Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Banksy's Fake Store Is an Attempt to Abuse Trademark Law to Avoid Copyright Law

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 80 posts

Re: Banksy's Fake Store Is an Attempt to Abuse Trademark Law to Avoid Copyright Law

#41

Post by celticninja »

cookie_monsta wrote: post #16

I 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…

Also if he doesn't challenge this small boutique business then he can't challenge Hallmark if)when they do the same thing. These guys out themselves in the firing line by trying to make money off his work, he doesn't want them to. His public graffiti work is for public consumption. This is a private company selling copies of his work for private consumption. Yes he is using copyright/trademark law which he has protested against but until the law changes he is forced to do it. Trust me if the card company wins then hallmark or someone similar will decimate their (boutique card) business by pumping out tons of similar stuff at low cost.

Re: Banksy's Fake Store Is an Attempt to Abuse Trademark Law to Avoid Copyright Law

#42

Post by celticninja »

WilliamEdward wrote: post #38
mehwoot wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The major art dealers who sell his work know who he is. They keep the secret because it's profitable.

This obviously sounds like something that could be possible, but equally possible is that there is no banksy and it is simply a marketing tactic, where banksy was originally one person that evolved into random artworks from many people.

Given how it started I think this is BS. He was a graffiti artist who got a lot of recognition, it wasn't an art/marketing scam because if it was the recognition would have come a lot faster.

I'm happy he is selling his work to people for lots of money, they are idiots for buying it, doesnt mean the works aren't good, but they are still idiots.

Re: Banksy's Fake Store Is an Attempt to Abuse Trademark Law to Avoid Copyright Law

#43

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #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.

No, it isn't.

The closest that UK copyright law gets is that there's an exemption for photographs of "sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public". (See section 62 at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... .)

But Banksy's pictures are just straight "artistic works". There's no need to class them as "works of artistic craftsmanship" and I don't believe any court would do so.

The infringers are either deliberately misreading copyright law or simply ignorant of it. I suspect the latter.

Re: Banksy's Fake Store Is an Attempt to Abuse Trademark Law to Avoid Copyright Law

#44

Post by celticninja »

_4ziu wrote: post #37
cookie_monsta wrote: post #16

I 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…

How is banksy going to protect their work if they cannot even prove they made it? I don't even believe all the 'banksy' originals over the years came from one person, it's more likely a group. Honestly it's frustrating to watch an anonymous entity decorate the city while still expecting people not to use their work. The way banksy has established themself as a figure would indicate they want the art to be free and op…

For the same reason that Satoshi Nakamoto is likely one person and not a group, so is Banksy. too hard to keep a secret like that for as long as it has been. I'm surprised we haven't seen more people claim to be Banksy, as we have with Satoshi but perhaps it's easier to profit from pretending to be SN than it is by pretending to be Banksy.

Three may keep a Secret, if two of them are dead

Re: Banksy's Fake Store Is an Attempt to Abuse Trademark Law to Avoid Copyright Law

#45

Post by celticninja »

unilynx wrote: post #40
makomk wrote: post #21

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."

That's just a copy paste from someone else's TOS.

Good artists borrow, great artists steal -- Pablo Picasso

Re: Banksy's Fake Store Is an Attempt to Abuse Trademark Law to Avoid Copyright Law

#46

Post by mnem »

ummwhat wrote: post #24

The 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 u…

This piece has an intersting look at how he makes money: https://www.artspace.com/magazine/art_101/close_look/how-doe...

Re: Banksy's Fake Store Is an Attempt to Abuse Trademark Law to Avoid Copyright Law

#47

Post by em-bee »

arrrg wrote: post #35
cookie_monsta wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way that I understand it, a trademark can be registered to a CPL (UK equivalent to an LLC) but copyright, if registered, has to go to a person. Although I believe that some states in the US allow anonymous copyright via LLC. I am far from being a lawyer, but this makes sense to me - a trademark is designed to be associated with a brand, copyright is designed to designate a person/group as something's creator.

But I thought you don’t have to register copyright? I thought you just had it automatically as soon as you make something?

it's not registering copyright that is the problem, but claiming a copyright violation that requires revealing of his identity, because in order to make the claim you have to prove that you have legal standing to do so.

Re: Banksy's Fake Store Is an Attempt to Abuse Trademark Law to Avoid Copyright Law

#48

Post by bufferout »

cookie_monsta wrote: post #16

I 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…

You can authenticate works by the artist here: https://pestcontroloffice.com/

Re: Banksy's Fake Store Is an Attempt to Abuse Trademark Law to Avoid Copyright Law

#49

Post by loons2 »

TomMckenny wrote: post #39
ummwhat wrote: post #24

The 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 u…

Indeed. And if we assume he does not want money to be made from his works by him _or other people either_ then it is all pretty consistent. Indeed it's a strange world if he, on principle, refuses to profit by his work but other people must be allowed to.

> Indeed it's a strange world if he, on principle, refuses > to profit by his work but other people must be allowed to.

That exact situation exists in many free software situations... doesn't it?

Re: Banksy's Fake Store Is an Attempt to Abuse Trademark Law to Avoid Copyright Law

#50

Post by tom_mellior »

Spivak wrote: post #33
bufferoverflow wrote: post #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.

Related question. Can you just photograph a building a sell photos without a license from the architect?

That depends on where you are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama

Interestingly, for the UK this seems to claim full freedom of panorama, seemingly contradicting the law quoted in your sister comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21369261

Post reply on HN