Cyclone 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? Everything you create is by default your copyright, you don't need to put any silly symbol on it to make that so. A contract could change that of course, if you were creating it under a contract which expressly granted to copyright to someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Everything you create is by default your copyright, you don't need to put any silly symbol on it to make that so. A contract could change that of course, if you were creating it under a contract which expressly granted to copyright to someone else. Is there not also a question of who owns the physical materials (paint, wall, etc)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone 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? Highly unlikely. Otherwise it would be illegal to remove graffiti. The paint would be considered to be abandoned. The property owner could also make a case for vandalism, I guess? Indeed. ---------- Post added 22-02-2013 at 11:25 ---------- 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'. He doesn't own it, he owns the copyright to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted February 22, 2013 Author Share Posted February 22, 2013 I have some paint. I put my paint on your wall. Does that paint now belong to you? Hahaha...I dunno, but if you're banksy, then you're very welcome to come and paint on my wall. :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Is there not also a question of who owns the physical materials (paint, wall, etc)? Not with regard to the copyright, which was why I specifically referred to the copyright ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingray-man Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 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 And warrants for arrest for defacing public property .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Thanks Cyclone. Yep, I totally get that the copyright issue is a separate thing. Highly unlikely. Otherwise it would be illegal to remove graffiti. The paint would be considered to be abandoned. Is that an actual legal principle with a basis in law etc? What happens if I attach something more substantial to a wall, at what point does the material become substantial enough, to be not considered 'abandoned'? If I attach some gold-leaf? If I attach some clay? If I glue some coins to the wall? If I glue some clothes to the wall? Where does one draw the dividing line? (when something attached to a wall, becomes the physical property of the wall owner). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted February 22, 2013 Author Share Posted February 22, 2013 Everything you create is by default your copyright, you don't need to put any silly symbol on it to make that so. A contract could change that of course, if you were creating it under a contract which expressly granted to copyright to someone else. Ah!...I didn't know that! You live and learn. I would imagine though that 'proving' you have copyright is altogether a trickier matter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Thanks Cyclone. Yep, I totally get that the copyright issue is a separate thing. Is that an actual legal principle with a basis in law etc? What happens if I attach something more substantial to a wall, at what point does the material become substantial enough, to be not considered 'abandoned'? If I attach some gold-leaf? If I attach some clay? If I glue some coins to the wall? If I glue some clothes to the wall? Where does one draw the dividing line? (when something attached to a wall, becomes the physical property of the wall owner). A good question, it probably comes down to some ruling about when property is considered abandoned. In theory no matter what you had attached, the wall owner would have the right to remove it, they should probably then hand it to the police as lost property. IANAL, but I think 6 months is the length of time the police keep it before returning it to the finder. In the case of paint it can't be removed without destroying it though... So maybe simply waiting 6 months to see if the artist wishes to come back and reclaim it would be enough. The wall owner can of course choose to move the wall before that time is up, and unless the artist wishes to come and remove the paint there's not much they can do. Indeed given that they painted it illegally I doubt that they would get very far if they took the wall owner to court for theft (of paint) if the wall owner refused them access to recover the paint. So in summary, I'd say that once it's on the wall, there's very little that the artist can legally do to stop the wall being sold along with the artwork on it. Worst case, they might manage to sue for the cost of the paint, but I doubt it would get to court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Yep, IANAL either, but it's interesting stuff. I suppose the artist could argue that the paint, applied in the specific way it has been, has some kind of added value, and is probably worth more than gold leaf!. Will be interesting to see if anyone makes any kind of legal challenge, very much doubt that will happen though, I think banksy probably values his privacy/anonymity too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.