Too late on the beer front, Barbados's finest

Urban Artist Banksy

Correct me if im wrong but your the one who put URBAN art as one of the main words in the title of the general board.

Although I am not a lawyer... I am fairly certain the law is artwork created more recently than 1978 is covered automatically under copyright laws from the time the work is created through 50 years after their death. If it was created before 1978, the copyright only covers the piece for 75 years from its creation date. Another facet is if you have a piece commissioned by an artist, you own the copyright from its creation date, not the artist.

Gibbo -

Here's a very "brief" copyright 101. To give your question a proper answer you'd need to write a text book (and I'm not doing that).

First off, a couple of prelimary points to bear in mind:

Copyright laws differ throughout the world. Though, most of the major nations are signatories to the international Berne and WIPO conventions, which set a minimum standard of copyright protection. Therefore, the same work may be afforded very different legal protection in one country compared to another.

If a work meets the national standards to qualify for (c) (which normally involves some consideration of originality), then copyright normally subsists automatically, i.e., there's no need to register the work for copyright to subsist. Though some countries still require works to be registered before they're afforded (c) protection. Interestingly, the US only removed its general requirement to register (c) works fairly recently and registration still offers some benefits under US Law.

Very generally, a contemporary artist may be able to copy a pre-existing work in basically 1 of 3 scenarios: 1) the pre-existing work is not covered by copyright (e.g. copyright has lapsed or the work didn't qualify for copyright in the first place) 2) the use of the work by the contemporary artist is exempted under the applicable law, e.g. it's a "fair use" or "fair dealing"; or 3) the contemporary artist has the permission of the owner of the copyright in the original piece (e.g., a license) or is the owner.

1) pre-existing work is not covered by (c)

Let's assume that the pre-existing piece originally qualified (c). Taking English law as an example - duration for artistic works in the UK is currently life of the author +70 years. This means that the work falls into the public domain and becomes free to use 70years after the original artist dies. From 1910 until 1996, duration in copyright in artistic works was life of author +50 years. When the new minimum term was introduced, the government enacted some very complicated transitional provisions which basically meant that many works which had gone out of (c) under the old term of life+50 came back into (c) for the additional 20 years.

Once the artist dies, (c) in their works is generally administered by their estate.

Life + 70years is pretty much the longest term you'll find internationally. Therefore, if the artist of the original work died before 1937, you're pretty safe. Though, always worth checking. Some countries give specific national works very special protection.

2) Use of the work is exempted

Most copyright laws provide some form of exemptions or permitted uses, which allow individuals to copy works if certain criteria are met. In the UK, the most commonly relied on exemptions are the "fair dealing" exemptions, which include for example use of works for "critism & review". They are incredibly complicated and much discussed in case law. Though, if for example the new work criticises or reviews an existing work and such use is found to be "fair" then there won't be an infringement. US law has similar provisions called "fair use". As I said above, there are text books dedicated to the question of (c) exemptions and it's much too complex to discuss here.

3) Contemporary artist has a license from the (c) owner or is the (c) owner

One can obviously approach the owner of the original (c) and either offer to license the right to use the original work or to buy the (c) outright. This will generally involve the payment of monies and licensing fees can be high.

In terms of ownership, it's worth bearing in mind that under the (c) laws of a fair number of countries (c) is not assignable at all. It can be licensed from the owner but not bought outright. Further, although in many territories if you commission a work it will be assumed the copyright transfers to you automatically. This certainly isn't the case everywhere. As outlined, in some territories (c) isn't transferable and in many others only transfers on written agreement under signature from the artist. Actually, it's very common in commissioning arrangements that the artist retains the underlying copyright in the work - you only take ownership of the physical item (i.e., the physical painting and not the image in the painting). If commissioning an expensive work, it's always best to do so under written contract signed by both parties. Always bearing in mind that your likely to have to pay attention to the law of the state the artist resides in when drafting the contract. Really something for a lawyer to consider.

A good introduction to the (c) laws of England and Wales: www.copyrightservice.co.uk

For a more general introduction on the international position, check out the WIPO website: www.wipo.int

And, there's always wikipedia.

Have fun reading!

Just to clarify - there's currently no specific exemption under English copyright laws for "parody" works. Contrast the position in the US.

The main reason Banksy has been able to get away with the copying in the Crude Oils series is that most of the original images are long out of copyright. Monet died in 1926, Van Gogh 1890, etc.

He may also have a defence under fair dealing for criticism and review, but this is by no means guaranteed.

In respect of his use of other people's photos, he may well have difficulties defending these in court.

Historically, Banksy has always taken a strong anti-(c) stance. It's only recently that he's been reluctantly embracing the notion of (c). Note the comments in Wall & Piece and the fact he's signed up to DACs.

A reasonably well informed article about Banksy, potential official merchandise and implications of enforcing the copyright (which would entail disclosure of his name)

theconversation.com/banksy-finally-goes-to-court-to-stop-unauthorised-merchandising-despite-saying-copyright-is-for-losers-112390

Any idea what the merchandise looked like?

I can understand more if it was reproducing official artwork on t-shirts, note books, etc, as apposed to using photographs of street pieces, which is harder to enforce.

Yeah, but taken from a canvas or print, or from a street stencil?

Fair enough


pay 24 euro each to get in to the 'museum' and then more for tat


i think he has issues with people thinking they are 'his' shows


www.mudec.it/eng/the-art-of-banksy-a-visual-protest/

I think that's the bigger issue and why he chose to do something about this show.

I'm waiting for fake to sue Banksy for passing off manuels work on his calendar

well said. Sorry fir the fans of Artoyz, but Medicom is making tats. A bit vulgar compared to the originals.