[rockhopper]

Been working on this for a while, early test print, still needs some work, and colour needs tweeking.
Anyone else like?

[fingerz]

like the blue and white

[Art Fan 2011]

Apr 5, 2012 21:52:30 GMT 1 fingerz said:

like the blue and white

Agreed, nice work!

[Rsyok]

Im confused you have been working on copying Banksy/ish prints to sell to us lot ?

[parp]

Sorry to break it to you Rockhopper, but i'm pretty sure that Banksy already came up with this idea?

[m@san]

RIP Tesco Value

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17622856

[rperry]

Am I wrong, but are you the guy that also reproduced Hirst Dots?

If you keep this up, you could be entering very bad territory, as both Hirst and Banksy have been prosecuting forgers.

I only say this in your interest as my wife is an IP attorney and prosecutes this sort of thing regularly.

[drevil]

Apr 6, 2012 5:17:26 GMT 1 @rperry said:

Am I wrong, but are you the guy that also reproduced Hirst Dots?

If you keep this up, you could be entering very bad territory, as both Hirst and Banksy have been prosecuting forgers.

I only say this in your interest as my wife is an IP attorney and prosecutes this sort of thing regularly.

= legal advice, I guess. Fair use, I say

[robotoil]

Fair use or not, why not just do something original?

[Cedric Mnich]

The counterfeiting line is a very thin one. You should try producing something original... I can't see the interest in spending time reproducing Banksy or Hirst's works. If you sell them pretending they are originals, it's forgery, if you sell them admitting they're copies, it's counterfeiting and in both cases illegal sale and copyright infringment... If those artists inspire you, try bringing something new from them, like Banksy did with Warhol's soup... Or you are most lilkely going ahead of problems. At some stage, these works might circulate on secondary market and will end up as pretending OGs (if you give them to friends, sell them...) and you are the initial forger...

[Warm Gun]

I wouldn't worry about all the copyright bollox, nothing's happened to the west country prince (yet) and he's made thousands from his little venture.

[thewonderman]

Nice job on these but i aggree with the above posts. You can obviously do this kind of thing to a good standard, try putting this to your own idea, inspiration is there, great! Just need to adapt on it to create somthing that is your own. As people have already said, you dont want to get into legal troubles later on down the line. Oh and dont take anyones comments to heart, we all love art here. We just want to see somthing new! Construstive critisism is your friend. Take it on the chin and go create a masterpiece.

[rperry]

No, not legal advice by any means

Just worried for the guy, I thought he did a brilliant job on those Hirst dots, but was surprised to see this. This is a public website and that could be trouble down the road if they get passed off as real later... He seems like he is doing it in good fun, but attorneys do not believe in good intentions. At the end of the day they are either counterfeit or forgerys, either way not good.

[rockhopper]

Thanks for all the comments, both positive and negative.
Working on this and the above comments has inspired me, and I'm now working on 2 original items.
Until then these are now available



These are untrimmed proofs, final size is 35cm x 50cm on 230gsm matt paper
£25 + P&P
All colourways will be available
PM for more details

[ilmambo]

Please feel free to:
- Make your own Banksy merchandise for non commercial purposes
banksy.co.uk/shop/shop.html

[chyren]

is it worse than the country prince one??

for me it is..
at least they dont come up here trying to sell their copies..

[rperry]

Please do not
-Put up signs saying "strictly no photographs" when all you do is sell photographs of my graffiti
-Write 'Banksy' next to an image of a panda waving hand guns (not mine, don’t know whose it is)
-Take images off my website and ‘license’ them for a huge fee to a fucking German calendar company

Haha, that last one was funny as #$%$

[Jeezuz Jones Snr]

No thanks

[chyren]

anyone want to buy my s**tty stencils i made on a tray??


Since I know you guys don't like pm offers..

£7k

Contact by pm

[tsteve]

Apr 6, 2012 5:27:31 GMT 1 drevil said:

Apr 6, 2012 5:17:26 GMT 1 @rperry said:

Am I wrong, but are you the guy that also reproduced Hirst Dots?

If you keep this up, you could be entering very bad territory, as both Hirst and Banksy have been prosecuting forgers.

I only say this in your interest as my wife is an IP attorney and prosecutes this sort of thing regularly.

= legal advice, I guess. Fair use, I say

It is not "fair use" to copy anyone's work and sell it for a profit. Fair use usually allows you to make a copy of a work that you own for your own personal purposes, or for other purposes such as a critique or comparison, but not just making copies of copyrighted works and selling them.

I know that there are umpteen companies out there selling Banksy reproductions, like GWB, but I believe that with respect to original street art, the copyrights may have been either forfeited or otherwise waived. But, for prints that have only been put on paper, and sold through galleries or otherwise, the copying and sale of those works is the dictionary definition of copyright infringement.

[barryh]

Apr 12, 2012 19:30:17 GMT 1 tsteve said:

Apr 6, 2012 5:27:31 GMT 1 drevil said:

= legal advice, I guess. Fair use, I say

It is not "fair use" to copy anyone's work and sell it for a profit. Fair use usually allows you to make a copy of a work that you own for your own personal purposes, or for other purposes such as a critique or comparison, but not just making copies of copyrighted works and selling them.

I know that there are umpteen companies out there selling Banksy reproductions, like GWB, but I believe that with respect to original street art, the copyrights may have been either forfeited or otherwise waived. But, for prints that have only been put on paper, and sold through galleries or otherwise, the copying and sale of those works is the dictionary definition of copyright infringement.

If you document a work on the street, it is yours to sell.'Technically' it is your photograph which is being sold.

[barryh]

Apr 12, 2012 20:38:35 GMT 1 @rogermilla said:

Apr 12, 2012 19:39:25 GMT 1 barryh said:

If you document a work on the street, it is yours to sell.'Technically' it is your photograph which is being sold.

Not entirely true. It's not about copyright, not at all, it's about something called Intellectual Property Rights.

What isnt true ? how else do you think all these shops get away with it ?

Tate modern sell postcards in the shop, if I scan and sell copies I could get in trouble.... but if I take my own photo and sell that it is fine.

Im not saying it is right... im saying that is how it works

[tsteve]

Apr 12, 2012 20:38:35 GMT 1 @rogermilla said:

Apr 12, 2012 19:39:25 GMT 1 barryh said:

If you document a work on the street, it is yours to sell.'Technically' it is your photograph which is being sold.

Not entirely true. It's not about copyright, not at all, it's about something called Intellectual Property Rights.

Copyrights, along with trademarks, service marks, patents, etc. are all different forms of intellectual property, the rights to which are governed by law. When an artist creates an image, under current law, they have an automatic copyright in the image, which includes the sole right to exploit the work, by making copies of it and selling them. That is why even when you buy an original canvas, unless you separately negotiate obtaining all of the rights to the work, including the copyright, the artist could then put out a set of giclees of the image you bought. Similarly, no one else can invade the artist's copyright, without obtaining permission to do so, otherwise it is copyright infringement.

So, taking a picture of an artist's work, does technically create another work, but if the central theme of the picture is the art piece itself, then it is trodding on the copyright. If, on the other hand, a small image of the artwork was in the wall in the background of a picture of two people in a museum, it would not be a copyright issue.

But when you set out to essentially copy another artist's work, and sell them for money, no matter how little, it is copyright infringement, no matter how you try to explain it. With respect to Banksy, I believe that he essentially voluntarily relinquished the rights in much of his original street art, which is why you see so many knock-offs on ebay and elsewhere. But with respect to his art prints, you don't see the same companies selling those, precisely because they would be infringing on the copyrights.

[letiss]

In this case isn't it more likely that there's a copyright infringement with Tesco rather than an intelectual property issue with Banksy, as after all the blue and white version is pretty much an exact copy of their design of a branded can? If I drew say a Coke can that just copied the trademarked design and sold it does that mean no one else can do the same? Not sure though if the same argument applies with the other colourways, which have clearly changed the original design.

BTW they look good, nice work

[tsteve]

Apr 18, 2012 8:02:23 GMT 1 letiss said:

In this case isn't it more likely that there's a copyright infringement with Tesco rather than an intelectual property issue with Banksy, as after all the blue and white version is pretty much an exact copy of their design of a branded can? If I drew say a Coke can that just copied the trademarked design and sold it does that mean no one else can do the same? Not sure though if the same argument applies with the other colourways, which have clearly changed the original design.

No, there is no issue with Tesco and copyright infringement. "Tesco" is a trademark. The design of the label and colour scheme are most likely classified as a design trademark, which is also protected. I could not open up a soup company, and name it Bescto, and use a similar colour scheme on my label, as that would violate both trademarks, the first just being a plain infringement on its tradename, and the second infringement being likely to confuse or mislead the public into thinking that they are buying Tesco soup, not Bestco soup. It is a thin line, and you will see competitors designing similar e.g. same colour packaging, and somewhat close names, but they are being very careful to stay exactly on the right side of the line to avoid getting sued, which could include having to recall and destroy all of the infringing product.

A painting of a soup can is both a transformative work, meaning that you have so clearly departed from just a soup can, that there is no likelihood of someone confusing a painting for an actual soup can, as well as being interpretive--the artist's view of the can as painted on the canvas.

With respect to your second question regarding a Coke can, just look back at the history behind the Tesco cans. Things started when Andy Warhol first painted the Campbell's Tomato Soup cans. That original concept has then morphed from one brand to another, and from the original colour scheme to numerous variant colourways.

I could not paint and sell a copy of a Warhol soup can, if it is so similar to the original that it would both confuse the public as to which is which, or cause the original artist to lose sales because of the availability of the infringing work. If you painted your own Coke can in a particular style, then if someone just began reproducing your work, you could go after them for infringement. Again, a lot of this involves very thin, and very hard to see fine lines, but that is why intellectual property lawyers have a job. Hope this helps somewhat.