Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™

[Daniel Silk]

I wonder how this will effect what Banksy does in the future? Will he do pieces on the street again? Actually, when was the last time Banksy released a print or canvas of an image that he had already done on the street?

[Daniel Silk]

May 21, 2021 22:30:12 GMT 1 Happy Shopper said:

Just seems bizarre that an artist could lose the ownership of their images... seemingly just because they were painted in a public place!?

So if Banksy posted an image of a design on his website before doing it on the street, surely that makes a difference?

[Woodey1001]

May 21, 2021 23:50:36 GMT 1 Daniel Silk said:

I wonder how this will effect what Banksy does in the future? Will he do pieces on the street again? Actually, when was the last time Banksy released a print or canvas of an image that he had already done on the street?

Maybe six months ago? Through the Walled Off.

I'm sure these cases are why he started those editions of his own pieces 🤷

[Woodey1001]

Thinking about it.. the Banksy images on wall sections started to be released near GDP, when the court cases started... and then sold out once the cases had been decided.

Funny that 🤷

[Reader]

We have a paper on the earlier case with the "Flower Thrower" in this months Nuart Journal from Enrico Bonadio, one of the world's foremost experts on street art and graffiti copyright.

He pretty much warned this would happen in his conclusion.

CONCLUSION
All in all, apart from the point on illegal graffiti, the decision by the EUIPO is well-reasoned and fair. If Banksy wants to own, keep, and enforce registered trademarks, he needs to act in good faith, and start using them seriously by regularly selling merchandise, as all entrepreneurs do. The artist may also run the risk of losing other trademarks incorporating his art, in Europe and beyond, on the same grounds.

It's free to read or download here : nuartjournal.com/pdf/issue-5/NJ5-06_Bonadio.pdf

[Daniel Silk]

I just find it confusing, mixed messages from Banksy.

He doesn’t want companies selling things with his images on, but he won’t do it himself? I’m mean your protecting something, but for what purpose? If your releasing similar official items then of course it makes total sense, but when your not really releasing the images on anything affordable?

I have said it a million times before. Banksy should just have an official online store selling Posters, Mugs, Tshirts, Postcards, of all his famous images, and it would overnight swipe out the fakes market. If he doesn’t want the money, run it at cost, or the profits go to a charity. Simples.

[Dahmer]

May 21, 2021 23:50:36 GMT 1 Daniel Silk said:

I wonder how this will effect what Banksy does in the future? Will he do pieces on the street again? Actually, when was the last time Banksy released a print or canvas of an image that he had already done on the street?

surely the gdp prints...?

[Daniel Silk]

Couldn’t Banksy find someone who has continuously produced fake Banksy pieces going back maybe 15 years, and then back them legally to fight the case? Wouldn’t someone like that have a better chance in court than Banksy himself? Then he could already have an arrangement in place for the rights to then be passed to himself after they won the case.

[Daniel Silk]

Does this also raise a question on West Country Prints? Could that actually be securing the rights to those images? I’m just trying to understand the reasoning behind the EU rules.

[Daniel Silk]

May 22, 2021 0:51:00 GMT 1 biggie said:

Will any of these ruling affect his market - no IMO. Most of us know what is real and what is not.s**t loads of people are happy to have a panda with pistols on their wall (not Banksy). Let it go PC & CO. It’s looking like a lost cause, move on. The more this is chased the shitter it all looks.

Agreed.
Banksy should just get on with it. The only reason this monster has occurred is coz he has hardly released anything for years and years! Remembering the days when he would be releasing maybe 6 prints within a year! If he was still satisfying the demand, the problems with fakes and copies wouldn’t be so much of an issue.
supply and demand.

[mojo]

Simple really, if ever you are out shopping and see any of the FCB brand just 'accidentally' knock the display rack over ...and what ever you do NEVER pay for it.

[Reader]

The case in a nutshell

TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHT

The case raises issues across the spectrum of intellectual property. Can artworks be monopolised by registering them as trademarks? Copyright and trademarks are different intellectual property rights. While copyright aims to protect artistic works such as paintings, trademarks protect, inter alia, logos, and signs that help consumers to make informed purchase choices when it comes to buying products.
Banksy – who has clearly expressed his dislike of copyright in the past − has tried to rely here on trademark law to protect his artworks. Banksy's aversion to copyright can be explained by his need to preserve anonymity.

A copyright suit would require Pest Control to show that it has acquired the copyright from the artist. But this would reveal Banksy's real name, which the famously anonymous artist wants to avoid,

Also, copyright is limited in time, while trademarks can be continuously renewed. Protecting an artwork by trademarks therefore potentially gives the artist a perpetual monopoly over it. This may offend a basic copyright law principle, namely that after a specific period of time everyone should be able to use, and build upon, artworks that have fallen into the public domain. Of course, there are artworks which are registered and enforced as trademarks, such as Walt Disney's iconic characters, and the fact that they are already protected by copyright does not preclude them from also being registered as trademarks: the EUIPO accepted this. In most cases a work of art registered as a trademark is used in a genuine way, with merchandise regularly produced and sold by the right holder. But as soon as trademarks are aimed just at getting around the law, there is reason for concern. More so in cases like Banksy's: namely, when an artist does not want to claim copyright but at the same time seeks potentially perpetual trademark rights over his art.

www.nuartjournal.com

[Jeezuz Jones Snr]

May 22, 2021 1:00:43 GMT 1 biggie said:

May 22, 2021 0:36:50 GMT 1 Daniel Silk said:

Does this also raise a question on West Country Prints? Could that actually be securing the rights to those images? I’m just trying to understand the reasoning behind the EU rules.

You’ve been around along time Dan.
You know, I know what’s real. Doesn’t matter who had the rights to images. How amazing was it in the early days? It was the start of a
Movements ground breaking. Those Thursday nights at shows was so exciting. Getting a random text on the day of a Banksy show was so exciting. The arts world changed forever. Do we really give a fuck about Random Girl With Balloon images? They should let it go. Leave it alone it’s embarrassing. Keep pushing boundaries put on shows, stop the DACS bullshite

Good post Biggie.. it's more than likely the brand, the lawyers and the $ backers are pushing the issue. Banksy the individual is on his farm in Somerset tending to his animals enjoying life 👍

[Winchester]

May 22, 2021 4:05:19 GMT 1 Jeezuz Jones Snr said:

May 22, 2021 1:00:43 GMT 1 biggie said:

You’ve been around along time Dan.
You know, I know what’s real. Doesn’t matter who had the rights to images. How amazing was it in the early days? It was the start of a
Movements ground breaking. Those Thursday nights at shows was so exciting. Getting a random text on the day of a Banksy show was so exciting. The arts world changed forever. Do we really give a fuck about Random Girl With Balloon images? They should let it go. Leave it alone it’s embarrassing. Keep pushing boundaries put on shows, stop the DACS bullshite

Good post Biggie.. it's more than likely the brand, the lawyers and the $ backers are pushing the issue. Banksy the individual is on his farm in Somerset tending to his animals enjoying life 👍

How come you think he lives on a farm?

[Winchester]

Jun 2, 2021 15:36:58 GMT 1 biggie said:

Jun 2, 2021 15:03:37 GMT 1 Winchester said:

How come you think he lives on a farm?

Well it defo wouldn’t be a meat farm;)

So he's a vegetarian but spraypainted live animals including an elephant ;-)

[Terry Fuckwitt]

Jun 2, 2021 16:53:34 GMT 1 Winchester said:

Jun 2, 2021 15:36:58 GMT 1 biggie said:

Well it defo wouldn’t be a meat farm;)

So he's a vegetarian but spraypainted live animals including an elephant ;-)

Here we go, glad I could help
www.rspca.org.uk/utilities/contactus/reportcruelty

[Sundowner]

Jun 2, 2021 16:53:34 GMT 1 Winchester said:

Jun 2, 2021 15:36:58 GMT 1 biggie said:

Well it defo wouldn’t be a meat farm;)

So he's a vegetarian but spraypainted live animals including an elephant ;-)

With non-toxic cattle paint

[That Print Guy]

Can't help but think this is an intentional set up.

[Winchester]

Jun 2, 2021 17:34:30 GMT 1 Sundowner said:

Jun 2, 2021 16:53:34 GMT 1 Winchester said:

So he's a vegetarian but spraypainted live animals including an elephant ;-)

With non-toxic cattle paint

Statement by the Los Angeles animal service department regarding the elephant.

You're welcome.

Fact is, spraying and distressing animals for your own gain is simply wrong.

[Winchester]

And all that still doesn't answer my questions why people think he lives on a farm in somerset. Back to square one.

[Reader]

Jun 2, 2021 16:53:34 GMT 1 Winchester said:

Jun 2, 2021 15:36:58 GMT 1 biggie said:

Well it defo wouldn’t be a meat farm;)

So he's a vegetarian but spraypainted live animals including an elephant ;-)

Yes he did, and the elephant died and we all had elephant steak for dinner... jeez.

[iamzero]

Could I get an elephant steak on the Weber BBQ?

[Reader]

Jun 2, 2021 18:06:30 GMT 1 iamzero said:

Could I get an elephant steak on the Weber BBQ?

That's the most sensible question I've seen on the thread, maybe a baby elephant ?

[moron]

May 21, 2021 9:51:23 GMT 1 Atom Gallery said:

moron said: 'The fact is that all Banksy art is protected under copyright under the Berne Convention and copyright law.'

I thought the whole point was that it is not protected, Full Colour Black and many others have got away with selling repros, because he wont say who he is therefore PC has tried to protect it by trademarks?

totally agree thought that FCB has no right to try and licence what is not theirs.

  Did Full Color Black create the Banksy art images that they are reproducing and selling and also selling licenses to other people to reproduce those images?

 The fact regarding using an image/s created by an artist and even producing derivative art requires written permission from the artist/creator. That is the legal aspect as art is automatically copyright protected and for 70 years after the artists death once it is fixed in a tangible medium.  Whether an artist chooses to send a DMCA take down notice or take legal action or not makes no difference as to someone who did not create the original art using that art to profit commercially.  

  People can ask these sellers of Banksy knock offs a simple question before parting with money and that is. Does the seller have written permission from the copyright owner to produce and sell items with the image/s on them? 

  Also demanding money to grant an image license, the question should be, Do you have written permission from the copyright owner to charge a fee, demand payment granting reproduction rights.  If the seller refuses to confirm this in writing then they are committing fraud.

[moron]

Interesting that the person with significant control, regarding POW and Pest Control is Mr Mark Howard Stephens, Banksy's copyright attorney. It just goes to show that money buys the best legal advice.

[peas]

Jun 10, 2021 22:24:33 GMT 1 moron said:

May 21, 2021 9:51:23 GMT 1 Atom Gallery said:

moron said: 'The fact is that all Banksy art is protected under copyright under the Berne Convention and copyright law.'

I thought the whole point was that it is not protected, Full Colour Black and many others have got away with selling repros, because he wont say who he is therefore PC has tried to protect it by trademarks?

totally agree thought that FCB has no right to try and licence what is not theirs.

  Did Full Color Black create the Banksy art images that they are reproducing and selling and also selling licenses to other people to reproduce those images?

 The fact regarding using an image/s created by an artist and even producing derivative art requires written permission from the artist/creator. That is the legal aspect as art is automatically copyright protected and for 70 years after the artists death once it is fixed in a tangible medium.  Whether an artist chooses to send a DMCA take down notice or take legal action or not makes no difference as to someone who did not create the original art using that art to profit commercially.  

  People can ask these sellers of Banksy knock ofFor Sale a simple question before parting with money and that is. Does the seller have written permission from the copyright owner to produce and sell items with the image/s on them? 

  Also demanding money to grant an image license, the question should be, Do you have written permission from the copyright owner to charge a fee, demand payment granting reproduction rights.  If the seller refuses to confirm this in writing then they are committing fraud.

Why do you use two accounts here, Ploppi?

[moron]

Jun 10, 2021 22:30:07 GMT 1 peas said:

Jun 10, 2021 22:24:33 GMT 1 moron said:

  Did Full Color Black create the Banksy art images that they are reproducing and selling and also selling licenses to other people to reproduce those images?

 The fact regarding using an image/s created by an artist and even producing derivative art requires written permission from the artist/creator. That is the legal aspect as art is automatically copyright protected and for 70 years after the artists death once it is fixed in a tangible medium.  Whether an artist chooses to send a DMCA take down notice or take legal action or not makes no difference as to someone who did not create the original art using that art to profit commercially.  

  People can ask these sellers of Banksy knock ofFor Sale a simple question before parting with money and that is. Does the seller have written permission from the copyright owner to produce and sell items with the image/s on them? 

  Also demanding money to grant an image license, the question should be, Do you have written permission from the copyright owner to charge a fee, demand payment granting reproduction rights.  If the seller refuses to confirm this in writing then they are committing fraud.

Why do you use two accounts here, Ploppi?

 Thought you got banned Gods Ultimate Noise. Have you managed to sell those worthless Di Faced tenners yet with made up provenance. I'm only going by the slander and lies you posted on the public message board about the forum owner you ranted on and on and on about.

I only have one account on this forum. I do realise that you could be mentally ill or deluded and you have the personality of someone who has an obsession as in stalker.

[Raph]

Just to clarify something here as I would like to write a complete thread on Banksy's trademark strategy but don't have the time for the time being.

The decision of the European Office concerning the flower thrower is under appeal. So, we have to wait a few more monthes before drawing conclusions ...

[ricardob]

This doesnt make any sense to me. He has released prints of both works. How is it not commercial? Plus he could paint a few OG an sell them privately whenever he feels like it. 

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9705389/Banksy-stripped-trademarks-Radar-Rat-Girl-Umbrella-artworks.html

[BANK OF ENGLAND 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿]

Bad news for Banksy, however this is absolutely fantastic news for my cheap bootleg cologne range that smells like an estate agent that hasn't washed.