The website attached to the store is astoundingly corporate. For example, it contains a long and clearly custom-written TOS with classic gems like this: "Our site must not be framed on any other site, nor may you create a link to any part of our site other than the home page."
Banksy's Fake Store Is an Attempt to Abuse Trademark Law to Avoid Copyright Law
21–30 of 80 posts
Re: Banksy's Fake Store Is an Attempt to Abuse Trademark Law to Avoid Copyright Law
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
You probably mean "Creative Commons", not GPL. GPL is for code. But in either case, both CC and GPL are based on copyright, therefore cannot use.
> GPL is for code. Citation needed. GPL can work for anything.
There are only recommendations, nothing is forced.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOtherThanSoftwa...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Tex...
Re: Banksy's Fake Store Is an Attempt to Abuse Trademark Law to Avoid Copyright Law
#23Eh? Someone else is selling his art.
Can I not sell a photo of a new York City street scene if one of banksys pieces is visible in the background?
Re: Banksy's Fake Store Is an Attempt to Abuse Trademark Law to Avoid Copyright Law
#24The article implicitly suggests Banksy is making money off his artwork with word choice like "won't let anyone else profit off it". The idea being to paint him as a sellout and a hypocrite.
But is it true? By everyone's admission he isn't selling shoddy kitsch like post cards and fridge magnets. All that's left to sell is the original works, and to the best of my knowledge the people who can actually sell those are usually the owner of the wall itself. He pulled that stunt with the Sotheby's auction. Did he actually get any money after that self destructed? Does anyone anywhere actually have an estimate on how profitable the Banksy operation is?
Re: Banksy's Fake Store Is an Attempt to Abuse Trademark Law to Avoid Copyright Law
#25I can kind of get this. He wants to remain anonymous but he doesn't want to see his work on every shonky piece of merch in every dollar store in town. Both of those seem like reasonable desires. Nobody's disputing that he's the creator after all. It looks to me like copyright law is broken, but I guess parliament won't be rushing to fix it to plug gaps for edge cases involving anonymous street artists. What surprises…
> And if, in legal terms, nobody's Banksy doesn't that mean that we're all Banksy? Most certainly not, I can barely draw a stick figure.
Neither can he. Just get a stencil.
Re: Banksy's Fake Store Is an Attempt to Abuse Trademark Law to Avoid Copyright Law
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
You probably mean "Creative Commons", not GPL. GPL is for code. But in either case, both CC and GPL are based on copyright, therefore cannot use.
> GPL is for code. Citation needed. GPL can work for anything.
The text of the GPL describes the subject of the license as a "Program" and refers to it as having "machine-readable source code" (or "Corresponding Source" in GPLv3) and an "object code or executable form". It's difficult to interpret what any of this would mean in the context of an artistic work.
Re: Banksy's Fake Store Is an Attempt to Abuse Trademark Law to Avoid Copyright Law
#27> We legally photograph public graffiti and make it available to you
Is that how the copyright works in the UK??? Like I can photograph anybody's art and just sell prints? That doesn't sound right.
Re: Banksy's Fake Store Is an Attempt to Abuse Trademark Law to Avoid Copyright Law
#28Tldr; this article seems highly biased and tries to paint Banksy as an evil corporate mastermind who tries to damage a small home business by ways of shady litigation - while the issue at hand looks more to be that said business tries to make profit off pictures he won't print as merch and prohibiting this is complicated legally without disclosing one's true name.
The article plays on sympathy for the "poor little home run shop" versus Banksy ressorting to "evil lawyers". Feel like it's grossly misrepresenting the matter on purpose.
Re: Banksy's Fake Store Is an Attempt to Abuse Trademark Law to Avoid Copyright Law
#29Eh? Someone else is selling his art.
Can I not sell a photo of a new York City street scene if one of banksys pieces is visible in the background?
That really depends on what the picture represents in the end: how you describe it, yes. If you just take a front-up shot of the graffiti only then it would be hard to argue that you were depicting the city/scenery and not trying to reproduce the art.
Re: Banksy's Fake Store Is an Attempt to Abuse Trademark Law to Avoid Copyright Law
#30Tldr; this article seems highly biased and tries to paint Banksy as an evil corporate mastermind who tries to damage a small home business by ways of shady litigation - while the issue at hand looks more to be that said business tries to make profit off pictures he won't print as merch and prohibiting this is complicated legally without disclosing one's true name. The article plays on sympathy for the "poor little ho…
Agreed. Particularly shoddy journalism implying that the artist got 12.2M for a painting when it was actually sold by a private collector.