Cornish Crayon
Junior Member
Posts โข 3,965
Likes โข 2,902
December 2007
|
Help found! Thanks! , by Cornish Crayon on Dec 19, 2015 0:47:25 GMT 1, If people dont know who I was id just wear a name badge at art events. Just in case they forgot. Have we met? 
Badges not car keys...........
If people dont know who I was id just wear a name badge at art events. Just in case they forgot. Have we met? Badges not car keys........... |
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Help found! Thanks! , by Deleted on Dec 19, 2015 13:12:19 GMT 1, ... there are less banky images on the Banksy calendar than Banksy ... the minimum you could get them for is the Trade Descriptions Act  My lawyers are on it ;-) cant say much more about it... Other than one of the lawyers from the party I am againts said I AM Banksy ;-)
team Banksy ?
... there are less banky images on the Banksy calendar than Banksy ... the minimum you could get them for is the Trade Descriptions Act My lawyers are on it ;-) cant say much more about it... Other than one of the lawyers from the party I am againts said I AM Banksy ;-) team Banksy ? |
|
markent
New Member
Posts โข 151
Likes โข 99
September 2015
|
Help found! Thanks! , by markent on Dec 19, 2015 13:19:51 GMT 1, ... there are less banky images on the Banksy calendar than Banksy ... the minimum you could get them for is the Trade Descriptions Act My lawyers are on it ;-) cant say much more about it... Other than one of the lawyers from the party I am againts said I AM Banksy ;-)
... there are less banky images on the Banksy calendar than Banksy ... the minimum you could get them for is the Trade Descriptions Act My lawyers are on it ;-) cant say much more about it... Other than one of the lawyers from the party I am againts said I AM Banksy ;-) I presume you will have to prove you are not Banksy next!! Could the really Banksy please step forward? |
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Help found! Thanks! , by Deleted on Dec 19, 2015 13:54:00 GMT 1,
|
|
|
|
Help found! Thanks! , by searchandrescue on Dec 19, 2015 15:52:18 GMT 1, the real "Grannies"
|
|
jkrx
New Member
Posts โข 65
Likes โข 55
November 2015
|
Help found! Thanks! , by jkrx on Dec 19, 2015 17:02:48 GMT 1, Hi guys, I am looking for an old thread to help me in a lawsuit agains a big company who is using my art for profit. On April 2009 I made a piece called Fake Love on the side of the Moon Hostel on Moon street. The next morning someone posted an image of it on this forum claiming it was a new Banksy. Soon everyone found out it was me ;-) I am looking for this thread.. I have looked and looked... but no result.. Can someone help me find this? The thread was made on April 7th 8th or 9th in 2009. And showed this image:  FAKE LOVE Bristol by FAKE, on Flickr
If not then this might be the one:
urbanartassociation.com/thread/82581/new-banksy-stokes-croft
Hi guys, I am looking for an old thread to help me in a lawsuit agains a big company who is using my art for profit. On April 2009 I made a piece called Fake Love on the side of the Moon Hostel on Moon street. The next morning someone posted an image of it on this forum claiming it was a new Banksy. Soon everyone found out it was me ;-) I am looking for this thread.. I have looked and looked... but no result.. Can someone help me find this? The thread was made on April 7th 8th or 9th in 2009. And showed this image: FAKE LOVE Bristol by FAKE, on Flickr Did you ever find the thread? If not then this might be the one: urbanartassociation.com/thread/82581/new-banksy-stokes-croft |
|
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Help found! Thanks! , by Deleted on Dec 19, 2015 17:45:54 GMT 1, regarding this and the calender,
""My lawyers are on it ;-) cant say much more about it... Other than one of the lawyers from the party I am againts said I AM Banksy ;-)""
I'm no lawyer and see it this way.
It's up to the printers lawyers to prove that Banksy made this stencil art and gave permission for the calender.
Plus of course considering that the calender is or has been sold, if Banksy made this stencil they would have to show proof they obtained permission from Banksy.
I's easy for Fake to prove otherwise.
The image was made into a print?
The image was posted on Fakes own website when it was made and all of this establishes copyright.
If someobody else then copied the image and painted it on an outside wall then photographed it and made a calender with it.
It's theft and breach of copyright anyway as it is the original image made by Fake.
Plus the calender was sold online and including in France which brings it under intellectual artists rights and French law inc copyright law in France.
So technically a claim could be made in each country the calender was sold in.
It's easy for Fake to prove it's his art and also if Fake sold prints and before the Calender was made too.
regarding this and the calender,
""My lawyers are on it ;-) cant say much more about it... Other than one of the lawyers from the party I am againts said I AM Banksy ;-)""
I'm no lawyer and see it this way.
It's up to the printers lawyers to prove that Banksy made this stencil art and gave permission for the calender.
Plus of course considering that the calender is or has been sold, if Banksy made this stencil they would have to show proof they obtained permission from Banksy.
I's easy for Fake to prove otherwise.
The image was made into a print?
The image was posted on Fakes own website when it was made and all of this establishes copyright.
If someobody else then copied the image and painted it on an outside wall then photographed it and made a calender with it.
It's theft and breach of copyright anyway as it is the original image made by Fake.
Plus the calender was sold online and including in France which brings it under intellectual artists rights and French law inc copyright law in France.
So technically a claim could be made in each country the calender was sold in.
It's easy for Fake to prove it's his art and also if Fake sold prints and before the Calender was made too.
|
|
iamzero
Full Member
Posts โข 9,190
Likes โข 8,542
May 2011
|
Help found! Thanks! , by iamzero on Dec 19, 2015 17:49:37 GMT 1, So if an artist paints a wall illegally and someone takes a photograph of the piece and sells the photograph then he is breaking the law?
So if an artist paints a wall illegally and someone takes a photograph of the piece and sells the photograph then he is breaking the law?
|
|
Chrisp
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,842
Likes โข 1,059
July 2011
|
Help found! Thanks! , by Chrisp on Dec 19, 2015 18:06:14 GMT 1, I would just take it as a compliment and leave it at that. You can't just use the law when it suits you, after all you break it on a pretty regular basis.
I would just take it as a compliment and leave it at that. You can't just use the law when it suits you, after all you break it on a pretty regular basis.
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Help found! Thanks! , by Deleted on Dec 19, 2015 18:06:52 GMT 1, There is the loss of income to consider. Plus not crediting the artist.
I guess some would use the "fair use" argument, but usually it's for non profit articles and blogs etc.
www.artquest.org.uk/articles/view/public-sculpture1
|
|
iamzero
Full Member
Posts โข 9,190
Likes โข 8,542
May 2011
|
Help found! Thanks! , by iamzero on Dec 19, 2015 18:39:05 GMT 1, You sound like you know the law Ploppi but my questions are still unanswered.
You sound like you know the law Ploppi but my questions are still unanswered.
|
|
iamzero
Full Member
Posts โข 9,190
Likes โข 8,542
May 2011
|
Help found! Thanks! , by iamzero on Dec 19, 2015 18:45:22 GMT 1, I'd be pissed off if an artist (with the exception of the obvious) painted illegally on my house and I took a picture for profit and then got sued??? Like a scumbag burgliar breaking your window to nick your stuff and calling claims direct because he cut his finger.
I'd be pissed off if an artist (with the exception of the obvious) painted illegally on my house and I took a picture for profit and then got sued??? Like a scumbag burgliar breaking your window to nick your stuff and calling claims direct because he cut his finger.
|
|
Fake
Artist
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,376
Likes โข 2,143
July 2008
|
Help found! Thanks! , by Fake on Dec 19, 2015 19:09:12 GMT 1, I'd be pissed off if an artist (with the exception of the obvious) painted illegally on my house and I took a picture for profit and then got sued??? Like a scumbag burgliar breaking your window to nick your stuff and calling claims direct because he cut his finger.
I'd be pissed off if an artist (with the exception of the obvious) painted illegally on my house and I took a picture for profit and then got sued??? Like a scumbag burgliar breaking your window to nick your stuff and calling claims direct because he cut his finger. PM'd ;-) |
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Help found! Thanks! , by Deleted on Dec 19, 2015 21:55:33 GMT 1, So if an artist paints a wall illegally and someone takes a photograph of the piece and sells the photograph then he is breaking the law?
Just my own view.
Is that i'm sure it's OK to take a photo of a building or wall with graffiti or "art" on it and sell the photo for profit , to a newspaper or other place.
The way I see the calender is that the calender concentrates on the art and is sold on the basis of the art on the walls.
The photos look cropped to concentrate on the art image only and to me it looks similar to if someone saw a stencil on a wall, took a photo, cropped the photo and then sold or marketed T shirts, cards, stickers "calenders" with the actual art image.
Despite the art being sprayed on a wall legally or not.
The actual art created is copyright of the artist.
So if an artist paints a wall illegally and someone takes a photograph of the piece and sells the photograph then he is breaking the law? I have no idea of how the law works in reality. Just my own view. Is that i'm sure it's OK to take a photo of a building or wall with graffiti or "art" on it and sell the photo for profit , to a newspaper or other place. The way I see the calender is that the calender concentrates on the art and is sold on the basis of the art on the walls. The photos look cropped to concentrate on the art image only and to me it looks similar to if someone saw a stencil on a wall, took a photo, cropped the photo and then sold or marketed T shirts, cards, stickers "calenders" with the actual art image. Despite the art being sprayed on a wall legally or not. The actual art created is copyright of the artist. |
|
|
|
|
|
Help found! Thanks! , by Coach on Dec 19, 2015 22:33:13 GMT 1, So if an artist paints a wall illegally and someone takes a photograph of the piece and sells the photograph then he is breaking the law? I have no idea of how the law works in reality. Just my own view. ย Is that i'm sure it's OK to take a photo of a building or wall with graffiti or "art" on it and sell the photo for profit , to a newspaper or other place. The way I see the calender is that the calender concentrates on the art and is sold on the basis of the art on the walls. ย The photos look cropped to concentrate on the art image only and to me it looks similar to if someone saw a stencil on a wall, took a photo, cropped the photo and then sold or marketed T shirts, cards, stickers "calenders" with the actual art image. Despite the art being sprayed on a wall legally or not. The actual art created is copyright of the artist. ย
I believe that that is incorrect.
But I'm not an IP lawyer either.
I thought that the IP of a photograph of street art belongs to the photographer.
Happy to be told otherwise though.
So if an artist paints a wall illegally and someone takes a photograph of the piece and sells the photograph then he is breaking the law? I have no idea of how the law works in reality. Just my own view. ย Is that i'm sure it's OK to take a photo of a building or wall with graffiti or "art" on it and sell the photo for profit , to a newspaper or other place. The way I see the calender is that the calender concentrates on the art and is sold on the basis of the art on the walls. ย The photos look cropped to concentrate on the art image only and to me it looks similar to if someone saw a stencil on a wall, took a photo, cropped the photo and then sold or marketed T shirts, cards, stickers "calenders" with the actual art image. Despite the art being sprayed on a wall legally or not. The actual art created is copyright of the artist. ย I believe that that is incorrect. But I'm not an IP lawyer either. I thought that the IP of a photograph of street art belongs to the photographer. Happy to be told otherwise though. |
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Help found! Thanks! , by Deleted on Dec 19, 2015 22:37:14 GMT 1, www.dacs.org.uk/knowledge-base/factsheets/copyright-in-photographs
.............
Photographs taken on or after 1 August 1989
On the whole, the photographer will own the copyright in their photograph for their life plus 70 years, unless they have created the photograph in the course of employment or signed an agreement to the contrary.
Where a photographer works by commission, they will own the copyright in the photograph unless they have assigned or sold it to the commissioner.
Whats all the fuss about anyhow?, just tell them to look on here or email PC, they will soon be able to tell that you are not B.
www.dacs.org.uk/knowledge-base/factsheets/copyright-in-photographs............. Photographs taken on or after 1 August 1989 On the whole, the photographer will own the copyright in their photograph for their life plus 70 years, unless they have created the photograph in the course of employment or signed an agreement to the contrary. Where a photographer works by commission, they will own the copyright in the photograph unless they have assigned or sold it to the commissioner. Whats all the fuss about anyhow?, just tell them to look on here or email PC, they will soon be able to tell that you are not B.
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Help found! Thanks! , by Deleted on Dec 19, 2015 22:47:24 GMT 1, My lawyers are on it ;-) cant say much more about it... Other than one of the lawyers from the party I am againts said I AM Banksy ;-)
Easy to prove you are not. Let the lawyers apply for a COA. Let them send a couple detailed pictures of yourself to PEST and if they are granted a COA you are in the s**t
My lawyers are on it ;-) cant say much more about it... Other than one of the lawyers from the party I am againts said I AM Banksy ;-)Easy to prove you are not. Let the lawyers apply for a COA. Let them send a couple detailed pictures of yourself to PEST and if they are granted a COA you are in the s**t |
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Help found! Thanks! , by Deleted on Dec 19, 2015 23:05:23 GMT 1, I have no idea of how the law works in reality. Just my own view. Is that i'm sure it's OK to take a photo of a building or wall with graffiti or "art" on it and sell the photo for profit , to a newspaper or other place. The way I see the calender is that the calender concentrates on the art and is sold on the basis of the art on the walls. The photos look cropped to concentrate on the art image only and to me it looks similar to if someone saw a stencil on a wall, took a photo, cropped the photo and then sold or marketed T shirts, cards, stickers "calenders" with the actual art image. Despite the art being sprayed on a wall legally or not. The actual art created is copyright of the artist. I believe that that is incorrect. But I'm not an IP lawyer either. I thought that the IP of a photograph of street art belongs to the photographer. Happy to be told otherwise though.
I agree but does it also apply if for example someone takes a photo of a cinema with a Star Wars poster etc.
Then crop the photo, then reproduce the photo as merchandise.
There must be a copyright aspect too?
I have no idea of how the law works in reality. Just my own view. Is that i'm sure it's OK to take a photo of a building or wall with graffiti or "art" on it and sell the photo for profit , to a newspaper or other place. The way I see the calender is that the calender concentrates on the art and is sold on the basis of the art on the walls. The photos look cropped to concentrate on the art image only and to me it looks similar to if someone saw a stencil on a wall, took a photo, cropped the photo and then sold or marketed T shirts, cards, stickers "calenders" with the actual art image. Despite the art being sprayed on a wall legally or not. The actual art created is copyright of the artist. I believe that that is incorrect. But I'm not an IP lawyer either. I thought that the IP of a photograph of street art belongs to the photographer. Happy to be told otherwise though. I agree but does it also apply if for example someone takes a photo of a cinema with a Star Wars poster etc. Then crop the photo, then reproduce the photo as merchandise. There must be a copyright aspect too? |
|
Fake
Artist
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,376
Likes โข 2,143
July 2008
|
Help found! Thanks! , by Fake on Dec 19, 2015 23:08:00 GMT 1, There is no fuss...
I promise to give full disclosre once this case is over.
But till then I am a little reluctant to get in to this matter on here...
Mostly becouse I directed them to this place to show it is not a Banksy ;-)
Thanks again for the help i needed!
Now will someone PLEASE sell me a BW trolly hunters!
There is no fuss...
I promise to give full disclosre once this case is over.
But till then I am a little reluctant to get in to this matter on here...
Mostly becouse I directed them to this place to show it is not a Banksy ;-)
Thanks again for the help i needed!
Now will someone PLEASE sell me a BW trolly hunters!
|
|
dodsi
New Member
Posts โข 183
Likes โข 161
December 2014
|
Help found! Thanks! , by dodsi on Dec 20, 2015 0:23:11 GMT 1, Interesting, but if you are banksy I need to have a word with my insurers...
...And buy blast proof doors.
You would tell us if you were banksy right?
Interesting, but if you are banksy I need to have a word with my insurers...
...And buy blast proof doors.
You would tell us if you were banksy right?
|
|
|
|
Help found! Thanks! , by Coach on Dec 20, 2015 0:36:36 GMT 1, I believe that that is incorrect. But I'm not an IP lawyer either. I thought that the IP of a photograph of street art belongs to the photographer. Happy to be told otherwise though. I agree but does it also apply if for example someone takes a photo of a cinema with a Star Wars poster etc. Then crop the photo, then reproduce the photo as merchandise. There must be a copyright aspect too?
I dunno. Sounds like some sort of passing off. But like I said, I'm not an IP lawyer. Best leafs it to those that are I reckon. The rest is barrack room lawyering.
I believe that that is incorrect. But I'm not an IP lawyer either. I thought that the IP of a photograph of street art belongs to the photographer. Happy to be told otherwise though. I agree but does it also apply if for example someone takes a photo of a cinema with a Star Wars poster etc. Then crop the photo, then reproduce the photo as merchandise. There must be a copyright aspect too? I dunno. Sounds like some sort of passing off. But like I said, I'm not an IP lawyer. Best leafs it to those that are I reckon. The rest is barrack room lawyering. |
|
mutatis
New Member
Posts โข 671
Likes โข 492
July 2013
|
Help found! Thanks! , by mutatis on Dec 20, 2015 12:04:07 GMT 1, Can the printer/ publisher be sued? Surely if you post you art onto a street for public viewing then it becomes fair game. Even more so if it's placed there illegally? Would love to know the rules on this.
Longer answer - UK law - This notion of street art being "fair game" is an odd one to me, although some people might conflate this scenario with the permitted exception which allows the photography of buildings and sculptures ... if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.
If the work is an original artistic work and therefore protected by copyright, taking a picture of that work reproduces the art work and is an infringement of copyright. However by placing the work in public, the artist can be said to implicitly consent to photography of the work by passers-by, just as it is implicitly accepted that it might instantly be defaced. However whilst artists accept non-commercial exploitation (instagram etc), they may view commercial exploitation such as the making of a calendar featuring their work, totally differently and decide to enforce their copyright.
As for illegality - there is UK case law that suggests that if work is created in immoral circumstances it will not be protected by copyright. I can only imagine the hours of legal argument over what immoral circumstances are.
Can the printer/ publisher be sued? Surely if you post you art onto a street for public viewing then it becomes fair game. Even more so if it's placed there illegally? Would love to know the rules on this. Simple answer - UK law - yes the printer/publisher can be sued. Longer answer - UK law - This notion of street art being "fair game" is an odd one to me, although some people might conflate this scenario with the permitted exception which allows the photography of buildings and sculptures ... if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public. If the work is an original artistic work and therefore protected by copyright, taking a picture of that work reproduces the art work and is an infringement of copyright. However by placing the work in public, the artist can be said to implicitly consent to photography of the work by passers-by, just as it is implicitly accepted that it might instantly be defaced. However whilst artists accept non-commercial exploitation (instagram etc), they may view commercial exploitation such as the making of a calendar featuring their work, totally differently and decide to enforce their copyright. As for illegality - there is UK case law that suggests that if work is created in immoral circumstances it will not be protected by copyright. I can only imagine the hours of legal argument over what immoral circumstances are. |
|
|
|
