I had two problems.<p>First, I really didn't like the tone of the card company. They're selling someone else's work (whether legal or not), and then were condescending toward the person who made it. They say they're just trying to honor Banksy, but they paint him as an out-of-touch rich asshole.<p>Second, it's hard to know for sure, but I think this analysis misses the bigger point... I feel like opening a small shop that isn't real is very Banksy-esque, and likely is more of a statement on trademark than him actually trying to enforce a trademark. This is clearly just an exhibit + marketing. (It's a glass storefront, after all)
The whole situation is interesting at the very least.<p>The only comment I have is that I have to fault the article for making a lot of assumptions and leaps to conclusions on Banksy’s intentions, it sort of unilaterally declares that Banksy is selling out and cheating the system.<p>But what they want is far simpler: they don’t want other people claiming they’re Banksy, and they want to remain anonymous.<p>The article gets upset at Banksy as a corporate sellout as if they opened up a line of art pieces for sale at Walmart or Target. What Banksy did is more akin to opening up a UPS Store mailbox in order to have an address on file.
>> Having once claimed that copyright is for losers, Banksy has been ramping up his legal position for several months now. At the end of 2018, the artist’s handling service Pest Control took action against an Italian company that organised an exhibition, The Art of Banksy—A Visual Protest, for Milan’s Mudec Museum.<p>>> In February this year, the judge ruled in favour of Banksy’s request for all merchandise bearing his name to be removed from the museum’s shop, but promotional materials using his name were allowed to remain. The judge noted that the documents filed in the proceedings showed a limited use of the Banksy brand.<p>Banksy should have GPL'd his works. Seriously.<p>Everyone creating artwork derived from Banksy's works, including merchandise articles, would be required to provide the sources.
So if for example an Italian Museum decides to sell flower bomber T-shirts everyone could just use the design files to order at CafePress. This would promote the unrestricted dissemination of his works while putting natural limits on the commercialization by others.
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.<p>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.<p>What surprises me more is that there isn't a wave of faux Banksys flooding the market - sure the artist has a style but it's not absolutely unreproducible. And if, in legal terms, nobody's Banksy doesn't that mean that we're all Banksy?
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.<p>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?
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."
Huh.<p>The potential non-copyrightability of graffiti I understand but I am failing to understand the anonymous ownership issue. Why he cannot transfer the copyright for the work to a corporation which enforces the copyright? -- it isn't like he needs to register the work before transferring it to the company, the berne convention assures that.
Banksy pretty much ripped off Blek Le Rat — so much of his work is completely derivative. Plus you could argue he did much of his work in the public domain. If I graffiti an image in a public place, haven’t I kind of given away copyright to it?<p>Given Banksy’s anti-capitalist, semi-anarchist stance, and utilization of public property for his own fame, I can’t think of any better means for him to honor himself than to allow people to rip off his work freely.<p>I certainly can see the case against those who misappropriate bad work to his name — artistic integrity is important. There is also nothing wrong with him wanting to make money. But I see no moral problem with selling knick knacks with banksy imagery on it.<p>FWIW I love his art and his moral stance. Just can’t have your cake and eat it.
> <i>We legally photograph public graffiti and make it available to you</i><p>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.
Pretty cheesy. You can’t use trademark law like this which clearly is the reason they didn’t try this against a company that would have the resources to handle a baseless lawsuit.
I have always been suspicious at Banksy, it always seemed to me like corporate plot to generate hype. This article really aligns with my intuition. I am very surprised of all the responses here. I expected that this of all places will look through the fake.
FYI just another take on Banksy Fake Store<p>Hacking a Banksy with Bash and Varanid:
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21368691" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21368691</a>
Tldr; 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.<p>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.