|
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by sandinista on Sept 18, 2020 8:23:36 GMT 1, I was thinking a fat simon le bon.
I was thinking a fat simon le bon.
|
|
esfer
New Member
🗨️ 364
👍🏻 303
November 2019
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by esfer on Sept 18, 2020 8:52:22 GMT 1, I wonder what will happen to GDP now? Is there any point in his continuing sales through GDP?
I wonder what will happen to GDP now? Is there any point in his continuing sales through GDP?
|
|
Knowss
New Member
🗨️ 369
👍🏻 316
November 2019
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by Knowss on Sept 19, 2020 4:37:43 GMT 1,  
Life imitates Art This needs more love. Can't believe people still buy into the "man-of-the-people" spiel. Little bit ironic that someone who made a career from spray painting both public and private property is now trying to use the law to protect his own piggy bank. From a man that has said "copyright is for losers" its all a bit rich for me. The only reason he wont use his own name to enforce copyright is as it will effect his "mystery" and probably drop his market. He did the same thing when he tried to close a gallery due to an unauthorized exhibition of his work.
Seems like you have grown a little hate in your heart since you couldn't find your entry level Banksy at the price you wanted to pay...
Life imitates Art This needs more love. Can't believe people still buy into the "man-of-the-people" spiel. Little bit ironic that someone who made a career from spray painting both public and private property is now trying to use the law to protect his own piggy bank. From a man that has said "copyright is for losers" its all a bit rich for me. The only reason he wont use his own name to enforce copyright is as it will effect his "mystery" and probably drop his market. He did the same thing when he tried to close a gallery due to an unauthorized exhibition of his work. Seems like you have grown a little hate in your heart since you couldn't find your entry level Banksy at the price you wanted to pay... |
|
brycepen
New Member
🗨️ 477
👍🏻 252
May 2017
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by brycepen on Sept 19, 2020 7:18:02 GMT 1,
Life imitates Art This needs more love. Can't believe people still buy into the "man-of-the-people" spiel. Little bit ironic that someone who made a career from spray painting both public and private property is now trying to use the law to protect his own piggy bank. From a man that has said "copyright is for losers" its all a bit rich for me. The only reason he wont use his own name to enforce copyright is as it will effect his "mystery" and probably drop his market. He did the same thing when he tried to close a gallery due to an unauthorized exhibition of his work.
Ha. Nobody here uses their real name, and everyone here is also trying to protect their piggybank.
Sure, Banksy’s whole shtick was that art is for the people and not just the elite, and he didn’t go to law school (as far as I’m aware). Of course he thought he was too cool to care about the law or the idea of intellectual property.... until he saw how much money other people were making off of his art. I guess he finally woke up and realized that we live in a capitalist society and his communist art philosophy is naive and unrealistic. It’s a tough lesson to learn.
Life imitates Art This needs more love. Can't believe people still buy into the "man-of-the-people" spiel. Little bit ironic that someone who made a career from spray painting both public and private property is now trying to use the law to protect his own piggy bank. From a man that has said "copyright is for losers" its all a bit rich for me. The only reason he wont use his own name to enforce copyright is as it will effect his "mystery" and probably drop his market. He did the same thing when he tried to close a gallery due to an unauthorized exhibition of his work. Ha. Nobody here uses their real name, and everyone here is also trying to protect their piggybank. Sure, Banksy’s whole shtick was that art is for the people and not just the elite, and he didn’t go to law school (as far as I’m aware). Of course he thought he was too cool to care about the law or the idea of intellectual property.... until he saw how much money other people were making off of his art. I guess he finally woke up and realized that we live in a capitalist society and his communist art philosophy is naive and unrealistic. It’s a tough lesson to learn. |
|
acaipride
New Member
🗨️ 906
👍🏻 447
April 2020
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by acaipride on Sept 19, 2020 7:57:30 GMT 1, This needs more love. Can't believe people still buy into the "man-of-the-people" spiel. Little bit ironic that someone who made a career from spray painting both public and private property is now trying to use the law to protect his own piggy bank. From a man that has said "copyright is for losers" its all a bit rich for me. The only reason he wont use his own name to enforce copyright is as it will effect his "mystery" and probably drop his market. He did the same thing when he tried to close a gallery due to an unauthorized exhibition of his work. Ha. Nobody here uses their real name, and everyone here is also trying to protect their piggybank. Sure, Banksy’s whole shtick was that art is for the people and not just the elite, and he didn’t go to law school (as far as I’m aware). Of course he thought he was too cool to care about the law or the idea of intellectual property.... until he saw how much money other people were making off of his art. I guess he finally woke up and realized that we live in a capitalist society and his communist art philosophy is naive and unrealistic. It’s a tough lesson to learn.
From the very little I know, I think most people are missing the bigger picture perspective..and I'll use something that happened here in the states as an example..
Muralista x, y or z go out and paint a very popular mural, so popular it makes the rounds on social media,news, etc.. commissions begin to happen for said artist...then an automaker comes along and sees the mural's magnetism and places their automobiles in front of the mural for their new product line...this of course attracts more ppl to the product line..the muralist's work has been used, and abused by the commercialization of the image through the product placed in front of it..just like art inside of museums needs a permit to be used for product placement by companies, urban/ street/murals should too...it is that recognition and that step up and that protection and that acknowledgement that I think someone with the scope of banksy was and is going for...just like at his other humanitarian actions, what makes ya think he wouldn't be doing this to get a triumph for all street/urban artists. (?)
This needs more love. Can't believe people still buy into the "man-of-the-people" spiel. Little bit ironic that someone who made a career from spray painting both public and private property is now trying to use the law to protect his own piggy bank. From a man that has said "copyright is for losers" its all a bit rich for me. The only reason he wont use his own name to enforce copyright is as it will effect his "mystery" and probably drop his market. He did the same thing when he tried to close a gallery due to an unauthorized exhibition of his work. Ha. Nobody here uses their real name, and everyone here is also trying to protect their piggybank. Sure, Banksy’s whole shtick was that art is for the people and not just the elite, and he didn’t go to law school (as far as I’m aware). Of course he thought he was too cool to care about the law or the idea of intellectual property.... until he saw how much money other people were making off of his art. I guess he finally woke up and realized that we live in a capitalist society and his communist art philosophy is naive and unrealistic. It’s a tough lesson to learn. From the very little I know, I think most people are missing the bigger picture perspective..and I'll use something that happened here in the states as an example.. Muralista x, y or z go out and paint a very popular mural, so popular it makes the rounds on social media,news, etc.. commissions begin to happen for said artist...then an automaker comes along and sees the mural's magnetism and places their automobiles in front of the mural for their new product line...this of course attracts more ppl to the product line..the muralist's work has been used, and abused by the commercialization of the image through the product placed in front of it..just like art inside of museums needs a permit to be used for product placement by companies, urban/ street/murals should too...it is that recognition and that step up and that protection and that acknowledgement that I think someone with the scope of banksy was and is going for...just like at his other humanitarian actions, what makes ya think he wouldn't be doing this to get a triumph for all street/urban artists. (?) |
|
sm
New Member
🗨️ 385
👍🏻 78
December 2007
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by sm on Sept 19, 2020 10:15:26 GMT 1, Maybe this means GDP reopens and sells more unlimited items, like the Banksquait tshirt Jo Brooks posted on her insta a while back. Not sure it will eventuate but surely they had a plan B if trademark was the real goal of the shop. Either way the shop and show was a blast!
Maybe this means GDP reopens and sells more unlimited items, like the Banksquait tshirt Jo Brooks posted on her insta a while back. Not sure it will eventuate but surely they had a plan B if trademark was the real goal of the shop. Either way the shop and show was a blast!
|
|
|
|
met
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,796
👍🏻 6,762
June 2009
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by met on Sept 19, 2020 13:32:42 GMT 1,
Below are imaginary people mid-discussion in a specialist thread on an astronomy forum. Query how many should really have allowed themselves to post.
Participant A: Have you actually seen what Louis Armstrong looked like? Space travel at the time would have demanded being in peak physical condition. I don't believe he was ever on Mars.
Participant B: He was never on Mars.
Participant C: Of course he was on Mars! Are there no books where you live? Do you really think the business with "That's one small step for man..." was all just a hoax?
Participant A: No need to get personal. I just feel there's something fishy going on.
Participant D: To be fair, you sound a bit racist...
Participant A: To be fair, WTF?! This has nothing to do with race! And it so happens that What a Wonderful World is one of my favourite songs.
Participant C: And so, just because Armstrong could sing, that automatically precluded him from taking part in NASA missions?
Participant D: He was great in role of Sam in Casablanca. Now there was a proper classic.
Participant B: Louis Armstrong was never on Mars. His entire life was spent on Earth.
Participant E: You might be right. I'm not sure myself. The video footage and photos I've seen are old and quite grainy. If you think about it, they don't actually prove anything.
Below are imaginary people mid-discussion in a specialist thread on an astronomy forum. Query how many should really have allowed themselves to post.
Participant A: Have you actually seen what Louis Armstrong looked like? Space travel at the time would have demanded being in peak physical condition. I don't believe he was ever on Mars.
Participant B: He was never on Mars.
Participant C: Of course he was on Mars! Are there no books where you live? Do you really think the business with "That's one small step for man..." was all just a hoax?
Participant A: No need to get personal. I just feel there's something fishy going on.
Participant D: To be fair, you sound a bit racist...
Participant A: To be fair, WTF?! This has nothing to do with race! And it so happens that What a Wonderful World is one of my favourite songs.
Participant C: And so, just because Armstrong could sing, that automatically precluded him from taking part in NASA missions?
Participant D: He was great in role of Sam in Casablanca. Now there was a proper classic.
Participant B: Louis Armstrong was never on Mars. His entire life was spent on Earth.
Participant E: You might be right. I'm not sure myself. The video footage and photos I've seen are old and quite grainy. If you think about it, they don't actually prove anything.
|
|
|
|
tab1
Full Member
🗨️ 8,519
👍🏻 3,679
September 2011
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by tab1 on Sept 19, 2020 20:48:12 GMT 1, Seems like you have grown a little hate in your heart since you couldn't find your entry level Banksy at the price you wanted to pay... Haha - couldn’t be further from the truth! I’ve written articles in national newspapers hyping his market. I am probably one of the most die hard, free market people on here. I couldn’t shit if people can’t afford his work. It’s in my interest for his prices to keep rising. It’s just the blatant hypocrisy and the never-ending-soggy-biscuit-circle on here that I can’t stand. Right now, I’d be sweating if I owned one of his unsigned prints on finance. Let’s wait and see....
Financing prints ? , now there’s a big risk
Seems like you have grown a little hate in your heart since you couldn't find your entry level Banksy at the price you wanted to pay... Haha - couldn’t be further from the truth! I’ve written articles in national newspapers hyping his market. I am probably one of the most die hard, free market people on here. I couldn’t shit if people can’t afford his work. It’s in my interest for his prices to keep rising. It’s just the blatant hypocrisy and the never-ending-soggy-biscuit-circle on here that I can’t stand. Right now, I’d be sweating if I owned one of his unsigned prints on finance. Let’s wait and see.... Financing prints ? , now there’s a big risk |
|
tab1
Full Member
🗨️ 8,519
👍🏻 3,679
September 2011
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by tab1 on Sept 19, 2020 21:22:13 GMT 1, Financing prints ? , now there’s a big risk You can finance anything with home equity. But this seems to imply the bubble is going to burst?
Happy for the rise in financial worth of the prints , but all this money pumped into an unknown individual ?
Not stating this is the case but if an individual had an unknown past as Rolf Harris / Harvey Weinstein that market would turn in a flash
Financing prints ? , now there’s a big risk You can finance anything with home equity. But this seems to imply the bubble is going to burst? Happy for the rise in financial worth of the prints , but all this money pumped into an unknown individual ? Not stating this is the case but if an individual had an unknown past as Rolf Harris / Harvey Weinstein that market would turn in a flash |
|
ursa
New Member
🗨️ 182
👍🏻 111
June 2020
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by ursa on Sept 19, 2020 23:17:48 GMT 1, so true
so true
|
|
|
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by Terry Fuckwitt on Sept 21, 2020 10:33:30 GMT 1, Happy for the rise in financial worth of the prints , but all this money pumped into an unknown individual ? Not stating this is the case but if an individual had an unknown past as Rolf Harris / Harvey Weinstein that market would turn in a flash People seem to forget how quickly the tide can turn. Imagine if the Banksy boat had capsized and killed a load of people or there were accusations of human trafficking made. There is an artist that I am looking to dump some money into... its about as "sure" of a thing as you can get. However, I am concerned said artist may have a few career ending skeletons in their closet.
C'mon don't leave us hanging! Who's the said artist, I'm intrigued now
Happy for the rise in financial worth of the prints , but all this money pumped into an unknown individual ? Not stating this is the case but if an individual had an unknown past as Rolf Harris / Harvey Weinstein that market would turn in a flash People seem to forget how quickly the tide can turn. Imagine if the Banksy boat had capsized and killed a load of people or there were accusations of human trafficking made. There is an artist that I am looking to dump some money into... its about as "sure" of a thing as you can get. However, I am concerned said artist may have a few career ending skeletons in their closet. C'mon don't leave us hanging! Who's the said artist, I'm intrigued now |
|
rockbeer
New Member
🗨️ 364
👍🏻 445
May 2006
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by rockbeer on Sept 21, 2020 10:42:04 GMT 1, Seems that the marketing of GDP was a big own goal. I do wonder how these things happen. It’s not like team Banksy are short of cash, or that the brand isn’t worth protecting. They should have thrown the kitchen sink at this one. Surely their solicitor would have taken advice from a top QC in the area of Intellectual Property before advising on all aspects of the way forward. Surely Banksy’s people would have followed the advice to the letter knowing what was at stake. What on Earth went wrong...? Edit - not trying to be critical of the lawyers or of Banksy’s PR people. It almost seems like they knew this wasn’t going to work and just wanted to draw as much attention as possible to what was going on with Full Colour Black perhaps?
If you've ever spoken to a lawyer you'll know that they will never, ever offer you a definitive statement regarding the law, only an opinion. I have to deal with legal people on a regular basis — we have a legal team at work — and my dealings with them have led me to understand that no one can accurately predict the outcome of a particular case.
Team Banksy obviously felt they had a reasonable chance of GDP resulting in a successful trademark defence, but it would have been a calculated risk and the lawyers would have known the outcome was uncertain. These things happen because the law is interpreted by judges based on often conflicting precedents and legal arguments, and because they have the ultimate power to interpret it as they see fit.
The bottom line is that obtaining the best legal advice and following it to the letter is no guarantee of a successful outcome.
Seems that the marketing of GDP was a big own goal. I do wonder how these things happen. It’s not like team Banksy are short of cash, or that the brand isn’t worth protecting. They should have thrown the kitchen sink at this one. Surely their solicitor would have taken advice from a top QC in the area of Intellectual Property before advising on all aspects of the way forward. Surely Banksy’s people would have followed the advice to the letter knowing what was at stake. What on Earth went wrong...? Edit - not trying to be critical of the lawyers or of Banksy’s PR people. It almost seems like they knew this wasn’t going to work and just wanted to draw as much attention as possible to what was going on with Full Colour Black perhaps? If you've ever spoken to a lawyer you'll know that they will never, ever offer you a definitive statement regarding the law, only an opinion. I have to deal with legal people on a regular basis — we have a legal team at work — and my dealings with them have led me to understand that no one can accurately predict the outcome of a particular case. Team Banksy obviously felt they had a reasonable chance of GDP resulting in a successful trademark defence, but it would have been a calculated risk and the lawyers would have known the outcome was uncertain. These things happen because the law is interpreted by judges based on often conflicting precedents and legal arguments, and because they have the ultimate power to interpret it as they see fit. The bottom line is that obtaining the best legal advice and following it to the letter is no guarantee of a successful outcome. |
|
rockbeer
New Member
🗨️ 364
👍🏻 445
May 2006
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by rockbeer on Sept 21, 2020 10:51:46 GMT 1, It was clearly a publicity stunt with a "what if" potential. If he really wanted this, a store a la "emin international" could have been opened, selling cheap tat for a year or two.
I largely agree – he didn't want it badly enough that he was willing to compromise his anonymity or to sell significant quantities of cheap tat. As I say, a calculated risk. Publicity stunt I'm not so sure of. Everything he does inevitably becomes a publicity stunt by dint of receiving vast publicity – whether or not that was the intention is difficult to say, though it was no doubt taken into account when devising the project.
It was clearly a publicity stunt with a "what if" potential. If he really wanted this, a store a la "emin international" could have been opened, selling cheap tat for a year or two. I largely agree – he didn't want it badly enough that he was willing to compromise his anonymity or to sell significant quantities of cheap tat. As I say, a calculated risk. Publicity stunt I'm not so sure of. Everything he does inevitably becomes a publicity stunt by dint of receiving vast publicity – whether or not that was the intention is difficult to say, though it was no doubt taken into account when devising the project. |
|
|
|
cedarts
New Member
🗨️ 8
👍🏻 0
September 2020
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by cedarts on Sept 21, 2020 11:06:00 GMT 1, All I take from that is that Full Colour Black are a bunch of full colour kuntz. To trademark someone else’s work regardless of how they feel about copyright is shocking. Agreed. Shocking that the EU has endorsed it. Morally bankrupt.
All I take from that is that Full Colour Black are a bunch of full colour kuntz. To trademark someone else’s work regardless of how they feel about copyright is shocking. Agreed. Shocking that the EU has endorsed it. Morally bankrupt. EU doesnt surprise me anymore |
|
rockbeer
New Member
🗨️ 364
👍🏻 445
May 2006
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by rockbeer on Sept 21, 2020 12:11:36 GMT 1, 1) Banksy was trying to trademark work that he originally created, which was appropriated for a use he never intended. If someone trademarks your work to make crap you would never make, is it fair to force you to make crap in order to protect your original work?
I'm no expert in IP law but it seems reasonable to point out that this hasn't evolved with anonymity as a consideration. Generally speaking no one can make and sell crap using designs created by other people because those other people hold the copyright to the designs. The issue here is that Banksy can't enforce his copyright whilst retaining his anonymity. He's therefore tried to use trademark law in place of enforcing his copyright, but trademarks aren't designed to work that way. Trademarks exist to protect the imagery used to sell creations rather than to protect the creations themselves, so it isn't entirely surprising to find that the panel weren't convinced by Banksy's arguments.
2) Like I said, these rules are meant to prevent trademark hoarding by those who see the future value of possessing the intellectual property and the exclusive rights to an intended use. They are not meant to force the commercialization of appropriated creative work.
No one is using the trademark rules to 'force' the commercialisation of creative work – that has turned out to be the unintended consequence of Banksy's desire to retain his anonymity, because if he weren't anonymous his rights to his works would be protected under copyright law whether or not he commercialised them. No use or commercialisation is required to retain copyright – you just have to have been alive at some point in the last seventy years.
You can't really blame trademark law for not acting as an interchangeable substitute for copyright law when its intended purpose is something entirely different.
1) Banksy was trying to trademark work that he originally created, which was appropriated for a use he never intended. If someone trademarks your work to make crap you would never make, is it fair to force you to make crap in order to protect your original work? I'm no expert in IP law but it seems reasonable to point out that this hasn't evolved with anonymity as a consideration. Generally speaking no one can make and sell crap using designs created by other people because those other people hold the copyright to the designs. The issue here is that Banksy can't enforce his copyright whilst retaining his anonymity. He's therefore tried to use trademark law in place of enforcing his copyright, but trademarks aren't designed to work that way. Trademarks exist to protect the imagery used to sell creations rather than to protect the creations themselves, so it isn't entirely surprising to find that the panel weren't convinced by Banksy's arguments. 2) Like I said, these rules are meant to prevent trademark hoarding by those who see the future value of possessing the intellectual property and the exclusive rights to an intended use. They are not meant to force the commercialization of appropriated creative work. No one is using the trademark rules to 'force' the commercialisation of creative work – that has turned out to be the unintended consequence of Banksy's desire to retain his anonymity, because if he weren't anonymous his rights to his works would be protected under copyright law whether or not he commercialised them. No use or commercialisation is required to retain copyright – you just have to have been alive at some point in the last seventy years. You can't really blame trademark law for not acting as an interchangeable substitute for copyright law when its intended purpose is something entirely different. |
|
|
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by Rouen Cathedral on Sept 22, 2020 2:20:49 GMT 1, If you've ever spoken to a lawyer you'll know that they will never, ever offer you a definitive statement regarding the law, only an opinion. I have to deal with legal people on a regular basis — we have a legal team at work — and my dealings with them have led me to understand that no one can accurately predict the outcome of a particular case. Team Banksy obviously felt they had a reasonable chance of GDP resulting in a successful trademark defence, but it would have been a calculated risk and the lawyers would have known the outcome was uncertain. These things happen because the law is interpreted by judges based on often conflicting precedents and legal arguments, and because they have the ultimate power to interpret it as they see fit. The bottom line is that obtaining the best legal advice and following it to the letter is no guarantee of a successful outcome. It was clearly a publicity stunt with a "what if" potential. If he really wanted this, a store a la "emin international" could have been opened, selling cheap tat for a year or two.
How dare you use logic.
It’s clearly all a publicity stunt. Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if the greeting card company is owned by him somehow and it’s even more a farse.
Funny that people ate up GDP and now that it’s been exposed .... crickets....
Banksys done a lot of great art and ‘things’ but GDP appears to be a crock and you can really see the blind eyes his fans have when they can’t critique him ever.
Kind of like that life saving boat that’s now packed up shop After one trip and probably sitting next to some gazilionaires private yacht docked at his private island.
If you've ever spoken to a lawyer you'll know that they will never, ever offer you a definitive statement regarding the law, only an opinion. I have to deal with legal people on a regular basis — we have a legal team at work — and my dealings with them have led me to understand that no one can accurately predict the outcome of a particular case. Team Banksy obviously felt they had a reasonable chance of GDP resulting in a successful trademark defence, but it would have been a calculated risk and the lawyers would have known the outcome was uncertain. These things happen because the law is interpreted by judges based on often conflicting precedents and legal arguments, and because they have the ultimate power to interpret it as they see fit. The bottom line is that obtaining the best legal advice and following it to the letter is no guarantee of a successful outcome. It was clearly a publicity stunt with a "what if" potential. If he really wanted this, a store a la "emin international" could have been opened, selling cheap tat for a year or two. How dare you use logic. It’s clearly all a publicity stunt. Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if the greeting card company is owned by him somehow and it’s even more a farse. Funny that people ate up GDP and now that it’s been exposed .... crickets.... Banksys done a lot of great art and ‘things’ but GDP appears to be a crock and you can really see the blind eyes his fans have when they can’t critique him ever. Kind of like that life saving boat that’s now packed up shop After one trip and probably sitting next to some gazilionaires private yacht docked at his private island. |
|
silvermyn
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,612
👍🏻 781
April 2008
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by silvermyn on Sept 22, 2020 15:58:21 GMT 1, Seems that the marketing of GDP was a big own goal. I do wonder how these things happen. It’s not like team Banksy are short of cash, or that the brand isn’t worth protecting. They should have thrown the kitchen sink at this one. Surely their solicitor would have taken advice from a top QC in the area of Intellectual Property before advising on all aspects of the way forward. Surely Banksy’s people would have followed the advice to the letter knowing what was at stake. What on Earth went wrong...? Edit - not trying to be critical of the lawyers or of Banksy’s PR people. It almost seems like they knew this wasn’t going to work and just wanted to draw as much attention as possible to what was going on with Full Colour Black perhaps? If you've ever spoken to a lawyer you'll know that they will never, ever offer you a definitive statement regarding the law, only an opinion. I have to deal with legal people on a regular basis — we have a legal team at work — and my dealings with them have led me to understand that no one can accurately predict the outcome of a particular case. Team Banksy obviously felt they had a reasonable chance of GDP resulting in a successful trademark defence, but it would have been a calculated risk and the lawyers would have known the outcome was uncertain. These things happen because the law is interpreted by judges based on often conflicting precedents and legal arguments, and because they have the ultimate power to interpret it as they see fit. The bottom line is that obtaining the best legal advice and following it to the letter is no guarantee of a successful outcome. Lawyers will "never, ever offer you a definitive statement regarding the law"...? They should do, as legislation at the very least is in black and white.
In terms of predicting whether GDP would help Banksy protect his trademark, it was not too difficult to predict this outcome. It failed. I'm not an IP specialist but even I expressed doubts about whether the cloak and daggers "lottery" concept was the same as selling things to the public (see my comments from November 2019 on the GDP thread below, just about half way down the page).
urbanartassociation.com/thread/159909/banksy-gross-domestic-product?page=348
The lack of a genuine commercial initiative was a key issue mentioned in this ruling. The online shop didn't pass even the most basic sniff test. If a QC specialising in IP advised that it was a good idea to go public saying that you're only making stuff for the "sole purpose of fulfilling trademark categories", run a commercial enterprise as a lottery and select winners based on answers to a question (seriously, how many businesses sell products to the public in this way?) then that really wasn't the best legal advice. I'd be surprised if there was any legal argument or precedent supporting that unique approach to running a commercial enterprise.
Getting the best legal advice from a top specialist in the relevant area of law, and following it to the letter, should achieve as close to a successful outcome as anyone could hope for. That's why you pay the big invoices. You out-lawyer the opponent. It won't, however, guarantee a win as it is well known that you can't generally polish a turd (as they say) although there are some exceptions to even that saying.
Seems that the marketing of GDP was a big own goal. I do wonder how these things happen. It’s not like team Banksy are short of cash, or that the brand isn’t worth protecting. They should have thrown the kitchen sink at this one. Surely their solicitor would have taken advice from a top QC in the area of Intellectual Property before advising on all aspects of the way forward. Surely Banksy’s people would have followed the advice to the letter knowing what was at stake. What on Earth went wrong...? Edit - not trying to be critical of the lawyers or of Banksy’s PR people. It almost seems like they knew this wasn’t going to work and just wanted to draw as much attention as possible to what was going on with Full Colour Black perhaps? If you've ever spoken to a lawyer you'll know that they will never, ever offer you a definitive statement regarding the law, only an opinion. I have to deal with legal people on a regular basis — we have a legal team at work — and my dealings with them have led me to understand that no one can accurately predict the outcome of a particular case. Team Banksy obviously felt they had a reasonable chance of GDP resulting in a successful trademark defence, but it would have been a calculated risk and the lawyers would have known the outcome was uncertain. These things happen because the law is interpreted by judges based on often conflicting precedents and legal arguments, and because they have the ultimate power to interpret it as they see fit. The bottom line is that obtaining the best legal advice and following it to the letter is no guarantee of a successful outcome. Lawyers will "never, ever offer you a definitive statement regarding the law"...? They should do, as legislation at the very least is in black and white.
In terms of predicting whether GDP would help Banksy protect his trademark, it was not too difficult to predict this outcome. It failed. I'm not an IP specialist but even I expressed doubts about whether the cloak and daggers "lottery" concept was the same as selling things to the public (see my comments from November 2019 on the GDP thread below, just about half way down the page).
urbanartassociation.com/thread/159909/banksy-gross-domestic-product?page=348
The lack of a genuine commercial initiative was a key issue mentioned in this ruling. The online shop didn't pass even the most basic sniff test. If a QC specialising in IP advised that it was a good idea to go public saying that you're only making stuff for the "sole purpose of fulfilling trademark categories", run a commercial enterprise as a lottery and select winners based on answers to a question (seriously, how many businesses sell products to the public in this way?) then that really wasn't the best legal advice. I'd be surprised if there was any legal argument or precedent supporting that unique approach to running a commercial enterprise.
Getting the best legal advice from a top specialist in the relevant area of law, and following it to the letter, should achieve as close to a successful outcome as anyone could hope for. That's why you pay the big invoices. You out-lawyer the opponent. It won't, however, guarantee a win as it is well known that you can't generally polish a turd (as they say) although there are some exceptions to even that saying.
|
|
brycepen
New Member
🗨️ 477
👍🏻 252
May 2017
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by brycepen on Sept 24, 2020 0:27:25 GMT 1, 1) Banksy was trying to trademark work that he originally created, which was appropriated for a use he never intended. If someone trademarks your work to make crap you would never make, is it fair to force you to make crap in order to protect your original work? I'm no expert in IP law but it seems reasonable to point out that this hasn't evolved with anonymity as a consideration. Generally speaking no one can make and sell crap using designs created by other people because those other people hold the copyright to the designs. The issue here is that Banksy can't enforce his copyright whilst retaining his anonymity. He's therefore tried to use trademark law in place of enforcing his copyright, but trademarks aren't designed to work that way. Trademarks exist to protect the imagery used to sell creations rather than to protect the creations themselves, so it isn't entirely surprising to find that the panel weren't convinced by Banksy's arguments. 2) Like I said, these rules are meant to prevent trademark hoarding by those who see the future value of possessing the intellectual property and the exclusive rights to an intended use. They are not meant to force the commercialization of appropriated creative work. No one is using the trademark rules to 'force' the commercialisation of creative work – that has turned out to be the unintended consequence of Banksy's desire to retain his anonymity, because if he weren't anonymous his rights to his works would be protected under copyright law whether or not he commercialised them. No use or commercialisation is required to retain copyright – you just have to have been alive at some point in the last seventy years. You can't really blame trademark law for not acting as an interchangeable substitute for copyright law when its intended purpose is something entirely different.
Completely different when someone tries to trademark YOUR work for their own use.
1) Banksy was trying to trademark work that he originally created, which was appropriated for a use he never intended. If someone trademarks your work to make crap you would never make, is it fair to force you to make crap in order to protect your original work? I'm no expert in IP law but it seems reasonable to point out that this hasn't evolved with anonymity as a consideration. Generally speaking no one can make and sell crap using designs created by other people because those other people hold the copyright to the designs. The issue here is that Banksy can't enforce his copyright whilst retaining his anonymity. He's therefore tried to use trademark law in place of enforcing his copyright, but trademarks aren't designed to work that way. Trademarks exist to protect the imagery used to sell creations rather than to protect the creations themselves, so it isn't entirely surprising to find that the panel weren't convinced by Banksy's arguments. 2) Like I said, these rules are meant to prevent trademark hoarding by those who see the future value of possessing the intellectual property and the exclusive rights to an intended use. They are not meant to force the commercialization of appropriated creative work. No one is using the trademark rules to 'force' the commercialisation of creative work – that has turned out to be the unintended consequence of Banksy's desire to retain his anonymity, because if he weren't anonymous his rights to his works would be protected under copyright law whether or not he commercialised them. No use or commercialisation is required to retain copyright – you just have to have been alive at some point in the last seventy years. You can't really blame trademark law for not acting as an interchangeable substitute for copyright law when its intended purpose is something entirely different. Completely different when someone tries to trademark YOUR work for their own use. |
|
Rene Gagnon
Artist
New Member
🗨️ 175
👍🏻 62
September 2007
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by Rene Gagnon on Oct 6, 2020 16:48:54 GMT 1, Interesting.
Interesting.
|
|
|
|
vvk
New Member
🗨️ 868
👍🏻 799
October 2015
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by vvk on May 20, 2021 19:41:29 GMT 1, for a man trying to make a mockery of the system, the system is making a mockery of him.
this is like banksy vs robo part 2. hopefully someone does not die in the end.
RIP King.
for a man trying to make a mockery of the system, the system is making a mockery of him.
this is like banksy vs robo part 2. hopefully someone does not die in the end.
RIP King.
|
|
|
|
moron
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,711
👍🏻 1,051
September 2017
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by moron on May 20, 2021 20:29:54 GMT 1, It's a trademark not a copyright case.
The fact is that all Banksy art is protected under copyright under the Berne Convention and copyright law.
Banksy has sold prints and stencilled repros (called originals when sold via Sotheby's) of Flower Thrower via POW etc. So that should have been valid for trademark under the category of art prints and repro's.
Maybe Banksy does not want to make any "copyright claims" and send DMCA takedown notices.
What is illegal is when a business decides that they can sell licences to people regarding Banksy art on the basis that the business owns the reproduction rights when they do not.
Full Colour Black states this on their "Brandalised" website.
""Brandalised Licensing Enquiry
If you would like to feature our amazing graffiti on your amazing products, please complete our form below.
Once completed, we will send your personal Log In details to you in a separate email. Once Logged In, you will be able to access our huge catalogue of Artworks, Download Logos and Trademarks, ""
www.brandalised.com/enquiries
www.fullcolour.black trade site.
Regarding UK company law as well as European and US law. A company can only sell image licensing rights to other companies if they own the image copyright or if they have permission in writing from the copyright owner.
If Full Colour Black are asked to provide proof that they own the copyright to Banksy images by someone who want's to buy some cards or by someone who wants to reproduce Banksy images under license. Then they have to provide proof that they own the copyright and licensing rights. If Full Colour Black are selling licensing rights and they do not own the copyright to the images nor the reproduction rights. Then that would be considered fraud, (obtaining money by deception) which is a criminal offense.
There are very simple ways for Banksy to protect his images without revealing who is the actual copyright owner of the images.
docs.google.com/presentation/d/1y-Lq9kjQGxLBVYryBdpAl46K2IcZPLcL48CNCBBwUxA/edit#slide=id.g7e384dffa2_2_109
It's a trademark not a copyright case. The fact is that all Banksy art is protected under copyright under the Berne Convention and copyright law. Banksy has sold prints and stencilled repros (called originals when sold via Sotheby's) of Flower Thrower via POW etc. So that should have been valid for trademark under the category of art prints and repro's. Maybe Banksy does not want to make any "copyright claims" and send DMCA takedown notices. What is illegal is when a business decides that they can sell licences to people regarding Banksy art on the basis that the business owns the reproduction rights when they do not. Full Colour Black states this on their "Brandalised" website. ""Brandalised Licensing Enquiry If you would like to feature our amazing graffiti on your amazing products, please complete our form below. Once completed, we will send your personal Log In details to you in a separate email. Once Logged In, you will be able to access our huge catalogue of Artworks, Download Logos and Trademarks, "" www.brandalised.com/enquiries www.fullcolour.black trade site. Regarding UK company law as well as European and US law. A company can only sell image licensing rights to other companies if they own the image copyright or if they have permission in writing from the copyright owner. If Full Colour Black are asked to provide proof that they own the copyright to Banksy images by someone who want's to buy some cards or by someone who wants to reproduce Banksy images under license. Then they have to provide proof that they own the copyright and licensing rights. If Full Colour Black are selling licensing rights and they do not own the copyright to the images nor the reproduction rights. Then that would be considered fraud, (obtaining money by deception) which is a criminal offense. There are very simple ways for Banksy to protect his images without revealing who is the actual copyright owner of the images. docs.google.com/presentation/d/1y-Lq9kjQGxLBVYryBdpAl46K2IcZPLcL48CNCBBwUxA/edit#slide=id.g7e384dffa2_2_109 |
|
dp
New Member
🗨️ 155
👍🏻 188
May 2020
|
|
|
sicando
New Member
🗨️ 73
👍🏻 69
September 2019
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by sicando on May 21, 2021 10:48:52 GMT 1,
In the article it says Banksy was commissioned by a club in Brighton to paint the Laugh Now apes.
Does anyone know which club this was?
I lived in Brighton at the time, saw some of the street pieces but did not know about the club. Cheers
In the article it says Banksy was commissioned by a club in Brighton to paint the Laugh Now apes. Does anyone know which club this was? I lived in Brighton at the time, saw some of the street pieces but did not know about the club. Cheers |
|
|
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by Schrödinger's Chat on May 21, 2021 10:52:14 GMT 1, In the article it says Banksy was commissioned by a club in Brighton to paint the Laugh Now apes. Does anyone know which club this was? I lived in Brighton at the time, saw some of the street pieces but did not know about the club. Cheers
The Ocean Rooms, www.google.com/amp/s/www.theargus.co.uk/news/1957052.amp/
It was all behind the downstairs bar from memory.
In the article it says Banksy was commissioned by a club in Brighton to paint the Laugh Now apes. Does anyone know which club this was? I lived in Brighton at the time, saw some of the street pieces but did not know about the club. Cheers The Ocean Rooms, www.google.com/amp/s/www.theargus.co.uk/news/1957052.amp/It was all behind the downstairs bar from memory. |
|
Pipes
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,438
👍🏻 2,883
January 2012
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by Pipes on May 21, 2021 10:52:46 GMT 1, In the article it says Banksy was commissioned by a club in Brighton to paint the Laugh Now apes. Does anyone know which club this was? I lived in Brighton at the time, saw some of the street pieces but did not know about the club. Cheers
Ocean Rooms I believe.
In the article it says Banksy was commissioned by a club in Brighton to paint the Laugh Now apes. Does anyone know which club this was? I lived in Brighton at the time, saw some of the street pieces but did not know about the club. Cheers Ocean Rooms I believe. |
|
|
|
He only got himself to blame for limiting GDP sales. If he kept it running full time, then we got a different story. |
|
|
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by Black Wolf on May 21, 2021 21:51:42 GMT 1, He only got himself to blame for limiting GDP sales. If he kept it running full time, then we got a different story.
Hoping it reopens then 😄
He only got himself to blame for limiting GDP sales. If he kept it running full time, then we got a different story. Hoping it reopens then 😄 |
|
|
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by Happy Shopper on May 21, 2021 22:30:12 GMT 1, Just seems bizarre that an artist could lose the ownership of their images... seemingly just because they were painted in a public place!?
Just seems bizarre that an artist could lose the ownership of their images... seemingly just because they were painted in a public place!?
|
|
