Ownership of South African street art and the protection of cultural heritage resources

Abstract

The development of graffiti into an accepted art form, street art, is a cause of concern for South African property owners. The current position in South African property law regarding the original acquisition of ownership suggests that the creation of street art on movable property belonging to another could result in the transfer of ownership. Ownership of the movable may transfer via accessio to the street artist provided that the artwork changes the nature of the movable. This would occur even if the street artist does not act in good faith because bona fides is not a requirement for the original acquisition of ownership via accessio. This anomaly requires that the South African law on accession in the case of pictura be developed such that good faith be a requirement for the transfer of ownership in this format. With the development and growing popularity of the art form the likelihood of this legal anomaly is becoming a greater possibility. Indeed, the popularity of British street artist, Banksy, has provided numerous examples of contested ownership, albeit within English law. Banksy artworks are collectable and financially valuable. Consequently, not only are they desirable but many of his street artworks are considered to be examples of British cultural heritage and as such may be worthy of protection and preservation. These cases highlight the growing need in South Africa to clearly identify who South African street artworks belong to and, to identify any South African street art that warrants cultural heritage protection. The legislation regarding the protection of South African cultural heritage resources has not yet been extended to any street artworks. Yet there are examples of street art in South Africa that meet the requirements for cultural heritage status or which have the characteristics of cultural heritage resources. The extension of cultural heritage resource status to South African street artworks that are culturally significant could assist in the protection and preservation of these resources. However, the effectiveness of the cultural heritage legislation, in particular the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999, is limited. There are several problematic aspects in this Act. This is of great concern as the issues effect all South Africa’s cultural heritage resources (not just street art which may qualify for such status). However, these issues could be responded to through amendments to the legislation. Significantly, the National Heritage Resources Act seeks to deprive private owners of their property as it seeks to regulate what owners can do with cultural heritage property which they own. However, as it stands there are far too many challengeable issues in this legislation to justifiably deprive this property in terms of s25 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. This renders significant portions of the National Heritage Resources Act inoperable. Consequently, the amendment of this legislation is necessary to ensure the purpose of the legislation i.e. to ensure the protection and preservation of the South Africa’s cultural heritage resources through the deprivation of property rights or indeed, if necessary, through the expropriation of property.