May 2, 2014 7:26:46 GMT 1 @thebigboss said:

May 1, 2014 17:09:40 GMT 1 coller said:

Do NOT take this as legal advice (or view it as practice of law), but I'm pretty sure you CAN sell that print without violating copyright due to the way you've re-appropriated the images to turn it into social commentary.

Essentially the same as parody; if you're conveying a new, unique message that uses source material b/c it depends on it for the point of social commentary, then you are usually outside of liability.

If you do end up making one, I'd gladly take one off your hands.

Sadly, it is not the case from my understand... I used to do collages and went through lot of text about fair use, parody and derivative work (US law) and it is not easy, especially considering they have many court cases in the past with different conclusions (so it all depends with the judges/court).

"derivative work" can't apply here because only the author of the original artwork can produce another artwork as derivative work, unless a small portion of the original artwork is used (5 to 10%).  This could apply to work like collage, etc.  Since your artwork is using most of Banksy image and similar in style to Banksy, it is not a "derivative work"

@ds111, parody is your only chance here to get away with this (conveying a new message, blah, blah)... Parody falls under "fair use".  Sadly, previous court cases ruled that if parody was made or produced solely to make a profit, or in such quantity that it competes with original artist, it is not a "fair use". But then, that decision was revoked and claim was that even commercial parody that compete with original art is still "fair use" - www.artslaw.org/parody.htm
So indeed, parody continues to be a fair use exception to copyright infringement, but this is for the US law (no idea for UK law) and if Banksy decide to summon at court of law, it all depends to the judge/court comprehension... And since you got already some press articles, etc.

Good luck

Parody is OK in some places but if you are using or copying blatantly original art it can come Under artists intellectual property laws which some countries enforce more rigourously than others.

  They enforce it in France but considering the French have a reputaion for blatantly ripping off other peoples ideas and music etc by simply changing a few keys and registering it Under their own sacem system.

  It comes down to your own conscience in the end and what you feel is fair.

  The painting of the truck is all Mr Banksy's own original art work so not fair to just steal it when i'm sure you could easily paint a truck yourself.

  The art on the back of the truck being made in public by Banksy is probably out of copyright.

  It would be easier if Banksy made an image as a ltd edition first and the next day went out and painted that image on a wall somewhere which would copyright the image on the wall as it would be a copy of a ltd edition.

    Artists have copied other artists for centuries and taken inspiration from other artists.

but they usually recreated other artists work by hand and in their own style as did Picasso when he copied Delacroix etc.

Manet copied engravings by other artists and took images from other sources too which he repainted Manet style.

Koons, Fairey and Hirst have been accused of blatant plagiarism.

    Faile have been accused of lifting comic book images and recreating them collage style.

Sandra Chevrier has used comic book images  in her art which she collaged together and thats fine untill in theory some lawyer says one day that by producing ltd editions she didn't have permission to reproduce (reprint) those comic book images even in collage form.

    Warhol used the Campbells soup can and they didn't mind because it was good publicity for Campbells.

It all depends on why people take images and what they do with them. The motive behind it.

Problems usually arise when people make money from lifted images.

    The truck in New York was green and you could easily paint a green truck which looks similar but with todays fucking photoshop anyone can take any image and turn it into instant art. Where people only see the image not the work gone into making the art.

  Here is some info from the artists rights society. www.arsny.com/index.html

Image rights from Harvard law. www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/martin/art_law/image_rights.htm