they became more and more careful. For example the crew “Club Of Rome” sprayed plenty of “whole cars” in 1987-1988, but never got caught by the police and their identities are still unknown – even in the writing-scene. The process was similar in the UK. Nancy Macdonald (2002) quotes graffiti writer Prime who explains: “Early ‘87, the underground system nearly got completely taken over” (Macdonald, 2002: 109). The author further describes that by the 1990s, the transport authorities and police had little control over graffiti activities in the UK. As Prime explains the graffiti writers were “giving it to them” (Macdonald, 2002: 110) and talks of the supremacy of the writers, particularly over the rail authorities, during this period.

In Spain, graffiti in trains, metros and public spaces started spreading over the country later, during the 90s. As a result, public authorities increased their strategies of prevention of graffiti by more controls and surveillance techniques as well as more restrictive ordinances (see for instance the Barcelona’s civic ordinance of 2005 in 4.1.). In the Austrian case, there were several convictions of young illegal writers in the 80s. In the capital, the so called Graffiti Union reached later an agreement with the mayor of the city to allow graffiti in specific places (SWCA1). Indeed, Vienna started compared to other cities early to provide free walls for legal graffiti.

Despite the variety of forms and paces of development, what is clear is that in the mid 80s there was a consolidated graffiti culture in Europe and the factory of mass media was increasing. Only Spain took some more years. In that initial period, travelling was expensive and so, visibility and learning came through books and magazines. Another way of distribution were the large number of graffiti magazines that came up in that time, e.g. “Style Wars Magazine”, “Aerosol” and the “Backspin Magazine”. Also books with pictures from all over the country and reports about the beginnings of the Hip-Hop and graffiti movement in New York were published. These books and magazines functioned as a source of inspiration and motivation and provided a measure of continuity inside the scene. Rap music videos showing graffiti were a major influence on young people during the 80s (Matzinger, 2007: 164), as this Austrian writer notes:

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

“.. in the end of the 80s I started to get interested to rap music and in the rap videos in the background were basketball yards with graffiti and I thought hey, that is everywhere […] and I saw graffiti and it communicated with me, the art.” (GA2)

In the end of the 1980s, the different graffiti-scenes from the different cities came into contact and started to swap ideas and to visit each other. Also Hip-Hop jams and parties provided good possibilities for rappers, break dancers, DJs and writers to meet each other. Slowly but steadily a nationwide scene formed out that now could also be seen as a subculture. From that time on, German writers travelled the whole country and also abroad – especially to France – to stay in contact with each other and to leave their marks. In the case of Barcelona, the celebration of the Olympic Games in 1992 transformed the city in a famous touristic destination and more open to international exchanges and experiences between graffiti writers.

First graffiti writers were pioneers and had to deal with unspecialised materials. It was very complicated for graffiti writers to get specialised spray paint for graffiti: they had to do their best with the materials at hand and paintings were done in a very artisanal way. At the end of the 80s more people demanded paint especially for doing graffiti. Most stores weren’t able or willing to provide this kind of spray paint. While initially colours were bought by particular people to resell them to the graffiti community with the time stores were founded to sell special graffiti paint. For instance, in Austria a representative from a company states: “Then we got 120 spray cans that were sold out in five hours […] Within three days I had one hundred new customers that kneed in front of me to get the spray cans so that they are also able to paint nicely” (EA1).

Over the years more and more specialised graffiti paint colours and types were available which allowed a variety of styles, forms and also reaching areas that are usually out of scope. An important milestone is 1994, when the first Spanish specialized shop and factory on graffiti sprays, Montana Colors, opened in Barcelona. The founder - who is a chemist, affirms that he “saw the opportunity to create specific supplies for graffiti writers, while creating a cheaper, safer and more ecological line of products” (EE3). This enterprise is nowadays one of the leaders in the sector at an international level. A new market niche was born with this activity.

There is a turning point in the evolution of graffiti in the 1990s. First, parallel to the massive commercialization of Hip-Hop, graffiti became established. In the UK, Graffolution interviewees indicate a breaking point in the 1990s especially with Banksy through popularisation and commercialisation of graffiti (PLEUK1, SWCUK3). In parallel some authors identify that particularly during the 1990s multiple forms of hip hop culture, including music, fashion, graffiti and more, started to become co-opted into more mainstream UK popular cultures and began to appear within advertising and commercial outputs as well as increasing adoption by different youth cultures (Willis, 2006; Turco and Ismali, 2013). This followed activities also emerging from the USA in the late 1980s, which, as Paul Willis (2006: 100) argues, reflected a novel stage in capitalism with ‘new forms of accumulation based on a kind of symbolic anti-capitalism, taking its cues from the streets, stealing semiotically from already economically dispossessed and deprived communities’.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Second, there is a change in conception of graffiti, passing from permission to considering graffiti a problem. At the beginning it was seen as a young protest form: arrestings in the early 90s began in Spain and Austria, where the graffiti phenomenon started to be considered as a problem affecting society in a large sense. In Austria, for instance, in 199448 the police arrested several writers and presented the media the confiscated spray cans. The police started a zero-tolerance strategy against graffiti writers. In Germany, this phenomenon started earlier. In the end of the 1980s the German railway company “Deutsche Bahn” enhanced special units in the bigger cities to tackle and prosecute graffiti writers. But as playing robbers and cops is at least one part of the motivation for writers, the Deutsche Bahn was not able to prevent them from spraying trains until today.

From 2000 onwards, we assist to the raising of street art in all the countries. There is a progressive integration of graffiti in the art market, with several expositions and galleries showing street art in the main cities. For instance, in the UK, two of the national Museums hosted graffiti street art exhibitions; in 2008 Street Art Exhibition at the Tate Modern in London and in 2009 with the Banksy exhibition in Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery. When questioned on changes in the London Borough of Hackney over the past decade, interviewee AUK2 insisted there is now more street art and less graffiti vandalism. The interviewee attributes this to both stricter enforcement and more openness to activities that fit into the cultural (pro-social) offers: “I would say there’s less graffiti and more street art ... but even now you’ve still got a sort of socially and economically a very mixed population in Hackney … Half the borough is still in social housing. So, it’s not as though the whole place is gentrified and therefore, we’ve got street art instead of graffiti. I think it’s probably the case that councils like Hackney have clamped down very hard on graffiti and made it very difficult… I think there was a time when what happened on the streets wasn’t seen as being as important as it is now. And for somewhere like Hackney, 10 or 12 years ago it struggled with protecting the environment, the street environment, for a number of reasons, which I won’t go into now. But now, it prides itself on the cleanliness of its street environment and whether that’s litter or whether that’s graffiti, it takes its street environment very, very seriously and I suppose we adopt a zero tolerance model in that if you allow a little bit then that encourages others and that’s not something we want to let happen ... But there’s much more of a tolerance and an understanding of where street art fits into the cultural offer of somewhere like Hackney” (AUK2).

To conclude, both sides of graffiti have become an established phenomenon that is not expected to disappear in the short term. Furthermore, all writers interviewed agree that it is something related to the very human nature – being it linked to the need for self-affirmation or to a form of expression and talking to the world. Particularly GE5 put it in this way “if you don’t want to have graffiti, kill those who are graffiti writers. But still, new graffiti writers will come. You can invent any prevention you want, but people will keep painting the walls”. As graffiti crimes are decreasing in the USA – and especially in New York where the modern graffiti has its origin – for Europe the opposite seems to be

48 Source: Bundesministerium für Inneres (2008): Sicherheitsbericht 2008. Kriminalität 2008.Vorbeugung, Aufklärung und Strafrechtspflege. http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/ XXIV/III/III_00099/imfname_173662.pdf [06.08.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT true, as a persistent and active scene has developed and graffiti is an ever-present phenomenon in the public sphere.

1.4 The magnitude of the phenomenon

The assessment of graffiti’s magnitude is difficult since data is hard to get. Indeed, there are no European statistics on graffiti that we can compare. For instance, when presenting the Quality of Life Indicators, Eurostat refers to perceptions of vandalism and crime, but not directly to graffiti49. Moreover, usually graffiti is considered among many other things as vandalism and petty crimes: data on graffiti is always in a sort of hotchpotch or mixture of minor crimes. The exception is Austria, where graffiti is listed as a category by itself. As a result, numbers are hard to compare as different kinds of facts or assumptions are included. Solely this may be quite informative, in terms of the conception of the problem.

For the analysis of the four countries, the existing data comes mainly from criminal statistics and public transport operators. It is important to distinguish between both sources in order to be able to analyze the extent of the phenomenon and be aware of the limitations of this analysis. The table below shows which sources are used for each country and which data is included:

Table 12. Data and sources in each country

Country Source Data gathered Austria Official statistics Complaints on graffiti reported to the police Germany Crime statistic of the Federal Criminal Police Criminal damage in streets, on Office “Polizeiliche Kriminalstatistik (PKS)” - paths and places (non addressing Annual Report graffiti particularly) Spain Transport operators annual reports (FGC & Number of offences and petty RENFE) crime UK Office for National Statistics, crime statistics Amount of ASB incidents annual report

In Austria, one of the most reliable sources to measure the extent of graffiti vandalism in the same way over the last years is the official statistic of complaints on graffiti reported to the police. In this case graffiti is not mixed up with other offences (e.g. vandalism) like in other countries. However, it has to be kept in mind that the official complaints of course only present a part of the illegal graffiti done in Austria. It can be assumed that a lot of illegal graffiti never get reported to the police (especially private victims).

In Germany, the annually published crime statistic of the Federal Criminal Police Office “Polizeiliche Kriminalstatistik (PKS)” is the best source to provide figures of crime. Before 2009, graffiti was not explicitly listed in the statistic but counted in the group “criminal damage” and thereby in the subgroup “criminal damage in streets, on paths and places”.

49 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Quality_of_life_indicators (25th may 2015).

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

In the case of Spain, the only data gathered mentioning graffiti come from public transportation authorities. We have some data coming from RENFE (Spanish Network of Railway) and FGC (Catalan Network of Railway), as well as some information coming from TV & media. In the UK, graffiti incidents are listed under the category of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and reported annually by the Office for National Statistics.

To sum up, the impact of graffiti is mainly built on perceptions of transport operators through mass media communications more than on reliable data (see section 2.3). As data gathered below by countries show, the low importance in terms of facts seems disproportionate in relation to the public speech of authorities (particularly those transport operators).

In Austria, the table below shows the graffiti complaints reported to the police over the last years (for 2013 there are no numbers available at this time). As the numbers seem to be constant over the last years there will probably be a raise for 2013 as there was a conviction of a writer who sprayed his tag countless all over Vienna. Because of the strong media presence of this case it is possible that more people reported to the police that they got also victims of the same suspect. There most probably were also other writers copying the tag. However, even the convicted offender wasn’t sure about every documented tag when he was questioned during the trial50.

Table 13. Graffiti vandalism complaints reported to the police

Year Frequency Frequency Cases solved AUSTRIA Vienna % (AUSTRIA)

2009 51 5 592 2 262 22.91 2010 52 4 739 2 009 25.45 2011 53 3 847 1 734 18.85 2012 54 3 976 2 003 21.00

Since 2009 graffiti crimes are listed in the PKS in an own subgroup. It comes out that in the last five years the number of incidents has been decreasing constantly from about 139.850 in 2009 to 97.900

50 Source: Möseneder, Michael (2014): 14 Monate teilbedingt für einen "Puber", in derstandard. http://derstandard.at/2000003514177/14-Monate-teilbedingt-fuer-einen-Puber [23.09.2014]. 51 Source: BundesministeriumfürInneres (2009): .Kriminalitätsbericht. Statistik und Analyse. http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXIV/III/III_00186/imfname_200623.pdf [08.08.2014]. 52 Source: BundesministeriumfürInneres (2010): .Kriminalitätsbericht. Statistik und Analyse. 2010. http://www.bmi.gv.at/cms/BMI_Service/sicherheitsber_2010/ Sicherheitsbericht_2010_Kriminalittsbericht_Statistik.pdf [08.08.2014]. 53 Source: BundesministeriumfürInneres (2011): .Kriminalitätsbericht. Statistik und Analyse. 2011. http://www.bmi.gv.at/cms/BMI_Service/SB_2011/ KRIMINALITAETSBERICHT_2011.pdf [08.08.2014]. 54 Source: BundesministeriumfürInneres (2012): .Kriminalitätsbericht. Statistik und Analyse. 2012. http://www.bmi.gv.at/cms/BMI_Service/SB_2012/ 2_KRIMINALITAETSBERICHT_2012.pdf [08.08.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT in 2013. This is a reduction of 30%55. Therefore it seems that after an enormous growth in the 90s and early years of the 2000s the magnitude of the phenomenon has passed its – at least first – peak and is now going back.

Before having data from the Bavarian PKS, graffiti crimes were not listed separately. Analysis showed up that they come to 53,5% in 2001 and 55,8% in 2002 of all “criminal damage in streets, on paths and places”. According to that, although this subgroup doesn´t give any detailed information about the number of graffiti incidents it can be seen as an indicator for the general development of graffiti vandalism – especially as no other figures were available (Höffler, 2008: 15). From 1993 until 2006 the number of graffiti incidents counted in the subgroup “criminal damage in streets, on paths and places” recorded a growth of 290,7%. Also with the just explained restrictions, the number is monumental and gives an impression about how the figure of graffiti vandalism might have developed during that period (Höffler, 2008: 17).

In Spain, RENFE reports show that graffiti is considered as a big problem for the company and that more measures need to be implemented. In the most recent reports available (2011 and 2012), some statistics appear (in percentage). The 2011 report states that graffiti in trains increased 2.23% and the antisocial behaviours (both trains and stations) rose by 14.48%, compared to the previous year (RENFE 2011: 62). The 2012 annual report shows also an increasing trend of graffiti (increase of 27.2% compared to the previous year) and antisocial behaviours (rise of 22.5%) (RENFE 2012: 71). The interviewee explained that in zone A there were 785 graffiti in one year (66% of them concentrated in Madrid), while in zone B there were 2423 graffiti, 84% made in Catalonia. That means that 2 out of 3 graffiti are painted in Catalonia. According to the Barcelona Television, metro and RENFE suburban trains are the most affected. In the case of metro, there are 600 intrusions per year, in contrast to 2800 graffiti acts in RENFE trains overall Catalonia (Barcelona Televisió, 2014).

In the case of the Catalan network of trains (FGC), the annual report does not directly identify the number of graffiti or actions related to the graffiti. In this case, the company has provided us with some information for the last 4 years (2010-2013). As shown in Figure 7, graffiti in stations (red scale) are between 6 and 8 times the number of graffiti in trains (blue scale). Although they claim that graffiti are increasing, the numbers for 2013 are similar to those in 2010 for trains and are 2/3 in stations.

55 Own calculation, abstracted from: Bundesministerium des Inneren (2010–2014): „PolizeilicheKriminalstatistik“, Berlin.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Figure 7: Graffiti incidents in FGC (2010-2013)56

On the other side, it has been particularly difficult to find sources on the positive impact of graffiti in terms of its influence on building social bonds or creating a sense of community. It has only been possible when speaking to graffiti writers who have contributed to some educational programmes with vulnerable social sectors or some organisations belonging to the civil society who actually use graffiti linked to other elements (such as the basic values of the hip hop culture, SWC1).

In the UK, crime statistics for England and Wales show that vandalism at a whole is dropping. From the data available it is not possible to distinguish graffiti incidents from other forms of vandalism, criminal damage and anti-social behaviour. Crime statistics report for England and Wales reveals that around 2.7 million incidents of anti-social behaviour (ASB) were recorded by the police in 2011/12 and graffiti incidents are listed under this category (Office for National Statistics, 2012: 5).

The ENCAMS Local Environmental Quality Survey of England reports give a reading for the nine English regions. These generalised reports show that graffiti is not a major problem. This result may be astonishing, but the survey proves that incidences are not widespread and are focused in only few hotspots, where the problem is intense. A number of sources presenting cultural or artistic agendas cite the UK as a global hub for graffiti alongside Germany, Australia, the USA and others (see for example Hundertmark, 2005). According the presentation of Tim Pascoe (2011) at a Graffiti Dialogues event the problems of graffiti vandalism is more pressing in the USA than in the UK. Indeed, the interviewee AUK2 argues that compared to various other European cities graffiti in London is a minor problem: “We don’t have the street graffiti culture that you get in places like Paris and Berlin and Barcelona. It’s just not part of the street culture here in the same way that it is in other European cities. So, I actually don’t think it’s a huge problem for London.” (AUK2)

A number of sources suggest that across different UK locations over the past decade there has been a tendency away from vandalistic graffiti, towards more and more diverse kinds of sanctioned and unsanctioned street art or creative urban practices (Lewisohn, 2009; Andron, 2013; Bofkin, 2013;

56 Source: FGC (internal documents).

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Kognitif, 2013). By contrast, contributors to Graffiti Dialogues Network workshops, Pascoe (2011) and Strutton (2013), insist that scratching, scrawling and tagging still make up to 90-98% of graffiti and only a small fraction represents ‘street art’ kinds of practice.

Costs reporting are much more common (often including cleaning, personnel, train damage). For example an Austrian railway organisation reports EUR 1.2 million costs every year because of graffiti. This not just includes the cleaning of wagons and stations but also personal costs, train drop outs or moving trains from one place to another for cleaning57. In contrast, the public transport service in Vienna (Wiener Linien) reported costs of 220.000 EUR for removing graffiti. This does not include train dropouts and personnel. 390 cases were documented in 2012, most of them on the subway, a smaller amount on walls, buses and tramways58.

Table 14. Reported number of damages and costs from public transport services

Year Number of Costs - Wiener Number of Costs - ÖBB damages - Wiener Linien damages - ÖBB Linien 200659 374 208.166 962 898.000

200860 389 182.100 1.183 920.000

201261 390 220.000 - 1.200.000

In Germany, depending on the financial damage caused by graffiti vandalism, there are no exact numbers available but only estimations. According to the “Deutsche Städtetag” – a free association of German cities in order to represent the interests of municipalities towards the federal government – the damage amounts to 250 million EUR in 2011. Half of the amount is allotted to public transport services, 30% to private property and 20% to public buildings (Czycholl, 2011). These numbers approve that public transport facilities are a preferred target for writers.

The Deutsche Bahn as – not the only but – the biggest transport service in Germany estimates the damage caused by graffiti at 6,6 million EUR in 2013 (7,6 million EUR in 2012). The total damage caused by vandalism (including e.g. slashed seats, scratched windows and graffiti) came up to 30 million EUR in 2013. In the same year 57% (or 15.500) of all vandalism incidents (27.000) reported by

57 Source: Schifko, H. (2014): Zwischen Kunst und Vandalismus: Street Art in Österreich. In: Profil Online. http://www.profil.at/articles/1418/983/374826/zwischen-kunst-vandalismus-street-art-oesterreich [07.08.2014]. 58 Source: Nussmayr, K. (2014): FarbeimBlut. Blogbeitrag.http://blog.nussmayr.at/graffiti/ [09.08.2014]. 59 Source: Bundesministerium für Inneres (2006): Sicherheitsbericht 2006. http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXIII/III/III_00114/imfname_100251.pdf [06.08.2014]. 60 Source: Bundesministerium für Inneres (2008): Sicherheitsbericht 2008. http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXIV/III/III_00099/imfname_173662.pdf [06.08.2014]. 61 Source: Schifko, H. (2014): ZwischenKunst und Vandalismus: Street Art in Österreich. In: Profil Online. http://www.profil.at/articles/1418/983/374826/zwischen-kunst-vandalismus-street-art-oesterreich [07.08.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT the Deutsche Bahn were graffiti delicts (Schumacher, 2013). Compared with the figures of the Polizeiliche Kriminalstatistik 2013, it comes up that 15,8% of all graffiti incidents reported to the police are caused to the facilities of the Deutsche Bahn.

In Spain, acts of graffiti represent a cost of 175,000 EUR annually for the FGC. Operators insist that it must be added the cost of the immobilization of a unit train for a day to remove the graffiti. In the case of RENFE, the annual cost for the company would be of 12M EUR; that means 32.000 EUR per day. News explain that, according to RENFE, in 2013 there were 41.366 square metres of graffiti in suburban trains (one wagon is equivalent to 80 m2), meaning a cost of 7.417.164 EUR.

In the UK, significant public funds are spent internationally for cleaning up graffiti via “zero tolerance” approaches. The UK Home Office estimated cost to fight criminal damage, which includes graffiti at £4.1 billion/year (2006). Within the UK Keep Britain Tidy (Gamman, 2010) calculates graffiti cleaning across the 433 local authorities in England at a cost of £32.5m/year. London alone spends 8.44 million EUR (£6.7 million) per year (Campbell, 2008). Accounts for TfL’s expenditure to combat graffiti vary. For example, they are reported in 2006 to have spent 7.68 million EUR (£6.1 million GBP) per year on tackling graffiti (Graffiti Dialogues Network, 2010), where as a Keep Britain Today report indicates that they spend an estimated 3.125 million EUR (£2.5m GBP) spend per year clearing up graffiti from trains except glass (Campbell, 2008). By contrast BTP report London Underground (run by TfL) incurs 12.5 million EUR (£10m GBP) per year cleaning graffiti, excluding etching (BTP, 2014). In any event, such costs in turn have an impact on customer journey fares, so it is in all interests to facilitate reduced spend on tackling graffiti, be that through reduced incidents or reduced criminalisation linked to other innovative initiatives. Transport For London puts public transport cleaning costs at an additional £6.1 million/ year (Association of London Government Transport and Environment Committee, 2006). While these are significant costs, another statistic worth consideration here is the cost of prosecuting and imprisoning graffiti writers. For example imprisoned graffiti writers - as with other prisoners in the UK – cost on average 47,401 EUR (£37,648) (Prison Reform Trust, Ministry of Justice, 2013) per person per year (2011). Table 15 shows the breakdown of the figures discussed here.

Table 15. Different costs related to graffiti in the UK

Estimated costs to fight criminal damage (including Cost per year graffiti) UK £4.1 billion

Estimated Graffiti Cleaning Costs Cost per year England: Across 433 local authorities £32.5m London £6.7 million (8.44 million EUR)

Various accounts for TfL’s expenditure to combat Cost per year graffiti (different reports)

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Tfl report 2006: Estimated costs for money spent £6.1 million (7.68 million EUR) (2006) tackling graffiti Keep Britain Tidy report 2008 : Estimated cost of £2.5 million (3.125 million EUR) (2008) clearing up graffiti from trains except glass BTP report 2014: Estimated cost for cleaning graffiti, £10m (12.5 million EUR) (2014) excluding etching

Cost of prosecuting and imprisoning graffiti writers Cost per year in the UK UK £37,648 (47,401 EUR) (2013)

To conclude, the figures reported so far show the development of the phenomenon graffiti, the damage it causes and the role of public transport services as its main victim. However, there are also some restrictions and specificities that have to be mentioned within the interpretation.

First of all, the enormous growth of the number of incidents in the 90s and early years of the 2000s cannot exclusively be seen as an increase of the phenomenon graffiti. Another fact that influences this development is the intensified prosecution by the police and private security services hired by transport services. In some cities special police units have been established in order to push back graffiti (see section 4). This intensified focus automatically leads to an increase in the number of recorded crimes.

Second, as the figures show, public transport facilities are a preferred target for writers. Part of this however appears to be related to the fact that UK public transport operators are more active in reporting incidents to the police. Accordingly, public transport services as victims of graffiti vandalism may be slightly overrepresented in statistics, since other victims may not report so many single (especially smaller) incidents to the police, and even less incidents in public areas are identifiable in publicly reported crime figures and surveys, which do not include graffiti crimes in separate categories (Höffler, 2008: 32).

Finally, it’s surprising how difficult it is to find data on graffiti writing but to what extend operators and administrators have the accountability of its economic impact.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

2 SOCIO-CULTURAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS

2.1 What is “graffiti”?

The reports show that all four researched countries have in common the fact that a description of graffiti often revolves around the two questions concerning the artistic value and the legality of the graffito. Thereby, these two indicators are estimated in different ways that vary – understandably – with the referring point of view.

Many literature sources and interviewees oscillate in different ways between their references to ‘graffiti vandalism’, ‘graffiti’ and also ‘street art’, as all having something to do with each other. Therefore, a general definition that includes this large variety of manifestations can only be reduced to a very general common denominator. Referring to the literature a basic definition of graffiti can be made by its description as “…visual perceptible elements (...), that vary in their colour selection, size and complexity and are often attached unsolicited at places that are well visible” (Steinat, 2007: 12). A writer from Germany extended the definition as he pointed out, that the visual perceptible elements “…originally were letters, but in the meantime everything has totally changed and includes all sorts of things. Graphic forms, figures, characters, sceneries, stories and mostly the own name is conveyed. I guess that´s quite central. That it´s about the own name” (GG5).

According to that, a writer from the UK extends his definition by a cultural aspect: “I would define it as an illegal mark made that is not done with permission but I would also use it as an umbrella term for an aesthetic and culture (…)” (GUK3).

This description is helpful to give at least a minimum definition of graffiti. But as already mentioned the “artistic value” and “legality” are important aspects for the estimation of graffiti. And although the tolerance towards graffiti may increase with its artistic value (see also 2.3), there is no objective information about how much these kinds of graffiti have a more or less destructive, tolerable or positive value than other graffiti, as this corresponds with the situation of the viewer, whether he or she is in the role of the victim, the perpetrator or a viewer from the sidelines.

For example the operators of public transport services clearly understand graffiti as vandalism – an estimation that can be identified for the four researched countries. For the transport services graffiti represents a problem because of different factors. First, the costs caused by graffiti, mainly cleaning, repair and replacement of freight, passenger infrastructure and rolling stock. Second, the costs through design and security measures to prevent graffiti, such as CCTV surveillance, security staff and security fencing. Third, the dangers that actions linked to graffiti can cause to passengers and staff, as well as delays to the railway service. Fourth, the dangers regarding the writers themselves produced

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT by trespassing the grounds of the transport services (such as the third rail, with risk of electrocution)62. “They really risk their lives and they are not aware of that” (OE1).

Therefore, public transport services mainly consider graffiti as a problem that should be eradicated (e.g.: OE1, OE2, OE3, OE4, OG1, OUK2, OA1, OA3) and their focus clearly lies on possible preventive- and countermeasures to tackle and reduce graffiti on their facilities. According to that, there is no difference made referring to the artistic quality of the graffito, whether it is an elaborated picture or just a simple tag, although not all of the representatives of the public transport sector decline graffiti in general or only see it negatively but have to take action against it because of their profession (OA1, OA2, OA3). “Well, basically, we want to prevent it. It is a phenomenon of society and we don´t arrogate to ourselves to judge if something is good or bad, done good or done bad, when it comes to us it means that illegal graffiti are attached without our support and finally we are the ones who have to remove it and that´s what we are confronted with, briefly spoken” (OG1).

As the approach of graffiti by representatives of the sector “Public Transport” in all (researched) countries is quite similar, for the sector “Police / Law Enforcement”, some differences can be identified. After its first appearances in the UK, graffiti was soon considered as vandalism by authorities and certain other communities. From the Police and Law Enforcement interviewees, PLEUK1 defines graffiti as: “(…) the illegal painting, sketching or etching on property that people haven’t asked permission to do it on”, which covers “everything from just a little scrawl of a signature to putting up massive, big artistic pieces down to just spraying over a cut-out screen” (PLEUK1).

At this point it is quite interesting to compare this understanding of graffiti with the official interpretation of a representative of the German police. Also a part of the law enforcement one might assume that his understanding of graffiti correlates with those of his colleague from the UK, as both of them have to treat graffiti as a criminal act. But as it comes out, the definition of the German police is more differentiated than the previous one. “For us, graffiti has a very clear definition. Classified as graffiti are those which have a distinct recognisable artistic background - that´s graffiti for us. And that´s how we estimate it. (...) Easy to explain are the sayings that you can find on any public toilets. In general that has nothing to do with graffiti that is simple scratchwork (...)” (PLEG1).

In some way these two statements from the UK and Germany represent the general public discussion whether graffiti has to be seen as some kind of art or goes ahead with simple vandalism. On the other hand, both in common is the position that the writers of illegal graffiti should be prosecuted and are responsible for the damage they caused. And although the German police officer states that he likes graffiti – while his personal understanding of graffiti corresponds with the definition of the

62 Source: (No Author) “Trowbridge graffiti vandals are caught red handed”, Wiltshire Times, 2014, http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/11412250.Trowbridge_graffiti_vandals_are_caught_red_handed/ [16.08.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

German police – this does not affect his attitude towards the need of prosecution and the denial of illegal graffiti, as it was already the case for some representatives of the public transport sector (PLEG1).

From the graffiti writers’ point of views, there is no universal definition of graffiti, as they all have their different styles and ways to engage in graffiti. But there are several aspects, where the interviewed writers from all countries agree with.

At first, for the writers, graffiti is more than a picture or a name on a wall. They describe graffiti as a / an: · “social phenomenon” (GE1) · “addiction” (GE1, GE2) · platform for self-expression (GUK1, GUK4, GG2) · life-style and mentality that surpasses the practice of writing (GUK1, GUK3, GUK5, GE2, GE4, GG2) · way to get recognition and to have a voice via a simple message “I was here” (particular to tags) (GUK3, GUK4, GG5, GA2, GA3) · risky game, an Adrenaline rush and excitement (GUK1, GUK2, GE3, GG4, GA1, GA2) · as something that happens outside in the streets (GA3, GG5).

A second important aspect for the writers is origination process – especially for the illegal form of graffiti. The more elaborated the picture is tended to be and the more outstanding the place for the graffiti is, the higher is also the effort and the need for detailed planning. Beside the making of a draft and the choosing (and often observing) of a special place, there are plenty of questions that have to be cleared up in the forefront. “Or when I want to paint a wall, I have to consider how big it is? How much paint do I need? Do I need a ladder? Do I need someone else who is with me? Do I have to go there by car? Can I also go there by underground? And so on and on“ (GG5).

Considering this effort of organisation spraying a graffito can rather be seen as a longer-term project than as spontaneous action and therefore writers often combine a big sense of achievement with a successful attached graffiti.

They also agree that painting trains implies another style of graffiti compared to painting on a wall, because the circumstances only allow to spray a less elaborated graffiti in order short time, as the danger of getting caught is higher (GE1, GE2, GG5). Nevertheless, the writers agree that they have an extraordinary reward when achieving graffiti on a train and that the excitement of painting a train can’t be compared to another kind of graffiti (GE2).

Referring to the legality of graffiti, it seems that most of the writers don't deny legal forms but see the illegal graffiti as the “original” one (GUK3), as the emotional part of illegal painting is not replaceable - especially for such extreme situations like painting a train.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

“(…) it´s a bit the sense of graffiti that people have strong feelings about it. (...) Or for me it´s a basic function of graffiti, that it´s illegal and that it wasn't their wish to have it on their house or their train, but that´s a part of it (...)” (SWCG2 – also a former member of the graffiti scene).

Furthermore there is no general consensus whether graffiti are a form of art or if also destructive elements are part of the phenomenon. For some interviewed writers graffiti is nothing that has only a vandalising function (GG1, GA2, GA3), whereas for other involved persons this controversy is a central element that defines graffiti and therefore also includes “scratchwork in a dark corner” that can be perceived as ugly and bad looking (SWCG2). On the other hand also “street art” with its complex installations, sculptures, stencils etc., has its roots in graffiti and that´s why a strict segregation not always seems to make sense (GUK1, AG3, GG5).

And although the lines between graffiti and street art are blurred (EUK2, EUK4, OUK2, GUK1) both are estimated in a different way by the general public (see also 2.3). A writer from the UK explains that ‘graffiti’ carries negative connotations and will always be associated with vandalism while street art has came to represent something more positive (GUK1). For that reason a lot of graffiti writers would class themselves as street artists to avoid negative associations (GUK1, GUK5).

According to the personal experience of an interviewee the slide from the acknowledgment of graffiti as pure vandalism to street art started with Banksy and is also linked to his motives: “Obviously, his [Banksy’s works] are particularly intelligent, message giving images but that said, there’s a big difference between Banksy’s unauthorised art and even wild-style or throw- ups that graffiti taggers call art” (OUK2).

However, Banksy is a controversial character. Some graffiti writers do not consider him as an authentic writer but someone who wants to be deviant inside the marketing system of art, which is getting rid of his artworks63.

Beside the question when something can be considered as art, the different valuation of graffiti and street art also leads to some sort of discrimination, as an example from Barcelona shows. Here, this dual perspective leads to the situation that “normal” graffiti like tags are persecuted, while on the other hand the more tolerated street art is promoted (AE1). This leads to a double situation that on the one hand art in public space (from murals to installations and urban interventions) is encouraged along with Montana (the first Spanish specialized shop and factory on graffiti sprays) and some bank institutions (Benvenuty, 2014). While on the other hand, a restrictive ordinance has been deployed in 2005 in Barcelona that says that a graffiti writer needs the permission of the owner as well as the City´s hall authorization if he wants to spray an object legally (GE4). Accompanied by this ordinance, controls and surveillance techniques have been increased.

63 Source: “Graffiti Artists Turn on Banksy: The Rise of Art Hate”, The Daily Beast, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/06/graffiti-artists-turn-on-banksy-the-rise-of-art-hate.html, [08.06.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

This example shows that – although denied by many of the writers – a strict separation between graffiti and street art can be used as an instrument to tackle unwanted graffiti while at the same time support those forms of graffiti that are more likely and could also be used as a sort of attraction.

2.2 Who are graffiti writers

2.2.1 Origins, social background, gender, educational level All in all, the graffiti scene can be described as very heterogeneous as the reasons for the evolution of the graffiti phenomenon in Europe is not comparable with the circumstances in the ghettos of New York and therefore the writers in Europe have the distinction of having a widespread socio- demographic background. And it´s this large variety that is described by the writers as a circumstance that makes the graffiti scene so attractive as it provides the possibility to come in contact with persons they wouldn’t meet in their normal daily life, but have found a way here to meet each other at eye level and without any prejudices (GG2). On the one hand it is possible to identify several regularities, but on the other hand there are also several differences especially between the four researched countries.

All in all, graffiti writers can be found in almost every stage of life, from young teenagers or even children to grown adults. Nevertheless – and this have all four researched countries in common – the majority of the writers is rather young so that the graffiti scene could also – but not exclusively - be described as a youth-culture (e.g. AA1, AA2, PLEA1, SWCA1, EE3, OG1). Of course, the definition of youth is quite flexible, but also former studies done on graffiti showed that an average age would be 17 years (Stafford and Pettersson, 2004; Wilson and Healey, 1987). In opposite to that suggested a representative of the Transport sector from the UK that the writers encountered by UK transport authorities are typically aged no less than about 21, or 22 years (OUK1) – but this higher estimation might also be caused to the circumstances that normally the writers don´t start with spraying trains but begin with easier targets.

Referring to the age when the writers start to engage in graffiti, the indications vary between the separate countries, although the differences are not too big. For the UK it is stated that graffiti writing is generally taken up by young people in their teens and twenties (GUK2, GUK4), whereas Austrian interviewed writers pointed out that they started to get interested in graffiti around the age of 14-16. (GA1, GA2, GA3) and writers in Spain generally take up their activities at the age of 13 till 18.

Furthermore the numbers of the Bavarian PKS which give an overview over the age structure of suspects for graffiti vandalism (at least) in Bavaria in 2005, is a good example for a phenomenon that could be observed for all the researched countries. As it came out, there is a kind of typical biography for the development of a writer and his attitude towards graffiti, which is closely related to his personal development and his changing position in society during that time. The statistic from Bavaria shows that at the age of 12 the percentage of all graffiti writers jumps from 4,2% to 11,6%. Furthermore 65,4% of all writers are between 14 and 21 years old. After that period, the numbers

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT are decreasing clearly what leads to the conclusion that with the entering of adult life also the engagement in illegal graffiti comes to an end for many of the writers (Höffler, 2008: 209).

The assumption that the limited period in which most of the writers take an active part in graffiti is also traceable to their changing position in society during that time is also confirmed by a representative of the Public Transport sector from Germany: “Well, often it starts with smaller scratchworks, tentative steps, first drawings, that starts maybe at an age of 12, and then it becomes more (...) and that you´re really becoming a part of the scene, that´s around the age of 14. And for many of them, when they are 20 years old, when they are up to start a job training, start their studies or have to earn their own money and there is also – banal spoken – a certain age of criminal responsibility it starts to come to an end for most of them or they start to do it legally” (OG1).

Also graffiti writers from the UK confirmed that the relationship towards graffiti can´t be seen as something static and that the personal development plays an important role, stressing that many writers go through ‘rites of passage’ to change or develop their activities in some way or other, over years or even decades. Some also refer to this as the ‘graffiti career’ or ‘criminal career’ (GUK1, GUK2, GUK3).

So beside the teenagers and pre adults, there is also a hard core of older writers that is firmly established in the graffiti scene. Along with their experience mostly goes a more professional and sometimes even work-related relationship towards graffiti. Variants between age groups, or more importantly graffiti stages of practice or generations, appear to include material style or form, development of practice in terms of approach, avoiding being caught (as relevant), and levels of social connection among peers. But it is also mentioned that a rising age does not always mean that the artistic aspiration is increasing as some just fill trains and walls in a standardized process in order to earn fame (PLEG1, GG1, GUK2, GUK4).

Nevertheless many of the “old-stagers” are highly respected in the graffiti scene, what might be one aspect for them not to quit their engagement. Furthermore they often draw their attention to the legal forms of graffiti and engage in the scene by publishing e.g. magazines or realising workshops in which they show younger writers how and where they are able to spray graffiti in a legal way (AG3, GUK3). For example in the project “Free walls” in the City of Barcelona, where owners and graffiti writers made an agreement so that they can write with permission on specified walls and public spaces, a third of participants were between 23 and 27 years old and 72% of them were older than 23 years (Rebobinart, 2014).

Referring to the gender of the writers, there is a general agreement in all four researched countries, that the large majority of them are male (e.g.: GA3, PLEG1, GG1, GG4, OG, OUK1, OUK1, GE2). One reason for this imbalance might be that it seems that females are generally less attracted to illegal activities than males are. For example in 2002, 88,6% of all suspects for criminal damage in Germany in 2002 were male while only 11,4% were female. Furthermore it is reported that in legal projects

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

(e.g. “Free walls”) the share of female writers is higher (AUK1) than it is for the illegal part of the graffiti scene – although for the illegal scene are no detailed numbers available, of course.

The question if there is a general discrimination of women in the graffiti scene can’t be answered in general. In Spain for instance it has been impossible to get an interview with a female writer. From the point of view of male writers, GE2 argues: “I only know two or three girls who paint and they are foreigners (...). I have painted with three girls in my life, compared to 150 boys. (...) Imagine in trains, you need to run fast, and physically it is not the same (...) Boys paint better than girls” (GE2).

And also a female writer from Austria pointed out that it is hard for a woman to enter the scene and to be accepted by the males. In addition it was mentioned that there also appeared aggressive reactions to works of females only because of the fact that it was done by a woman or a girl but not because of the skills or other characteristics (e.g. words like “whore” painted on graffiti of a female writer). Such circumstances may of course discourage female writers early in their writer “career” (GA3).

On the other hand none of the interviewees from Germany reported about any discrimination of females in the graffiti scene, but it was pointed out that those women who engage in graffiti were in no way inferior to their male colleagues and also would have the chance to become a highly respected member of the scene (PLEG1, OG1, SWCG2). “There are also very successful women. There is one who has the whole scene [of her city (S.K.)] under control and who has a lot to say. (...) She is an absolute authority” (SWCG2).

A female writer summarises the reasons why from her point of view only a few girls and women are attracted to – especially illegal – graffiti writing as a mixture of the points mentioned above: “… you really have to stand a lot, besides the male affectation, it is really rough, you get dirty, climbing scaffolds at high altitudes and always in work cloths, I think this is not what most girls like” (GA3).

Referring to the social background of the writers, a general classification seems to be difficult as graffiti writers belong to every social class, although it is possible to identify focuses. In Spain, it seems that those dedicated to graffiti are from poorer and middle-classes: “I don’t know rich people who paint. (...) Graffiti emerge in low-class neighbourhoods, middle- class, not more. There are some writers who are not poor; I know some of them who are wealthy, because they sell graffiti” (GE1).

In Germany the majority of the writers cannot be located to the under- but to the middle- and upper class (SWCG2, PLEG1). The assumption that most of the German writers don´t belong to the “social offside” might be confirmed by the fact that most of them quit their illegal activities at an age when they are up to plan their future and to start a career.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

For the UK and Spain, there are no special focuses, as the interviewees generally emphasized the wide range of backgrounds, from poorer kids (SWCUK3) with only a lower educational level (EA3) to students (OUK1) who carried on or even started writing graffiti during their time at university (GUK1). “I’ve met people, they come in [the shop] like business man with embroidered monograms on their shirt, briefcase and cans inside” (EA1).

Referring to the ethnic background, there is no information that immigrants play an outstanding role in the graffiti scene – according to their share of the total population. For example for a writer in the UK graffiti seems to be a “white crime” (GUK2).

Basically graffiti can be seen as a subculture, but as one that is entangled with others, as many of the graffiti writers can also be allocated to other subcultures. One important is for example the Hip-Hop Scene (GG4, GA1, GA2, SWCA1). Graffiti competitions or exhibitions often also include performances of Hip-Hop artists while on the other hand Hip-Hop Jams are often also a meeting point for graffiti writers. Furthermore there are similar elements in both subcultures like the so called “battle” where two persons or crews compete for fame.

Another form of subculture where graffiti play a more or less important role is the soccer fan-culture. In contrast with the Hip-Hop scene, where graffiti are a way of self-expression and creative competition, soccer fans use graffiti in order to mark their territory. In general the graffiti are simple tags with the name of the fan club, the soccer team they support or also (often offensive) messages for other soccer teams (PLEA2, SWCG2, SWCA4).

2.2.2 Individual and collective identities As already described in 2.1, interpretations on graffiti vary with the specific point of view. As for the writers, graffiti is for example a “social phenomenon” (GE1), a “lifestyle” (GE2, GE4, GUK3), an “addiction” (GE1, GE2), “a risky game and a collective work” (GE3, GUK1, GUK2). In other words: painting graffiti is larger than the simple fact of painting, it belongs to a culture (GE1, GUK1, GUK4). It is furthermore remarkable that many of the interviewed writers emphasize how important graffiti is or was for their life and that it is (was) an inherent part of their daily life (GG2, GG5, GG1, GG4), although it may have become more secondary for some when growing up.

As described in the following, graffiti (often) plays an outstanding role in the process of creating identity, both individually and collectively. For the writers, graffiti is understood both as an individual and group activity in terms of appearance, spaces, time of dedication, reasons, and commitment to a broader subculture.

At first and from an individual point of view, graffiti writers and stakeholders agree that graffiti has a strong egocentric perspective or even narcissist characteristic (PLEA2, OA3), as the writers focus mainly on their own intentions and motivations when they spray (GE1, GE4, GA3). Also important is

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT the aspect of self-affirmation (PLE1) and to immortalize their work and themselves (GUK3). Therefore, the taken photo of a sprayed graffiti plays a central role: “If you don’t have a picture of your graffiti you have not existed” (GE1).

And although there are a couple of writers who do graffiti only for their own, it is stressed that the egocentric perspective can´t be seen as the only one, as the writers describe graffiti not only as a way of self-affirmation but also as a way to get in contact with and to be recognized by their environment – in a positive as well as in a negative way (GUK1, GG2). According to this, graffiti on the one hand has the function to be identity-establishing (GUK3) as it gives the actors the possibility to identify themselves as graffiti writers while on the other hand it offers them the medium to let the public know about their identity and to enforce their place in the public sphere. And choosing this radical form of communication could also be seen as an indicator for their urgent necessity of attention. “…and he just wants that somebody recognizes him, and therefore he is kicking somebody in the shin, that is also the easiest way that somebody listens to you. If I just gently stroke somebody´s back he only turns around and says “Thank you”. So, in general that is graffiti for me” (GG2).

But it is important to point out that their relationship towards graffiti and therefore also their self- understanding as a writer can´t be seen as something static but changes over time (GA1). The interviews reveal that the evolution and progression of a graffiti writers practice is acknowledged in some cases as a career and depending on the perspective as an “artistic career” (GUK1, GUK2, GUK3) or a “criminal career” (OUK1). In these instances whether actors are referring to a ‘career’ positively or negatively, it shows that some graffiti writers are dedicated and motivated to embark on a journey of learning and development be that legal or illegal. But as already described in 2.2.1 the majority of the writers quits their illegal activities when they´re entering adult life or at least turn to legal forms. “Somehow you´re not only that cool little boy with the marker in his hand, who wants to do something and who wants to communicate, to talk, to express himself and especially to live this kind of feeling in some way. At some point it simply became another feeling, a grown one, a staid one” (GG2).

Out of this changed feeling can develop a simple rejection of graffiti or also an engagement in other fields of the phenomenon like doing commissioned work, publishing or writing for a scene magazine, providing workshops, etc. so that the changed attitude towards illegal graffiti does not automatically mean the loss of the identity as a part of the graffiti scene (GUK1, GUK4), although some might be “less obsessed with graffiti” (GE1, GE2).

Next to its self-affirming and identity-establishing function, graffiti also provides the possibility to become a part of an “exclusive” community – especially for those who see graffiti as a way of life and mentality rather than just a practice (GUK1, GUK4).

Also the literature emphasizes the importance of the group for writers and in general for young people. Especially youth cultures and subcultures play an important role for their socialisation, their identity formation and their searching for their place in society. Thereby the group has the function

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT that it satisfies the paradoxical need for affiliation and differentiation: “youth culture provides “the possibility to self-express and to dissociate oneself from society while at the same time being backed up by and affiliated within a group of like-minded people (...).” (Steinat, 2007: 24) one probably wouldn´t have met without the community defining element – in this case graffiti (GG2).

Furthermore these groups provide the space for youths to test and learn different roles, values and norms as for example in the graffiti scene to respect the graffiti of other writers or not to spray sensitive places. They reflect the values of a society and probably change or deny them. “Therefore, a framework like the graffiti scene can be described as important for the identity formation of the youths and as a central factor for their socialisation (...)” (Steinat, 2007: 23).

As the feeling of being a part of a community is an aspect that makes subcultures so attractive for teenagers in general, this is obviously also the case for graffiti (SWCG2) where especially the aspect of illegality requires a high level of reliability and trust, especially for the case that a member of the group gets caught by the police. “And apart from that, solidarity, I mean that binds together of course, when you´re doing somewhere something illegal with somebody else. Then you know, ok, the other one has to rely on me, that I don´t say anything about him in case we get caught. And I have to rely on him. That binds together in some way” (GG4).

Nevertheless, in some cases caught writers divulge the identity of other perpetrators to minimise their punishment (EA3). But as reliability is an important factor, this is a no-go in the graffiti scene and acting against it might create strong negative reactions to such persons. How these reactions from the scene look like in detail couldn´t be revealed by the interviews.

Beside the sense of being part of a community, the affiliation in groups also has another more practical reason. As bigger projects like a “whole train” (spraying a whole train waggon) can hardly be done by one single person, the cooperation of several writers is necessary in order to share the work and to reduce the needed time and therefore the risk of getting caught. Moreover, spraying in a group is essential for questions of safety, especially when painting trains or metros: “You can’t go alone to paint a metro. Imagine that you have a problem. We are talking about tunnels, it is not a joke. You can fall down, you can slip with a rock, been hit... and then what happens? There is no coverage, nothing, nobody knows you are there. It is very dangerous (...). Going alone is reckless. Group is important; they look after you when you paint” (GE1).

For these reasons and surely also because of the fun working together with other graffiti writers (EA3), they often organize themselves in smaller local groups, the so called “crews”. These are often characterized by a hierarchal organization, fixed meeting points and also competing with other crews. And although the crew is often described as a “second family”, the membership is often limited in time and can´t be compared to the often lifelong membership in a street gang (Höffler, 2008: 11).

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Although the local community is very important for the graffiti writers, it is not the only peer group as the international exchange is an important part of the graffiti scene. Some writers reported that when they were younger and started to get interested in graffiti, they exchanged photos by post with people from other countries (GA2). And also travelling to other cities and countries to meet people and crews is a relevant part of the graffiti culture (GA1, GA2, EA3).

As already mentioned above, the self-understanding of many writers implies that they see graffiti as a way to communicate with and in public and therefore as similar to the advertisement that is located in the public sphere, what gives them some sort of justification for their doing. They see graffiti as a non-capitalistic alternative to advertisement and as a way to share their own thoughts and feelings. It was further stated that people don´t have the option not to see advertisement, so why should they have the option not to see graffiti. Because of this graffiti should be allowed as a free form of public expression of individuals (GA5, EA1, EA3). “Nobody asks me if I’m ok with it [advertisement], I see graffiti as a kind of opinion. Everybody should be allowed to express his opinion in form of graffiti” (GA5).

“Coke pays a lot of money to have some seats with their logos. Graffiti writers do their own advertisement. For free, illegally. And of course brands do not like that, because they have paid money to get their logos. (…) I have to stand all the advertisement, but have I signed an agreement on that? I am obliged. So I am going to put my name 800.000 times” (GE1).

For a German writer it is also only reasonable that next to all the brands, he also wants to have his logo to be a part of the public sphere (GG2). However, many of the stakeholders differ in this point of view, as they take for granted that advertisement has “a moral right” to be present in the public sphere as it has an economic benefit for the whole society while graffiti has not.

2.3 Social impact and social perception of graffiti

First of all it has to be mentioned that for most of the four researched countries there was no structured data found that gives detailed information about the social impact or the social perception of graffiti, so that most of the information were gathered from the interviews. Often there are only statistics about complaints reported to the police or damage costs. For the UK the “Crime in England and Wales” published by the Office of National Statistics, offers information about the “Trends in anti-social behaviour indicators” such as the perceived “Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property”.

All in all it has to be mentioned – and in general this is all four researched countries in common - that how the social impact and social perception of graffiti is estimated often depends on the referring point of view as well as the quality and quantity of the attached graffiti and its integration in the surrounding area.

As already mentioned in chapter 2.1 for Public Transport Operators graffiti is definitely negative connoted, as they see it as a problem that should be eradicated (e.g.: OE1, OE2, OE3, OE4, OG1,

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

OUK2, OA1, OA3). Therefore they also see the social impact as a negative one, as – especially from their point of view – graffiti put the society to expense and are a risk for the public safety. Beside the costs for cleaning and replacement works as well as for security and preventive measures, especially overpainted signs, e.g. such that show breaking distances or give safety advices (OA3) are a critical factor.

Also public administrations and law enforcement representatives showed a basically negative attitude towards graffiti in the interviews, as they also have to deal with damage of property, defacement of public and private places and safety problems. Nevertheless it is important to mention that these are their points of view as professionals but not necessarily their personal views (compare 2.1).

It is not surprising that the writers estimate the value that graffiti has for a society much higher. For many of them graffiti is a clear improvement for the respective area (e.g. GA1, GA2, GUK3, GUK4, GG4). And as writers from Austria pointed out, graffiti could also function as a mirror for the society. It can deliver quick feedback regarding current themes and feelings in the society. As an example is mentioned the last war in Iraq, where only a few days after the beginning the first graffiti were found that referred to it (GA2). It is further mentioned that graffiti are an indicator for freedom, as areas that are free of graffiti could be perceived as over-controlled like in totalitarian regimes (GA2).

On the other hand, not all of the interviewed writers insist that graffiti only has a positive aspect. Some of them can understand that some people might feel disturbed by graffiti or have problems dealing with graffiti (GA2, GG2, GG1). Also the impact on society is seen critically: “…anyhow, I don´t think that society profits from graffiti in the way that it is happening now, with spray can and marker and so on. That´s nonsense. Well I think, if anybody says we make these evil grey walls colourful and stuff like that, that’s nonsense. Nobody gets anything out of that. Then you can also talk about a beautiful grey wall” (GG1).

Beside the respective point of view, the interviewees from the four researched countries agree that the qualitative value of a graffito is essential for its estimation by the general public. Especially artistic and elaborated designs are accepted much better (e.g.: SWCE3, AE3, AE1, AA2, SWCA1) than the common tag or throw up which seem to be – at least at a first glance – of only little artistic value and are often interpreted as public defacement (AA2, SWCA1). Also protest graffiti are often less accepted (AE2). “Well, if there is painted a sweet pig, then they think it´s super-duper. Because then it´s a picture they are able to make a use of, also when it´s colourful and fancy (...) but about any tag in the streets they think it sucks, of course” (GG5).

Beside the favourable sight of the artistic characters and pieces, there are at least two more reasons why they are much more accepted than just the writing of a name. A first important fact is that the viewer always wants to be able to understand what he sees. He wants to be able to identify the motive and to comprehend the message of the picture. But when it comes to tags it´s often hard to

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT make out what´s standing there and when it´s possible so far, the names and abbreviations often don´t make any sense for the viewer (SWCG2, GG5, GG4).

A second reason is that many of the people – especially those who are not into graffiti writing – don´t take any note of the creative and technical process that stands behind a tag or writing and that is responsible for the letters to look the way they do (EA3, GA2, SWCUK3, GUK3). “But when it´s up to writings - and that´s what makes the heart of graffiti for me, the involvement with the writing and all that goes with it - that can´t be estimated by the people that easy. And then, it´s always the same, they can´t read It and they can´t understand how much work is behind it and what a thinking process you have to work through when you take a word and try to put it on a wall in a specific style” (GG4).

“To the normal viewer, graffiti is often perceived as quite ugly and unattractive. I remember thinking it was ugly when I first started some of the tagging (…). But it is not and when you see the subtle differences, hand style and flicks of letters, you start to see the beauty of it” (SWCUK3).

In order to provide a better understanding for the meaning behind tags, a writer from the UK suggests that they can also be seen as a “record of the movement” and a work of calligraphy. He describes tags as a secret language, which “manifests itself in these tangled scribbles, that’s what they look like for the most part to people” (GUK3). Reading the walls means to him learning about different people who wrote on those walls, their backgrounds and whether they are connected or not. What the interviewee describes is a sense of community and history for a particular time and place (GUK3).

Giving an outlook how the acceptance of graffiti might develop in the future seems not to be possible. Nevertheless the estimation of an interviewee from the UK seems to summarize the actual status quite well and may also be valid for the other researched countries, as he states that graffiti has changed from something that was “probably universally hated” to something that is now “often welcomed”, as long as it is “deemed to be artistic” (AUK2).

But at this point it has to be mentioned, that according to a research launched in Germany, the artistic value of a graffito has no impact on its illegal attachment. Questioning if a graffito that is perceived as appealing is still seen as illegal, the survey compared the indicators “aesthetic perception” and “demand for prosecution” based on interviews including pictures of graffiti. According to the results, it can be stated that the quality of a graffito is no justification for its illegality, although it might have a positive effect on the cityscape. This can be understood as some sort of dissonance between the institutionalized standards and the subjective perception (Goecke and Heise, 2009: 99-100).

Next to the perception of graffiti another important question is how the existence of graffiti influences the area in which it is attached. A prominent – although not uncontroversial – approach is the “Broken Window Theory” by James Wilson and George Kelling. Compared with the thesis of the “Broken Window Theory”, especially referring to the social impact of graffiti, the opinions of the

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT interviewees vary again, whereas there seems to be one point of agreement. As the theory says that one broken window entails another, this effect can be confirmed for graffiti. At least the German writers explain that the inhibition level to spray a wall degreases in case that there has already been attached a graffiti as they don´t spray a clean and untouched wall but only add something to a wall that has been sprayed anyway (GG5, GG4). According to this it seems only logical – and maybe still the best practise – that public transport operators try to remove graffiti immediately after they have been detected, in order to prevent some kind of dam break and not to be a victim of graffiti again (e.g. PLEG1, OA1, OA2, OA3).

Regarding the question if graffiti can lead to a feeling of insecurity and furthermore be responsible for the decline of a whole borough there is no general common sense. State and local authorities from Spain mention the complaints they receive from users: people ask them to remove the graffiti immediately because they think that the care of stations is neglected, causing a bad perception of the service. A representative from private companies describes painted buses as “coming from Bronx, from lower-class, abandoned” (EE1). As a representative from civil society explains, “places painted with graffiti create a feeling of insecurity” (SWCE1). This view is often taken, as the central argument is that the presence of graffiti is understood as a lack of control and therefore as an indicator for insufficient security.

An interviewee from the German Transport sector also points out that one aspect that is mentioned in their regular survey about the costumers´ sense of security, is that graffiti gives some passengers a feeling of insecurity (OG1). (But it has to be mentioned here, that the interviewee gives no detailed information about how these studies are conducted neither what the exact results are). Further an interviewee from Austria states: “…most of it is scribbling, tags, where whole districts are strongly affected and you can see that where lots of scribbling is, there it is very dirty, more garbage and so on. Unconsciously you get the feeling that you feel uncomfortable, not so safe there” (PLEA2).

On the other hand a representative of the writers couldn’t understand that graffiti might have such an impact on the perceived security for example of underground passengers. He mentions that in other cities almost all underground trains are sprayed with graffiti, while the underground system would still be in good working order. For him the Broken Window Theory implements “real destruction” like slashed seats or the so called broken window (GG2).

Another writer describes a similar point of view. According to him, graffiti might have an influence on its surrounding area, but is only one aspect of many others: “Yes, of course it plays a role; there are of course areas that decline, also because of graffiti, not only but also because of other facts. It surely plays a role who is hanging out somewhere at the entrance of the underground, drinkers or junkies, that has similar effects I guess. It´s the overall picture of an area” (GG5).

An interviewee from the UK has the same opinion, as he states that graffiti – although they might have a slightly negative influence – do not automatically lead to the decline of a borough, but on the

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT other hand can contribute to prevent the status quo. According to EUK4 people sometimes don´t want to get rid of the elements that give their local space a character, which can be old architectural elements as well as examples of graffiti. Also an interviewee from Spain explains that people can develop a normalized relationship towards graffiti, as in some way they get used to them (EE2).

Furthermore it is mentioned that graffiti can also have a positive influence on public places. One example is that German writers were commissioned to design a public space in order to make it more attractive and to prevent it from vandalism or illegal graffiti because the other writers would respect the already sprayed graffiti (SWCG2).

According to some writers from Austria, graffiti even has the opposite effect than it is described in the “Broken Window Theory”. According to them graffiti often happens in already downgraded areas with cheap housing prices. This would also attract artists that are looking for cheap places or places where they can perform their art without disturbances. With their graffiti art they start to improve the area. On basis of this improvement the area gets “hip” which means more people with higher income enter the area what again leads to higher housing prices (GA1, GA2). Therefore the graffiti writers don’t contribute to the downgrade of an area but make it more liveable and thereby more attractive. Also an interviewee from the UK describes – in a maybe less idealizing way – how graffiti and especially street art can be used as an attractive factor in public spaces: “… we’re trying to create a place, which is successful, and which people enjoy coming to and which people enjoy being in. Because we want people to buy flats and rent our property and visit our shops. So we have got commercial drivers. To do that, we think that you need interest and you need art and you need culture and you need a creative space and within that, I’m sure street art in some kind does have a place. What that place this is, I think we still have to define and explore” (EUK2).

As a further positive aspect is mentioned that in some cities, the graffiti are becoming a tourist attraction (EUK4, GUK4, AUK2) so that the cities even advertise with their local graffiti scene to make it more attractive for tourists (GG4, GG1). “… its free high quality art that we have tourist coaches going round taking pictures” (AUK1).

“… many people in Hackney and Tower Hamlets are walking around photographing it and kind of tour groups are going around looking at, you know, different bits of graffiti. You kind of think, well, it’s become a… something of like a real cultural value” (EUK4).

A last example from the social sector uses graffiti as a tool to work with young people, especially in deprived neighbourhoods (GE5). In this sense, the two civil society organisations that are involved with educative and extra-school programmes and activities, both mention how effective the language of graffiti is for the connection of individual and collective emotions, and thus creating social ties, social cohesion and a sense of belonging (SWCE1, SWCE2).

As it comes out, all researched countries have in common that the social perception and the social impact of graffiti are strictly related to its external circumstances and the way the writers and their surrounding interact with each other.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

3 REGIONAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS

3.1 Public spaces & Graffiti activity

Graffiti as an urban phenomenon In the four countries researched graffiti is significantly described and perceived as a predominantly urban phenomenon and mainly connected to the bigger cities. This is demonstrated on the one hand by the results of desk research, for example in the UK graffiti activity is at least being reported to take place more in dense areas (Office for National Statistics, 2012b; BTP, 2013 and Police.UK, 2014) and instances of graffiti and graffiti vandalism are consistently reported and documented from urban, suburban or built infrastructure areas (the London Assembly Investigative Committee 2002, Campbell 2008, Graffiti Dialogues Network 2010).

On the other hand many interview statements refer to urban aspects connected with graffiti, for example as regards Spain where although some graffiti writers cite other hot graffiti points outside the metropolitan area of Barcelona, all interviewees directly speak of underground, trains or walls in cities of biggest urban agglomerations.

In that context – the cities most notable or significant from the literature review for the UK, in terms of graffiti, include London, but also Bristol, Sheffield and Brighton64. For Germany, according to the statements of some writers – Berlin is seen as “meanwhile the capital of graffiti” (GG2) whereas Munich lost this status in the 90s because of the city’s development towards applying restrictive measures against graffiti (AG3).

According to a representative of the Austrian law enforcement services one reason for the lower prevalence of graffiti in rural areas can be seen in that the social pressure is higher there and people tend to know each other better having consequences on the possibilities in identifying writers (PLEA2). However it has to be taken into account that in general there is a lack of information regarding the relation of graffiti and rural areas and a certain methodological “bias” as most of the interviews were done in urban areas and most of the surveys and documentations on graffiti are related to city areas making it difficult to draw any firm conclusions – for instance, in the Catalan network of trains (FGC), there is only information on graffiti available for the metropolitan lines (Barcelona-Vallès, Llobregat-Anoia). Indeed, the control center does not reach the rural lines: the area of security is limited to the metropolitan railway lines.

City specific influences on graffiti style Generally it is stated that each city influences the development of a characteristic graffiti style.

64 Interestingly, each of these metropolitan areas is reported to have both suffered and benefited from different graffiti related activities within their respective localities (Bannister, 2013; Feeny and Watts, 2013; Young, 2014).

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

“Well I think each city indeed influences the people, how they write in the end“ (GG4).

In this connection as regards Germany there are significantly central differences between Munich on the one hand and Berlin, Hamburg and East German cities (like Dresden, Leipzig and Halle) on the other hand are mentioned: for example in contrast to Munich where the graffiti landscape is characterized as heterogeneous but still as a bit “conservative”, the style and letters are noticed more provocative in East German cities. “In East German cities (...) one can notice that the style - well those writings - strongly has a specific orientation. Many people there write very provocative and here it evolves quite moderately, too. But people here are still not that open. In other words: here it is better readable and you´ve got more often those old styled letters“ (GG4).

Hamburg in general is ascribed a more radical, political, strong “left” position regarding graffiti (GG2).

Central aspects/influence factors regarding writing in urban areas The characteristic reasons making particularly urban areas attractive for graffiti writing are seen quite common across the four countries. Two central specific aspects can be distinguished.

Available space: First of all it is the provided urban structure of the city in general allowing space for writing and owing a higher choice of walls and other surfaces that graffiti writers see as their canvases. It is the metropolitan area’s density regarding tunnels, metros, walls, bridges and other places allowing graffiti writers to find paintable surfaces and walls attractive for their activities.

Visibility of the graffiti work: Another central aspect is the much greater chance in urban areas with more densely populated locations where most people will see particular instances of graffiti – that aspect is mentioned in all countries researched. For example according to the Austrian interviews it is of high relevance to the graffiti writers that their graffiti is seen by lots of pedestrians and thereby can be found on public places (GA1, EA3). Prominent public spaces are also chosen to produce some kinds of reaction or surprise among people walking by (GA2, GA3). Thereby big graffiti that cover a whole house front are also very attractive for graffiti writers as they produce a lot of attention (GA3). And it is similar with the writing on trains (GA2): “With graffiti on the railway, the graffiti vandal wants to put it there, knows that it’ll be there for a long time” (PLEUK2).

It seems to be an interplay between the writer’s personal preferences and motives and the specific urban structure influencing the selection of the urban setting for writing. According to the interview analysis there can be identified typical specific urban structure differing between the cities researched. But overall they do serve as “obstacles” or “facilities” correlating with the general extent of graffiti in a city and the chosen settings and locations.

Of course the general availability of space influences the ‘demand’ (see also 4.1). For example by making the HST network a priority in the Spanish government’s transport policy and becoming the European country with the largest network (more than 2,200 km) (Albalate and Bel, 2012) entailed

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT the proliferation of new spaces to be painted in the last decade. Graffiti writers interviewed certify that these are popular spots. “They haven’t finished building the line and it is already painted” (GE4).

As regards Germany, too, it is stated a preference for the underground railway in Munich and a preference for over ground trains in Hamburg relating to the respective extent of the transport systems. “There are differences rather relating to the extent of graffiti. And there are - I would say the reasons for that are simply practical. Here in Munich for example there is a very large underground network. So the subway is the most interesting thing for the writers. Comparatively trams and buses are not that interesting (…). In Hamburg is very much, first of all the holding depots are nearly all over ground to the effect that the possibilities for writers to get to the trains are much better” (OG1).

According to the great extent of vacancies in the eastern part of Germany writers in those cities often prefer ruins for their work and assess it quite positive (GG2).

There are also qualitative aspects of urban settings corresponding to the writers’ motives or preferences. As regards London one of the writers expresses the motivations behind writing on London Underground trains referring to certain types of tubes offering excellent requirements in regards to writing. “… the last year or so on the on the Circle line and the Hammersmith and City line and one stretch of the District line, the Wimbledon branch, they were running a certain shape and a type of tube train that has always been, like, the most loved of all the graffiti artists for... ever since it’s come to London, you know, this is like their favorite train for a number of reasons. It’s tall, it’s got flat sides, it’s got better space to paint on, it... for large parts of the system it runs over ground so if something’s painted on it you can see it running over the houses and, you know, but it’s always, like, it’s always been...” (GUK3).

But additionally to the quantitative and qualitative factors regarding the selection of a specific urban setting for writing there is another central factor of influence regarding the extent of graffiti in specific urban areas: the extent of security and the handling by the authorities with graffiti in the respective urban area. There are different statements in the interviews of the four countries researched pointing at this central connection between the extent of control and the extent of graffiti indicating that it is not only the urban setting itself influencing the selection and extent of graffiti in urban areas but also the given opportunities in form of the degree of control.

For example in Vienna markets are seen as an attractive place for illegal spraying activities as they are usually open and hard to secure as one can hear security forces walking through the market already from far away (AA3). Another example is given from Spain, where in context of the implementation of two new networks in Tarragona and Girona (medium-sized cities north and south of Barcelona and administrative capital counties) no additional budget on security has been added to this new service, making it easier to paint graffiti. In other words, the interview partner suggests that the lack of surveillance attracts graffiti writers, even if the stations are not located in the

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT metropolitan area of Barcelona (OE2). Indeed, some graffiti writers interviewed indicate that Tarragona is a hot point to paint.

Regarding the degree of control there are controversial statements found in the Austrian interviews: On the one hand there is stated a stronger focus on underground and less on stations, buses and tramways65 as the large railway and underground networks are easy to attack, because it is not possible to totally lock them down or have security everywhere at all time (OA1, OA3). On the other hand for some writers spraying trains is too risky (e.g. entering closed down or secured areas) as the chance to get caught by security or the police is too high (GA3, EA3).

In regards of Germany the city of Munich plays a special role in connection with “security obstacles” in pursuing a relatively strict policy in order to be a “clean city” – this in contrast to the cities of the North and East making it in general much more difficult to write in public space generally. “Compared to other cities I think here [in Munich, M.M.] it is most difficult to write (…) for here, there are so many policemen and so many civilian police personnel around“ (GG4).

3.2 Mapping Graffiti: is there a spatial logic?

In general neither the interviews nor desk research in the four countries researched point out that there is a specific spatial logic in writing. “There is no logic of where graffiti to be found. No. We can’t say: oh, we always have trains painted in the metropolitan area of Barcelona. No, no, no. What we detect is that there are trends, hot points. Now we have a zone much painted. You observe statistics and you see that they stop, and then they change towards another one, and then towards another. We finally have like seven or eight zones, but there is no relationship. They change in relation to their movement” (OE1).

The Crime Survey for England and Wales, for example, gives detailed information on Anti Social Behaviour orders (ASBOs)66 issued and on Vandalism and Criminal Damage67, but no indication of what misbehaviours they were issued for by location, so it is not possible to know the graffiti related spatial patterns at national levels. There are some hints to spatial parameters by The Good Graffiti, Bad Graffiti? report by Keep Britain Tidy (Campbell, 2008) citing the 2006/7 Local Environmental Quality Survey of England. At a macro level, it implied that London as a whole is a ‘hotspot’ but also that at a more mezzo or micro level in many cities and regions, there are particular ‘hotspots’ where significant levels of graffiti were found: “These included back alleys, footbridges and subways (19%);

65 Source: Nussmayr, K. (2014): FarbeimBlut. Blogbeitrag. http://blog.nussmayr.at/graffiti/ [09.08.2014]. 66 Source: HM Government (2012) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/252952/ASBO_tables_2012_ ODS.ods [02.08.2014]. 67 Source: Office for National Statistics (2013c) http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-december-2013/stb-crime-stats- dec-2013.html#tab-Vandalism-and-criminal-damage [02.08.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT public open spaces (13%); transport interchanges (13%) and secondary retail and commercial areas (10%). Within these areas, graffiti was more likely to be found on walls (10%) and posts and poles (7%)” (Campbell, 2008: 6). This is similar regarding Austria. Taking a look at press releases by the police over the last years graffiti happens all over Austria, mainly in capitals but also in smaller cities and often in or next to public transport facilities. These press releases can only picture a minor part of the illegal graffiti activities (and probably the more severe ones) but are not able to give detailed insights that will allow identifying consistent spatial logics68.

There are some online sources indicating spatial patterns and maps focused on street art and/or ‘legal wall’ locations, we can assume these are useful representations of areas at least where certain communities take a stronger interest in graffiti activities, either illegal or legal. Such data is provided for example by the London Vandal for London69, Bristol Graffiti Map70, and others including Legal- walls.net for the UK71. Whilst these walls are deemed by some as a successful method of prevention when engaging directly with the right communities (PLEUK2) the critiques of these types of legal walls include OUK1, who speaks of the potential for ‘graffiti spread’ leading to ‘more vandalism than ever before’ (OUK1).

Figure 8: Map showing counts of ‘legal walls’ by UK location72

68 Source: http://www.bmi.gv.at/cms/bmi/_news/bmi.aspx [02.08.2014]. 69 Source: London Vandal map of London Legal Walls https://maps.google.com/maps/u/0/ms?ie=UTF8&t=h&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=201724578008958734945.000 4dc3ccf12c45cec66e&dg=feature [02.08.2014]. 70 Source: Bristol Graffiti Map. www.bristolgraffitimap.com [02.08.2014]. 71 Source: Legal Walls, UK http://www.legal-walls.net/#lat=54.59201484880978&lng=-4.102503487499907&zoom=5 [02.08.2014]. 72 Source: http://www.legal-walls.net/#lat=54.59201484880978&lng=-4.102503487499907&zoom=5

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Additionally there are some privately organised crowdsourced maps that can give at least first impressions on the special graffiti situation in Austria, for example of SprayCity: Hall of fame map73.

Figure 9: SprayCity Map74

There were not found such maps neither for Spain nor for Germany (OE2). But there is a Google Street art Project aiming at preserving an “evolving collection of street art from across the globe”75 which gives at least some – selected impressions – to street art all over Europe and worldwide.

All in all – according to missing information – there can only be collected single aspects for a spatial logic regarding writing. But interestingly in Spain there could be established a kind of temporal logic of painting graffiti. Public and private operators interviewed differentiate logics and modus operandi of teen-agers and older writers. In the first case, they mainly write during school holidays. The rest, grown-ups, are more organized and paint according to a plan, usually at night, especially between one and four am (OE1). In general, and as noted by international literature (Pettersson and Stafford, 2004), graffiti paintings increase at night, during the weekends, and during Christmas, Easter and summer holidays. Another factor that influences the increase or decrease of graffiti is economic and social context. Representatives from public administration admit that there are periods with higher concentration of protest that imply higher rates of graffiti. “If next year the administration increases 10% the fee of public transport I am sure we will have more graffiti than if there was not this raise” (AE2).

Graffiti and travelling

[02.09.2014]. 73 Source: http://www.spraycity.net/?p=hof [21.08.2014]. 74 Source: http://www.spraycity.at/?p=hof [21.08.2014]. 75 Source: https://streetart.withgoogle.com/en/#map-the-walls [08.09.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

There are some statements of the interview partners in Germany that underline the connection between graffiti writing and widening one’s scope. The expanding of graffiti activities is strongly linked with the need to have a wider impact regarding one’s own work. “If people do it seriously and if they are for example specialized in rail tracks or something, and do their graffiti on further “Ringbahnen” or anywhere else, they are everywhere, they do not want to stick to their district only but are interested in, well, having a big impact and doing kind of promotion (…) I mean Sony or Panasonic do not stay exclusively at their head offices neither, it would be nonsense if they would do promotion exclusively there“ (GG2).

Further statements in the German and UK interviews point to the fact that graffiti can no longer be categorized as purely a local issue confined to each city or country – international networks between writers from different countries forming temporary crews and journeys of graffiti writers are noticed. “We realize that (…) often they are not Munich citizens. Usually there is one from Munich who knows the region and well, yes, otherwise the boys come from Spain or the UK or from far and wide. From time to time and they make indeed little journeys (…) Well I can state that there is a network between the scenes” (OG1).

“You can fly to Milan return (...) for about £80 (…) Why would you want to go to rainy Swansea when you can go to sunny Milan to paint graffiti’’ (OUK1).

“Certainly there are as international contacts. Many have taken an Interrail ticket to go painting in different countries. When I go on vacation I don’t do tourism, I go to paint. I always ask friends to tell me who they know at the destination to tell me how and where to paint. I've made a lot of friends like that. Then you say, 'hey I am from Barcelona so anytime you go there, just call me' and the same the other way round” (GE2).

No explicit use of graffiti maps None of the interview partners from the sections state/local authorities, police/law enforcement or transport systems in the four countries researched mentioned explicitly the use of so-called graffiti maps.

In single cases specific travel itineraries of writers are identified according to police investigations. “We had them here because of shop theft when snitching spray cans and (…) it was assessed, hey, these two are writers, foreign writers, investigations were then intensified of course and then it could be assessed where they have been around” (PLEG1).

Additionally in Spain the local government of Terrassa, a 200.000 inhabitant’s city in the metropolitan region of Barcelona, has started a project on mapping graffiti, but data are still unavailable.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

4 ETHICAL AND PRIVACY ASPECTS

Graffiti prevention involves some controversial aspects that need to be considered. Particularly the criminalisation process may result in discrimination, unfair treatment and privacy threatening. It is fundamental to take into account ethics in terms of graffiti prevention such as the distinction between art and vandalism, painting with permission and legality, the criminalisation of graffiti and its externalities among others. Besides, it is particularly important being aware of the privacy debates arisen and data protection issues when prevention and prosecution strategies imply gathering and sharing data on graffiti writers.

In this section different ethical aspects are addressed in order to identify controversies and to avoid reproducing them while developing the Graffolution project. A whole section is dedicated to data gathering and sharing, since graffiti writers’ identifications are the previous step for prosecution. At the same time, important findings and reflections are considered towards the creation of the web platform.

4.1 Ethics of graffiti prevention

Graffiti prevention is built on the bases that graffiti is closely associated to vandalism and anti social behaviours. The debate considering graffiti as an offence or a form of (street) art is complex and, as seen throughout the whole report it depends on the context, the stakeholder and the concrete situation. It is associated with permission and legality, the artistic value and aesthetic elements but not only this: also is to a great extent a matter of perception and vision of the world. Generally speaking it is considered illegal by default unless it is commissioned by the stakeholders who are criminalising it.

Vandalism or street art? In this debate there is no consensus and it depends to a great extent to the stakeholders’ roles. In chapter 2 different views on defining graffiti have been presented. In this section different paradoxical situations are presented, reflecting how a single act can be vandalism or art to different eyes, or even both at the same time. To start with, there are three actual and current examples.

In first place, private companies differ in their positioning but tend to have lax conceptions of what is art. Recently Google has developed a virtual gallery. The Google Cultural institute, based in Paris76 has collaborated in the Google Art Portfolio and has included Graffiti as an art form77. Current walls

76 The street art database includes current artworks and some that are no longer existing, such as the 5Pointz murals in Long Island City, Queens, or the walls of the Tour Paris 13 tower in France. Source: https://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/home [30.08.2014]. 77 Source: Donadio, R. (2014). “Google Adds Graffiti to its Arts Portfolio”, The New York Times 10 June.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT and past world-known walls are exposed, based on pictures and documents gathered and donated to the institute.

The following example shows a Spanish case where the artwork is formally a graffiti (a paint made with spray cans on a wall), but the content is not. In this case they justify “it’s not graffiti because it is a replica of a fine art picture”. But the point is that they are painting with the town hall’s permission and under uncovered circumstances and the support of the community and neighbourhood78.

And last but not least, sometimes fine art or urban art is used to prevent graffiti. A sort of battle between good and bad which fosters even bigger distances between graffiti (understood as vandalism) and art (urban, fine or any form)79. The prevention consists of hiring a graffiti writer to fill murals with visual art instead of leaving them blank.

All these examples are referring to public spaces in general, where different conceptions can be found. However, among public transport operators the discourse presents some consensus in considering graffiti as a form of vandalism. In other words: for public transport services graffiti first of all means criminal damage and thereby is treated the same way as common vandalism, whereas the characterization by the police – and also by the general public – is more differentiated. All in all, the most decisive indicators for the estimation of graffiti are its artistic value and the question of its legality. In Germany both are considered, but in Spain, Austria and the UK that of legality is more prevalent.

The London Borough of Hackney does distinguish between graffiti which is purely destructive, and that which might make some contribution to the area. The interviewee describes the rapid responses they make efforts to undertake when instances of graffiti are considered inappropriate: “… when it comes to just purely sort of vandalistic type graffiti then we’ll come down very hard and very fast on that and I’ve literally stood next to graffiti removal men on the tops of ladders on the tops of buildings, you know, scrapping stuff off the walls in the pouring rain just to make sure that stuff gets removed really quickly” (AUK2).

EUK2 suggests that there is a need for the cleaning teams who work on the grounds for the property developer to be informed in a suited manner. If there was a platform that was aimed for sharing information then this should take into consideration all levels of employees from high management to cleaning teams.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/arts/design/google-adds-graffiti-to-its-art-portfolio.html?_r=1 [10. 06. 2014]. 78 Source: “El resultado será muy similar a la obra original” [Results will be almost the same than the original piece], Faro de Vigo, 22 August 2014. http://www.farodevigo.es/gran-vigo/2014/08/22/reto-resultado-sera-similar-obra/1079660.html [22.08. 2014]. 79 Source: Mortimer, L. (2014). “Fine art of deterrence: art used to beat graffiti”, Northern Star, 12 July. http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/Fine-art-of-deterrence-Art-used-to-beat-graffiti/2316342/ [12. 07. 2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

In summary, different stakeholders have different views and those who traditionally have defined graffiti as a problem, as an offence and vandalism affecting their premises, service, budgets and also their social image. State and local authorities, for instance, explain the pressure they receive to remove graffiti with political slogans. From the point of view of public and private operators of public transportation, graffiti is mainly vandalism and should be more strictly punished. They consider that writers should be treated as thieves, since they enter in forbidden facilities (tunnels, ventilation bridges) and damage them (cutting networks, disabling alarms). The operators try to improve their security systems but there are economic restrictions. As one of them notes: “It would be ideal to have all the stores monitored and guarded 24 hours a day, but obviously that’s not possible. (…) we have other problems that need to be solved; you can’t have a police car watching only the store” (OE1).

Thus, their main prevention action is based on the “rapid removal”, to some extent rooted in the “broken windows theory”. In general the removers are operators that might be envoys on behalf of administrations (in case of public spaces) or transport operators (in public transport facilities). The removal teams or contractors tend to be executors only that are contacted to remove or clean specific areas with the main goal to make them look clean and without considering the artistic value or appreciating the artwork. They do not have discretionarily to decide what to remove or not.

The graffiti writers affirm that there are many different motivations behind writing, and most of them are not connected to vandal attitudes, in special those who want to follow their inner need for expression: “So people that smashing windows or slashing seat cushions [e.g. in public transport], I would bet everything I have, that are 99% not graffiti writers. Writers are just equipped with colours and want to do their art” (GA2).

Graffiti writers think that graffiti should not be forbidden or criminalized since it is a natural dimension of human beings. Moreover, while graffiti is criminalized, street art is not. Street art is socially accepted: “they ask for a sponsor (…) there is a permit, a mark and a product. And there is an economic purpose” (GE4). Graffiti writers are afraid that progressively graffiti becomes considered just in this artistic dimension, and that painting graffiti becomes an exclusive art, a good integrated in market. They think that there are those who sell their paintings and those who don’t. They think that this is because of the current economic system, which makes “losers and winners” (GE1). “Graffiti is to paint in the street with a spray, with the hood, that’s the authentic. For me, that’s the authentic, though I am not against the other [street art]” (GE4).

With regards to how are differences handled, operators have discretionarily to remove whatever they want. Actually they tend to remove everything in Spain, Austria and the UK80. The common

80 Transport for London created their first specific graffiti-policy following investment in 2008-2009. Interestingly, this was also their first recognized instance of attempting to distinguish between street art type practices and journey-endangering or destructive forms of graffiti and have since reported that their recorded rates of graffiti vandalism have steadily decreased.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT mantra is rapid and complete removal, as they are really concerned with the “broken windows” theory.

It is needed a more efficient organization of the security guards and better coordination with members of the Security Forces, both at state and local levels. Some transport operators also highlight that another factor is the increase of training that the company provide is to their employees and safety guards (who are sub-contracted) in matters relating to health assistance and civil protection (RENFE, 2011: 62). This is also when they talk about street art. It seems as the main characteristic in a first step if something is street art or vandalism is just the fact if the graffiti writer is permitted to paint in a specific area. Visual and artistic aspects are not relevant when people have to act according their profession.

Along with the criminalisation process, Austrian graffiti writers express their discontentment with the disproportionate treatment received. Several writers also mention that the legal system and the convictions are unrelated to the problems graffiti is causing (especially in relation to more severe offences). For example several writers compare convictions of writers and convictions of child molesters which prove to them how unfair the system treats graffiti writers that were sentenced to very high fines or prison (GA1, GA2, and GA3). “… you know, if there is laws that punish graffiti artists more than drug molesters it is kind of like (…) maybe somebody needs to look at the law books again and be like "Ehm, that clearly something is out of line there” (GA1).

“And that also says something about society, that somebody who adds a layer of spray to a wall is treated worse than somebody who is like molesting children. It is kind of like what is really worse?” (GA1).

A writer also mentions that it would be important that all the actors that are part of the discussion on graffiti vandalism try to make a step back and look at it less emotional and more objective (GA2). Another person from the paint industry describes it as follows: “… maybe it is better that he or she, it’s mainly the guys that I know, doing this instead of making other nonsense. It shouldn’t happen anything worse as somebody painting colour at something…” (EA1).

Not only at a conceptual level, but this perceived disproportionate treatment is reproduced when they are caught by police and authorities (particularly in Germany): “That was rather incredible and so. They have treated me like a terrorist somehow. That was really heavy“ (GG5).

“Rather, well, displeasing experiences with the law or with the people who try to prevent this. Well and that was bitter first somehow, to make those experiences, well to be 16 years old and have the Federal Border Police at home. (…) One is treated like the worst criminal. And if you are 16 years old it is not the first thing you think of when having a passion and saying ‚oh, I am writing letters somewhere“ (GG2).

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

“One is not aware getting in so much trouble just by writing something at a post. And it really is, one is labeled, you are totally, you understand, I did not understand at all what was going on with me“ (GG4).

Actually, graffiti writers mention that they are more likely injured when they are prosecuted than when they can follow the procedure they have been planned (GE2, GE4). Indeed, public and private operators of public transportation use safety guards, together with alarms and CCTV, as the main obstacle for writers. Companies are coordinated with the police, but policemen only come when an intrusion has been detected. Safety guards are the real sentinels of trains. Some stakeholders denounce that writers, in addition of damaging facilities and entering in forbidden spaces, hurt safety guards. The writers interviewed, especially in Spain, do not reject this idea. As one writer mentions: “Security guards change during the day. In the metro, from 6pm, more experienced guards enter into service. They are called “lobos” [wolves] (…) Guards at night shift in the metro are those more antigraffiti. They are more prepared. (…) We normally don’t attack the police. But we attack private security guards if they catch us. But I have never assaulted the police for a graffiti” (GE2).

In that context a central dilemma concerning the perceptions regarding graffiti by the public, police and authorities on the one side and the intent of the artists ‘writing on the other side is mentioned. “You do not do graffiti in order to make bad things. You really do not do it in order to endamage someone or the state, not at all. It is simply doing one’s own thing and, yes. And then in the end you realize how it is punished and how badly it is, well, how badly it is seen. (…) But the people who do graffiti (…) they pick areas specifically. For example a specific wall, where the wall is totally run down and they are noticing the property owner does not care about. And then they do a picture on it. And then it is assessed as material damage although the wall has been designed more beautiful in a way, and there is always an antagonism” (GG4).

“But there are always the two sides of a coin, people just have to think whether they take the time to look at it or not, after all if people are not up for it, well, I cannot help them (…) it is close to my heart that people would understand it a little bit somehow” (GG2).

Spanish writers mainly put on the table how distrustful are they with the figures on costs of graffiti removal. The debate can be seen under three dimensions: interests, costs and fines.

In first place, all Spanish graffiti writers interviewed think that graffiti is a business for the government; they think, “this is the other side of the coin” (GE1). Indeed, writers denounce the huge amount of money wasted to remove graffiti year after year, when other priorities are left behind. They highlight that in other countries, like in Italy or Germany, graffiti are less washed than in Spain. They believe that some private interests are behind what they consider as disproportionate expenses. “They [public authorities] are interested in the existence of graffiti in trains. You know why? First, because of the public money they receive, it is clear that they are interested in allowing graffiti, because sometimes they leave a wagon in a tunnel without surveillance, alone. Or they leave a train in the middle of nowhere. We call them “tómbolos” (sic). (...) I am sure that they have a minimum rate of graffiti per month and they have to get them. It creates jobs: cleaning

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

services, security (...). It is something very strange. On the one hand, it is criminal, but on the other hand, it creates jobs. I don’t understand it, it is very strange. I frequently think that I don’t understand graffiti. I don’t know what it is exactly. It is something very special, you know? And I don’t know how I have come through that” (GE1).

“I think that the TMB [operator for metro of Barcelona] is subsidized to wash graffiti. (…) If you paint a minimum of graffiti per year they will give them a fixed amount of money (…) there are metro lines where it is surprisingly easy to paint” (GE2).

“They are interested in having some people painting graffiti and some companies removing them” (GE4).

Their feeling is that there is an economical system based on graffiti, which is desirable for transport companies but mainly to removal sectors. In Spain traditionally public budgets have suffered this sort of situations, where public spending sometimes has been deviated under corruption patterns. Writers in Spain thus think that although they are criminalised, prosecuted and their artworks removed and painted over, there is always someone behind which has an interest to keep it this way.

Beyond the artistic debate, all Spanish interviewees coming from transport operators and public administration have insisted in the economic impact of graffiti removal. It is also used as a justification for tackling graffiti and criminalising it. The background idea is that the money spent in cleaning trains for graffiti removal is not being dedicated to improve other aspects of the service or facilities. However, the amount of budget yearly spent is tricky information at the eyes of graffiti writers: they are suspicious about the numbers provided and their general impression is that these ciphers are insignificant in relation to the whole budget they hold. We found particularly two strong reactions of graffiti writers against this argument. One told us “if they are giving that importance to the money spent cleaning graffiti, is this meaning that otherwise they would have not cleaned the trains? If that is the case, they should be thankful to graffiti writers: the best way to keep their carriages taintless” (GE5). The second one shows that when information is provided they should show reasonable numbers, in order to avoid reliability losses: “One year in the metro instead of cleaning the glass put a vinyl sheet to protect them. At the end of the year to give back the same figure, as if they had changed again when the crystals actually just replaced the blade” (GE4).

The graffiti writers build the most consistent group that raise the concern that the fines that have to be paid by caught offenders are too high as they are calculated or assumed on wrong facts. That offenders should compensate cleaning costs is accepted by some of the interviewed writers. Paying for dropout trains because they have to be cleaned before they can go back on track is seen as unfair procedure that skyrockets the fees and ruins the lives of caught graffiti writers.

Permission & legality: are there legal alternatives to write on walls/trains? Beyond illegal graffiti, the writers have some options to paint with permission or according to legality. However, permission and legality do not always go hand in hand. A paradigmatic example in Barcelona is that of shop shutters. There can be an agreement between the artist and the shop owner but it will still be illegal:

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

“… we used to go and ask people if we can paint their roller doors and their shutters on their shops. In Barcelona they made it that like if I painted someone’s shutter the shop owner would get fined 3,000 EUR by the council and the police. So I wouldn’t get arrested for it, but the shop owner would be fined for letting me paint the shop” (GUK1).

What the graffiti writer describes is the punishment of residents who allow work on their properties, which may cause strain between graffiti writers and property owners.

Regarding to legal framework, further insights are given in chapter 5. When considering permissions, a few things should be taken into account, such as who is giving permissions, how are they handled (waiting for response, requirements to get the permission), is there a distinctive mark to know who has permission (while painting and after work). At this stage permissions are to be from public administrations or otherwise are invalid (which shows the example of this writer in Granada81).

Besides this responsibility as well public administration and transport services see the need for areas where graffiti can be done legally. From a city perspective these are mainly free wall projects together with social work initiatives that are constantly looking for new places where graffiti writers can paint and where other citizens can benefit from it or at least are not disturbed (AA2). For example there shouldn’t be flats with windows directly above free wall areas as the spray vapours could constantly disturb or harm tenants (SWCA1).

Legality often is referred to the surface painted and not so centred in the action itself or the people involved in the artwork. Only tagging makes a difference: Tagging is always out of legality and is badly considered by all stakeholders (even graffiti writers refer to tag as senseless a nuisance, without value). The interviewees from different actor profiles point to various legal alternatives that utilise graffiti in public spaces and public transportation. These alternatives include commissioned graffiti, murals, and legal walls (these are the most common, more or less centric in the cities, also the non-lieux). Few examples of trains have been found82. Transport Operator OUK2 explains why transport facilities are difficult to turn legal: “Certainly, from our perspective, we won’t be moving away from our strategy. I would like to see us moving into the use of curated art more extensively, particularly in locations that are challenging for us, so taking us away from the tube environment, per se, because that’s very difficult to be flexible in” (OUK2).

The interviewee suggests that transport system is a less flexible space compared to public spaces and therefore arguably harder to manage legal works. Also the place is important: providing a visible spot will encourage graffiti writers to use it. All four countries surveyed have mentioned legal alternatives. Graffiti writers that are interviewed show interest in legal spaces and opportunities (GE1, GE4, GE5,

81 Source: “Graffiti legalised in Granada”, Euroweekly news, 9 August. https://www.euroweeklynews.com/news/spanish-news/item/121958-graffiti-legalised-in-granada [09.08. 2014]. 82 The most well-known graffiti train example is that of the Brixton Urban Art fair, held annually. http://www.urbanart.co.uk/

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

GG5, GUK1, GUK3, GUK4). GUK3 suggests that there is a need for an advocate for legal walls between graffiti writers and other actors, “It would be great if there were someone who was an active advocate for finding places to paint…”. The interviewee elaborates: “Not necessarily an agency that was about trying to get people in to do video shoots and stuff but someone who could, with the amount of walls that get swallowed up by development in London at the moment, you know, things disappear, places of paint disappear all the time; somebody just making a few calls and going, “Can we have that for, you know, can that be painted for six weeks?” and then you could sign up; somebody like me could sign up for it” (GUK3).

GUK3 further adds: “I think outlets... I feel it’s worth giving a try for outlets, like, advocacy for people that want to paint, who would go and paint a wall without permission but would just as easily do it with permission ‘cause they want to do something nice, so some advocacy on their behalf. I've always had this notion that graffiti ought to have served buskers on the tube. It should have been something that brightened up people’s day even though it was technically not really permitted. I would like to see that being given a chance on a train line or two just to poll people’s reactions.”

Enterprises and Transport Operators underline that although they are open to use legal graffiti in their properties, they will not abandon zero tolerance strategy for illegal works (EUK2, OUK2). This shows how legality is not linked to permittivity necessarily.

The following examples show different initiatives of important cities for each of the participating countries. Vienna is an interesting case, as it was the first city to provide free walls for legal graffiti. Because of several convictions of young illegal writers in the 80es the so-called Graffiti Union reached later an agreement with the mayor of the city to allow graffiti in specific places. (SWCA1). In 2004 again the need for more free walls for graffiti was addressed to the mayor. A task force was built that decided to extend the amount of free walls. For the project called Wiener Wand graffiti artists created a logo in form of a dove as a sign for something that is as well loved and hated by big parts of the community. The symbol marks today places where it is allowed to do graffiti (SWCA1). Since 2004 areas where it is ok for the district as well as for the property owners and where adequate areas are available they are then opened up and called Wiener Wand and there this kind of art can be installed” (SWCA1).

On the contrary, in the city of Munich we find contradictory perspectives regarding the extent of legal alternatives for writers. The interviewed writers in general criticize the current lack of legal walls in Munich (this in contrast to former times). The lack of possibilities for legal writing is connected with several negative aspects, for example the risk reduction of graffiti quality. “Because there are hardly any legal areas, but (…) well there is only one or so but actually it is far too little for the city and also in regard to maintaining quality a little bit and to keep the people away from the illegal” (GG4).

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

“A big problem in the city is that we have only few legal areas (…) it is not possible to go somewhere, sit down and be at ease and do something” (GG4).

On the other side representatives from police/law enforcement state that there is a big amount of legal projects. However it is also stated that only few people know about these projects, which gives clues to certain communication lacks. “We have many legal projects in Munich each month. Many people do not know that“ (PLEG1).

Findings like this show the importance of a common place for legal walls promoters and graffiti writers, as the Graffolution platform might be.

Regarding the (private and political) handling of legal areas Munich is ascribed a specific role – these can be in different ways. On the one hand the lobby of property owners is quite powerful and often counteracting efforts to provide legal walls having fear of decreasing value caused by broken- windows effects. “There was definitely a lobby of property owners or they have interest in, that it did not happen because it would simply decrease the value” (SWCG2).

Additionally the neighbourhood often plays a facilitating and essential role – even if housing organisations take the step and would provide temporary legal areas. “The housing organization (…) did offer to provide the areas for graffiti (…) temporarily and everything would have been great if there had not been again other obstacles like the population living near or around or in the neighbourhood and resisting extremely and protesting against it” (AG3).

These two positions are showing strategies of resistance and opposition to legal walls.

In London’s case, there are many alternatives; the most famous is Leake Street. Leake Street is a legal painting tunnel located underneath the former Eurostar terminal in London’s Waterloo station. It was the site of Banksy’s Cans festival in 2008 and it has been an authorised graffiti location ever since. It is consisting of 10 legal walls”. However, some suspect that promoting legal walls is a simple way to gather artists in one point in order to collect information (pictures, tags, graffiti pieces) that afterwards can be used to match other pieces of information. GUK1 reports that the police tried to tag writers through legal walls in a controversial manner: “The police have tried to do things like they put cameras down Leake Street to catch people. So they give them a legal wall put up cameras, someone goes down and writes their name legally and they know that that person’s name is Glorious (…) and then they’ve got CCTV footage and can put a face to a name” (GUK1).

Barcelona has also the “Free walls” and “Free shutters” initiatives, which have been promoted by civic associations but have found the approval of public administration. Writers are allowed to paint in some specific public spaces of the city (see point 2.2.1) as a strategy of prevention. An interesting experience in this sense is that of the tramway network, where they designed the underground stops

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT in collaboration with the University. Arts lecturers conceived the public space as a canvas to throw messages to population using the tram service. Those messages are included as mural paintings and sprays artworks. In Spain the legal walls model is not well developed yet and some paradoxes have been mentioned in the interviews. Paradoxes expressed by GE5: “I was fined in the evening for doing the same I had been doing in the morning. The difference was that in the morning I was hired by the town hall and in the afternoon I was painting a friend’s shutter”.

We have some data coming from Rebobinart (an artists’ association) in relation to the initiative “Free walls” in the City of Barcelona, where owners and graffiti writers made an agreement so that they can write with permission in specified walls and public spaces. Between October 2012 and January 2014, there have been 419 users of legal graffiti. 60% come from Barcelona while the rest come from other regions of Spain (10%) and abroad (30%) (Rebobinart, 2014). The percentage of foreigners is quite high and shows the attraction of Barcelona for graffiti writers. Another interesting data are about sex and age of participants in this initiative (which might not be representative but is the only data we have about the use of free walls): 86% of the users are male versus 14% of female writers. We have approached a couple of females but they were not interested in participating. A third of participants are between 23 and 27 years old and 72% are older than 23 years old. We don’t have such data for the authors of illegal graffiti. Nevertheless, based on the existing literature and the interviews, and compared with these statistics, it seems clear that there are more female and older writers painting in authorized walls than illegally.

Painting legally is not always synonym to freedom to paint. Apart from this, graffiti writers are quite critical with the spaces declared as legal walls. The current strict policy regarding the providing and controlling of (the few) legal areas is criticized counteracting the development of a graffiti scene. “The other problem is that Munich authorities were always acting very restrictive. So there are, if writers really get the chance to design a passage underground or an area, it is always connected with agreements regarding the design counteracting any form of creativity. This means often it is dictated which colour or motives are required, that cannot and there a graffiti scene is unable to establish, it is not possible that anything advances” (AG3).

In the context of handling legal areas one interviewee describes a characteristic ambivalence between reluctant attitudes and connected restrictive measures regarding graffiti and proactive attitudes and connected pro-graffiti measures – according to the respective requirements and needs of the property owners and relevant authorities.

Another option for legal painting is commissioned graffiti, which is insistently mentioned in the UK. EUK2 interviewee claims “I think if we were going to commission something and pay for something we would look at all forms of art. To see what’s an appropriate response to that space”. EUK2 notes that they are in contact with Global Street Art. A good example is when building societies need to draw attention to planned properties it might happen that they make great efforts to find writers for writing on these vacant areas temporarily. In the interviewee’s opinion writers are exploited this way by grading up the area and advertising the new planned building projects.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

“That is attention by graffiti. Nice and colourful pieces, a small party, well what is that? (…) Ah this is being renovated, interesting. Can one buy that? Ah properties (...) the sprayers are exploited that way (…) that is Munich, nothing is happening without reason and motive” (SWCG2).

Involved in Social Work, SWCUK3 charts out a positive use of graffiti when done in collaboration with other commercial actors in a democratic and organised way: “(...) if you had spaces in obvious areas around the capital or main high-advertising space that people pay a lot of money for, and you have to do a competition where you send your designs and they get voted for by the community, then you can have your piece up there for three months, a month... I do not know... but it won’t be cleaned off (...)” (SWCUK3).

The discussions reflect that there are opportunities where graffiti talent can be used with positive effect under legal forms, and that could exist in public spaces as well as transportation. As AUK2 suggests “street artists going mainstream and actually turning their street art skills into business” reflects the possibilities for positive opportunities. Thus, there is a stream of writers that are trying to earn a living by painting graffiti83.

The future of legal walls is not clear although positive ideas come from all the stakeholders. Graffiti writer is positive about the future of legal opportunities and explains this system can work by considering the requirements and necessities of various actors. GUK3 also suggests that most writers would take ownership of these spaces and look after them “...you need to pick the people that can do it well and knowing the mentality of the sort of people I know, it would be like, or “We would like to have this wall that is ours and our mates wall and if we don't look after it we will lose it”.

Also has to be taken into account that those artists aiming the adrenaline have confirmed that although there are legal options available, some will continue painting illegally. While those more inclined to artistic expression would prefer to paint legal, giving priority to the artwork and not the time dedicated to it. One can wonder if those who paint illegally have the same profiles than those who profit from institutional experiences promoting authorized graffiti. When asked if they would accept to paint in legal walls or under permission, graffiti writers interviewed differ. Most of them admit that they combine illegal and legal graffiti. According to one of them representing the minority: “If it is legal it is not graffiti. (...) If it is legal is like join in paintball” (GE3).

Although only a minority of graffiti writers in the countries surveyed reject legal graffiti, the interviewees might not be representative of the whole graffiti writer community. Especially given that during the recruiting process some have rejected to participate due to the focus of the project.

83 Source: Chuet, J.P. (2014). “Grafitis comerciales, una alternativa laboral” [Commercial graffiti, alternative jobs]. http://www.consumer.es/web/es/economia_domestica/trabajo/2007/10/24/171018.php, [24.06.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

The legal alternatives can become a double-edged sword. On the one hand they can be part of a programme - usually promoting street art such as in London84 or Barcelona (Benvenuty, 2014). In some other cases might be a pro-social initiative in order to dignify, revitalize and build social cohesion in deprived areas (GE5). Several experiences have been carried out in this sense85. Administrations in some cases use graffiti to engage the youth, or raise their awareness on something (such a Spanish local authority did when promoting recycling) (Hunter, 2014).

Graffiti vs advertising Graffiti is discussed in relation to advertising by a number of actors interviewed. Both are visual elements that are present in streets and have an impact on public space and public transport. Some writers explicitly mention graffiti as a counterpart of advertisement. In their understanding it is not comprehensible that people have to face advertising everywhere in public space which is legal but facing non-commercial graffiti that is declared as illegal. As nobody can opt-out to see advertisement also there is no opt-out in seeing graffiti (GA1, EA3, EA1, GA5, GE1, GE2, GE4, GE5).

It is important to document the backlash graffiti writers feel against advertising; this is consistent across a number of actors interviewed and from the literature reviewed. For example GUK5 hopes that in the future there will be: ‘’less adverts and more art in the streets’’. Advertising and graffiti both impact the public space in different ways and also have an influence on each other. We can infer that SWCUK3 believes that advertising appropriates graffiti into the mainstream. The interviewee’s view is that this will continue to affect the future of graffiti: “They will always be around but now it is getting outsourced to media. A lot of it is being used in adverts and people do use it in terms of their building, like craft (...)”.

As a reaction, some graffiti writers re-appropriate advertising strategies to ‘get up’ and spread their name on buildings rather than train tracks, this suggested move away from train tracks is also due to increased crime prevention techniques and advancing technologies. This situation is found mainly in the UK, although there is a huge difference in every country between painting walls and painting trains.

EUK4 from an architectural point of view illustrates the large space advertising takes in property development in public spaces: “Once we were involved with the local authority and the community, suddenly we’re having to work with business improvement district who, you know, wanna slap their logo on every single bin and plant pot. And then they do these things, which are kind of dressed up as kind of… kind

84 Source: http://ico.org.uk/for_the_public/topic_specific_guides/cctvhttp://sabinaandron.com/leake-street/ “‘100 Days of Leake Street’ is a project that shows the changes on 10 different walls in a legal graffiti spot over 100 consecutive days. It is meant to reveal the necessity of free painting places, by demonstrating the energy and variety of the graffiti they attract.” [02.09.2014]. 85 It is worth mentioning “Djerbahood”, a project developed by a Tunisian artist installed in France, that has converted Djerba (Tunis) into an outdoor museum: http://www.biobiochile.cl/2014/08/14/grafittis-transforman-desolado-pueblo-de-tunez-en-verdadero-museo- al-aire-libre.shtml#!/image/37672 [14.08.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

of, you know, adding creativity to the area, but actually they’re trying to just kind of tag… like get a bit of creative kind of cache…” (EUK4).

OUK1 argues that when arrested graffiti writers defend their illegal actions by comparing graffiti writing to commercial advertising. OUK1 demonstrates graffiti writers’ points of view by saying, “Big companies do advertising. I’m just advertising myself (...) I’m just doing what they are doing”. The discussions here suggest that more work needs to be done to open communication channels between these actors. Graffiti writers insist that adverts are not questioned although are formally the same: a form of invading public space for message delivery. They use this argue even when arrested.

Even some big brands use graffiti as a message and appropriating the values associated to graffiti, two good examples of this are following. On the one hand, that is the case for Red Bull, which has set a contest named Canvas Cooler Project 201486. On the other, Luis Vuitton produce a collection of bags and complements named “Monogram Graffiti Canvas”87.

There have been examples of successful community projects where advertisers donate commercial space to youth groups giving them a legal space to share their messages in the urban environment such as the digital "Brand Me" vision board at Old Street Roundabout (London Art Network, 2014).

Graffiti as youth activity The stereotype of graffiti writer is linked to the image of a young man with hood and a spray can in his hand. Different forms of social sorting (including discrimination and labelling) towards young people observed have been observed. However, this is more a perception than reality according to numbers: as aforementioned, while tag is a particular activity that is mainly a teenager activity, graffiti goes beyond early adulthood and more girls and women are joining the scene. Oldest graffiti writers interviewed mainly have the understanding that graffiti is an important way (especially for young people but not limited to them) to express own feelings, transport messages and opinions. (GA5). In Spain, graffiti writers consider that graffiti is discriminated, that is considered as vandalism, and that there are prejudices towards young people (GE2, GE4). They think that graffiti writers are criminalized by their physical appearance and that there is prosecution and interest in socially constructing the idea of “organized criminals”, as news usually reflects (see for instance Rivas, 2013).

All the experiences of most of the writers interviewed with the consequences of those perceptions in form of prevention and general treatment are negative and relate to discrimination, labelling or prejudice. All of the graffiti writers interviewed have suffered the criminalization process made at young age. The interviewee explains that this network includes a wide range of people:

86 Source: “Houston's most famous graffiti artist shows off in rocking Red Bull party: When art & champagne's wild”, Culturemap. http://houston.culturemap.com/news/arts/08-15-14-houstons-most-famous-graffiti-artist-shows-off-in-a- rocking-red-bull-party-the-art-and-champagnes-wild/ [15.08.2014] 87 Source: http://www.louisvuittonbagsokoutlet.com/speedy-30-p-1879.html [15.08.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

“I think that, well, the ones that we are working with are a terribly nice bunch of people. You break away from the stereotype of them being young kids off the estates. They're people who take their art very seriously and wish to become more accomplished at it and wish to learn from other artists and want to learn from practicing. So, it’s not something that’s undertaken lightly. It’s not in the main somebody saying, “Okay, I want to mess up this town. I don't like this town; I want to mess it up and make it a bad place” (GE5).

Graffiti and youth are two associated concepts in both directions. Also in pro-social sense as showed the targeting activities on behalf of civic society and social work and cultural institutions. Public administration dealing with youth culture and social work also have the understanding that it is important to try to explain other institutions where youth related offences such as graffiti come from. They try to communicate that it often is not done as a criminal act but as typical deviant behaviour within a certain age (AA2). This stereotype is also accompanied by a paternalist look at young people’s unawareness. Interviewee PLEUK2 provides an example that illustrates that young offenders may not be aware of the consequences of their actions “they had not really taken on- board the problems and pains it would cause”.

In the UK there is a long tradition of coping with youth and graffiti. Looking at Brighton AUK1 explains that they do intensive collaborations with the graffiti writers for community projects. In terms of community engagement and prevention programmes, AUK2 explains that they specifically targeted young people and aim for their inclusion: “If you can imagine in a place like Hackney, which is Inner City London, we put an enormous effort into gang prevention work and trying to prevent young people getting involved in gangs. So there’s huge effort on behalf of our community safety team, on behalf of the police, to try to mostly… well both work with the consequences of gang behaviour, but mostly to prevent young people getting into the bad side of gang culture” (AUK2).

However, AUK2 argues that if the intention of a graffiti writer is not art, but to mark territory then it is hard to channel that instinct through activity support, “Because we’re not talking about art here, we’re talking about making your mark, which are much animalistic”.

From the graffiti writers’ perspective, GUK3 adds that criminalisation process is something inevitable and considered as a rite of passage. The interviewee describes the criminalisation process as a means to claim a position. However, GUK3 also states that it is not a preferable option: “[you always have] The law … at the back of your mind if you are an active graffiti writer (...) think a lot of people around me always did and then I had numerous cases (...) when they're going through the courts they hang over you a lot and affect you personally and professionally. (...) Actually, I had a couple of times when I was really considering... there were quite sort of epiphany moments, I suppose but certainly the last time I was caught that was it. That was the final... I got so close to going to jail that I stopped” (GUK3).

As a final remark for this section, these programmes are quite exceptional and oppose to other public initiatives that seek the contrary, i.e. chasing graffiti writers. For instance, the town of Brunete, a municipality close to Madrid, invented a false competition of graffiti to attract writers and

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT make them wash their graffiti (Sánchez, 2014). These kinds of strategies do not help to create incentives for writers to abandon the practice of painting trains or even to participate in graffiti contests. Ethics of graffiti prevention need to build trust between stakeholders. Understanding each others’ views and needs, building bridges of communication and allocating specific people that can have dialogues with both parts seems to be crucial. Besides, all the steps need to be done carefully. Trust is something fragile: while it is very difficult to consolidate, it is really easy to be destroyed.

4.2 Gathering & sharing data on graffiti writers

As law enforcement and transport operators want to tackle graffiti, apart from the several prevention strategies that they may put in practice, a main issue is the identification of the graffiti writers. Those stakeholders that see graffiti as an offence and as an act to repudiate seek ways to stop or at least prevent and decrease the opportunities to write. In doing so, they use physical elements (such as fences, gates and other hurdles), security staff (mainly private security agents in public transport, and police and law enforcement bodies in public spaces) and a wide range of new high technologies (being the CCTV the most common and present in every country). In this section we will focus on the latter, since for the sake of prosecution the fundamental the right to privacy is easily threatened, while gathering data on graffiti writers.

Traditional surveillance via private security guards and patrolling security staff is still present but the success regarding the deployment of security staff is seen rather weak. As it is – due to cost factors – only possible to employ security staff regarding certain ‘hot spots’ on a irregular basis and exclusively regarding storage sidings by default, the representatives of the German railway systems state that only few writers are caught that way. “On the one hand we deploy our security staff, partly recurrently, partly only selectively regarding places where we say ‘well maybe we have hot spots over there’, but certainly it is difficult to catch someone or a offender when doing that only selectively (...) it is like winning the lottery” (OG3).

Due to reasoning like this, the use of surveillance technologies has been increasing throughout the whole decade, although they might not be cheaper or more effective necessarily. In this section the focus will be on privacy aspects related to identification processes. A special mention to surveillance technologies will be made. Threats to privacy are not only a technological matter but the perils and the scope is larger when using surveillance technologies.

Citizen-to-citizen surveillance is also present and is currently done basically using social media profiles or apps.

Surveillance technologies used for graffiti writers’ identification Surveillance can be applied to public spaces in general or transport settings more specifically. In public spaces the most common is CCTV. Transport organisations mention to use diverse security measures in combination - which include trains or wagons and facilities (tunnels, stations or tracks for instance). These measures initially not be deployed because of graffiti but usually are used to

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT tackle it (EUK2). As mentioned, the identification of who are the graffiti writers and how can they be caught - and therefore punished - becomes a main concern (OE3).

CCTV is by far the most common in any of the countries surveyed and is considered the biggest prevention tool. As per the British Police’s dedicated graffiti units mentioned, CCTV is serving multiple purposes: a) Monitor potentially hazardous situations, b) Identify and follow suspects, c) Provide powerful evidence in court and d) Boost public confidence with cameras acting as a deterrent. CCTV can be equipped with facial recognition software (SWCUK3), thermal cameras (in Germany) and complemented with motion lighting (EUK2) and different types of motion and sound sensors as this operator states: “… motion sensors, sounds sensors, low light cameras, trip alarms. These are all tools that help us to combat graffiti through law enforcement” (OUK1).

The UK is reported to have implemented the highest number of CCTV cameras per person, anywhere in the world. This suggests that in London probably the biggest prevention tool is CCTV, “you can’t step outside a building without being on CCTV in London, so that’s probably the thing that has the most effect” (AUK2). The great number of CCTV creates a general feeling of infallibility. However, the effectiveness of all these measures remains unclear. Public and private operators of public transportation consider they need to improve their systems of prevention to stop writers from painting.

Transport operators agree to a different extent that surveillance technologies are helpful for identification of perpetrators, while its deterrence effect seems more diluted. Evaluations reported in 2008 by Welsh and Farrington for the UK Home Office indicate that “CCTV schemes in city and town centres … as well as those on public transport, did not have a significant effect on crime” (Campbell, 2008), and Anna Minton, writing for the UK’s Joseph Rowntree Foundation, reports that “mounting evidence shows that private security and CCTV does not reduce fear of crime or actual crime and might in fact increase crime” (Minton, 2008). Clearly, such findings are not specific to graffiti but given impacts of graffiti activities are understood to vary, there appears to be an opportunity to interrogate the relation between surveillance and graffiti further.

In Bavaria, there have been noticed deterrence effects to some extent. These are interpreted as a big success: looking at a period of two years graffiti significantly decreased within the respective trains in Bavaria. “We have video surveillance in the trains, in the new train, that means if a picture of the offender is taken and the offender did not cover up his face, 95 % of indoor-graffiti in Bavarian trains can be detected that way (…). And additionally it was recognized continuously that the damages decreased rapidly“ (OG3).

A less common thing is social media surveillance (only mentioned in Spain and the UK), which is mostly practiced by law enforcement and security bodies. In Spain, it seems a general practice. However, in the UK only those considered “street artists” seem to be present and having profiles in

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT social media (GUK1). They also use social media to find out what do graffitists say on them and which their movements are. Graffiti writers may use online social networks as an on-line informal gallery.

Other surveillance technologies have been disclosed in the interviewing processes and during the desk research, some already deployed (as the FGC application in Spain) and some are planned for a close future such as drones or helicopters in Germany. This latter country is seen as the more inclined to use technology for catching: “But in Germany there is, mainly in Bavaria and Munich they try to prevent you extremely from spraying, by pursuing you applying a major technical effort. With helicopters every week, helicopter operations in order to catch graffiti writers” (SWCG2).

The use of drones is planned not only to detect but also to locate and document the illegal activities, so that the recordings can be used in court. According to the Deutsche Bahn once more this measure is a reaction to the high number of graffiti vandalism and the enormous costs it causes. By now the use of drones is under regulation at different paces across Europe. In Germany it is limited and only allowed in DB premises.

And last but not least, is citizen-to-citizen or natural surveillance. Different operators mention various platforms and channels (emergence telephone, twitter, apps) to communicate with population and get some information from users. Since the democratization of smartphones, multiple apps have been developed. This is a usual strategy appearing in the media88. While natural or horizontal surveillance can contribute to social cohesion and may have positive effects deterring petty crime and graffiti, can be fostering suspicion among passengers and/or citizens or, at least, push them to potentially play the role of whistle-blowers.

Involving citizenship and promoting horizontal surveillance might be a good tool, although the categories used to mention which activities and appearances are to be denounced, can contribute to some extent to promote intolerance towards certain sectors. A good example of all these problems is the application for mobiles developed in Spain.

In 2012 the regional company FGC developed an app to denounce “anti social behaviour”. The mobile application FGC included a new element: an interface that encourages users to combat antisocial behaviour from other passengers, by sending alerts. The application is part of a master plan developed by the FGC in January 2012 to reduce antisocial behaviour. This is defined with many options (dirty seats, loud music, scratched glasses, smoking), graffiti included as one of them. The app was controversial since it included the possibility for users to denounce beggars, musicians and vendors an option that was finally removed as a result of complaints (Aiats, 2012). Figure 10 (next page) shows the app with the option of denouncing beggars (captaires in Catalan):

88 Source: “Trowbridge graffiti vandals are caught red handed”, Wiltshire Times. http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/11412250.Trowbridge_graffiti_vandals_are_caught_red_handed/ [16.08.2014]; and DFO, 2014 “Spokane offers graffiti reporting tool”, The spokesman-review, http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/hbo/2014/aug/14/spokane-offers-graffiti-reporting-tool/ [14.08.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Figure 10: The FGC app for incivility reporting89 Passengers could report any of these categories from their phones without providing a name (although not completely anonymously since MAC address and phone number can be revealed to the receiver). In its first year, the application received 3,000 complaints of anti-social behaviour in the trains90. In any case, under this surveillance scenario graffiti writers become data subjects. Since the monitoring and data-capture technologies are widespread and implemented across a number of applications, operated by both public and private organisations with lenient regulation, it is very hard to know what consideration has been given to privacy issues, or what portion of data-capture instances are attributable to graffiti.

Particularly, the increasing use of CCTV introduces some ethical important questions. First of all, cameras question the right to the own image and particularly to privacy. Secondly, it is necessary that film recordings are supervised live or later and that they are stored and eliminated, where applicable, guaranteeing access rights to the people who could hypothetically appear on them (Guillén Lasierra, 2011). However, in general ethical aspects are not considered since the main purpose is to tackling graffiti either way, forgetting to some extent that graffiti writers, as any other citizen, have their right to privacy.

A public operator of train shows how in the cat-and-mouse game both parts are constantly adapting to the changes of the counterpart:

89 Source: http://www10.gencat.cat/gencat/AppJava/cat/actualitat2/2012/727aplicacimbildfgc.jsp [15.07. 2014]. 90 According to the data, graffiti is not a big problem for users of the app (graffiti supposed only the 3% of all the incidents reported).

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

“We have been professionalized. We try to get out the train the fastest as possible (...) we are getting more and more complex systems of detection of intrusions, alarm systems, security systems. But then graffiti writers are also becoming more and more professionalized. (…) We study them and they study us” (OE1).

At their turn, Graffiti writers also show some strategies to hide themselves from CCTV (Austria, Spain) such as breaking or painting cameras, covering their faces, etc.). The interviewed graffiti writers and people who know the scene very well didn’t seem to be too much concerned about CCTV. One also mentions that it is easy to cover ones face to stay anonym or stay out of the angle covered by the camera. (GA2). Others paint on cameras, break censors, and go down the tracks with sticks. Another defensive strategy is to be cautious with their tags: “When I paint trains, I put the name of the crew, in case they caught me. Because they can investigate you and connect you with another painting in another train. (…) I am sure they have my name in a list” (GE2).

In this adaptive dynamics perverse measures can be developed. For instance, one of the basic conditions for CCTV surveillance is that data subjects have to be informed that they are under CCTV surveillance premises. This year in Ireland a failure to accomplish with this principle has been recorded at Dun Laoghaire where a system of hidden cameras was installed “to clamp down on graffiti in the area”91. Although the UK Data Protection Act92 meant to regulate application of CCTV, it appears more transparency around this area would still be useful and this can be applied to all countries.

Creating databases Under all these surveillance measures graffiti writers become data subjects. This means that operators and administrations, in usual partnership with law enforcement are gathering data from writers, too often without their consent. Since data controllers gather their data, all the information collected needs to be processed and stored in databases. Databases are seen as the solution for most of the interviewees aiming to prosecute graffiti writers, allowing to document graffiti damages in a structured manner was pointed out several times.

Different ethical aspects need to be considered: it is not only important which data is gathered and how or whether the ARCO rights93 are warranted. Data gathering or collection is just one of the steps of the information cycle, which is followed by use, disclosure, retention (how the records are managed) and destruction (for how long data needs to be stored). So often this data collection is

91 Source: The Irish Times, http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/hidden-cameras-to-clamp- down-on-graffiti-in-d%C3%BAn-laoghaire-1.1896288 [14.08.2014]. 92 Source: Data Protection Act. http://ico.org.uk/for_the_public/topic_specific_guides/cctv [30.08.2014]. 93 According to data protection principles these are the rights to Access, Rectification, Cancellation and Opposition. The right to privacy also includes the right to control the circulation of an individual’s own information.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT accompanied by data matching (based on the information gathered from the different surveillance technologies), another important process threatening the right to privacy.

Data collected The categories of data collected vary across countries but basically includes personal and non- personal information. For those that have been caught, their names and other personal data are included, these can be then matched with footage or even fingerprints taken from discarded cans that graffiti writers might throw away. Also the number of offences attributed to the offender is recorded, as recidivism gives more strength to the prosecution. This is commonly used in news pieces when a graffiti writer is arrested94. Reports from London borough environmental crime teams indicate they also make use of a number of database technologies, including to ‘fingerprint’ tags, to connect multiple instances of graffiti to single individuals. However, the quality and usefulness of these databases is under discussion. The research team has been told that the quality, accuracy and usability of these technologies varies considerably, meaning that identification errors and failures can be expected.

In Austria for instance: currently there is no adequate database that is used to map, monitor and analyse graffiti vandalism at law enforcement agencies in an efficient and structured way. In case of a trial the needed documents have to be collected and analysed cumbersome and resource intensive. However, the connections between law enforcement agencies, transport services and cities seem to work out well (OA1, OA3, PLEA2).

Almost all transport operators have a direct form for complaining to the police and usually have agreed a systematic procedure for documentation. For instance in Austria all damages have to be documented and reported to the police. “Everything is documented, complaints and cooperation with the police […] that this can also be used in front of the court, including photos and so on…” (OA1).

In Spain the Civic Observatory95, their last meeting held in Barcelona the 21st July 2014, the partners agreed on using the same methodology to assess the impact of graffiti. This new methodology should enable that police, the public prosecutor’s office and judges become aware of the real cost of removing graffiti and repairing damaged trains. As the press release of the last meeting states:

94 This is another form of criminalising graffiti: showing the big numbers of offences committed by a single writer. Recently has been in the news a graffiti writer from Badalona, who is blamed for more than 80 graffiti and many other petty crimes in the Barcelona subway system: http://www.lavanguardia.com/local/barcelona/20140820/54413196803/detenido-un-vandalo-por-mas-de-80- grafitis-y-danos-en-el-metro-de-barcelona.html) [20.08.2014]. 95 FGC was pioneer in Spain in the idea of creating an Observatory on Civility of Railway Transport in September 2012. The aim has been to bring together the various initiatives and projects undertaken by rail transport operators in Spain in order to improve civic responsibility and management of the train services. The partners, apart from RENFE, come from different parts of Spain: Barcelona (Metropolitan Transports of Barcelona, Metropolitan Tram), Bilbao (Metro), Valencia (Railways of the Generalitat), Madrid (Metro), Seville (Metro), Mallorca (Railway), Malaga (Metro) and the Basque Country (Euskotren).

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

“Graffiti, which threaten the service, are made mostly by organized groups, acting often with antisocial attitudes, like stopping the trains, threatening railway agents or customers, in addition to risking their lives in acts like moving trains, entering areas under voltage or ventilation shafts” (FGC, 2014: 2).

Furthermore, the Catalan police has a unit specialized in researching graffiti, the ASMET (Àrea de Seguretat del Transport Metropolità), where there is a protocol in the way of making and storing pictures of graffiti.

Also in Germany it is of great importance to record all incidents. The Deutsche Bahn the database across the group contains all security relevant incidents – including all graffiti related incidents (OG2). These databases are mostly shared but Germany has a different condition in this sense: only police and Deutsche Bahn use them, while other stakeholders affirm not to have any databases or special software for graffiti writers’ data collection.

Generally speaking Information gathering is not only useful, but also seen as legitimate, OUK1 discusses the use of databases within UK transport policing, upon graffiti as essential to building and connecting information linked graffiti to prosecutions: “In terms of how we monitor [graffiti], of course we’re gathering information, not just through, visual surveys, but also through the use of information from informants and from local authorities and their databases, you know, it all comes into our database, where we make sense of that” (OUK1).

All in all, graffiti writers are aware of these measures and explain that companies removing graffiti make a photo of them before washing graffiti, even in the street. They suspect that they collect them and put them into relation with the writer. However, they do not have the chance to deliver informed consent. Besides, those data controllers gathering data operate on the basis that all information has to be collected, without considering the proportionality principle or the link between the need for large bunches of data and the purposes it will be used for.

Besides, in Germany, UK and Spain, utilizing information from the data base for press relations and general communication via the website, the recorded incidents and their analysis aim to find solutions regarding effective measures against graffiti vandalism. “First of all these results are utilized to develop specific measures in order to prevent this. In fact that is the primary purpose of all these databases (…), It is important to recognize quickly where the core areas are and to act (….). It is also a basis for the decision-making when do I do what and where“ (OG2).

In the case of the police the recorded files of writings are a central aspect in connection with police investigation in all the cases. “Of course every graffiti, tag or writing (…) is strictly recorded and will be compared to already recorded writings (…). That is the first, if I have an offender being seized somewhere and I get the record to see what did he scrawl. With the specific writing it is similar, are they related to the same housing area, are they related to the same crime scene area and then work starts (…)

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

we see it as a text collection having created alphabetical folders where the respective writings are saved alphabetically in order to be able to see whether the writing is already existing or not“ (PLEG1).

Also the people involved in data collection processes need to be considered. An important role in this field is the expert graphologist, whose role is to analyse different graffiti pieces and match those that have been created by the same hands (being individual or crew performances). In terms of data protection, the more people involved in the process of data treatment, potentially less privacy warranties are there, and more cautious have to be with the process. Furthermore, it is important to consider also the role of data processors (if there is any).

Data sharing and matching In Spain the collaboration is becoming a priority, not only between a given operator and the police, but also among transport operators in order to build a joint-strategy. The creation of the Observatory is very recent but is positively evaluated by some of the stakeholders involved. As representatives from two different public operators say: “We share experiences and ideas. We need to act together and homogenize the way we denounce, which information is important… it is the only way to eradicate this behaviour” (OE1).

“We are worried about civility, and one of the issues of civility is graffiti. Because we are worried (...) we try to share a data base to fight against graffiti” (OE4).

They are developing a plan for tackling with graffiti on the side of prevention but also reinforcing the sanctioning part. Actually they are working on a shared database of “offenders”, shared among all operators and in collaboration with police and law enforcement in order to gather and monitor offenders, particularly those who had been caught more than once. The region of Catalonia is particularly concerned, and has a special programme leaded by the centre for coordination of risk (CECAT). Public administration and private and public operators outline the importance of coordination between police, public authorities and operators. Also in Austria they have created a dedicated documentation centre, which works closely with law enforcement and security forces (OA1, OA3).

Collaboration between stakeholders means data sharing. Except for Germany. In regard to the potentials of communicating and/or sharing data within a professional network an interesting aspect was indicated from the PLEG section: the sharing of data is not seen as helpful and effective but rather as blocking the exchange of information. “No, we even blocked the access, in order to make sure that neighbouring departments not belonging to (our headquarter, S.K.) are not able to (…) access any longer (…). The reason for that is (…) if they have an offender they of course want to look there but would not give us information about it and now they have to give us information saying we have the offender, do you have something about him. For otherwise they did much without giving us notice saying, well, we just access to such a platform and skip the part of contacting the relevant department (…). And so we said, we want to have it blocked because if they want to have some information

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

they shall send over a “Ermittlungsersuchung” (request for investigation, S.K.), (…) instead of having a platform everybody has access to, because hereby the exchange of information is equal to zero, as everybody would only look at this platform” (PLEG1).

And sometimes is the other way round: Public and private operators of transport rely on the police to provide them with information of graffiti writers; they send to the police all the information they gather from graffiti writers, meaning that sometimes not only relevant information is sent, but any information gathered. This is directly attempting against writers’ right to privacy.

Finally, another matter has to be mentioned in the dimension of data sharing: as the international mobility among graffiti writers is growing and social media is reinforcing international dynamics, sharing information between countries on international “offenders” is becoming increasingly important. Especially regarding offenders that are searched in various countries the exchange of information is important so that the victims are identified and complaints can be collected across borders. Few efforts have been mentioned during the process of interviews and graffiti writers themselves explained that writing graffiti in other countries is at times easier and less punished than in their hometowns (GE2).

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

5 LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Before entering the legislation of each of the countries involved in the research, it is important to note that there is no specific European legislation regarding graffiti as a crime or administrative infraction. Competences of our political Union are established on articles 2 to 6 of the Treaty on the functioning of European Union and they do not include to any extent penal or civil law. Even if efforts are made to help approximate legal systems, these jurisdictions can only be contemplated in a Member States level.

However, article 4 of the Treaty on the functioning of European Union establishes as a shared competence by the Union and Member States to assure and maintain an area of freedom, security and justice. This is more specifically detailed in art 67.3. “The Union shall endeavour to ensure a high level of security through measures to prevent and combat crime, racism and xenophobia, and through measures for coordination and cooperation between police and judicial authorities and other competent authorities, as well as through the mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters and, if necessary, through the approximation of criminal laws.”

One of the main concerns in this area is the judicial cooperation, being the main instrument for the accomplishment of the justice area of the Union the recognition of judgments. This is going to be especially important when dealing with graffiti offences, both for the sake of prosecution and for the civil liability. In this sense, the Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims articulates coordination measures to assure cross border compensation is accomplished in the framework of the European Union. However, as it has been introduced, it is limited to the practical side of it, leaving to national laws the competence to establish the qualification and the weighting of the damage: Article 12.1. Situations drawn up by this Directive shall operate on the basis of Member States' schemes on compensation to victims of violent intentional crime committed in their respective territories.

As we see, cooperation has to be assured at every time, but up to date, prosecution, judgment and compensation laws belong to the Member States legislation, and that is going to be the focus of this work. Being the research based in the cases of Austria, Germany, Spain and UK, we have to take into account that different legal frameworks are not only different in their regulation of behaviours, but they do not even need to contemplate the same types for a given action or its consequence. In the case of criminal and civil law States do not only keep full sovereignty, but they even mean different legal systems, mainly if we take into consideration that we are working on three countries (Spain, Austria and Germany) of civil law continental tradition and one country (the UK) as the main representative of the traditional common law system. So we find an international phenomenon for which, in contrast with other modern legal challenges, an international common regulation would imply changing the legal traditions of countries with institutions that come as far in time as Roman law. So the first step is to frame graffiti in the legal systems of the studied States.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

When trying to analyse the legal framework for graffiti we should first establish the definition of our object of study. As seen in the definitions of Deliverable 2.1 (see glossary) and the referenced documentation, there is no single interpretation of the graffiti phenomenon. Jurists are always asked to give a univocal interpretation and thus facing a hard task. The consideration of graffiti as a “social movement”, “art”, “neighbourhood culture” by the painters, and an “antisocial behaviour”, “infraction”, “felony”, “misdemeanour”, by the public authorities, gives a paradoxical starting point. In consequence, from a legal point of view this activity involves some different traditional institutions that are not usually studied together, but that, as we see in this report, represent a challenge to the law and so to the researcher.

Permission by the owner of the good is the central idea in for the differentiation between legal and illegal graffiti in the studied cases, and gives us the key to the legal qualification of it as of ART or ASB. If the owner of the good grants permission, graffiti falls into the contractual scope of law. This consent can also be granted ex post facto (after the action). And even a community legal acceptance could be articulated, as it was in the case of the government of Bristol (UK) that organised an open poll through which city residents decided to preserve one of Banksy’s graffitis (Lerman, 2013).

However, as stated in section 2.1, “it seems that most of the writers don’t deny legal forms but see the illegal graffiti as the “original” one” (GUK3). And thus the illegal behaviour will rely on the lack of an agreement, and understood as a forced intervention into someone else’s goods. And that said, when the work is unwanted, it will be considered vandalism and punished by the criminal law, or at least administrative law. It is then common to all the socio-legal studied systems that the Criminal Offence consideration prevails over the rest of legal implications. The legal framework affecting graffiti is focused on prevention or delimitation, punishment and eradication. In the four observed systems almost any graffiti activity can be considered a criminal offence, either as a felony or as a misdemeanour.

Regardless of the commonly accepted definition of graffiti as an ASB, we find that the legal framework for the phenomenon focuses on the study and regulation of the damage as to give a qualification of the action itself. All four countries find their interpretation of damage offences in one of Kruger’s very complete categorization, articulated through four different theories that all have a different focus and can be summarized as following (Kruger 2009): a) Damage of the material: According to that theory criminal damage is defined as every action that is harming the integrity of the object´s material. The damage has to be verifiable objectively and be happening without the permission of the owner. According to graffiti this would be the case for example when the paint infiltrates into the surface or when the material gets damaged during the cleaning process. Therefore graffiti is not understood as criminal damage if the paint is removable without any residues. b) Damage of the function and usability: This theory understands criminal damage not only as a damage caused to the material of an object but also to its function or usage. In case of graffiti this could mean that e.g. a traffic sign is not readable anymore after it got sprayed and therefore loses its usability. Furthermore this theory includes the “aesthetic function” of an object – as typical for monuments. If

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

the appearance of an object is part of its function than spraying its surface is also understood as a criminal damage. c) Change of the shape: In this theory the will of the proprietor is a central element and more important than it was in the theories described so far. According to that every change in the shape of an object that is against the proprietor´s will is described as a criminal damage as he has the exclusive right to decide about the shape of the object. It is quite obvious that graffiti falls in this category, although it is not clear whether any will of the proprietor has to be protected or only those that are seen as objectively reasonable. d) Decrease of value: The decrease of value is an addition to the two theories “damage of the material” and “change of the shape” as it points out the financial damage as the characteristic feature of criminal damage. Thereby the decrease of value can be material or immaterial – as long as it is persistent and the definition of the value is reasonable.

5.1 Study of the legal framework concerning graffiti vandalism & sharing data on graffiti writers in the four researched countries

Following the security approach all studied national criminal codes (Austria, Germany and Spain) or the Statutes (UK) include specific provisions to punish graffiti writing as an offence, even when none of them includes the word “graffiti”. The legal framework has been interpreted by courts, building an incipient body of jurisprudence in relation to this phenomenon. This form of what is considered vandalism in all four countries, as a serious form of ASB or incivility against property, is progressively being recognized in the legal regulations, as we can see from the country reports. Specific amendments have been made during the recent years that shed some light to the work of legal operators.

In all four countries the key question is the permission of the owner. This is the starting point and what makes the difference between legal and illegal graffiti. When no permission is granted, before or after the graffiti work, in all four countries this activity is mainly treated as a criminal offence. When comparing the legal frameworks we appreciate no big differences arise regarding the definition of damage through which graffiti qualifies as an offence, but some interpretations made by legislator or jurisprudence in each case can be very interesting in order to establish the specificities that will affect this phenomenon. What we understand as a damage offence is very similar in all studied systems. Starting with the luck of permission, that comes out as something evident in all countries, the damage offences are understood as those that “destroys, damages, defaces or corrupts” (Austrian Criminal Code art. 125) a good belonging to another person. The graffiti is included in the general regulations concerning these kinds of offences, with small differences from country to country.

What we understand as a damage offence is very similar in all studied systems. Starting with the luck of permission, that comes out as something evident in all countries, the damage offences are understood as those that “destroys, damages, defaces or corrupts” (Austrian Criminal Code art. 125)

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT a good belonging to another person. The graffiti is included in the general regulations concerning these kinds of offences, with small differences from country to country.

In the case of Germany, Section 303 of the Criminal Code, regarding Criminal damage (2005 version) establishes: (1) Whosoever unlawfully damages or destroys an object belonging to another shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine. (2) Whosoever unlawfully alters the appearance of an object belonging to another substantially and permanently shall incur the same penalty. (3) The attempt shall be punishable.

A central milestone in the classification of the legal framework of graffiti and the prosecution of the perpetrators is the 7th September 2005, when a new passage of § 303 “criminal damage” came into effect. Until that point a criminal prosecution of graffiti writers was very difficult as they were liable for compensation but not always guilty of an offence.

In the past § 303 of the German criminal code said: “Those who are illegally damaging or destroying foreign property are getting punished by imprisonment of up to two years or a financial penalty”. The two central terms in this paragraph are “damaging” and “destroying”. Destroying is a higher level of damaging and quite clear for the jurisdiction, as it is understood as rendering something useless. In case of graffiti this would mean for example that the costs for cleaning a sprayed object are higher than its actual value. In contrast to that, a clear definition of the term “damaging” is more difficult and especially the question if and in which way painting the surface of something is damaging the object.

As a reaction to these problems and in order to make it easier to classify graffiti vandalism as criminal damage a new passage was added to §303 in 2005. It says that also those are getting punished “who are changing the appearance of someone else´s object unauthorized in a not insignificant and not only temporary way.” As the older definition of criminal damage had a focus on the damage of the material – at least in the way it was handled in the judicial practice – this point of view has been extended to a dimension that was already described in the theory “change of the shape” as it is now including the illegal change of the object´s appearance.

All in all the new passage of §303 criminal code gives – compared to the older version – a more detailed and practicable definition of whether to classify graffiti as criminal damage or not. Furthermore it is now easier for the victims to proof the criminal damage. As the focus of the older version of $303 laid on the damage of the material this was only possible by the opinion of an expert and thereby attended with enormous costs. With the new passage the efforts of investigation and the costs involved are reduced clearly, while the classification of graffiti as criminal damage is still limited by the categories of temporality and intensity (Mogg, 2007).

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

In Austria graffiti vandalism is considered damage to property by the Criminal code (Strafgesetzbuch or StGB) article 125 or heavy damage to property, by article 126. Article 125. Whoever unlawfully destroys, damages, defaces or corrupts the property of another shall be punished with imprisonment of up to six months or with a fine up to 360 day rates.

Article 126 (2). Who causes damage to property of another exceeding EUR 50000 shall be punished with imprisonment from six months up to five years.

It is interesting the wide range of damages offered by the law, and still defined by general words that leave the door opened to judiciary for interpretation. As we can see it qualifies as an offence even in the case of an aesthetic damage. It has to be noted that penalties are tough, mainly in the highest range. The fact that it can be cleaned is secondary as the definition of damage also contains defacement – however it will have an influence on the punishment. It is not considered damage to property in case the change/defacement can be very easily undone (e.g. remove of a sticker). In Spain we have to take into consideration the large amount of regulations affecting graffiti, both from the administrative law and the criminal law. As a criminal offence, graffiti is qualified either as a felony or a misdemeanor. As for the vis atractiva (preferential jurisdiction) of Criminal Law in the Spanish Legal system, we must start our analysis by the study of graffiti as an offence, and explaining what would the determining factors to differentiate between its qualification as a misdemeanors or a felony. The general definition for a damage offence in Spain is contemplated in:

Art. 625.1 SCC (Spanish Criminal Code). “Those who intentionally cause damage in an amount not exceeding four hundred euros shall be punished with the penalty of permanent traceability of two to twelve days or a fine of ten to twenty days”.

It will be then a felony all behaviour comprehended in articles 263 and 264 of the Criminal Code, understanding any damage on private or public property that overpasses the amount of 400€. The punishment in this case will go from fines of 6 months to 24 months, 1 to 3 years of prison. The amount of the fine would not only depend on the damage, but also in the economic capacity of the perpetrator.

Article 263 1 SCC. Whoever were to cause damage to the property of another not included in other Titles of this Code, shall be punished with the penalty of a fine from six to twenty- four months, in view of the financial status of the victim and the amount of the damage, if this exceeds four hundred euros.

Article 264 1 SCC. […] 2. Whoever causes the damage stated in the preceding Section shall be punished with a sentence of imprisonment from one to three years and a fine of twelve to twenty- four months, if any of the following cases were to concur:

[…]

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

2.4. When affecting assets that are publicly or commonly owned or used;

2.5. When these ruin the party damaged or seriously affect his financial status.

Finally, the Criminal Code still contemplates another felony,

against Historical heritage goods (Patrimonio histórico)

Article 323 SCC. A sentence of imprisonment from one to three years and a fine of twelve to twenty-four months shall be imposed on whoever causes damage to an archive, registry, museum, library, teaching centre, scientific laboratory, similar institution or to assets of historical artistic, scientific, cultural or monumental value, as well as to archaeological sites.

In these cases, the Judges or Courts of Law may order, at the expense of the doer of the damage, adoption of measures aimed at restoration of the damaged asset to the extent possible.

It has to be marked that the word in Spanish for this misdemeanor is deslucimiento, which can be translated as “defacing”. In this sense Jurisprudence has stated that in the cases in which damage is exclusively aesthetic, it should never be considered a felony, but a defacing misdemeanor (falta de deslucimiento), regardless the amount of the reparation. The idea behind these decisions is that while the good is still in use, it cannot be considered damaged. In this sense pronounces the Sentence 2/2009 of the Provincial Court of Leon of 7 January, when it declares that damage should be considered only when there is a) deterioration, b) lessening, or c) destruction of the thing.

It is a different matter if the writing involves offences against people’s image or reputation. If graffiti included insulting messages of legal relevance, the painter would face other punishments, if the content is considered as libellous, slanderous, threatening or containing apology of terrorism or discrimination (Nieto, 2012).

An important factor must be introduced in the equation, and it is that for graffiti to be considered a criminal offence, the perpetrator must be caught in flagrante (i.e. in the act). But in the case that graffiti writers succeed in their work without being detained, it does not mean the owner of the property loses the compensation rights. Regardless of the consideration of the ASB or incivility act as a criminal offence or not, the Public administration or private holder of the property is always eligible for compensation. When prosecuted at a Criminal Court, the procedure to demand the legitimate compensation is as established for civil liability on the LECrim (Rules for the Criminal Process). Besides the criminal responsibility of the painter, he/she may be sued for the economic responsibility generated by his/her action, either at the Civil Court, for private owned property cases, or the Administrative Court, for public goods.

Illegal graffiti in England and Wales can be prosecuted under both the Criminal Damage Act (1971 - criminal law) and under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, that while it belongs

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT to administrative jurisdiction in the continental systems, it is framed in the Civil jurisdiction in the UK legal system. The big peculiarity of the British legislation, in relation to the rest of the countries, is that it refers specifically to graffiti (in all Anti-Social Behaviour Acts since 2003). As we can see in “Parts 1 to 6” of the 2014 Act: “Much of what is described as anti-social behaviour is criminal (for example, vandalism, graffiti, aggressive begging and people being drunk or rowdy in public), but current legislation also provides a range of civil powers, such as the anti-social behaviour order (“ASBO”) and the anti-social behaviour injunction (“ASBI”)”.

From this section of the Act we also understand that some incidents of illegal graffiti can in principle result in both Criminal and Civil proceedings, as it is in the rest of studied countries. In consequence, England and Wales crime statistics also mainly reflect graffiti as either criminal damage or anti-social behaviour (ASB), rather than any act of graffiti being identifiable in and of itself.

The Criminal Damage act - often referred to as vandalism - is about enforcing rights to property and can include graffiti but also acts of arson and malicious damage to property and vehicles. The implications of the UK laws related to Criminal Damage include that permission is the primary driver that serves to determine whether any intervention damages, adds or detracts value to or from a property (see Shaftoe, 2011). Very few UK (or international) legal frameworks or administrative sources attempt to define their meaning of damage, or destruction, beyond terms of permission and impact upon property value, yet there appear to be no associated modes for understanding how owner-permission is what determines absolute decreases, or increases, in property value. As such, the notion of graffiti vandalism within frames such as Criminal Damage ideally needs to be better considered in regard to evidence of communities and contexts affected, rather purely only looking at material forms of interventions on a micro-level and permission-dependent model. As Kurt Iveson suggests, “one person’s interpretation of vandalism is another person’s affirmation of life in the city”. He emphasizes that we now need smarter strategies around how to handle such disagreement or difference (Iveson, 2008), rather than assuming that all take the same view.

In Scotland, illegal graffiti can be classified two separate criminal offences. Firstly, the common law offence of 'malicious mischief'. Secondly, section 52 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995, as a form of vandalism. In terms of that section: "any person who, without reasonable excuse, willfully or recklessly destroys or damages any property belonging to another shall be guilty of the crime of vandalism."

Weighting of the damage As a phenomenon that has social implications, including the fact of the average age of offenders, and can be interpreted in a number of ways, the need of weighting criteria is very important, in order to avoid some unwanted consequences. In Spain, Austria and Germany the usability of the good after graffiti is an important criterion to consider the importance of the damage, established by jurisprudence in Germany, and in the same way in Spain in a first stage, being introduced lately in the Criminal Code by the creation of the defacement misdemeanor. In the case of Austria it is regulated

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT literally on article 125 of the Criminal Code that includes the defacement felony, within the other possibilities. We find in this sense an important delimitation of the kinds of damage, which will represent the most important criteria when establishing the qualification and punishment of graffiti.

Regarding the existence of minor offences, only in Spain felony and misdemeanor are distinguished. In the UK these legal institutions (felony and misdemeanor) were merged into a unique type in the 60´s when it regards to criminal law in general, but there is a distinction between 'malicious mischief' and “vandalism offence” which would represent the same differentiation. In Austria and Germany graffiti always qualifies as felony. Germany introduces the concept of the graffiti being “not significant and “not only temporary” in order to introduce indicators. These distinctions are important when dealing with punishment and rehabilitation of social conducts, since they introduce weighting criteria for deliberation of the judge.

In the case of Germany, the legal criteria to consider the level of damage and so the weighting of the punishment are related to the words “substantial” and “permanent”. These can be seen as correctives in order to prevent an excessive use of the fact criminal damage. The first one, understood as “non…” refers to the intensity of the changed appearance while the second one focuses on the temporal persistence of the act. One problem is that the intensity or dimension of a change may vary greatly with the respective point of view. Already a small tag on an exterior wall may be a big change for the proprietary but is probably almost not noticeable for a passerby.

Less difficult is the term “not only temporary” (as for permanent). Important here is that not the “real durability” but the “potential durability” is the decisive factor. For example if the proprietary removes a graffiti (sprayed with persistent paint) from his object one day after it got sprayed, the real durability is only temporary but the potential durability is not only temporary as the graffiti would have been there persistently without the effort of the proprietary. What matters is that the graffiti had the potential and would have been persistent and therefore has to be classified as not only temporary. On the other hand, graffiti has to be classified as only temporary if it disappears on its own in a short time or could be removed with little effort. In this case, little effort includes the usage of basic tools like detergents that are common in every household (Kruger, 2009).

Furthermore an extensive piece on a bus shelter can hardly be treated in the same way as a small tag on a skyscraper. According to this it is emphasized that objective and appropriate criterions should be used. This includes that the size of the – in our case – graffiti has to be compared with the size of the object. Referring to the previous example this would mean that a tag on a skyscraper could be classified as insignificant while the piece on a bus shelter could be seen as a not insignificant change as it is covering a major part of the object. Further criterions are the place – if the wall is already covered with plenty of graffiti – and the visibility of the graffiti and therefore its perception of and effect on the public. Despite all these criterions there stays a certain scope how to classify the intensity of a special graffiti or in general the changing of an object (Kruger, 2009).

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

In Spain, a way of weighting the damage when it was purely aesthetic was the introduction in the Criminal Code establishes (article 626) of the defacement misdemeanor, which has since then represented a large number of the graffiti offences. The punishment for these behaviours would be punished by permanent localization from 2 to 6 days, and a 10 to 20 days fine.

Article 626 Spanish Criminal Code (SCC):

“Those who causes defacement to moveable assets or real estate that is public or privately owned, without due authorisation from the authorities or their owners, shall be punished with the penalty of permanent traceability from two to six days or three to nine days of community service”.

On the year 2010, the Criminal Code included on article 626 both moveable assets and real estate. This change, together with the jurisprudential construction of the concept of “damage”, has represented and important change when it comes to trains and busses. Until then, graffiti was considered “damage” on this kind of transport. If the graffiti painting damages the moveable asset or real estate in the sense interpreted by the jurisprudence, then there will be a “damage misdemeanor” of article 625, when it does not overpass the amount of 400 EUR or a “damage felony” of article 263 if it goes beyond this amount.

Ex officio prosecution When we find ourselves in the scope of Criminal law we have to remember that prosecution is always ex officio, and so an investigation by police and judicial authorities is going to happen regardless of the will of the parts. However, graffiti as a peculiar form of damage to goods falls in the category that allows the “perdón del ofendido”. We have to remember, as previously mentioned that the owner of the good can grant permission after the graffiti has been done, and so it will represent a form of legalization.

In Spain it is important to mark that the Citizens Security Law Project approved by the Congress on July 11th 2014 (not in force), introduces some new facts both to the criminal law and administrative law regulations of graffiti. While until now criminal offences could only be prosecuted by Public Security Corps, from now on also other security bodies, and even the Private security actors, which have been given the Public authority status as for the intervention in the case of offences related to painting. Until the present their role was limited to the determination of in flagrante activity, but they were not allowed to take any further action in this regard. This has changed by both the new Private Security Act on 2013 and the mentioned Citizens Security Act. Regardless of the relation between the notion of Security and the Criminal Law, this Act does also contemplate the sanctions corresponding to administrative infractions when the behaviour cannot be considered a criminal offence.

Punishment Penalties are extremely different from one country to the other. We could say that it is specially tough for the major damages in Austria, when penalty can be up to five years prison. On the opposite

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT end of the scale we find the very low punishments, as the 3 to 9 days of community services established by Spanish Criminal Code.

Table 16. Differences between countries’ punishments

Country Highest imprisonment penalty Lowest imprisonment Fine penalty

Austria 5 years Up to 6 months Up to 360 days

Germany Up to 2 years Financial penalty

Spain 2-6 days of permanent 1 to 3 years Up to 24 months traceability or 3 to 9 days of community service

UK Up to 3 months of prison or Up to £2.500 Community remedy introduced by Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

Age would always represent a fact when talking about graffiti and its punishment. Parental liability in this sense should be taken into consideration.

Damage compensation Once understood the criminal legal framework of graffiti, as for the correction of a behavior, we have to remember damage has been inflicted to a good, and the owner has to be then compensated in order to reestablish the situation previous to graffiti spraying. Depending on the owner of the good being public or private, compensations are articulated through the civil or the administrative bodies or jurisdictions or bodies. This aspect is also very close in the four countries, with small differentiations mainly with regard to competent institution and procedures. What is common to all of them however, is the fact that the victim has to take initiative to claim its rights. All countries contemplate civil compensation for private owners through the regular rules of the own legal system for damages. When it comes to Public administration as the victim of the offence Spain and the UK establish fines in order to compensate damage to public goods. These fines are regulated in administrative instruments that are articulated in administrative regulations and will be studied later in this report.

In Germany compensations for the caused damage are only contemplated within the context of a civil process. Thereby it is neither here nor there whether the aggrieved party is a private owner, a company or a municipality. If a graffito is not considered as a criminal damage, there is no further prosecution by the authorities concerning the graffito (but maybe because of accompanied

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT infractions such as trespass). Nevertheless, the perpetrator is still responsible for the caused damage. In a separate civil process, the aggrieved party has the right to claim the damage that has been caused to its property.

As it comes out, a clear definition of when an object is damaged is very critical and therefore has been a point of difference. The jurisdiction and also the majority of the academic research are following the theory “damage of the material” but referring to graffiti – and as already briefly mentioned at the introduction – the difference between direct and indirect damage is a critical point.

According to the varying ingredients of the paint and the different consistencies of the sprayed surfaces, there is no general form of damage caused by graffiti. And in the most cases it was not possible to prove that the graffiti damaged the material of the surface directly. Therefore the Federal Court (“Bundesgerichtshof BGH”) putted the indirect damage of the material on the same level as the direct damage, in order to extend the prosecution of graffiti writers. Thereby indirect damages included all inescapable damages to the surface caused during the cleaning process.

But this solution of the BGH provided new difficulties. On the one hand was the question in which way the perpetrator was able to estimate the future risks of damaging the surface during a possible cleaning process and if he took that risk on purpose. On the other hand there was now a difference between graffiti that had already been removed and those that were still visible. The first one could be treated as a criminal damage (in order the cleaning process caused any damage), while the second one could not (Mogg, 2007).

According to these problems a juridical classification of graffiti was very difficult what led to a lack of protection of the proprietaries – especially in case of easily removable graffiti. Furthermore the jurisdiction came to different results concerning comparable cases. This was very questionable, especially regarding the principle of equality and leads to the conclusion that the judicial practice was not able to solve the problem of illegal graffiti in an appropriate way (Kim, 2013).

In Austria victims can also sue offenders for civil liability, through the general regime for damage compensation regulated on §1293 of the Austrian Civil Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, ABGB).

In the case of Spain these offences are always accompanied by the correspondent attached civil liability, which will derivate in compensation (between individuals) or fine (against Public administration). The legal framework for the civil liability against private owners, is the general rule on damages as regulated in the Spanish Civil Code, article 1.902:

Art. 1.902. The person who, as a result of an action or omission, causes damage to another by his fault or negligence shall be obliged to repair the damaged caused.

When the damaged goods are public, we find the widest dispersion of regulations mentioned in the first place and very much linked with the different protected rights and the territorial and thus

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT asymmetric competence distribution in the Spanish governance levels. As for the State level we find three different Statutes: the Citizens Security Law (not in force), a Law Project, which was approved on July 11th 2014 and has not been published yet on the Official Bulletin of the State (BOE in the Spanish acronym), the Public Property Act (Ley del Patrimonio Público), dated 2003 and the Law 7/1985 providing the Basis for Local Regulation, last time amended in 2013.

In the UK If the value of the damage is less than ￡5,000, the penalty is a maximum fine of ￡2,500 and/or three months imprisonment (Section 33[1] Magistrates' Court Act 1980) and the court may also make a Compensation Order. “Aiding or abetting the act of graffiti and other vandalism” attracts the same penalty. It is unclear however how consistently this has been applied, for example, to shopkeepers who sell spray cans to minors/youths. Possessing equipment with intent to cause damage is also an offence in the UK and, if intent can be proven to the court, a spray can would be included as such equipment. English common or case law would be different from how it is handled in Roman law-based countries, for example, France.

The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 also includes a provision that allows the police to issue a fixed penalty notice to a person aged 18 years or older found committing an act of criminal damage. The consultation paper that preceded the legislation commented that only minor examples of this offence would be suitable for a fixed penalty.

Graffiti attached to other offences In all four countries, if the content of graffiti involves any other conduct related to honour, image, terrorism and other hatred behaviours graffiti will then be judged as an aggravated offence. As regards Germany in case the graffiti holds the public incitement to perform criminal activities (§282 StGB) or sedition/hate speech (called “Verhetzung”) §282 (imprisonment up to two years) and 283 (imprisonment up to two years) of the criminal code could also be taken into account. In case an offender also defies to be arrested by the police §269 (obstructing a police officer in the course of his duty) of the criminal code can become relevant.

Besides the criminal code offenders can also be criminally and civilly sued for trespass (unlawfully entry to somebody else’s property).

5.2 Link between graffiti and ASBO or incivility

Either as a criminal offence or an administrative infraction graffiti makes part of the ASB or incivilities both in their common definition and by their inclusion in the laws regulating those behaviours. It is interesting to note that we are not talking then in general about isolated conducts, but they are expected to relate to other acts that could constitute also criminal offences or not, and are always related to living in a community. Regulated in security and coexistence norms, it is also for that reason that ASB and incivilities have been traditionally included in the civic education and/or informal responses.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Legal framework for ASB or incivility As mentioned before, graffiti is not only a form of damaging goods, but a social phenomenon very much related to coexistence. These lines of work exceed the purely considered criminal damage, and need of responses, usually articulated in a proximity policy, that would in general be assumed at a local level. For this aim, the control of ASB or incivilities that would affect residents in an area, regulations and policies are issued in order to control the unwanted behaviours. That it is more or less contemplated by authorities will very much depend on the municipal traditions of every country. For example in Austria there is not a large body of administrative regulations, since the ASB or incivility exclusively qualifies as a criminal offence. The main actions we find at an administrative level regard to a better preventive and corrective approach.

In the case of German law there are no such categories as “Anti-social behavior” or “incivility”. Only in the case that graffiti can be classified as “criminal damage” according to §303 StGB, a criminal prosecution is possible. If not, only a civil process is possible in order to provide compensations for the victim. The German law does not provide other classifications. Also the criminal practice sees graffiti only as a form of criminal damage as for example in the “Polizeiliche Kriminalstatistik” (PKS) graffiti crimes are counted to the field “criminal damage in streets, on paths and places”.

We can however observe that the German Criminal Code establishes offences in relation to traffic and civilian security, which could very well match the response to some basics in the pacific coexistence. On Section 145 (Abuse of emergency phones; tampering with means of accident prevention and first aid) we find penalties for those who (2) whosoever intentionally or knowingly 1. removes, defaces or distorts the meaning of warning or prohibition signs which serve to prevent accidents or common danger; or 2. removes, alters or renders unusable protective equipment which serves to prevent accidents or common danger, or rescue equipment designed for rendering assistance during accidents or common danger, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine unless the act is punishable under section 303 or section 304.

The cases of Spain and the UK are paradigmatic by the level of local administration regulations that contemplate ASB or incivilities. The Spanish legal framework at an administrative level for the prevention and control of these behaviours includes the Citizens Security Law and a large number of administrative regulations on civic coexistence. The mentioned Citizens Security Law places graffiti, still without literally mentioning it, in the heart of ASB or incivility regulations. In the new law Project to be approved by the Parliament in the next months, defacement of goods is considered as a minor infraction “when not constitutive of felony or misdemeanor”.

In the scope of administrative control we also find that the Public Property Act does then regulate the ASB or incivilities against Spanish State owned goods. In this sense we have to differentiate with the studied felony against Historical heritage goods, since not all public properties have a cultural interest of value. It also needs to be differentiated from the Municipal regulations that protect the assets of the municipalities that are actually the main public property stakeholders in their territory.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Law 7/1985 providing the Bases for Local Regulation has a special role in the regulation of graffiti punishment by administrative bodies or tribunals, since it acts as a Framework Law to all regulations established by Local Governments. The need for a State regulation is due to the Legality Principle that obliges categorization of the infractions and sanctions to be established only by Parliamentary Act. As a “bases act” this dependence however of the Local regulations must not be understood in absolute terms, but as a mean of legitimacy that can be modulated by the municipal legislator (Ortuño Rodríguez, 2009). Law 7/1985 providing the Bases for Local Regulation enumerates ASB susceptible of being punished by Local administrations.

Local governments in Spain have regulated graffiti actions following the same approach as the rest of regulations that is the prohibition of graffiti and other type of paintings in public goods and spaces, including transports, unless it consists of artistic murals authorized by the public administration. The big difference between our municipalities is the amount of the penalties that apply to those who infringe this prohibition and how do they define minor and serious infractions.

Table 17. Differences between some Spanish municipalities ‘punishments

Municipality Minor infractions Serious infractions Barcelona < 750€ 750.01 – 1.500€ Madrid 300 – 3.000€ 600 – 6.000 Sant Boi de Llobregat 150€ 150€ San Sebastian de los Reyes (all considered serious 750€ - 1.500€ infractions)

The UK system has a similar approach but, of course, articulated on the Common Law, and more mediator and managerial methodology of their local administration. As the most important instrument we find the Anti Social Behaviour Act is principally about controlling culturally unaccepted human behaviours. ASB offences include littering, people being drunk or rowdy in public spaces or drug dealing, as well as graffiti (Office for National Statistics UK, 2012b). This is completed by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced the first Anti-Social Behaviour Orders that could be applied to anyone over the age of 10 years causing harassment, alarm or distress to others through his or her actions.

In March 2001 the UK Government supported local authority schemes to tackle litter, and set out a new code of conduct to reduce takeaway litter and an advisory group to review existing legislation. Many local authorities already had litter wardens and issue ￡25 fixed penalty notices to those responsible for litter. Magistrates have the power to fine individuals up to ￡2,500 for non-payment. In response to increasing public concern, the Anti Social Behaviour Unit was set up in the Home Office in January 2003. That Unit has developed an Anti Social Behaviour Action Plan and disseminated good practice for tackling such behaviour through Anti Social Behaviour Orders and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

The 2003 Anti Social Behaviour bill has the objective of providing the tools for practitioners and agencies to tackle anti social behaviour. It contains measures drawn up from across five Government Departments and aims to clarify, streamline and reinforce the powers available to practitioners.

The department for Environment and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) categorises ‘Graffiti and Fly-Posting’ as a single anti-social offence, which can attract fixed penalty notices (FPN) of between ￡50-80 GBP, with the default set at ￡75 GBP, under section s.43 of the ASB Act 2003. The legislation s.96 CNEA in fact groups penalties for “graffiti and fly-posting” within “Litter; Litter Clearing Notices; Street Litter Control; Notices; Unauthorized distribution of literature; Graffiti and fly-posting; Dog Control Orders” (DEFRA, 2006).

Under 16's in Scotland are not permitted to buy aerosol paint cans under the Anti-social Behaviour Scotland Act 2004.

In Northern Ireland, graffiti is grouped with fly-posting and can be prosecuted under The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 (the 2011 Act), which strengthens the powers available to district councils to deal with a range of local environmental quality problems including graffiti and fly-posting. Here graffiti is classed either as an act of ‘defacement’, or as illegal ‘painting, making marks or displaying advertisements on roads; or as a contravention of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order (1991).

Local authorities and transport authorities in the UK are responsible for cleaning up graffiti from public and semi-public buildings and fixtures. Local authorities can also clean it from private buildings and can bill the owner for the work. Where a private owner considers graffiti to have caused damage to their property, they would typically be eligible to take out civil proceedings for compensation, and if a local administration considers that private property owners have not dealt with instances of offensive graffiti adequately, they can also intervene. In practice however, details on how this has worked out are varied and difficult to access, or use for exemplars.

In all four researched countries, and due to the nature of the graffiti paintings, in a large number of cases, the perpetrators remain unknown. It is then the job of the Local police to identify the authors of graffiti. The drawings and writing have their style, their tag (signature). We could then say there is an at least “graphic identity”. Then, as it would be in any other kind of prosecuted action, the police graphology experts would conduct their investigation. The corps is developing every day new forms of identification and tools, such as databases, that help their work. Once the author has been determined, the administrative sanction will be initiated by the local administration. Socio-legal approach to punishment as a response to ABS or incivility Punishment of graffiti as we have studied up to this moment is mainly based on damage, but we can also find responses to graffiti in ASB and incivility control instruments. In all cases there is an ongoing debate on the measures adopted in this sense, and an aim for good practices and methodologies to be able to approach the phenomenon in the best possible way. Main issues arising would be the

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT effectiveness of the penalties and policies, and the possibility of working with writers in a way that would be most favourable for all actors, and mainly in the case of minor and youth offenders. As observed in 2.2.1 the majority of the writers is rather young. The reports are talking about youth and children between 12 and 22 years olds. Those are age groups specially protected by law. That is the reason for which punishment of the ASB or incivility is not a peaceful debate.

In general if the behaviour is defined as a minor ASB, and so an appropriated penalty is to be established, it will be decided by the judge, and articulated through the ministries of justice and social welfare as a socio-educative tool. In this line we can also include the informal responses observed in every country to fight against youth incivility, and that will offer a different kind of punishment to graffiti depending mainly on age, the seriousness of the damage, and some other aspects that could be considered by police, public administration or courts. Generally speaking all interviewees are familiar with the legal framework in force.

In the UK we find a very specific example. Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 has specifically introduced the Community Remedy that aims to deal with anti-social behaviours or offence without court proceedings. It would be assumed by local authorities, as a form of out-of- court disposals, and each policing body must prepare a community remedy document for its area. The innovation in this case is not the socio-educative approach, present in all legal systems nowadays, but the fact that it is a proximity policy and that no judicial process is involved. So it will not be linked to probation orders (the status of a convicted offender who has been allowed to go free under the supervision of a probation officer or panel of community workers) or parole (the release of a person from prison before the end of the sentence imposed, with a promise or condition that no more crimes will be committed. In a number of cases it also involves socio-educative measures) as we find in all countries. This new methodology is expected to represent more proportionate and meaningful punishments, and help reduce reoccurrence.

The position of offenders In general the legal framework regarding punishing graffiti vandalism is perceived very differently among the interviewed actors. One of the main problems is the fact that offenders do not understand their behaviour as illegal or anti-social. The lack of sense of responsibility can be a serious problem when facing conflict with law, since punishment is designed to make the person reflect on the actions and take conscience of the consequences.

Most of the writers don´t see their behaviour as anti-social. As it was stated by German writers, for them graffiti is something they do for themselves but not against others (GG4) or at least for the reason to get attention (GG2). Further mentioned aspects are that graffiti also provides the possibility to escape from society and their daily world (GG1). And although the writers know that what they do is basically rejected by society the common sense of the interviews was that it isn´t their purpose to act against society but to live out their passion which includes some sort of conflict with society.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

For example in the case of Spain, as we have seen when studying the Criminal Law response to graffiti, the code contemplates community work as the lowest punishment for antisocial behaviour in the case of damage offences. The legal provision does not contemplate an age margin for this solution. But a condition for this kind of informal remedies is the acceptance by the offender of their guilt, and the willingness to participate in this kind of measures. That seems not to be that obvious in most of the cases96.

It is for those reasons that the community of graffiti writers are totally in disagreement with the current legal framework and all the actions taken to criminalize graffiti (GE1, GE5). The majority of the writers think that in Spain they are more punished than abroad, while one considers that it is the contrary. He states that foreign writers come to Barcelona because the consequences of painting graffiti are less strict and there are more opportunities to paint: “There is graffiti tourism in Barcelona” (GE4). Writers outline the impact of Barcelona’s civic ordinance (2005): fines have been increasing rapidly. “I have been fined for painting in a school with the teacher’s permission. You need the owner’s permission and also the City’s hall authorization. You can’t paint without the City’s hall permission; nowhere” (GE4). Graffiti writers think that graffiti should not be forbidden or criminalized since it is a natural dimension of human beings. Writers differentiate clearly the roles of safety guards and policemen. They are aware that only policemen have real power to punish them. However, this will change with the new Security law approved by the Spanish parliament.

In the UK the findings of a series of focus groups set up to explore public attitudes to youth crime are described in The Public Attitudes to Youth Crime report (Jacobson, Jessica and Kirby, 2012). The topics included respondents’ views on the extent of crime and anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the local community and the perceived causes of these; restorative justice97; and volunteering and the role of the community in preventing crime and in supporting youth justice. Graffiti is mentioned as typical youth crime and anti-social behaviour. Part of the focus groups was also scenario testing. One scenario was based on a graffiti offence by an adolescent person. Interestingly, the document describes four themes that recurred in participants’ comments about the different scenarios discussed:

• Participants felt it was important for young perpetrators of crime and ASB to be taught to understand the consequences of their actions and to make amends.

• Many participants were concerned about the potentially damaging long-term impact of a criminal record on a young person’s prospects, and saw this as a reason for adopting informal rather than formal responses.

• Participants often considered that a first offence merits an informal or lesser formal response by the authorities, but that tougher action is required for repeat misdemeanours.

96 Source: “Decenas de menores compensan sus delitos con trabajos sociales cada año”, http://elcorreoweb.es/2013/06/02/decenas-de-menores-compensan-sus-delitos-con-trabajos-sociales-cada- ano/ [02.06.2014]. 97 For an analysis of restorative justice, see D 2.5.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

• Lastly, some participants wanted young offenders to experience a degree of “embarrassment‟ or “humiliation‟ as part of the disposal that they receive. (Jacobson, Jessica and Kirby, 2012: 3).

Interviewee PLEUK2 provides an example that illustrates that young offenders may not be aware of the consequences of their actions “they had not really taken on-board the problems and pains it would cause”. The interviewee argues that it is through the justice system it is possible to provide a “restorative justice”. According to the example PLEUK2 gives, when young offenders who did not committed a graffiti crime before got caught vandalising, and had to face the victims of their crime the young offenders were apologetic, “They met the victims and the boys [offenders] were (...) sort of very sorry…”. However, AUK1 looking at the case studies and the strategies they developed as the Public Administration in Brighton, UK, argues that there are problems with the legal framework and some of the prevention techniques being utilised. From a public administration point of view AUK2 notes that there are limitations to the legal framework, “…we do prosecute people if we find them and if they are persistent offenders, but we actually find that the street cleansing work is the best way of preventing things, rather than the legal system“. From the graffiti writers perspective, GUK3 adds that criminalisation process is something inevitable and considered as a right of passage. The interviewee describes the criminalisation process as a means to claim a position. However, also states that it is not a preferable option. GUK3 states:

“[you always have] The law … at the back of your mind if you are an active graffiti writer (...) think a lot of people around me always did and then I had numerous cases (...) when they're going through the courts they hang over you a lot and affect you personally and professionally. (...) Actually, I had a couple of times when I was really considering... there were quite sort of epiphany moments, I suppose but certainly the last time I was caught that was it. That was the final... I got so close to going to jail that I stopped” (GUK3).

From a social work perspective it was mentioned and it is the common understanding that the influence on someone’s live who got caught is very strong as fines are high. Nevertheless the system has to be accepted (SWCA1). It would make sense to establish opportunities for offenders to provide direct compensation to victims (not just financial compensation but also cleaning or social work). Stronger punishments in general don’t seem to be useful. In cases of heavy damage to private property young people can get extremely high debts which lead them to private bankruptcy which finally also means that victims don’t get any compensation.

The position of institutions Representatives of public administration had different views on the issue. One mentioned that the Austrian law is too weak and because of this lots of illegal writers from other countries come to Austria (AA1). Another one mentioned that in case of young writers punishment should not be too hard especially when they didn’t harm the health of other persons (AA2). The third representative had not enough information on the legal framework to answer to the question (AA3).

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Public transport representative see punishments in Austria as very strong compared to other European countries (OA3). However as one points out in general this is ok another one thinks that punishments shouldn’t be too high and in general the compensation for cleaning costs would be enough (OA2). There were also basic considerations to make use of other forms of compensation besides fines or imprisonment (i.e. cleaning the areas writers have illegally sprayed). The main problem here is that in most cases it needs trained personnel that are able to handle the chemicals and need profound knowledge on materials and surfaces. Including the offender in this process would probably produce even more costs (OA3).

In Germany only a representative of the transport sector (OG1) stated that they locate graffiti in the field of general vandalism or behaviour that could be described as anti-social when they do some research on the perceived security of their customers. In Spain, transport operators, mostly those who are really on the side of graffiti conceived as an offence and vandal action consider that the current legal framework is insufficient and should be yet more penalizing (OE1, OE2, OE3).

From perspective of the law enforcement agencies it was mentioned that stronger punishments won’t work and increased surveillance to catch more offenders would be ethically questionable, as public areas have to be totally surveillance (PLEA1). In case of huge damages and putting danger to other citizens pre-trial custody is justifiable. However, “normal” damage to property shouldn’t be treated similar as criminal assault (PLEA2). As indicated in the Austrian case: “There were also basic considerations to make use of other forms of compensation besides fines or imprisonment. For example, as compensation offenders could clean the areas they have illegally sprayed. The main problem here is that in most cases it needs trained personnel that are able to handle the chemicals and need profound knowledge on materials and surfaces. Including the offender in this process would probably produce even more costs” (OA3).

It has also been argued how inconvenient it can be that offenders acquire this profound knowledge of the graffiti cleaning they can improve their techniques by experimenting with new materials.

5.3 Discussion on problems of legal framework

The main discussions on the problems of legal framework derivate, as commented in the introduction, of the multiple facets of graffiti. If it was not for the socio-artistic recognition of this phenomenon, it will be plainly considered as a property offence and so debates if existing would be limited and of other nature.

To this point we have examined graffiti on the negative side of the legal system, but we also need to consider graffiti as a tool of socio-educational and artistic expression, which has also been supported by the public authorities in the framework of public policies for culture, youth and integration. In this sense we find the paradigmatic case of Madrid’s City Hall, that after establishing tougher regulations

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT on this issue, and following a strict prosecution of a group of writers that parodied the local politicians in their work, paradoxically awarded one of its members (“Young creators Award of the City of Madrid”, Premio Jóvenes creadores de la Ciudad de Madrid). And these are the kind of cases that are legitimating the ASB or incivility by the high representatives of the legislation municipal bodies. We also find that the art, fashion, audiovisual and media businesses have been intensively promoting this kind of art during the last years, building in this sense not only legitimating graffiti itself, but the incentive of this activity at all levels of society.

Given this paradoxical situation, we find a tacit recognition of the creator related to his work. This leads us to open the debate towards intellectual property definitions if graffiti is to be considered an art. The debate is on the possibility of discussing intellectual property as understood by the law. The door is now open to extremely disparate qualifications of the same act. As Celia Lerman (Visiting IP Scholar, Kernochan Center for Law, Media & the Arts, Columbia Law School) says:

“We should still grant protection to illegal graffiti because the wrongdoing (…) is not relevant to the copyright of the work itself. Copyright should be neutral towards Works crated by illegal means” (Lerman, 2014: 2).

But we have to clarify as soon as possible in this debate that, coming from Roman law tradition; all occidental legal systems recognize the right of accession, meaning that the work of art automatically belongs to the owner of the good, and not to the artist. Even if it is not usually the main objective of graffiti as an activity, there is an ongoing debate on the intellectual property and copyright of the works. Regarding the copyright protection, the first thing the graffiti writers should express to give a legal answer is “protection towards whom or what” because graffiti is not expressly included in the Spanish Copyright Law and the regulation does not fit together with the features of this type of art. What is commonly accepted in every country is that graffiti is to be considered a work of art as for the definition given at every country law.

Intellectual property as a moral right of the author is recognized when a certain artistic value is recognized to the work. However, that does not involve the property of the graffiti by the writer since it makes part of the good, and so belongs to its owner. It is very important to clarify as soon as possible in this debate that, coming from Roman law tradition, all occidental legal systems recognize the right of accession, meaning that the work of art automatically belongs to the owner of the good on which it has been created, and not to the artist. And as such “the third party is free to do whatever they want with it; they can remove it, destroy it, or sell it on as they please” (Copyrights and Creators, 27 May 2014).

Reproduction rights will depend on the nature of graffiti itself and the will of the owner of the good. When placed in public goods there is not possibility for the graffiti writer to claim reproduction rights. When placed in a private property it will depend on the will of its owner, since as we have seen, the work belongs to that person or company from the very first moment.

The research shows that this is not one of the main debates in relation to graffiti, since the numbers of cases in which intellectual property rights are claimed by writers are scarce, and usually related to

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT highly recognized artists that would see it as a mean of income and reputation.

However as we can see on the Intellectual Property regulations of the studied countries, there would always be a margin for Copyright Protection, coming from the common rules for “works of art”. In Austria there is hardly any information available that touches graffiti and copyright law. However, graffiti can be protected by copyright when it complies with the following legal requirements: the Federal Law on Copyright in Works of Literature and Art and on Related Rights (Copyright Act) (as last amended in 1998).

In Germany a graffito is protected by copyright as far as it has a certain threshold of originality § 2I Nr.4, II UrhG (German copyright act). This means that the graffito must have some kind of individual intellectual character. Therefore, very simple writings are not protected by copyright as they have only very little originality, although the line is blurring.

For the case that a writer sprays the property of someone else without any permission, there is a conflict between the writer´s right as the originator §§ 14, 25 UrhG and the rights of the proprietor Art. 14 GG (Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany) and §§ 823, 1004 BGB (German Civil Code). But in general the decision is made for the benefit of the proprietor because the graffito is characterized as so called “obtruded art”. This means that the proprietor is confronted with the piece of art without his knowing or willing. Therefore, it is his right to get rid of the piece of art or even to sell it.

In Spain there are two types of rights, within copyright: the moral rights (article 14 of the Spanish Copyright Act –SCA-) and the exploitation rights (articles 17 to 21 SCL). Moral rights refer, on the one hand, to the right of the author to be recognized as such and to require the respect of the integrity of the work, and, on the other hand, the right to decide over any divulgation, modification or take back the work. Exploitation rights include reproduction (by any means), distribution (sale, rent, borrowing), public communication and transformation (meaning any new work that arises from modification or adaptation of the primary one).

In the UK attention on legal and illegal graffiti-related copyright and intellectual property rights (IP) appears to have gained increasing momentum over the past decade, and in the UK particularly perhaps following a boom of ‘street art’ and associated events since 2008 (including, Cans Festival, Street Art at Tate Modern, Banksy vs Bristol Museum, UpFest, SeeNoEvil, and others), which brought with it increased focus on and demand for reproductions of graffiti-related imagery. The UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) determines that copyright can be applicable for both legal and illegal graffiti. The act defines that copyright exists among “artistic works”, in parallel with other categories, irrespective of artistic quality. While painting is not specifically mentioned, “graphic works” do form part of the category of artistic works, which allow for original acts of graffiti to be potentially protected against copying or reproduction. This law states that copyrights are assigned to creator at time of creation and can be passed or licensed to others for use. The Copyright and Creators forum describes that:

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

“... even where the graffiti has been illegally created, as is often the case, it is not necessarily barred from copyright protection as the UK copyright legislation doesn’t take into account the purpose behind the work when determining whether it qualifies for protection. […] Indeed, some commentators have even suggested that graffiti ‘tags’ could be protected in this manner as long as their presentation displays enough creativity to constitute an artistic, rather than literary, work.”

In all cases, works that have made public can be used by anyone, and that right is contemplated by all four legal frameworks, that recognize the right of the viewer to copy and reproduce any art work that stands in a public space.

In Austria article 8 of Copyright Act establishes that: A work shall be deemed to have been made public if it has been made available to the public with the authorization of the right holder. Article 9 completes by introducing the publishing factor: (1) A work shall be deemed published if, with the authorization of the right holder, copies in sufficient numbers have been made available for sale or circulated to the public.

It is commonly accepted in all countries that there would be no doubt on this Copyright for the viewer when the work of art is not only made public, but “it is in a place used as a public thoroughfare“:

Austria article 54 Copyright Law. (1) It shall be permissible

5. to reproduce, distribute, present in public by means of optical devices and broadcast works of architecture after their construction or other works of art permanently located in a place used as a public thoroughfare; this provision shall not extend to the replication of a work of architecture and the reproduction of a painting or a graphic work for the purpose of placing such reproduction permanently in a place of such kind, or to the three-dimensional reproduction of a three-dimensional work.

In Spain Graffiti can be object of copyright since it joins the two main requirements of art. 10 SCA: original artistic creation and expression by any mean or support (street walls, public or private, or public transports, mainly). Nevertheless it is an artistic expression that will have a limited application of the copyrights due to its own nature. First of all the support belongs to a third party that will acquire it by accession. Another case is the use of public space, since it makes their work legally opened to reproduction, distribution and communication by means of drawings, paintings photos and others by any person.

Article 35.2 of the Copyright Act.

Works permanently located in parks, streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be reproduced, distributed and communicated freely through paintings, drawings, photography and audiovisual processes.

Therefore graffiti artists will have transformation right of their works but limited exploitation rights because he/she does not own the support of their work and the only way to distribute, reproduce or

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT communicate their work is by photographing, painting or drawing it, or, as established in the abovementioned article, by using other means of audiovisual processes for it.

As an example of infringement of reproduction and, possibly, transformation rights of a graffiti work, we find the case of the swimwear of the Spanish team in the Beijing Olympic Games. As Markus Balser states in the article published by LawBlog (LawBlog, 2014): “When an American friend sent him photos from Beijing the day after the games closed, Cantwo [German graffiti artist] didn’t believe his eyes. “The piece on the suits looked very familiar,” Cantwo told the Law Blog. “Despite some colour changes: To my mind the cartoon- style character was clearly taken from an artwork I sprayed on a wall legally in Muenster in 2001”.

The problem of this infringement is not to take a photo in order to reproduce the work, but to transform it (change some colours) and to make a swimwear with it because these actions go beyond what it is permitted by article 35 of the Copyright Act.

Finally, the artist will always have the right to be recognised as the authors of the work, which will sometimes be difficult because of the problems of identification that arise of the consequent illegality of the action and because the use of tags. The problem could be also that if the artist is recognised as such, there are some economic consequences that have to be respected depending on the use that a third party is giving to the graffiti.

In Germany when it´s up to taking and commercialize pictures of graffiti, several differences have to be made that lead to some peculiar cases. A first possibility is that the graffito was not intended for public showcase and attached authorized on private property. Hereby, the right to take pictures is limited and the artist or in some cases the proprietor has to agree to its publication.

If a graffito is attached in the public sphere – no matter if legal or illegal – the so-called freedom of panorama § 59 UrhG becomes effective. It says that everybody is allowed to take and publicize pictures of copyrighted works that are visible from public thoroughfares (Wikipedia). So in general, it is allowed to take and publish pictures of graffiti in the public sphere.

Nevertheless, according to § 13 UrhG the author of the work has the right of being named in case that a picture of his graffito gets published, as long as he signed the original graffito with his name or his name is known otherwise. But this seems to be rather important for legal than for illegal graffiti, as hereby the writers normally don´t sign their graffiti – at least not with their real name (Wagenknecht, 2011).

In the UK Copyright will automatically come into existence where the requirements are met and will, except in certain specific circumstances, initially belong to the graffiti artist who authored the work. As a result copyright can therefore be of some use to these creators, as it grants them a number of exclusive rights including, most notably, the right to prevent others copying the work without permission.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

However, while copyright allows the graffiti artist to prevent others making copies it does not allow them to stop others from selling the original, physical embodiment of the art. Most graffiti is painted onto property that belongs to a third party by accession and, as such, the resulting object remains the property of that third party. As owner, the third party is free to do whatever they wish with it; they can remove it, destroy it, or sell it on as they please” (Copyright and Creators, 27 May 2014).

Interestingly, the contestation to rights over graphic and intellectual property in this context has not to date shown to carry more weight than cases for rights over material property. The result is that most graffiti writers do not come forward in attempt to exercise their IP rights over illegally created instances of graffiti, since they may inadvertently subject themselves to prosecution under the ASB or Criminal Damage laws, for having created the act(s) they are trying to protect.

Beyond this, while copyright issues continue to present themselves in studies related to graffiti and may they further appear as significant through the Graffolution project, such topics have not emerged through the UK interviews conducted. Equally, the WP2.1 literature review conducted did not reveal them to be explicitly relevant so much as tangentially relevant to Graffolution, at least in the UK context.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

6 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 A comparison between the four researched countries

In this report the influencing factors at cultural and regional levels as well ethical and legal considerations of graffiti have been studied in Austria, Germany Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - UK). The four participating countries differ in population and density: Austria is by far the less populated country but is approximately as dense as Spain. In relation to their territorial structure, they are all decentralized countries, ranging from two federal states (Austria and Germany) to other recent territorial decentralized forms (Spain in the 1980s and the UK in the 2000s). They are all urbanized countries but they differ in their internal distribution (more or less polycentric).

In relation to the structure of public transport facilities, they have in common the existence of multiple public and private organisms that operate public transport, including high-speed trains, regional trains, suburban trains, buses, tramways and subways. The balance and competencies among different operators has changed to some extent along the XXth century, but overall national, regional and metropolitan systems of public transportation coexist.

The history and evolution of graffiti in these four countries have similar patterns, although the paces of development differ. Born in New York subways, the UK was the first country to adopt this form of social protest in the late 70s, followed by Austria and Germany, while in Spain it started in the early 80s. Graffiti was not only the act of painting a subway; it belonged to a larger Hip Hop movement including painting, dancing and music. During its first phase of development, graffiti was spread by mass media, movies and documentaries. A common characteristic is that tagging in more or less elaborated ways was the starting point. Moreover, graffiti culture started developing in bigger cities, which witnessed the organisation of the first crew and graffitists communities. In the 1980s, it was very difficult for graffiti writers to get specialised spray paint for graffiti: the industry of graffiti painting developed later. By the end of the 1980s, writers from different cities came into contact and started to swap ideas and to visit each other. The approach to graffiti from public authorities began to change, passing from permission to considering graffiti a problem. Since the 2000s, graffiti has been increasing as an artistic movement and the vocabulary linked to the street art concept increases. There is a progressive integration of graffiti in the art market, with several expositions and galleries showing street art in the main cities. Both sides of graffiti have become an established phenomenon that is not expected to disappear in the short term.

Despite being an ever-present phenomenon in the public sphere, data on graffiti incidents is difficult to obtain in the countries analysed. Only in Austria and in some parts of Germany graffiti complaints reported to the police are listed in an own subgroup. In Spain and the UK graffiti are included in another category such as vandalism or anti-social behaviour incidents. In the Spanish case, data is hard to find and mainly comes from public transport operators. Overall, according to data available, graffiti is an established phenomenon, with major growth in the 1990s and early years of the 2000s.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Data on costs reporting is more common, but the availability differs also between countries. In addition, there is scarce data on positive impact of graffiti such as its impact on strengthening social cohesion and building a sense of community.

Regarding the socio-cultural aspects of the phenomenon graffiti, the research so far brings up that it is quite difficult to give a general definition of graffiti, but not because of larger differences between the researched countries, but because of the heterogeneous points of view that vary with the way the respective person comes in contact with graffiti. But it gets clear that a description of these “visual elements” often revolves around the two questions concerning their artistic value and the legality of the attachment.

Referring to that and in agreement with all researched countries, the operators of public transport services generally understand graffiti as vandalism because of the costs and dangers it causes and therefore mainly see it as a problem that has to be solved. According to that, there is no difference made referring to the artistic quality of the graffito, although not all of the representatives decline graffiti from their personal point of view, but have to take action against it because of their profession. This divergence between the personal and the professional perception is also observable for the sector police / law enforcement. Furthermore there is a difference in this sector between the researched countries, whether all kinds of writings or images are classified as graffiti or only those that have a clear artistic background.

From the graffiti writers’ points of view, there is no universal definition of graffiti, as they all have their different styles and ways to engage in graffiti. But there are several aspects, where the interviewed writers from all countries agree with, as for most of them, graffiti is more than a picture or a writing on a wall, but also a way of self-expression, a medium for communication, a lifestyle and so on… An important fact is, that referring to the legality of graffiti, it seems that most of the writers don´t deny legal forms but see the illegal graffiti as the “original” one. No consent in the graffiti scene is about the question whether graffiti also includes the extreme like vandalizing elements (e.g. scratchwork) and artistic forms (e.g. street art) and in which way segregation would make sense.

As heterogeneous as the different definitions of graffiti are, as varying are also the backgrounds of the writers. Giving a common threat, it can be stated that graffiti is mostly – but not exclusively – a youth phenomenon. Although the age when the writers start to engage in graffiti varies between the researched countries, the differences are not too big, as in general graffiti writing is taken up by young people in their teens or sometimes early twenties. Thereby the status as a writer can´t be seen as something static but as a sort of biography that develops with the stages of the writer´s life and can include a more artistic or professional approach and a turn towards legal forms of graffiti as the time passes, but also a general denial of graffiti or even some sort of criminal career.

Referring to the gender of the writers, there is a general agreement in all researched countries, that the large majority of them are male. And although it is stated that females slightly start to engage more in graffiti, it seems that girls and young women are generally less attracted – especially to the

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT illegal – graffiti. If this imbalance is furthermore caused by a general discrimination of female writers in the graffiti scene can´t be approved, as this was affirmed in single cases, but not as a general phenomenon.

As the reasons for the evolution of the graffiti phenomenon in Europe are not comparable with the circumstances in the ghettos of New York, also the social backgrounds are of a larger variety and therefore very heterogeneous in the researched countries and include all social classes – whereby, for some countries focuses can be identified: e.g. for the UK poorer- and middle-class; for Germany middle- and higher-class. Determining the writer’s background is difficult. However, it seems that writers who are more active in street art and less involved in vandalism incidents come from higher social and educational groups.

For the writers, graffiti is understood both as an individual and a group activity. So next to its self- affirming and identity-establishing function, graffiti also provides the possibility to become a part of an “exclusive” community – especially for those who see graffiti as a way of life and mentality rather than just a practice. Thereby the group has the function that it satisfies the paradoxical needs for affiliation (with like-minded) and differentiation (from society). Therefore graffiti on the one hand has the function to be identity-establishing as it gives the actors the possibility to identify themselves as graffiti writers and part of the scene while on the other hand it offers them the medium to let the public know about their identity and to enforce their place in the public sphere. Furthermore, the affiliation in groups also has the – more practical – reasons that it allows the writers to realize bigger projects that require more participants and also gives them more security during these projects.

Like the definition of the phenomenon graffiti, does also the estimation of its social impact and social perception vary with the referring point of view. Nevertheless, there are some similarities that could be observed for the researched countries. A first one is that the operators of public transport services estimate the social impact of graffiti as a negative one, as it would lead to a feeling of insecurity for their passengers. Nevertheless, it is stated – and here they are in common with the writers – that an artistic and elaborated graffiti is better accepted than a “simple” tag or writing. Furthermore, many of the writers – but not all of them – pointed out that graffiti can also have many different forms of positive impacts and therefore does not lead to an automatic decline of the surrounding area. However, little information exists on the positive effects of graffiti. Graffiti is seen more critical by the representatives of the transport as well as the police / law enforcement sector.

Referring to the regional aspects of the phenomenon graffiti, it is stated in all four researched countries, that it is predominantly an urban phenomenon and mainly connected to the bigger cities. There are stated several reasons for this imbalance, that include a generally higher social pressure and lower anonymity in rural areas; the availability and characteristics of urban spaces regarding tunnels, metros, walls, bridges and other places attractive for writers; the better visibility of the attached graffito as there are more densely populated locations.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

But it is not only the urban setting itself that influences the selection and extent of graffiti in urban areas but also the given opportunities in form of the degree of control, so that there are also differences observable between otherwise similar urban areas. However it has to be taken into account that in general there is a lack of information regarding the relation between graffiti and rural areas and a certain methodological “bias” as most of the interviews and other surveys and documentations focus on city areas.

Despite this distribution of graffiti neither the interviews nor desk research in the four researched countries point out that there is a specific spatial logic in writing graffiti. Especially because of the general lack of information there can only be collected single aspects for a spatial logic regarding writing graffiti, like general assumptions or the identification of single hotspots.

Some actors stated that they identified different logics and modus operandi for example of teenagers and older writers, as the first ones would mainly write during school holidays, while the grown-ups, tend to be more organized and paint according to a plan and usually at night. In general, and as noted by international literature, graffiti paintings increase at night, during the weekends, and during Christmas, Easter and summer holidays.

Furthermore, interviewees from Germany, Spain and the UK point to the fact that graffiti can no longer be understood as a purely local issue confined to each city or country as there are also international networks between writers from different countries which are forming temporary crews and going on journeys. Nevertheless, none of the interview partners from the sections state/local authorities, police/law enforcement or transport systems in the four researched countries mentioned explicitly the use of so called graffiti maps.

Leaving behind the influential factors, ethical and legal aspects have been examined. As public transport operators define graffiti as a vandal activity there is no space left to consider paintings as forms of art in transport facilities. The main prevention strategies deployed are rapid removal of any form of graffiti as well as multiple surveillance technologies in operation, dominated by CCTV. Their aim is to identify perpetrators in order to catch them. This identification process has led to many controversial situations where the aim justifies the means, although these are not desirable or are even unlawful. Legality alternatives and painting permissions are present in the four countries at uneven levels. Although legality implies permission, permission is not a sufficient condition for legality. Legal alternatives seem to be widely accepted (although painting legal can decrease the level of illegal graffiti, the most of graffiti writers interviewed convey that illegal graffiti is really difficult to eradicate).

Another controversial matter which is transversal in writers interviews is how graffiti and advertisement can be seen as counterparts: both (pretend to) have an impact on public space but they face unequal conditions of acceptance. In this sense, commissioned graffiti is a sort of meeting point were graffiti artists earn a living painting for a brand or an administration. Graffiti is mistakenly seen as a youth activity, linked to adolescence and self-affirmation but the reality shows multiple

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT backgrounds. However, criminalisation is built on this prejudice and young graffiti artists are the main target of public transport and police and law enforcement bodies.

It is important to highlight the lack of communication that all stakeholders express between them. While public sectors declare that legal options are available but they have no means to disseminate them, graffiti writers found that an advocate of legal graffiti would be both necessary and useful for the community. This lack of communication is leading to misunderstandings and wrong conceptions on both sides, and thus, the distance between cat-and-mouse players increases.

Ethics of graffiti prevention need to build trust between stakeholders. Understanding each others’ views and needs, building bridges of communication and allocating specific people that can have dialogues with both parts seems to be crucial. Besides, all the steps need to be done carefully. Trust is something fragile: while it is very difficult to consolidate, it is really easy to be destroyed. A platform like Graffolution can be a good space for interlocution and learning on the basis of good practices. A space for dialogue would serve to express needs and help to find more convenient solutions for all stakeholders involved to some extent in the phenomenon of graffiti.

It needs to be mentioned how the identification race is a threat to the right to privacy for graffiti writers. From the different surveillance technologies in operation to the disproportionate amount of data gathered and the sharing processes that have been documented, it has been clear that attention needs to be drawn to data protection. Criminals or not, graffiti writers have the right to preserve their privacy. All efforts put to identification are diminishing this right and even failing with the European Directives of Data Protection (see 2.8 for more information). The Graffolution website can be another exercise of collaborative knowledge and social media interaction built on the bases of a privacy-enhancing technology.

Finally, all studied legal systems suffer, to a larger or small extent, of a dispersion of norms and remedies when dealing with graffiti. Even if actors, including writers, consider they know the legal framework and measures affecting this activity, there is a certain lack of legal security. This is caused by the exponential growth of the phenomenon and the need of testing forms of prevention and control. We can also understand, by the conclusions shed along the full report, that the security approach when designing legal instruments might not be the most convenient for the aim of ending illegal graffiti.

As a social and mainly youth movement, there is a debate in the forms of punishment of graffiti. It seems to be commonly accepted by all actors that it represents a forced intervention in someone’s (victim) goods. But on the other hand the writers and society in general understand a certain level of legitimacy. This is justified either through the social or/and artistic sides of the phenomenon. The legal systems however do not make the distinction between graffiti and other forms of damage of goods or ASBO. Some of the punishments, as for example those representing more than two years of imprisonment, can represent a too taught penalty for young people and might not be the best solution for them or for society.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

The real impact of legalization of graffiti thought “free walls” and other kind of initiatives is unclear. The idea that “the real graffiti is illegal graffiti” plays against a legal alternative. When studying the phenomenon it seems there is not much room for a formal solution articulated through rules and regulations.

All studies related to graffiti in relation to copyright accept there exists protection regarding intellectual property rights of the author. Whatever the vision of the system is in this sense, the graffiti writer would only have moral rights on the work. Since the work is done on goods that belong to other persons, the property of the work will always belong to the owner of that good by accession. The two confronted rights merge then into one, since both the good and the work belong to the same owner that will decide about the future of the work.

6.2 Final considerations on aspects and influence factors

Throughout the conclusions we have been highlighting legal and ethical aspects of graffiti, as well as influencing factors of graffiti at social, cultural and regional level. The following table summarizes these factors:

Table 18. Influencing factors of writing graffiti at social, cultural and regional level

Factor Dimension Countries observed Social Age: mainly young All countries Gender: males paint more All countries Education: not relevant All countries Social class: varying Spain: lower/middle class Germany middle/upper class Ethnic: not relevant All countries Different perceptions (+/-) All countries depending on stakeholders Cultural Influence from Hip Hop All countries movements Creates individual and collective All countries identity: Sense of community Respect among pairs Adrenaline Artistic contribution All countries Broken windows theory Regional More present in urban regions: All countries Available space Visibility of the graffiti work No spatial logic More graffiti in less controlled All countries spaces Easy access to international All countries writers’ networks All countries No explicit use of graffiti maps All countries

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

7 REFERENCES

Addley, E. (2007). “Blood on the tracks”. The Guardian. January 20. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jan/20/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation [14.05.2014].

Aiats, A. (2012). “FGC actualiza su app y retira la opción de denunciar mendigos”, La Vanguardia, 27/08/2012 http://www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20120827/54342320470/fgc-app-android- denunciar-mendigos.html [15.07.2014].

Albalate, D. & Bel, G. (2012). The Economics and Politics of High Speed Rail: Lessons from Experiences Abroad, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers (Lexington Books).

Andron, S. (2013). “Presentation”, Graffiti Dialogues Network Graffiti Impact 2013 Event: Is There Space for Graffiti? University of the Arts London, London October 30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsWa12INDg. [02.06.2014].

Association of London Government Transport and Environment Committee (2006). Graffiti Removal: Code of Practice for exercising the powers set out in section 12 and 13 of the London Local Authorities Act 1995 (as amended). London, United Kingdom. www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20Councils/.../GraffitiA.pdf. [05.03.2014].

Balser M. (2008). LAWBLOG on cases, trends and personalities in business http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/09/09/cantwo-says-can-not-to-spanish-swimwear/ [14.05.2014].

Bannister, S. (2013). Graffiti Dialogues Network presentation for the Graffiti Impact 2013 Event. October 30. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-9tzOP3jHw [14.05.2014].

Barcelona Televisió (2014). L’elevada xifra de grafits al transport públic en fa canviar el tractament judicial, 13.05.2014.

Brantingham, P. and Faust, F. (1976). ‘A Conceptual Model of Crime Prevention’. Crime and Delinquency, 22:130-146.

Behforouzi, H. (2006). Die deutsche Graffiti-Szene. Eine explorative Studie zur Phänomenologie und zu den Aktiven im Feld, unter Berücksichtigung strafrechtlicher, kriminologischer und kriminalpräventiver Aspekte, Tübingen.

Benvenuty, L. (2014). “Barcelona se abre al muralismo” [Barcelona opens to muralism], La Vanguardia, July 28.

Berti, G., (2009). Pioneros del graffiti en España, València: Universitat Politècnica de València.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Bofkin, L. (2013). “How can street art be better and more transferably incorporated into city management structures?” Presentation for the Graffiti Impact 2013 Graffiti Dialogues Event. October 30. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8ksH_G0WR0 [03.07.2014].

Breidbach, O. (2005). Vertikale Integrationsstrukturen kommunaler Verkehrsunternehmen. Eine transaktionstheoretische Evaluation, Kassel, pp. 22-24. https://kobra.bibliothek.uni-kassel.de/bitstream/urn:nbn:de:hebis:34- 200602226976/1/Ver%C3%B6ffentlichung_Diss_Breidbach.pdf [03.07.2014].

British Transport Police (2014). About Us (BTP). http://www.btp.police.uk/about_us.aspx. [29.08. 2014]

British Transport Police (2013). Graffiti Incidents Recorded by British Transport Police. http://publicdata.eu/http://publicdata.eu/dataset/graffiti-incidents-recorded-by-british-transport- police84ef6http://publicdata.eu/dataset/graffiti-incidents-recorded-by-british-transport-police84ef6 [11.07.2014].

Bund, K. (2012). Das letzte Monopol, Zeit Online. http://www.zeit.de/2012/11/Bahn-Fernverkehrhttp://www.zeit.de/2012/11/Bahn-Fernverkehr [03.07.2014].

Campbell, F. (2008). Good Graffiti Bad Graffiti? A New Approach To an Old Problem. Wigan: Environmental Campaigns Limited (ENCAMS). http://www2.keepbritaintidy.org/ImgLibrary/Good Graffiti, Bad Graffiti_602.pdf [06.05.2014].

Castleman, C. (1984). Getting Up: Subway Graffitti in New York. Cambridge (Mass.): The MIT Press. http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~burdette/projects/readings/castleman_politics_of_graffiti.pdf [16.05.2014].

Chuet, J. P. (2014). Grafitis comerciales, una alternative laboral [Commercial graffiti, alternative jobs] http://www.consumer.es/web/es/economia_domestica/trabajo/2007/10/24/171018.php [24.06.2014].

Citizens Security Law, 11th July 2014 (Not in force). Anteproyecto de Ley Orgánica de Protección de la Seguridad Ciudadana. As approved on 11th July 2014.

Czycholl, H. (2011). Nur teure Zusatz-Policen helfen gegen Graffiti, Die Welt. http://www.welt.de/finanzen/immobilien/article12643059/Nur-teure-Zusatz-Policen-helfen-gegen- Graffiti.html [08.07.2014].

Data Protection Act UK http://ico.org.uk/for_the_public/topic_specific_guides/cctv [30.08.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Delgado, M., (1992). La ciutat tatuada. http://www.bcn.cat/publicacions/bmm/pdf_historic/21_BCN_Metropolis_Mediterrania/ciutat_tatua da.pdf [26.06.2014].

Deutsche Bahn (2014). Kennzahlen 2013. http://www.deutschebahn.com/de/konzern/konzernprofil/zahlen_fakten/kennzahlen2013.html [03.07.2014].

DFO (2014). “Spokane offers graffiti reporting tool”, The spokesman-review, http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/hbo/2014/aug/14/spokane-offers-graffiti-reporting-tool/ [14.08.2014].

Donadio, R. (2014). “Google Adds Graffiti to its Arts Portfolio”, The New York Times, 10 June. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/arts/design/google-adds-graffiti-to-its-art-portfolio.html?_r=1 [10.06.2014].

Eichmann, V, Nahverkehrsplanung unter neuen Rahmenbedingungen. Erfahrungen aus dem Tellus- Projekt, Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik, Berlin, p.2. http://www.busrep.net/download/deutsch/Eichmann_DE.pdf [03.07.2014].

Eurostat, Quality of Life Indicators, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php/Quality_of_life_indicators (25.05.2015).

Feeney, T. & Watts, P. (2013). Graffiti Dialogues Network presentation for the Graffiti Impact 2013 Event. October 30. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhJe3zoN5Eo [13.06.2014].

FGC (2014). Les empreses que integren l’Observatori de Civisme al Transport Ferroviari consensuen una metodologia per valorar els impactes dels Grafits. Barcelona, 21/07/2104, Press Release.

Figueroa Saavedra, F. (2006). Graffiti: un problema problematizado. https://www.academia.edu/5739082/Graffiti_un_problema_problematizado [17.05.2014].

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (2012). Linienbusse dürfen künftig auch im Fernverkehr fahren. http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/liberalisierung-linienbusse-duerfen-kuenftig-auch-im- fernverkehr-fahren-11890187.html [03.07.2014].

Gamman, L. (2010). Dialogues with Graffiti for 21st Century Cities- Workshop 1. Presentation for the DACRC ESRC Workshop 1- Introduction. December 10 http://issuu.com/designagainstcrime/docs/w1_lorraine_gamman [06.02.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Goecke, T. & Heise, H. (2009). “Gutes Graffiti, schlechtes Graffiti – Wahrnehmung und Akzeptanz von Graffiti alsKunst“, in Sackmann, R., Kison, S. & Horn, A. Graffiti kontrovers – Die Ergebnisse der erstenmitteldeutschenGraffitistudie, Mitteldeutscher Verlag, Halle, p. 93-100.

Guillén Lasierra, F. (2011). “Policies on public security”. PAPERS, 53, Public safety in the 21ST century metropolis, pp.23–32.

Harvey, D. (2009). Social justice and the city. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

HM Government (2012) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/252952/ASBO_tab les_2012_ODS.ods [22. 07. 2014].

Höffler, K. (2008). “Graffiti – Prävention durch Wiedergutmachung. Implementation und Evaluation eines Münchner Modellprojektes, Kriminalwissenschaftliche Schriften, Bd. 21, Berlin.

Hundertmark, Ch. (2005). Art of Rebellion : The World of Street Art. Hamburg: Gingko Press Incorporated.

Hunter, V. (2014). Reciclar en obras de arte urbano [Recycling in urban artworks] http://www.diariodelavega.com/torrevieja/9487-reciclar-en-obras-de-arte-urbano [22. 07. 2014].

Institut für Graffitiforschung (2004). “Graffiti News Nr. 103/2004” Neuigkeitenzu Graffiti und Street- Art. http://www.graffitieuropa.org/news/103.htmhttp://www.graffitieuropa.org/news/103.htm [06.08.2014].

Kim, WT (2013). Graffiti – eine Herausforderung für das Strafrecht. Zugleich eine kritische Würdigung des Tatbestandes der Sachbeschädigung, Europäische Hochschulschriften, vol. 5518, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, Frankfurt am Main.

Kognitif (ed). (2013). Urban Creativity Experience. Barcelona: Lemo Editorial.

Krüger, M. (2009). ‚Die gegenwärtige Strafrechtslage zu Graffiti‘ in: Graffiti kontrovers – Die Ergebnisse der ersten mitteldeutschen Graffitistudie, eds R Sackmann, S Kison & A Horn, Mitteldeut- scher Verlag, Halle, pp. 50-64.

Lerman C. (2014). Protecting Artistic Vandalism: Graffiti and Copyright Law. http://jipel.law.nyu.edu/2013/04/protecting-artistic-vandalism-graffiti-and-copyright-law/ [26.09.2014]. Lewisohn, C. (2009). Street Art: The Graffiti Revolution (1st ed.). Tate Publishing.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

London Art Network (2014). “Young London Artists Takeover Old Street Billboard For Personal Branding.” Artlyst, February 21, 2014. http://www.artlyst.com/articles/young-london-artists- takeover-old-street-billboard-for-personal-branding. [26.09.2014].

London Assembly Graffiti Investigative Committee (2002). Graffiti in London: Report of the London Assembly Graffiti Investigative Committee. Greater London Authority. http://legacy.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports/environment/graffiti.pdf [23-07-2014].

Macdonald, N. (2002). The Graffiti Subculture, Youth, Masculinity and Identity in London and New York. Palgrave Macmillan.

Matzinger, G. (2007). Can art: is art. Wien: Praesens Verlag.

Minton, A. (2008). Why Are Fear and Distrust Spiralling in Twenty-First Century Britain? The Social Evils Series. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, October 2008. http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/2282.pdf. [26.09.2014].

Mogg, C. (2007). Die strafrechtliche Erfassung von Graffiti, Köhler-Druck, Tübingen.

Mortimer, L. (2014). “Fine art of deterrence: art used to beat graffiti”, Northern Star, 12 July. http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/Fine-art-of-deterrence-Art-used-to-beat-graffiti/2316342/ [12.07.2014].

Municipal Bylaw on Civic convivence, Barcelona (2005). Ordenan a de mesures per fomentar i garan r la conviv ncia ciutadana a l'espai p blic de Barcelona. http://w110.bcn.cat/fitxers/ajuntament/ordenanademesuresperfomentarigarantirlaconvivncia.460.p df [12.07.2014].

Municipal Bylaw on Civic convivence, Sant Boi de Llobregat (2010). Ordenan a municipal de Civisme i Conviv ncia Ciutadana, Sant Boi de Llobregat. http://www.santboi.cat/Publi007.nsf/59CA3D51A4E21E43C125717E003F5BFE/$FILE/Ordenança%20 municipal%20de%20civisme%20i%20convivència%20ciutadana.pdf [12.07.2014].

Municipal Bylaw on Civic convivence and prevention of antisocial behaviour, San Sebastián de los Reyes (2008). Ordenanza municipal para la protección de la convivencia ciudadana y prevención de actuaciones antisociales, San Sebastián de los Reyes. http://www.ssreyes.org/acces/recursos/doc/Tramites/Ordenanzas_municipales/2080465083_19102 009141910.pdf [12.07.2014].

Nieto García A.J. (2012). “Los graffitis desde el Derecho penal”, Revista Aranzadi Doctrinal num.4/2012 (BIB 2012\1166).

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

N-tv 2011, Mehr Fernbusse auf den Straßen. Bahn ab 2012 ohne Konkurrenzschutz. http://www.n- tv.de/politik/Mehr-Fernbusse-auf-den-Strassen-article3966911.html [03.07.2014].

Nussmayr, K. (2014). FarbeimBlut. Blogbeitrag. http://blog.nussmayr.at/graffiti/ [09.08.2014].

Office for National Statistics (2012a). 2011 Census: Population Estimates for the United Kingdom, 27 March 2011 http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_292378.pdf [29.08.2014]

Office for National Statistics (2012b). Statistical Bulletin Crime in England and Wales - Quarterly First Release, March. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_273169.pdf [02.08.2014].

Office for National Statistics (2013a). Characteristics of Built-Up Areas. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_316219.pdf. [29.08.2014]

Office for National Statistics (2013b). Table QS102EW - 2011 Census: Population density, local authorities in England and Wales. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key- statistics-and-quick-statistics-for-wards-and-output-areas-in-england-and-wales/rft-qs102ew.xls [01.09.2014].

Office for National Statistics (2013c). http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-december-2013/stb- crime-stats-dec-2013.html - tab-Vandalism-and-criminal-damage [02.08.2014].

Organic Act 10/1995, 23rd November, on the Criminal Code. Articles 50, 263, 264, 323, 625, 626.

Ortuño Rodr guez A.E. (2009). “La potestad sancionadora de las entidades locales. Especial referencia a las ordenanzas c vicas”, Fundación Democracia y Gobierno Local, pp. 23-52. http://repositorio.gobiernolocal.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10873/450/qdl20_05_est02_ortuno.pdf ?sequence=1 [09.08.2014].

Pascoe, T. (2011). Dialogues with Graffiti for 21st Century Cities presentation for the DACRC ESRC workshop 2 “Social Policy, Criminal and Restorative Justice”. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-J57c1GB3c [02.06.2014].

Pettersson, G. & Stafford, J. (2004). Graffiti and vandalism on and around public transport. http://www.cete-nc.developpement- durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/dft_mobility_pdf_024496_cle03816a.pdf [29.07.2014].

Police UK. (2014). “Police UK, Crime Map.” Police.UK, 2014. http://www.police.uk. [26.09.2014].

Prison Reform Trust (Ministry of Justice). (2013). Prison: the facts Bromley Briefings Summer 2013. http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Prisonthefacts.pdf. [22.06.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Project on the Municipal Bylaw of Madrid City (2013). Proyecto de ordenanza de convivencia ciudadana en el espacio público. Madrid: Ayuntamiento de Madrid.

Public Property Act, 33/2003, of 3rd of November. https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A- 2003-20254 [09.08.2014].

Rebobinart, Informe octubre 2012 - gener 2014, Barcelona: Rebobinart Plataforma d’art. http://rebobinart.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/dades-murslliures-novembre-2012-gener- 2014.pdf. [09.07.2014].

RENFE (2011). Informe Anual 2011, Madrid: RENFE.

RENFE (2012). Informe Anual 2012, Madrid: RENFE.

Reyes, F. (2012). “Graffiti. ¿Arte o vandalismo?” Pensar la Publicidad, 6, pp.53–70.

Reyes, F. (2002). Graffiti, Break-Dance y Rap: el Hip-Hop en España, Tesis doctoral, Madrid: UCM.

Rivas, T. (2013). “Primera gran operación policial contra las bandas organizadas de graffiti”, ABC, 11/07/2014. http://www.abc.es/local-madrid/20130710/abci-operacion-policial-metro-renfe- 201307092205.html [26t. 07.2014].

Royal Decret of 24 july 1889, of the Civil Code of Spain

Sánchez, E. (2014). “El Ayuntamiento de Brunete caza a los grafiteros con un falso concurso”, El País, 11/07/2014. http://ccaa.elpais.com/ccaa/2014/06/04/madrid/1401885272_162172.html [26.07. 2014].

Schifko, H. (2014): ZwischenKunst und Vandalismus: Street Art in Österreich. In: Profil Online. http://www.profil.at/articles/1418/983/374826/zwischen-kunst-vandalismus-street-art-oesterreich [07.08.2014].

Schumacher, O. (2013): “Graffitischäden bei der Deutschen Bahn“, Themendienst, Deutsche Bahn AG, October, p.1. http://www.deutschebahn.com/file/3285276/data/20140409_graffitischaeden.pdf. [08.07.2014].

Scotland Criminal Law (Consolidation) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/39/section/52 [09.08.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Sentence on Dullness Misdemeanor Procedure 1/2008, Santiago de Compostela http://www.usc.es/export/sites/default/gl/normativa/descargas/sentenzas/sentenzas_2008/sentenz a_54.pdf [09.08.2014].

Sentence 2/2009 of the Provincial Court of Leon of 7 January http://online.lexnova.es/servicesLXOL/visordoc?signatura=D7916A66749D117F137F6DBE010D2974 A541B6CBE4F2B2A7C26259D80177571C [09.08.2014].

Sentence 30/2012, Juzgado de lo Penal Número Tres de Vilanova i la Geltrú: http://www.bfpabogados.es/jurisprudenciapropia/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Stc-24-12-2011- Penal.pdf [09.08.2014].

Siegel, N. (2013). Kulturphänomen Graffiti. Das Wiener Modell der Graffiti-Forschung. http://www.graffitieuropa.org/kultur4.htmhttp://www.graffitieuropa.org/kultur4.htm [02.08.2014].

Soja E. W. (2010). Seeking Spatial Justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Spanish Copyright Law Act No. 23/2006 of July 7, 2006 amending Revised Law on Intellectual Property, approved by Royal Legislative Decree No. 1/1996 of April 12, 1996. https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1996-8930 [09.08.2014].

Stafford, J. & Pettersson, G., 2004, Vandalism, graffiti and environmental nuisance -Literature review, Department for Transport Prepared by Crime Concern. Available at: http://kb.keepbritaintidy.org/criminaldamage/publications/litreview.pdf. [02.07.2014].

Statistisches Bundesamt (2013). Zensus 2011. Bevölkerung Bundesrepublik Deutschland am 9. Mai 2011, Wiesbaden. https://www.destatis.de/DE/PresseService/Presse/Pressekonferenzen/2013/Zensus2011/bevoelkeru ng_zensus2011.pdf?__blob=publicationFile [08.07.2014].

Steinat, C. (2007). Graffiti. Auf Spurensuche im urbanen Zeichendschungel, Tectum Verlag, Marburg.

Strafgesetzbuch §303 n.d. http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__303.html [10.07.2014].

Strutton, J. (2013). Graffiti Dialogues Network Presentation for the Graffiti Impact 2013 Event: Is There Space for Graffiti? October 30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWMa6KDTIwU. [20.05.2014].

Style Wars (1983) (video file) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EW22LzSaJA [25.08.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Tomàs, M. (2011). “La escala metropolitana: un análisis transversal”, in Iglesias, M.; Mart -Costa, M.; Subirats, J.; Tomàs, M. (eds), Políticas urbanas en España. Grandes ciudades, actores y gobiernos locales, Barcelona: Icària, pp. 283-306.

Transport for London (n.d). About TfL. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl [29.08.2014].

Turco, B. & Ismali, A. (2013). Animal New York http://animalnewyork.com/2013/meet-inkie-uk- graffiti-king/ [02.09.2014]. van Dijk, J. and de Waard, J.(1991). ‘A Two-Dimensional Typology of Crime Prevention Projects: with a Bibliography’. Criminal Justice Abstracts, 23: 483-503.

Van Ness, D. and Strong, H. (2010). Restoring Justice – An introduction to Restorative Justice. 4th ed. New Provinence, NJ: Matthew Bender & Co.

Wagenknecht, F. (2011). “Der Schutz von „Street-Art“ – und die Verwertungsmöglichkeiten von Fotos” http://www.rechtambild.de/2011/04/der-schutz-von-%E2%80%9Estreet-art%E2%80%9C- %E2%80%93-und-die-verwertungsmoglichkeiten-von-fotos/ [01.08.2014].

Wien.gv.at (2014). Öffentlicher Verkehr – Statistiken. https://www.wien.gv.at/statistik/verkehr-wohnen/oeffentlich/ [08.09.2014].

Wikipedia n.d. Deutschland. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland [03.07.2014].

Willis, P. (2006). The Ethnographic Imagination, Cambridge: Polity.

Wilson, P., & Healy, P. (1987). Graffiti and vandalism on public transport. (Research Brief No. 6) (pp. 1–4). Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology. http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/4/C/C/%7B4CC88782-6505-40C3-B598- 3812F6247A31%7Dti06.pdf [14.07.2014].

Wilson, S. and Lipsey, M. (2007). ‘School-Based Interventions for Aggressive and Disruptive Behavior Update of a Meta-Analysis’. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33: S130-S143.

WSJ Poll (2014). Is Graffiti Worthy of Museum Exhibits? http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2014/08/19/wsj-poll-is-graffiti-worthy-of-museum-exhibits/ [19.08.2014].

Young, A. (2014). Street Art, Public City Law, Crime and the Urban Imagination. Oxon: Routledge, (1st ed.).

(No Author) “Misteries of medieval graffiti in England’s Churches”, BBC News England. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-28035013 [19.07.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

(No Author) “Great Art? The Graffiti of New York Subway”, BBC News Magazine. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28638691 [08.08.2014].

(No Author) “El resultado sera muy similar a la obra original” [Results will be almost the same than the original piece], Faro de Vigo, August 22 2014. http://www.farodevigo.es/gran- vigo/2014/08/22/reto-resultado-sera-similar-obra/1079660.html [22.08.2014].

(No Author) “Graffiti legalised in Granada”, Euroweekly news, August 9 2014 https://www.euroweeklynews.com/news/spanish-news/item/121958-graffiti-legalised-in-granada [09.08. 2014].

(No Author) “Trowbridge graffiti vandals are caught red handed”, Wiltshire Times, 2014, http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/11412250.Trowbridge_graffiti_vandals_are_caught_red_han ded/ [16.08.2014].

(No Author) “Hidden cameras to clamp down on graffiti in D n Laoghaire”,The Irish Times, 2014 http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/hidden-cameras-to-clamp-down-on-graffiti-in- d%C3%BAn-laoghaire-1.1896288 [14.08.2014].

(No Author) “Graffiti artist dies after being electrocuted by third rail in NYC subway station”, Daily Mail, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2682373/Graffiti-artist-electrocuted-apparently-touching- rail-NYC-subway-station.html [06.07.2014].

(No Author) “Graffiti Artists Turn on Banksy: The Rise of Art Hate”, The Daily Beast, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/06/graffiti-artists-turn-on-banksy-the-rise-of-art- hate.html [08.06.2014].

(No Author) Attorney’s General of Alicante demands judges all graffiti to be considered felony when the cleaning overpasses 400€, Informacion.es, http://www.diarioinformacion.com/sucesos/2012/09/23/fiscalia-pide-danos-grafitis-sean-delito- superen-400-euros/1296974.html [14.08.2014].

(No Author) “Decenas de menores compensan sus delitos con trabajos sociales cada año”, Elcorreoweb.es http://elcorreoweb.es/2013/06/02/decenas-de-menores-compensan-sus-delitos- con-trabajos-sociales-cada-ano/ [02.06.2014].

(No Author) “Luftüberwachung: Deutsche Bahn setzt Drohnen gegen Graffiti-Sprüher ein”, Spiegel Online 26 May 2013, http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/deutsche-bahn-will-graffiti- sprueher-mit-drohnen-filmen-a-901973.html [03.06.2014].

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

8 APPENDICES

8.1 Appendix 1

DOCUMENTS USED DURING RECRUITMENT

Austria

Sehr geehrter Herr/Frau/Organisation …

als forschungs- und entwicklungsorientiertes Unternehmen führt SYNYO gerade gemeinsam mit namhaften Partnern ein EU-Projekt zur Prävention von Graffiti-Vandalismus durch. Öffentliche Verkehrsmittel spielen dabei eine besonders wichtige Rolle. Daher sind wir gerade auf der Suche nach Institutionen die häufig mit Graffiti-Vandalismus konfrontiert sind, um ein möglichst umfassendes Bild der aktuellen Situation für die betroffenen Transportunternehmen zu bekommen. Anbei finden Sie nähere Informationen zu unserem Projekt.

Sollte Ihre Institution in diesem Bereich Erfahrungen haben würden wir sehr gerne ein kurzes persönliches Interview mit jemanden in Ihrem Tätigkeitsbereich durchführen.

Falls Sie Kontakt zu weiteren interessierten Organisationen haben können Sie diese gerne an uns verweisen. Für weitere Fragen stehen wir Ihnen natürlich jederzeit gerne zur Verfügung.

Ich freue mich auf Ihre Rückmeldung!

Beste Grüße

Bernhard Jäger

Germany

Sehr geehrte Frau/sehr geehrter Herr, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

im Rahmen des von der Europäischen Kommission geförderten Projekts „Graffolution“ – Awareness and prevention solutions against graffiti vandalism in public areas and transport – beschäftigen wir uns mit dem Phänomen Graffiti und damit in Zusammenhang stehend Graffiti-Vandalismus im öffentlichen Raum, derzeitigen und möglichen Präventionsstrategien sowie damit verbundenen Potenzialen von Graffiti für den urbanen Raum (siehe hierzu auch die vorläufige Projekt-Webseite: http://project.graffolution.eu/).

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Innerhalb des Projektzusammenhangs sind wir – das sine-Institut – Teil eines Konsortiums bestehend aus sieben Ländern. Das sine-Institut ist ein außeruniversitäres sozialwissenschaftliches Forschungsinstitut mit Sitz in München, mehr Informationen finden Sie unter www.sine-institut.de.

Ziel der ländervergleichenden Studie ist es, ein umfassendes Bild der Thematik zu erlangen, indem die unterschiedlichen Erfahrungen, Expertisen und Ansatzpunkte der Experten aus den verschiedenen Bereichen, die mit Graffiti befasst sind (z.B. Verwaltung, Polizei, Soziale Arbeit, Öffentlicher Verkehr – und selbstverständlich auch Sprayer/Writer) gebündelt werden und damit auch anderen Akteuren auf europäischer Ebene die Möglichkeit zu geben, auf diese Erfahrungen zurückzugreifen und einen Austausch zu ermöglichen. Dazu wird eine webbasierte Plattform entwickelt werden, die zum Ende des Projekts (Februar 2016) online gehen wird.

Wir würden uns sehr freuen, wenn Sie sich im Rahmen des Projekts für ein Interview zur Verfügung stellen würden und uns mit Ihrer Expertise und Ihren Erfahrungen unterstützen würden.

In den nächsten Tagen wird sich Frau/Herr XXX bei Ihnen telefonisch melden, um mit Ihnen weitere Fragen zu klären und ggf. einen Termin zu vereinbaren.

Für weitere Rückfragen stehen wir selbstverständlich jederzeit zur Verfügung.

Wir bedanken und ganz herzlich für Ihre Unterstützung!

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Marion Müller

EU-Projekt Graffolution – Projektinfo

im Rahmen des von der Europäischen Kommission geförderten Projekts „Graffolution“ – Awareness and prevention solutions against graffiti vandalism in public areas and transport – beschäftigen wir uns mit Graffiti und damit in Zusammenhang stehend „Graffiti-Vandalismus“ im öffentlichen Raum, aktuellen Präventionsstrategien und möglichen neuen Umgangsweisen sowie den damit verbundenen Potenzialen von Graffiti für den urbanen Raum.

Das Projekt wird gemeinsam von der University of the Arts London, der Universität Barcelona, SYNYO in Wien und uns – SINE, einem sozialwissenschaftlichen unabhängigen Forschungsinstitut aus München, durchgeführt (mehr Informationen gibt es unter www.sine-institut.de).

Ziel der ländervergleichenden Studie ist es, sich dem Thema Graffiti möglichst umfassend zu nähern. Dazu sollen die unterschiedlichen Erfahrungen, Wahrnehmungen, Sichtweisen und Bedürfnisse von Personen und Institutionen, die mit Graffiti befasst sind, zusammengebracht werden.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Im Rahmen des Projekts soll auch eine webbasierte Plattform entwickelt werden, die zum Ende des Projekts (Februar 2016) online gehen wird, um damit auch auf europäischer Ebene die Möglichkeit zu geben, auf Erfahrungen zurückzugreifen und einen Austausch zu ermöglichen. Im Rahmen des Projekts führen wir Interviews mit Personen aus Verwaltung, Ordnungsbehörden und Sozialer Arbeit und Sprayern/Writern durch.

Hierbei bitten wir um deine/Ihre Unterstützung! Es ist uns bewusst, dass dies Projekt durchaus mit kritischen Augen beleuchtet werden kann – aber gerade deswegen ist es uns wichtig, dass unbedingt auch Sprayer und Writer zu Wort kommen. Damit wollen wir gewährleisten, dass Graffiti nicht nur als Vandalismus wahrgenommen wird, sondern auch als Kunst, als politische Ausdrucksform und/oder Aneignung des urbanen Raums.

Die Interviews sind anonym, wir verpflichten uns, keinerlei Daten/Namen weiterzugeben, alle Informationen, die auf bestimmte Personen/Orte hinweisen, werden nur in anonymisierter Form und nur innerhalb der Studie verwendet. Alle Aufzeichnungen werden nach Abschluss der Feldphase vernichtet.

Wir würden uns sehr freuen, wenn du/ Sie sich im Rahmen des Projekts für ein Interview zur Verfügung stellen würden und uns mit Ihrer Expertise und Ihren Erfahrungen unterstützen würden.

Fragen zum Projekt und zum Datenschutz beantworten wir gerne:

[email protected] oder [email protected]

Wir bedanken und ganz herzlich für Ihre Unterstützung!

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Marion Müller und Patricia Pfeil

Spain

Apreciado,

Contactamos con Ud. des de la Universitat de Barcelona en relación a un proyecto sobre graffiti en transporte público que llevamos a cabo en diversas ciudades europeas. Hace unos días recibisteis una carta de los Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat de Catalunya (también involucrados en el proyecto), formalizando la invitación a participar en una entrevista.

El proyecto, llamado "GRAFFOLUTION" (www.graffolution.eu), lo integran también la Unión Internacional de Ferrocarriles, la University of Arts London, el Distrito de Islington de Londres y las empresas de consultoria SINE y SINYO.

El objetivo fundamental es crear una estructura de conicimiento y un conjunto de soluciones preventivas contra los actos vandálicos relacionados con los graffitis en las áreas públicas y los transportes.

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Para llevarlo a cabo se cuenta con las opiniones de numerosos agentes sociales e individuales que conocen el fenómeno o bien participan de él. Bajo esta premisa entendemos que su figura y su perspectiva no pueden quedar al margen. Es por ello que nos dirigimos a Ud. para invitarle a realizar una entrevista en los próximos días.

Sin nada más por el momento, reciba un cordial saludo.

Muchas gracias y quedamos a la espera de su respuesta.

Dra. Liliana Arroyo Moliner

Benvolgut,

Contactem amb vosaltres des de la universitat de Barcelona perquè estem duent a terme un projecte sobre el Graffiti en diverses ciutats europees. Fa uns dies vau rebre una carta remesa des dels FGCconvidant-vos a una entrevista.

En el Setè Programa Marc de la Comissió Europea el passat mes de març vàrem iniciar el projecte "GRAFFOLUTION" (www.graffolution.eu). Aquest projecte l'integrem la Universitat de Barcelona, Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat, la Unió internacional de Ferrocarrils, la Universitat d'Arts de Londres, el Districte Islington a Londres i les empreses consultores SINE i SINYO.

L'objectiu fonamental és la creació d'una estructura de coneixement i conjunt de solucions preventives (no repressives) contra els actes vandàlics relacionats amb els graffitis en les àrees públiques i els sistemes de transport (particularment trens).

Per tal de dur-ho a terme volem comptar amb les opinions de nombrosos agents socials i individuals que coneixen el fenomen del graffiti de primera mà. En aquesta premisa entenem que els ajuntaments i la seva visió no poden quedar al marge i és per això que ens adrecem a vostè per convidar-la a fer una entrevista en els propers dies.

Sense res més pel moment, restem a l'espera de la seva resposta.

Moltes gràcies per endavant, Dra. Liliana Arroyo Moliner

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Dear xxxx,

I am writing to you from Central Saint Martins as we are part of an EU project entitled Graffolution – which is looking at Graffiti in public areas and on public transport.

As part of the research we are conducting interviews with key graffiti artists. It is crucial to include graffiti artists at this stage to ensure related agendas are represented. Would you be able to spare roughly 1 hour (or less) for an interview with me?

Taking part will provide you with the chance to influence the project, and related action and policy proposals that we expect to follow. Your personal details will never be shared but the results will be taken seriously by policy makers, land managers and other communities around Europe too, so this is a significant chance to speak in this context.

If you would be happy to spare some time, could you please let us know your availability by selecting which dates work for you on this Doodle http://doodle.com/6dx2vzgay73mbh76 (in June - July 2014).

I can come to you, and/or take you to coffee/lunch/dinner at King's Cross, whichever is easiest for you.

Let me know.

With best wishes

Lorraine

Dear xxxx,

I am writing to you as Director of the Design Against Crime Research Centre at Central Saint Martins as we are part of an EU project entitled Graffolution – which is looking at Graffiti in public areas and on public transport. Please see attached project outline.

As part of the research we are conducting interviews with key stakeholders and graffiti artists and wondered if you would be able to spare roughly 1 hour for an interview.

The deadline is very tight I am afraid for this phase of the project, so we wondered if you had anytime on the following days:

Fri 11th July: Anytime between 1.00 – 4.00.

Tues 15th July : 5.00 pm; 6.00 pm

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Weds 16th July: 4.00; 5.00

Thurs 17th July: Anytime from 3.00

Fri 18th July: Anytime from 11.00 – 3.00

I can come to you and/or take you to coffee/lunch/dinner at King's Cross whenever is easiest for you.

Let me know.

With best wishes

Lorraine

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

8.2 Appendix 2

COMMON INTERVIEW GUIDELINE Introduction: project presentation (brief / minimal) – interviewee

1. Understanding/Definition . Define the issue: 'graffiti' . What does it mean to you? . Are there different kinds (categorisation)? . Is graffiti different in different places (local level / global level)? What explains these differences?

2. Relationship to graffiti Your relationship to graffiti, how has it evolved? How long you are involved? Are or there different phases included? Were there changes?

3. Experiences/Motives . Key moments in graffiti (in your experience/opinion/career) . What are key issues and key problems? . What are key challenges? . Typical course/process of work/activity, typical steps of work/activity; . What are the motives of those actors involved in the field of graffiti? . Does there exist a direct contact to the actors involved? How are your experiences?

4. Impact of graffiti . What is the impact of graffiti for you personally? What is the impact for the general public? . How is the perception of graffiti in the general public?

5. Legal framework How do you evaluate the existing legal framework? Sprayers: Did the legal framework already affect you? If yes, how? How was your personal experience within the criminalisation process? Did you draw for yourself consequences after the incident? If yes, in which way?

Stakeholders: Is it sufficient? Do you see any legal gaps that should be covered? 2 6. Prevention strategies / measures . What is your understanding of prevention regarding graffiti? . What do you understand the phrase “Broken Windows” to mean?

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

. Strategies and alternatives: how is graffiti addressed and how should it be addressed? What are your experiences with those actions, (prevention) strategies? . Do you use any systems/tools in order to monitor/report/manage/communicate graffiti/your own practice? Which components are included? How useful do you consider this system/tool? . How would you propose to measure instances of graffiti practice which may have positive impact on communities? . Describe the group of actors you deal with (age, gender, socio-cultural background); . Awareness of preventions strategies in other European cities? If so how did they learn about it? Who are the other actors?

7. Exchange / networking . Which groups or networks or persons are relevant for you regarding graffiti? . Are you part of any of these groups or networks? . What are potentials and limitations regarding the network / networking? . What are the current communication channels (including Facebook, Twitter, etc.) and potential new channels? . Which media (e.g. (online-magazines) and events/places are of importance concerning graffiti?

Map of stakeholders and relationship between them (draw if necessary).

8. Outlook: future approaches / needs . How do you see the future of graffiti? Do you have any specific concepts/ideas concerning this future? . How do you see the future of graffiti as a regeneration strategy? Do you have any specific concepts/ideas concerning this future? How do you see the future of graffiti prevention? . Scenario: What could be an acceptable way forward or solution for you / your organisation? . What and who could contribute?

9. GRAFFOLUTION PLATFORM [Explain platform]: How do you assess the benefits of a web-based tool? Which needs/recommendations already exist for it? Are there experiences available? Who could/should be reached with it? Who should be part of the platform? What should such a platform take into account? Is there interest to participate/contribute to such a tool? Are you aware of any other tool or platform, both online and offline?

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

8.3 Appendix 3

COMMON CODING LIST

Block or themes CODE Graffiti definition Graffiti meaning Understanding Graffiti categorisation Graffiti local/global levels

Relationship: Current Relationship: Evolution Relationship: how long involved Interviewee relationship to graffiti Graffiti: Phases Graffiti: Changes Graffiti: Generations

Experience: Key moments Experience: key issues Experience: key problems Experience: key challenges Experiences/motives Typical course of work/activity Typical steps of work/activity Actors involved: motivations Actors involved: contact among them

Impact: personally Impact: general public Impact of graffiti Perception: personally Perception: general public

Existing legal FW: evaluation Existing legal FW: sufficient Existing legal FW: gaps to cover Legal framework Existing Legal FW: criminalisation process Existing legal FW: affected by it Existing legal FW: consequences

Prevention: understanding Prevention: "broken windows" meaning Prevention: current strategies & alternatives Prevention: desirable strategies & alternatives Prevention Prevention: your experiences Prevention: targeted group Prevention: results Prevention: existing collaborations

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

Prevention: systems & tools for monitorization Prevention: systems & tools for reporting Prevention: systems & tools for managing Prevention: tools included Prevention: how useful tools are Prevention: measures & positive impact on communities Prevention: actors you deal with (age, gender, SCB) Prevention: awareness in other European cities Prevention: how did they learn about it Prevention: who are the other actors

Networking: relevant groups/persons Networking: are you part of relevant groups Networking: potentials Networking: limitations Networking: current communication channels Exchange/networking Networking: potential communication channels Networking: media of importance Networking: events/places are of importance Networking: actors in the map Networking: relationships among actors

Future: view on graffiti Future: graffiti as a regeneration strategy Future approaches/needs Future: future of graffiti prevention Future scenario: acceptable way or solution Future scenario: who would contribute

Web: benefits a web-based tool Web: existing needs Web: recommendations Web: available experiences Web: who should be reached Graffolution Platform Web: who should be part of it Web: things to take into account Web: interest to participate/contribute Web: other on-line tools known Web: other off-line tools known

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

8.4 Appendix 4

INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM

Name of Principal Researcher: .

Participant Identification Number: .

You have been asked to participate in an interview being conducted as part of the GRAFFOLUTION Project, which is co-funded by the European Commission. This interview is being carried out by the which is the co-ordinator for the GRAFFOLUTION project in . The information obtained during this interview plays a very important part in the research being carried out as part of this international project.

Participation

This interview may take 1 hour. Your participation in this interview is entirely voluntary and you may stop your participation at any time. You may also refuse to answer any questions with which you are uncomfortable. You may also withdraw your participation from the interview at any time, and no penalties will be incurred should you withdraw from the study.

Confidentiality and anonymity

The interviewer is bound to confidentiality and to uphold data secrecy. The confidentiality is also valid once the project ends.

The conversation will be recorded; however, all personal information collected and your responses will be anonymised as soon as reasonably possible. Your name will not be connected to your responses; instead, a number will be utilised for identification purposes. In addition, any information which could potentially make it possible for you to be identified will not be included in any report. Your personal data will be kept confidential and it will only be disclosed to those individuals working on the GRAFFOLUTION project on a need-to-know basis and it will not be disclosed to any other individual or third parties unrelated to the GRAFFOLUTION project. Your anonymised comments might be used in scientific publications related to this study.

Data protection and data security

All personal data collected will be kept secure and no personal data will be kept for longer than necessary for the purposes for which it was collected. Personal data which is no longer required for the purposes of the GRAFFOLUTION project will be deleted.

Risks and benefits

D2.2 REGIONAL, CULTURAL, ETHICAL, PRIVACY AND LEGAL ASPECTS AND INFLUENCE FACTORS REPORT

No risks are foreseen to the interviewees. Your participation in this research will most likely not result in any benefit to yourself; however it will assist the researchers concerned in providing valuable information on the topic under study.

Participant statement

1. I confirm that I have read and understand the information sheet explaining the above research project and I have had the opportunity to ask questions about the project.If I have any more questions about my participation in this study, I may contact

2. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time without giving any reason and without there being any negative consequences. In addition, should I not wish to answer any particular question or questions, I am free to decline.

3. I understand that my responses will be kept strictly anonymous. I give permission for members of the research team to have access to my anonymised responses. I understand that my name will not be linked with the research materials, and I will not be identified or identifiable in the report or reports that result from the research.

4. I agree for the data collected from me to be used in future research

5. I agree to take part in the above research project.

6. I agree to the interview being recorded, on the understanding that the recording will be deleted as soon as it has been transcribed.

______Name of Participant Date Signature

______Principal Researcher Date Signature