I don’t see a problem with it, at least no worse that so many other forms of photography, unless the photo is composed in a manner to only show the graffito straight on and without context of its surroundings or situation. So if it’s just a photo of the entire work of graffito then you’d have a good arguement for copyright infringement and a poor creative eye. But if the subject of the photo is of the area the graffito/graffiti is in, of people or objects near it, or a detail of the graffito, then I don’t see any difference in that and taking a picture of a building. Remember, building designs can also be copyrighted, yet most photographers have no issues with architectural photography despite the same legal and ethical conundrums.
There are a lot a gray areas in photography most people don’t consider, especially in street photography. Like if you photograph a person, are you stealing their look or the way they dress? They created that look that you found compelling, and may have spent years of hard work and lots of money developing it. What about the architects, engineers, and landscape designers whose works lie in the background of your photo? What about the work of any other photographer who shot from that spot before you that you may not even be aware of? Are you stealing from all of them to? Even if you gain all of the necessary permissions, aren’t you still profiting from the creativity of others while showing very little of your own? Those are one of the many reasons I don’t like street photography. The whole genre is based on stealing from others to claim as your own. But just because I think it’s lazy and shows a lack of creativity doesn’t mean I think it should be banned altogether. That would be a slippery slope that would hobble the art too much.
yes there is a lot to think about when one is making photographs !
i see from your avatar that you use a 4x5 camera. when someone photographs a landscape
they are also stealing from the people who own the property or from the park system ( federal governemnt ) who has stewardship
and if someone does portrait work ( in studio ) they run into the same problems as one would photographing people on the street
and if one do table top / still lives you are using package and product design that someone else toiled over as well.
i am guessing ( perhaps wrongly ? ) that not everyone has a stack of model and object release forms that one has
people sign if s/he are photographing their sites, structures or models ... some say as long as one is not publishing the
images for commercial purposes one doesn' t need a release if it is "artwork" being created. even someone elses artwork can be repurposed
and used without consent .. i mean high powered photographers have been showing other peoples' artwork as their own for years
( marlboro man, iinstagram-portriats &c ) no releases at all ... but then again art is sold and bought -
it is the same thing... ( money or objects transferred / paid for artwork )
one can have their own personal ethics+morality and live by them, but i don't know now many people are going to have endless reems of model and
object release forms ... but who knows, getting the releases signed with a phone making a dv of the whole ordeal could be considered performance art too.