Woodey1001
New Member
🗨️ 662
👍🏻 265
September 2014
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by Woodey1001 on Sept 15, 2020 20:04:23 GMT 1, It was a fake shop, obviously just an art exhibition.
No surprise it pissed the judge off eh.
It was a fake shop, obviously just an art exhibition.
No surprise it pissed the judge off eh.
|
|
Woodey1001
New Member
🗨️ 662
👍🏻 265
September 2014
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by Woodey1001 on Sept 15, 2020 20:28:47 GMT 1, Remember them telling fans there would be plenty to buy through it too..
Kind of annoying, no?
As If the whole being asked to submit jokes and be judged on their funniness wasn't wanky enough.
Oh well. Rant over 🤷
Remember them telling fans there would be plenty to buy through it too..
Kind of annoying, no?
As If the whole being asked to submit jokes and be judged on their funniness wasn't wanky enough.
Oh well. Rant over 🤷
|
|
katzk14
New Member
🗨️ 66
👍🏻 28
August 2020
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by katzk14 on Sept 15, 2020 20:30:21 GMT 1, I definitely think he could easily set up a not-for-profit with "gifts" for donating certain amounts. Win, win for everyone!
I definitely think he could easily set up a not-for-profit with "gifts" for donating certain amounts. Win, win for everyone!
|
|
brycepen
New Member
🗨️ 477
👍🏻 252
May 2017
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by brycepen on Sept 16, 2020 0:18:13 GMT 1, It was a fake shop, obviously just an art exhibition. No surprise it pissed the judge off eh.
That has absolutely no relevance to the law on this. The issue is whether or not he actually intended to use the trademark for products. He did use it. How he used it doesn’t matter so much.
It was a fake shop, obviously just an art exhibition. No surprise it pissed the judge off eh. That has absolutely no relevance to the law on this. The issue is whether or not he actually intended to use the trademark for products. He did use it. How he used it doesn’t matter so much. |
|
|
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by Rouen Cathedral on Sept 16, 2020 0:59:05 GMT 1, It was a fake shop, obviously just an art exhibition. No surprise it pissed the judge off eh. That has absolutely no relevance to the law on this. The issue is whether or not he actually intended to use the trademark for products. He did use it. How he used it doesn’t matter so much.
How many people got ‘products’?
Maybe if the shop was run like a shop he’d have a case. But his disclaimer section basically said the buyer was a schmuck and he could send them something or not.
Judge seemed to rule the ‘shop’ wasn’t a shop. And that’s the reality.
It was a fake shop, obviously just an art exhibition. No surprise it pissed the judge off eh. That has absolutely no relevance to the law on this. The issue is whether or not he actually intended to use the trademark for products. He did use it. How he used it doesn’t matter so much. How many people got ‘products’? Maybe if the shop was run like a shop he’d have a case. But his disclaimer section basically said the buyer was a schmuck and he could send them something or not. Judge seemed to rule the ‘shop’ wasn’t a shop. And that’s the reality. |
|
brycepen
New Member
🗨️ 477
👍🏻 252
May 2017
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by brycepen on Sept 16, 2020 2:39:28 GMT 1, That has absolutely no relevance to the law on this. The issue is whether or not he actually intended to use the trademark for products. He did use it. How he used it doesn’t matter so much. How many people got ‘products’? Maybe if the shop was run like a shop he’d have a case. But his disclaimer section basically said the buyer was a schmuck and he could send them something or not. Judge seemed to rule the ‘shop’ wasn’t a shop. And that’s the reality.
I do not know how the process works for the EU, but in the US, you cannot hold a trademark for an intended use and then fail to use it for that purpose. Um yes, the judge is saying that Banksy did not intend to use the trademark as stated. I’m not disputing that. The fact of the matter is that the ‘intended use’ rule is meant to protect against intellectual property hoarding. You could register thousands of trademarks and claim you intend to use them for some purpose, thereby preventing anyone else from using them for that purpose. It’s like registering a domain name that you know someone else wants just to stop them from building a website.
However, the facts of this matter are wholly unique in the following ways:
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?
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.
3) The standard for meeting “intended use” is so minimal that I am more than sure banksy thought GDP would fulfill this requirement. I’m willing to bet he had some expensive lawyers that told him the same thing.
That is why this ruling is an abuse of discretion. There is no standard or threshold Banksy had to meet in order to demonstrate that GDP was a satisfactory performance of the intended use or a proper “shop” (whatever that means). And this is probably why the judge had to rely on another vague and subjective legal standard to justify the decision: their opinion that he acted in “bad faith”.
That has absolutely no relevance to the law on this. The issue is whether or not he actually intended to use the trademark for products. He did use it. How he used it doesn’t matter so much. How many people got ‘products’? Maybe if the shop was run like a shop he’d have a case. But his disclaimer section basically said the buyer was a schmuck and he could send them something or not. Judge seemed to rule the ‘shop’ wasn’t a shop. And that’s the reality. I do not know how the process works for the EU, but in the US, you cannot hold a trademark for an intended use and then fail to use it for that purpose. Um yes, the judge is saying that Banksy did not intend to use the trademark as stated. I’m not disputing that. The fact of the matter is that the ‘intended use’ rule is meant to protect against intellectual property hoarding. You could register thousands of trademarks and claim you intend to use them for some purpose, thereby preventing anyone else from using them for that purpose. It’s like registering a domain name that you know someone else wants just to stop them from building a website. However, the facts of this matter are wholly unique in the following ways: 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? 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. 3) The standard for meeting “intended use” is so minimal that I am more than sure banksy thought GDP would fulfill this requirement. I’m willing to bet he had some expensive lawyers that told him the same thing. That is why this ruling is an abuse of discretion. There is no standard or threshold Banksy had to meet in order to demonstrate that GDP was a satisfactory performance of the intended use or a proper “shop” (whatever that means). And this is probably why the judge had to rely on another vague and subjective legal standard to justify the decision: their opinion that he acted in “bad faith”. |
|
|
|
|
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by Rouen Cathedral on Sept 16, 2020 3:45:27 GMT 1, How many people got ‘products’? Maybe if the shop was run like a shop he’d have a case. But his disclaimer section basically said the buyer was a schmuck and he could send them something or not. Judge seemed to rule the ‘shop’ wasn’t a shop. And that’s the reality. I do not know how the process works for the EU, but in the US, you cannot hold a trademark for an intended use and then fail to use it for that purpose. Um yes, the judge is saying that Banksy did not intend to use the trademark as stated. I’m not disputing that. The fact of the matter is that the ‘intended use’ rule is meant to protect against intellectual property hoarding. You could register thousands of trademarks and claim you intend to use them for some purpose, thereby preventing anyone else from using them for that purpose. It’s like registering a domain name that you know someone else wants just to stop them from building a website. However, the facts of this matter are wholly unique in the following ways: 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? 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. 3) The standard for meeting “intended use” is so minimal that I am more than sure banksy thought GDP would fulfill this requirement. I’m willing to bet he had some expensive lawyers that told him the same thing. That is why this ruling is an abuse of discretion. There is no standard or threshold Banksy had to meet in order to demonstrate that GDP was a satisfactory performance of the intended use or a proper “shop” (whatever that means). And this is probably why the judge had to rely on another vague and subjective legal standard to justify the decision: their opinion that he acted in “bad faith”.
It’s his anonymity that’s the issue.
Cant claim ownership of something if the owner may or may not be real.
How many people got ‘products’? Maybe if the shop was run like a shop he’d have a case. But his disclaimer section basically said the buyer was a schmuck and he could send them something or not. Judge seemed to rule the ‘shop’ wasn’t a shop. And that’s the reality. I do not know how the process works for the EU, but in the US, you cannot hold a trademark for an intended use and then fail to use it for that purpose. Um yes, the judge is saying that Banksy did not intend to use the trademark as stated. I’m not disputing that. The fact of the matter is that the ‘intended use’ rule is meant to protect against intellectual property hoarding. You could register thousands of trademarks and claim you intend to use them for some purpose, thereby preventing anyone else from using them for that purpose. It’s like registering a domain name that you know someone else wants just to stop them from building a website. However, the facts of this matter are wholly unique in the following ways: 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? 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. 3) The standard for meeting “intended use” is so minimal that I am more than sure banksy thought GDP would fulfill this requirement. I’m willing to bet he had some expensive lawyers that told him the same thing. That is why this ruling is an abuse of discretion. There is no standard or threshold Banksy had to meet in order to demonstrate that GDP was a satisfactory performance of the intended use or a proper “shop” (whatever that means). And this is probably why the judge had to rely on another vague and subjective legal standard to justify the decision: their opinion that he acted in “bad faith”. It’s his anonymity that’s the issue. Cant claim ownership of something if the owner may or may not be real. |
|
|
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by Not 4 The Thril on Sept 16, 2020 4:20:25 GMT 1, I do not know how the process works for the EU, but in the US, you cannot hold a trademark for an intended use and then fail to use it for that purpose. Um yes, the judge is saying that Banksy did not intend to use the trademark as stated. I’m not disputing that. The fact of the matter is that the ‘intended use’ rule is meant to protect against intellectual property hoarding. You could register thousands of trademarks and claim you intend to use them for some purpose, thereby preventing anyone else from using them for that purpose. It’s like registering a domain name that you know someone else wants just to stop them from building a website. However, the facts of this matter are wholly unique in the following ways: 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? 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. 3) The standard for meeting “intended use” is so minimal that I am more than sure banksy thought GDP would fulfill this requirement. I’m willing to bet he had some expensive lawyers that told him the same thing. That is why this ruling is an abuse of discretion. There is no standard or threshold Banksy had to meet in order to demonstrate that GDP was a satisfactory performance of the intended use or a proper “shop” (whatever that means). And this is probably why the judge had to rely on another vague and subjective legal standard to justify the decision: their opinion that he acted in “bad faith”. It’s his anonymity that’s the issue. Cant claim ownership of something if the owner may or may not be real.
I do not know how the process works for the EU, but in the US, you cannot hold a trademark for an intended use and then fail to use it for that purpose. Um yes, the judge is saying that Banksy did not intend to use the trademark as stated. I’m not disputing that. The fact of the matter is that the ‘intended use’ rule is meant to protect against intellectual property hoarding. You could register thousands of trademarks and claim you intend to use them for some purpose, thereby preventing anyone else from using them for that purpose. It’s like registering a domain name that you know someone else wants just to stop them from building a website. However, the facts of this matter are wholly unique in the following ways: 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? 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. 3) The standard for meeting “intended use” is so minimal that I am more than sure banksy thought GDP would fulfill this requirement. I’m willing to bet he had some expensive lawyers that told him the same thing. That is why this ruling is an abuse of discretion. There is no standard or threshold Banksy had to meet in order to demonstrate that GDP was a satisfactory performance of the intended use or a proper “shop” (whatever that means). And this is probably why the judge had to rely on another vague and subjective legal standard to justify the decision: their opinion that he acted in “bad faith”. It’s his anonymity that’s the issue. Cant claim ownership of something if the owner may or may not be real. Can't Pest Control as a company just claim ownership of the images? The way Coca Cola trademarked polar bears? |
|
Knowss
New Member
🗨️ 369
👍🏻 316
November 2019
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by Knowss on Sept 16, 2020 4:36:31 GMT 1, It’s his anonymity that’s the issue. Cant claim ownership of something if the owner may or may not be real. Can't Pest Control as a company just claim ownership of the images? The way Coca Cola trademarked polar bears?
Exactly.
It’s his anonymity that’s the issue. Cant claim ownership of something if the owner may or may not be real. Can't Pest Control as a company just claim ownership of the images? The way Coca Cola trademarked polar bears? Exactly. |
|
brycepen
New Member
🗨️ 477
👍🏻 252
May 2017
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by brycepen on Sept 16, 2020 6:38:59 GMT 1, Can't Pest Control as a company just claim ownership of the images? The way Coca Cola trademarked polar bears? Exactly.
A trademark can be (and usually is) claimed by a business entity and not a person.
That’s why that particular comment from the judge pissed me off.
You are right though. There are times where identifying the individuals who created the source materials definitely matters. More of a copyright issue though.
Can't Pest Control as a company just claim ownership of the images? The way Coca Cola trademarked polar bears? Exactly. A trademark can be (and usually is) claimed by a business entity and not a person. That’s why that particular comment from the judge pissed me off. You are right though. There are times where identifying the individuals who created the source materials definitely matters. More of a copyright issue though. |
|
ubl
New Member
🗨️ 362
👍🏻 301
November 2019
|
|
|
|
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by Rouen Cathedral on Sept 16, 2020 12:21:08 GMT 1, It’s his anonymity that’s the issue. Cant claim ownership of something if the owner may or may not be real. Can't Pest Control as a company just claim ownership of the images? The way Coca Cola trademarked polar bears?
Who’s to say Pest Control claiming it isn’t the same as this card maker company claiming it?
It’s his anonymity that’s the issue. Cant claim ownership of something if the owner may or may not be real. Can't Pest Control as a company just claim ownership of the images? The way Coca Cola trademarked polar bears? Who’s to say Pest Control claiming it isn’t the same as this card maker company claiming it? |
|
blerd
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,350
👍🏻 1,203
November 2016
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by blerd on Sept 17, 2020 9:17:46 GMT 1, I'm not sure what actual difference this makes in the real world as all the images have been regularly pillaged, and the official works have always needed a COA from pest control.
Interesting development though.
I'm not sure what actual difference this makes in the real world as all the images have been regularly pillaged, and the official works have always needed a COA from pest control.
Interesting development though.
|
|
tuftynuts
New Member
🗨️ 163
👍🏻 37
January 2007
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by tuftynuts on Sept 17, 2020 10:39:55 GMT 1, This is a bad day all round for all artists. It sets a horrible precedent for being ripped off
This is a bad day all round for all artists. It sets a horrible precedent for being ripped off
|
|
|
|
tab1
Full Member
🗨️ 8,519
👍🏻 3,679
September 2011
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by tab1 on Sept 17, 2020 10:50:20 GMT 1, Exact copies can be reproduced now
Exact copies can be reproduced now
|
|
|
|
Unica
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,067
👍🏻 1,230
November 2013
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by Unica on Sept 17, 2020 10:53:35 GMT 1, Exact copies can be reproduced now
They already are and have been for a long time WCP amongst others. That’s why Pest Control is in place. May make his images even more well known and push up the prices of his authenticated prints.
Exact copies can be reproduced now They already are and have been for a long time WCP amongst others. That’s why Pest Control is in place. May make his images even more well known and push up the prices of his authenticated prints. |
|
|
|
tab1
Full Member
🗨️ 8,519
👍🏻 3,679
September 2011
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by tab1 on Sept 17, 2020 11:07:46 GMT 1, It's shameless of the card company to go to these measures, but I also don't think it will have any impact. Things remain the same... artworks beyond posters/cave man coasters are largely worthless without Pest Control authentication
With all the marketing achieved by banksy , latest auction results ,With banksy brand in the Public’s consciousness the print card company need not to spend Hardly any money on marketing and can license the image to other manufacturers , the tat they produce will out perform all the prints in financial profits longterm.
Surprised banksy team had not cleared this up years ago .
Wcp lita cease and desist soon 😂
On a different level
www.jeditemplearchives.com/2018-09-16-the-cost-of-hasbros-star-wars-license/
It's shameless of the card company to go to these measures, but I also don't think it will have any impact. Things remain the same... artworks beyond posters/cave man coasters are largely worthless without Pest Control authentication With all the marketing achieved by banksy , latest auction results ,With banksy brand in the Public’s consciousness the print card company need not to spend Hardly any money on marketing and can license the image to other manufacturers , the tat they produce will out perform all the prints in financial profits longterm. Surprised banksy team had not cleared this up years ago . Wcp lita cease and desist soon 😂 On a different level www.jeditemplearchives.com/2018-09-16-the-cost-of-hasbros-star-wars-license/ |
|
tab1
Full Member
🗨️ 8,519
👍🏻 3,679
September 2011
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by tab1 on Sept 17, 2020 11:36:36 GMT 1, Will this have an effect on the gdp released lita
Will this have an effect on the gdp released lita
|
|
tab1
Full Member
🗨️ 8,519
👍🏻 3,679
September 2011
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by tab1 on Sept 17, 2020 11:37:51 GMT 1, Is this still an issue when we leave the EU? Utterly ridiculous decision mind - everyone associates that image with Banksy. It's undesputeable that he created it.
Eu first step as where the main business market is , the company will now probably apply for all rights now ?
Is this still an issue when we leave the EU? Utterly ridiculous decision mind - everyone associates that image with Banksy. It's undesputeable that he created it. Eu first step as where the main business market is , the company will now probably apply for all rights now ? |
|
tab1
Full Member
🗨️ 8,519
👍🏻 3,679
September 2011
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by tab1 on Sept 17, 2020 11:38:33 GMT 1, Is this still an issue when we leave the EU? Utterly ridiculous decision mind - everyone associates that image with Banksy. It's undesputeable that he created it. Eu first step as where the main business market is , the company will now probably apply for all rights now ?
This may burst the bubble everyone has been quoting for so long ?
Is this still an issue when we leave the EU? Utterly ridiculous decision mind - everyone associates that image with Banksy. It's undesputeable that he created it. Eu first step as where the main business market is , the company will now probably apply for all rights now ? This may burst the bubble everyone has been quoting for so long ? |
|
|
|
Unica
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,067
👍🏻 1,230
November 2013
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by Unica on Sept 17, 2020 11:47:18 GMT 1, Eu first step as where the main business market is , the company will now probably apply for all rights now ? This may burst the bubble everyone has been quoting for so long ?
Doubt it , I expect records will be broken at Sotheby’s. Will make authenticated prints more coveted.
Knock off Rolex watches, don’t affect Rolex prices.
Eu first step as where the main business market is , the company will now probably apply for all rights now ? This may burst the bubble everyone has been quoting for so long ? Doubt it , I expect records will be broken at Sotheby’s. Will make authenticated prints more coveted. Knock off Rolex watches, don’t affect Rolex prices. |
|
lv90210
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,030
👍🏻 1,926
January 2018
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by lv90210 on Sept 17, 2020 11:52:34 GMT 1, This may burst the bubble everyone has been quoting for so long ? Doubt it , I expect records will be broken at Sotheby’s. Will make authenticated prints more coveted. Knock off Rolex watches, don’t affect Rolex prices.
This may burst the bubble everyone has been quoting for so long ? Doubt it , I expect records will be broken at Sotheby’s. Will make authenticated prints more coveted. Knock off Rolex watches, don’t affect Rolex prices. Agreed. |
|
tab1
Full Member
🗨️ 8,519
👍🏻 3,679
September 2011
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by tab1 on Sept 17, 2020 11:57:28 GMT 1, This may burst the bubble everyone has been quoting for so long ? Doubt it , I expect records will be broken at Sotheby’s. Will make authenticated prints more coveted. Knock off Rolex watches, don’t affect Rolex prices.
Market will get muddled
The next few months will take for the news to settle in and the effects it will have on the market will be seen months later , most buyers will be unaware of the news at present
They have ownership of that particular image from what date?
This may burst the bubble everyone has been quoting for so long ? Doubt it , I expect records will be broken at Sotheby’s. Will make authenticated prints more coveted. Knock off Rolex watches, don’t affect Rolex prices. Market will get muddled The next few months will take for the news to settle in and the effects it will have on the market will be seen months later , most buyers will be unaware of the news at present They have ownership of that particular image from what date? |
|
samfrost
New Member
🗨️ 787
👍🏻 530
June 2014
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by samfrost on Sept 17, 2020 12:16:56 GMT 1, Jo Brooks
Jo Brooks
|
|
singerstu
New Member
🗨️ 759
👍🏻 517
December 2007
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by singerstu on Sept 17, 2020 12:29:55 GMT 1, On eBay there are hundreds of knock off items for sale. Every week there are dozens of copy products in small auction houses around the world, I cannot see what difference this is going to make. The comment that this is "devastating for the artist" is farcical. No one on here is going to buy tat from Full Colour Black.
On eBay there are hundreds of knock off items for sale. Every week there are dozens of copy products in small auction houses around the world, I cannot see what difference this is going to make. The comment that this is "devastating for the artist" is farcical. No one on here is going to buy tat from Full Colour Black.
|
|
ubl
New Member
🗨️ 362
👍🏻 301
November 2019
|
|
|
|
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by Happy Shopper on Sept 17, 2020 12:40:34 GMT 1, On eBay there are hundreds of knock off items for sale. Every week there are dozens of copy products in small auction houses around the world, I cannot see what difference this is going to make. The comment that this is "devastating for the artist" is farcical. No one on here is going to buy tat from Full Colour Black.
Is it that they actually want to take ownership?
They already appear to be selling a licence to use these images to Medicom
On eBay there are hundreds of knock off items for sale. Every week there are dozens of copy products in small auction houses around the world, I cannot see what difference this is going to make. The comment that this is "devastating for the artist" is farcical. No one on here is going to buy tat from Full Colour Black. Is it that they actually want to take ownership? They already appear to be selling a licence to use these images to Medicom |
|
JD
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,756
👍🏻 706
June 2007
|
Banksy Copyright© & Trademark™, by JD on Sept 17, 2020 12:46:18 GMT 1, Eu first step as where the main business market is , the company will now probably apply for all rights now ? This may burst the bubble everyone has been quoting for so long ?
Yes . Not a good time to be paying life changing money . He could reprint all for revenge
Eu first step as where the main business market is , the company will now probably apply for all rights now ? This may burst the bubble everyone has been quoting for so long ? Yes . Not a good time to be paying life changing money . He could reprint all for revenge |
|
