SevenRivers Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 It belongs to the owner of the wall. The copyright belongs to Banksy of course, so the wall owner can't copy it or reproduce it. There are countless commercially reproduced Banksy items out there from t-shirts to posters. I may be wrong but afaik he has never identified himself so how does an unidentified person get copyright? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted February 22, 2013 Author Share Posted February 22, 2013 There are countless commercially reproduced Banksy items out there from t-shirts to posters. I may be wrong but afaik he has never identified himself so how does an unidentified person get copyright? Good point indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 There are countless commercially reproduced Banksy items out there from t-shirts to posters. I may be wrong but afaik he has never identified himself so how does an unidentified person get copyright? He was identified quite some time ago I believe. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1034538/Graffiti-artist-Banksy-unmasked---public-schoolboy-middle-class-suburbia.html 2008 according to this article. He could of course choose to sue all those companies that are abusing his copyrighted images. ---------- Post added 22-02-2013 at 11:05 ---------- your making assumptions there - dangerous game that. What assumption do you believe I'm making? ---------- Post added 22-02-2013 at 11:07 ---------- I was thinking along those lines as well alice. ---------- Post added 22-02-2013 at 10:49 ---------- I realise that technically you have answered the question posed in the thread title. Should I now close the thread? I was thinking more about the wider implications. The morality, the thinking behind it. Is it right to remove it and sell it? You seem to be far too black and white. A factual answer, and no more discussion is required? Try to think beyond that. Do you like the artwork? Should he do it at all, if he's not got permission from the owner? What makes his work valuable? Clearly he wants it to be seen and appreciated by the public, otherwise he'd be doing it on canvas....etc...etc You didn't ask my opinion on whether someone should remove it, or whether I liked what he did. You asked who owned it, a pretty simple question with a black and white answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I may be wrong, but I don't think any of his work is actually commissioned. But of course I could be completely wrong. I think he did a few commisioned works in California as part of a tourism promotion. You can commission him/her if you have enough money. http://metro.co.uk/2012/10/13/brad-pitt-becomes-rare-owner-of-commissioned-banksy-piece-599785/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted February 22, 2013 Author Share Posted February 22, 2013 He was identified quite some time ago I believe. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1034538/Graffiti-artist-Banksy-unmasked---public-schoolboy-middle-class-suburbia.html 2008 according to this article. He could of course choose to sue all those companies that are abusing his copyrighted images. ---------- Post added 22-02-2013 at 11:05 ---------- What assumption do you believe I'm making? ---------- Post added 22-02-2013 at 11:07 ---------- You didn't ask my opinion on whether someone should remove it, or whether I liked what he did. You asked who owned it, a pretty simple question with a black and white answer. From your linked article the predominant thing that struck me was In the frame: The man in this photograph, taken in Jamaica four years ago, is believed to be Banksy. That's not conclusive I wouldn't have thought. Also, I can't say that I've noticed a copyright symbol on any of his paintings? AFAIK, this has to be included, or you can't claim copyright. Would it help if I reworded the title to something that might inspire you to generate a bit more than a black and white answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I would have thought the materials (paint etc) used in the artwork, are the physical property of the artist; while the bricks and mortar, are the physical property of the whoever owns the building. Aside from any copyright issues; if the property owner were to remove the artwork (incl. paint etc), and sell that; I would have thought that would be theft? The property owner could also make a case for vandalism, I guess? I imagine it's a similar situation as with artwork created by kiddies at school, where the kiddy owns the copyright, but the school own the actual physical materials. Though, in this case, the artist is the owner of some of the materials that constitute the artwork... Does that sound correct? IANAL so could be way off the mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 He was identified quite some time ago I believe. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1034538/Graffiti-artist-Banksy-unmasked---public-schoolboy-middle-class-suburbia.html 2008 according to this article. He could of course choose to sue all those companies that are abusing his copyrighted images. Thanks Cyclone, didn't know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodmally Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 It belongs to the owner of the wall. The copyright belongs to Banksy of course, so the wall owner can't copy it or reproduce it. If Banksy owns the masterpiece then the police should own it and aprehend it from this criminal. It annoys me that when a working class person does graffiti its a criminal act. When a posh boy like banksy's roumord to be does it. Its classed as 'art'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 From your linked article the predominant thing that struck me was . That's not conclusive I wouldn't have thought. Also, I can't say that I've noticed a copyright symbol on any of his paintings? AFAIK, this has to be included, or you can't claim copyright. Would it help if I reworded the title to something that might inspire you to generate a bit more than a black and white answer? Even if they're wrong if I was that bloke I would start saying I am Banksy. There's got to be some mileage in it for free tickets and posh dinners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I have some paint. I put my paint on your wall. Does that paint now belong to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.