13 votes

The EU Intellectual Property Office rules against Banksy in his trademark fight with a greeting card company, citing his own statement that ‘Copyright is for losers’ and his anonymity

5 comments

  1. [5]
    Grzmot
    Link
    I'm not usually the one to side with corporations on the issue of copyright law, but this seems like a sound ruling to me. Banksy has disregarded copyright laws, remains anonymous and has not made...

    I'm not usually the one to side with corporations on the issue of copyright law, but this seems like a sound ruling to me. Banksy has disregarded copyright laws, remains anonymous and has not made any attempt to stop previous use of his graffiti.

    I feel like that's pretty fair.

    7 votes
    1. [4]
      vektor
      Link Parent
      Argh... I dunno. Some good, lotsa bad reasons given here. I fucking hate the "You've previously not enforced this trademark/copyright/IP" line. No, fuck you, I selectively did and that should be...

      Argh... I dunno. Some good, lotsa bad reasons given here.

      I fucking hate the "You've previously not enforced this trademark/copyright/IP" line. No, fuck you, I selectively did and that should be my damn right. It forces the owner of an IP to be at it with an attack dog mentality and it is not good for anyone but lawyers.

      Similarly, the line of thinking of "well, you're against copyright, so fuck your copyright" is status-quo people-in-power bullshit. I'm a socialist. Doesn't mean I have to give away all my money. Doesn't mean I can't own stocks. When in Rome, do as the Romans. If Banksy dislikes copyright, maybe that's because other people use it to restrict his artistic freedom. It seems he doesn't mind other people using his art for their art. He'd like to live in a world without copyright, which is completely different from giving up your own copyright. (The alluded to "explicitly stated that the public is morally and legally free to reproduce, amend, and otherwise use any copyright works forced upon them by third parties." notwithstanding because I don't have the exact verbiage of that. I suspect that the "forced upon them" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.)

      His anonymity? Also completely irrelevant. A legit company seems to be representing him, afaict that's completely above board. In this day and age, do we really require that people share their real name to make their IP valid? Fuck, that completely invalidates the work of everyone who works pseudonymously - fuck pen names of published authors I guess, fuck people who have a day job that they don't want their hobby associated with.

      As for his material disregard (as opposed to ideological) of other people's copyright, that would be a valid attack vector here imo.

      21 votes
      1. [3]
        acdw
        Link Parent
        I gotta say, I was on the other side of the fence, but you're bringing me around with your arguments. I'm pretty anti-IP; I think it's kind of hairy, though. Like, the author should be compensated...

        I gotta say, I was on the other side of the fence, but you're bringing me around with your arguments.

        I'm pretty anti-IP; I think it's kind of hairy, though. Like, the author should be compensated somehow for their labor, and I don't like corporations raiding the commons for profit. However, it does seem that Banksy kind of gave his stuff up with his comments --- maybe a better license for him would've been something viral, like the GPL or, well, since it's culture, a CC-BY-SA-NC type license.

        I think of it kind of like this: I don't like the fact that I, as a restaurant customer, am expected to burnish employee's piss wages with tipping. But I do it, because I live within the system of tipping and don't have the power to overturn it on my own. Similarly -- viral copyleft licenses live within the current copyright system but try to use its protections to subvert it. So in a way it's going a step further than the tipping thing.

        Anyway, I think Banksy would have a stronger case if he'd licensed his works permissively but non-commercially. And I find myself agreeing with your points vis-a-vis his anonymity, previous statements, and possibly the material disregard. Though that last makes me think of like, if a murderer gets murdered, that murderer should still be prosecuted. So I'm not sure there.

        4 votes
        1. [2]
          vektor
          Link Parent
          Perhaps I should clarify my stance: I don't think the current IP laws support my mindset. I think they should. Normative, not positive claim. Enforcing an IP is expensive and labor intensive. To...

          Anyway, I think Banksy would have a stronger case if he'd licensed his works permissively but non-commercially.

          Perhaps I should clarify my stance: I don't think the current IP laws support my mindset. I think they should. Normative, not positive claim. Enforcing an IP is expensive and labor intensive. To expect that people defend it completely, or else it is invalid, seems unjust to me. To force someone to license liberally (or virally copyleft) to avoid that is of course bullshit. Sometimes appropriate bullshit, but it can't be the only solution for a poor IP owner. The only solutions I see is A) either the government fronting the bill and enforcing IP (do not like, though you could make the case that they should help people bear the legal costs of protecting their own property), B) accepting we live in a capitalist hellscape where big companies can steal your stuff if you're too poor for a lawyer, C) abolishing IP completely or D) allowing people to selectively enforce violations without losing their IP. B is status quo as far as I am concerned, and without diving too deep into the A or C tradeoff, I think D is quite superior to B. Again, the only people winning in B are the lawyers and those who can exploit others by their own financial weight. Going for D seems like a straight up improvement to me. Even a lot of big IP companies will appreciate the legal clarity of being allowed to let the fandoms prosper while paying less for lawyers.

          Though that last makes me think of like, if a murderer gets murdered, that murderer should still be prosecuted. So I'm not sure there.

          Good point, let me think on that one for a second.

          I suppose I meant it more as an ideological attack on his position. But it can also extend to a legal attack, but it's a tenuous one. Something like "you habitually violate other people's IP and loudly proclaim that. You have basically dismissed your own protections here". Different from murder, this is not as unreasonable. It would be ridiculous to claim that I could void my right to live somehow (death penalty, which I disagree with, notwithstanding), but voiding my rights to an IP seems like it should be straightforward. Overall though, I agree with your point.

          Maybe save for the IP that is a direct result of IP violation. Say for example that I base my art on your art and fair use doesn't apply. Then the only legally consistent way I see to solve the ownership question of the derivative work is to give it to both jointly. I.e. you don't get it because it's my work too. I don't get it because I used copyrighted art to create my own. If we want to monetize it, we have to agree on how to do that. Either of us can choose to protect the IP at their own sole discretion, i.e. sue violators. Basically, we both have exclusive rights to the work, so unless we can agree to license it, everything is an illegal copy. What a clusterfuck.

          3 votes
          1. acdw
            Link Parent
            I agree with you there! However, I still maintain that in the current IP law-scape, permissive licenses are kind of the only solution that's viable. At least you can signal your intent as a...

            B is status quo as far as I am concerned, and without diving too deep into the A or C tradeoff, I think D is quite superior to B.

            I agree with you there! However, I still maintain that in the current IP law-scape, permissive licenses are kind of the only solution that's viable. At least you can signal your intent as a creator, even if you're de facto powerless to stop big corps from co-opting your IP. I'd personally prefer option C, but I know that's pretty radical (I think?).

            Something like "you habitually violate other people's IP and loudly proclaim that. You have basically dismissed your own protections here". Different from murder, this is not as unreasonable.

            Yeah, I was kind of pushing that metaphor .. obviously murder is not equal to copyright infringement. And I can see your point, and I'm sure that's what the court was leaning on in Banksy's case.

            What a clusterfuck.

            You said it!

            I find it fascinating that the idea of authorship is actually fairly new ... I want to say it really only came around in like, the Victorian age? Or something? I am not well-researched on this, so.

            3 votes