Banksy loses Trademark case.

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,050
9,608
47
UK
✟1,141,465.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Banksy loses 'flower bomber' trademark battle

I did not realise that banksy's artworks are not covered by copyright, but you cannot claim copyright if your anonymous.

He had been ruled against in regard to using trademarks, to protect his works, which unlike copyright stay protected in law for perpetuity.

Essentially the courts ruled he was fraudulenly using trademarks for something they are intended to do.
 

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,050
9,608
47
UK
✟1,141,465.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I wonder if US copyright law is the same. I don't know why he wouldn't be able to assign the copyright to a shell company that could sue on his behalf.
No idea, though I suspect it would be hard to protect his anonymity, if the copyright is challenged in court.

Also since he actually wrote a book on it, he has relied on trademarking his artworks to protect them, since unlike copyright trademark protection lasts in perpetuity.

His book was quoted against him in court.
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,028
23,941
Baltimore
✟551,894.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
No idea, though I suspect it would be hard to protect his anonymity, if the copyright is challenged in court.

Also since he actually wrote a book on it, he has relied on trademarking his artworks to protect them, since unlike copyright trademark protection lasts in perpetuity.

His book was quoted against him in court.

In both the UK and the US, copyright protection lasts 70 years beyond the death of the artist and the requirements for protecting it aren't remotely as burdensome as they are for a trademark - a trademark only lasts "in perpetuity" if you actively use it and defend it, whereas a copyright (at least in the US anyways) you can just let sit there while you collect royalties on it. If you don't register it or defend it, you lose some/all of your rights to punitive damages and you'll probably have a tougher time collecting back royalties in court, but at least in theory, the copyright remains yours. So, while a copyright doesn't last forever in the way that a trademark has the potential to, in any practical sense that's relevant to Banksy's lifetime, it's a much more durable form of IP. I don't understand what his thinking was and how his plan was supposed to play out. It kind of sounds like he was trying to be a little too clever.
 
Upvote 0

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,050
9,608
47
UK
✟1,141,465.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
In both the UK and the US, copyright protection lasts 70 years beyond the death of the artist and the requirements for protecting it aren't remotely as burdensome as they are for a trademark - a trademark only lasts "in perpetuity" if you actively use it and defend it, whereas a copyright (at least in the US anyways) you can just let sit there while you collect royalties on it. If you don't register it or defend it, you lose some/all of your rights to punitive damages and you'll probably have a tougher time collecting back royalties in court, but at least in theory, the copyright remains yours. So, while a copyright doesn't last forever in the way that a trademark has the potential to, in any practical sense that's relevant to Banksy's lifetime, it's a much more durable form of IP. I don't understand what his thinking was and how his plan was supposed to play out. It kind of sounds like he was trying to be a little too clever.
It's the reason he opened a shop last year, but that was only in response to this case.
 
Upvote 0