I don't understand this at all. Is it as simple as adding a © ?
It's as simple as adding a face to the tag, if you believe the reasoning for the rejection.
No! I am Spartacus Banksy.
Banksy is so 2012
From what I can tell, he can't trademark his art because he hasn't commercialised it.
He can still claim copywrite protection, but he has to reveal his identity in the legal process of claiming that protection when it is broken.
Basically he wants it all ways.
And if he came out as Geoff from Croydon the value of his stuff would fall through the floor.
I find it quite amusing. I giggled at the judges correctly calling his work vandalism. If he can’t prove he did the work then how can he copyright it. I guess the problem is that it’s hard to prove you did it without exposing yourself to criminal damage and vandalism charges if he didn’t have the building owners permission before paining all over it
From what I can tell, he can’t trademark his art because he hasn’t commercialised it.
That's what I understood too. But there are plenty of creatives who do not commercialise their output.
That’s what I understood too. But there are plenty of creatives who do not commercialise their output.
They normally protect their work through copyright not trademark. Copyright is assumed for all original work, but legal enforcement requires a level of evidence that it is your original work to protect and he can't do that without revealing his identity. He tried to get around that by trademarking his work, but that isn't really the intention of trademark so that has now been rules against.
He could still claim against the shop using copyright, but then he has to reveal his identity.
Although to be honest I suspect the press already know who he is and it is boring news and they can sell more advertising keeping the secret.
Is it not the same as certain supermarkets selling goods that mimic the packaging details of well known and high reputation foods ?.
How does selling a tin of tomato soup, in a red and black can with the exact same logo to Heinz, but produced by someone else, be anything other than fraudulent.
They are using his ideas for their own gain.
They are using [s] his [/s] An unknown someone's ideas for their own gain.
There's no proof they're his, they could just as easily be mine so he can't protect them.
I'm not a lawyer, etc, but I don't understand why his company Pest Control Office couldn't trademark it. Trademark owner doesn't have to be a single, identifiable individual, and there are plenty of corporate structures (even here in the UK) that pretty completely obscure the ultimate beneficiaries of the company.
@dyna-ti This is referred to as "passing off" and has become highly sophisticated amongst the own labels / discounters for food and household products in particular
However by doing so the owner of the original owner has to prove that they lost out commercially / financially as a result
Not sure how Banksy would prove this if he isn't actually selling anything and has no rights to the designs that he's happy to support legally
There’s no proof they’re his, they could just as easily be mine so he can’t protect them.
Common knowledge, Universal acceptance ?.
So whats the end line, the crux of the matter ? Force out an artist who uses anonymity to help promote his career, but he has to ,effectively out himself, and lay artistic claim to the work, in order to prevent someone form, using someone elses work to make money.
Glad to know greed is OK in 2020.
Where else can we now apply this ?, must be loads of things.
Glad to know greed is OK in 2020
...and vandalism.
it's a strange one isn't it! I bet you would have trouble finding many people who would object to Banksy doing his thing on their property though... in fact some LAs have given him carte blanche because they know it will bring in tourists/money, so if the property owner consents then it's neither vandalism nor a crime I guess!…and vandalism.
Glad to know greed is OK in 2020.
Where else can we now apply this ?, must be loads of things.
Can you imagine the legal chaos that would result if you could just anonymously claim ownership of something\anything without any burden of proof and identity? What exactly do you think the law should do?
The problem is banksy is in a rather unique position of his own choosing, that the law doesn't cater for. There is a bigger problem of trademark squating that the system tries to prevent, ruling in has favour would have opened up.
The best thing he could do, is license official merchandise where a certain percentage of profit goes to charity (I believe that he isn't motivated that much by financial gain himself), promote that and leave it to the conscience of the buyer. iirc he has done something similar in the past.
The reality is for everyone that if you want to have the protection of the law, you need to follow its rules, they are not making a special case for him, there is a path in law available to him, it is just he doesn't want to take it.
Glad to know greed is OK in 2020.Where else can we now apply this ?, must be loads of things.
Such as ?
One of the problems must be that he doesn't actually own the ones on other people's buildings, they do! So presumably they could claim the intellectual property rights.
On evocative products (the lidl similar looking tins issue) there are lawyers making a fortune advising the different parties. But it rarely goes to court.
Does copyright have to be tied to an individual? Could it not be tied to a company or other organisation?
Artists (musicians) have sold their song rights, but again in order to enforce those rights, they would have to prove in a court that they obtained them from the artist and had the right to protect their interests, hard to see how they could do that without the artist being identified.
If you paint something on a wall owned by someone else do you actually own the picture or is it owned by the person who’s walk you painted on? The wall owner could quite legally just paint over it and there would be noting the artist could do about it
If you paint something on a wall owned by someone else do you actually own the picture or is it owned by the person who’s walk you painted on
They own it, that's not the issue. Intellectual property isn't the same. Owning an iPhone doesn't give me cart blanche to use the apple logo.
Owning an iPhone doesn’t give me cart blanche to use the apple logo.
But that's not what is happening here. This is equivalent of someone selling prints of a painting of their iphone in situ e.g. on their fireplace. Apple can't stop people using images of the product they own.
Banksy is both a graffiti artist and a conceptual artist. The way in which he operates in this world I'd as significant as the physical objects he leaves in this world.
The court didn't make the right decision because they couldn't make the right decision, Banksy's work shows up the limitations of our ideas of ownership and copyright. His whole purpose is to assert that 'the system' doesn't work.
I think it's reasonably common knowledge who he is, it's just that the press loke to play along with the charade, It works for both parties. They admire his wit, they know a good headline writer when they see one and there's none better one than Banksy. Every one's a 'Gotcha'
Thanks Inkster. I'm sure you are right, and therefore I suppose this was another well executed performance.
Artists (musicians) have sold their song rights, but again in order to enforce those rights, they would have to prove in a court that they obtained them from the artist and had the right to protect their interests, hard to see how they could do that without the artist being identified.
Exactly. So can't Pest Control Office say they own the copyright, although it was created by Banksy. Weather it was purchased or just transferred shouldn't matter. I don't see why Banksy needs to be be personally identified to do this.
I think it’s reasonably common knowledge who he is,
Neil Buchanan
I don’t see why Banksy needs to be be personally identified to do this.
Because with out identifying him, how do you know Banksy transferred ownership of copyright, came up with the idea or painted it in the first instance, not just some bloke down the pub? Also there's no reason he can't copyright the image that I'm aware of
Second he's not trying to do that he's trying to trademark it, he can't do that because, for want of a better term, he's no intention to trade. Its nothing to do with the system not working, it's too do with him being too much of a narcissist to use the system which would work just fine.
His whole purpose is to assert that ‘the system’ doesn’t work.
I don't agree, if that was his intention he has done so very badly. The legal system is corrupt, completely skewed to favour the rich and the establishment, If he wanted to challenge the system why choose a small shop and not amazon? Unless he reveals that he is also "Full Colour Black" then chapeau.
And what his victory would have resulted in would surely be worse. Closer to an American system where corporations like specialized can claim the rights to "epic" and "Roubaix", abuse the law to threaten the livelihood of small businessmen.
If this was meant to be performance art to highlight an unjust system, then its a fail
Exactly. So can’t Pest Control Office say they own the copyright, although it was created by Banksy. Weather it was purchased or just transferred shouldn’t matter. I don’t see why Banksy needs to be be personally identified to do this.
I could claim to own the copyright to the Banksy work. If I want a court to enforce that I'll need to prove it. The normal way is to show an assignation document that has the signature of the artist on it, often that would be accepted by the other party. If however the other party says, I don't believe that document is genuine/valid/still in force then you'd typically need to bring the assignor (Banksy) to court to confirm it. Courts are, as standard, open and therefore Banksy would be identified.
