Cyclone Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I don't think that argument would get them very far, the wall still belongs to the wall owner, and they are entitled to do what they like with that wall. If he wants his paint back then he could ask, but I doubt he'd have any remedy in law other than to sue for the cost of the materials (and even that would probably fail). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dromedary 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 Nooooo.... I am Banksey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 But *if* the paint belongs to the artist (am unsure as to you're paint has been abandoned argument, and would be interested to learn of the legal basis for that); then the artist could say, I want my specific paint back, in the format in which I left it. It's also, worth pointing out that the paint (or artist materials), in the specific configuration in which they were applied to the wall; may well be worth more (money) than the building itself. If I was the artist; I would frame it more like the building (which is of lesser value) is attached to my artwork. Just because the building is a bigger physical entity; does that mean it has more credence in legal terms? I'm curious, when two individuals have separate items of property (in this case, paint, and, wall); that become attached, such that it is not possible to split them; what is the basis upon which the law determines ownership? Is it monetary value? Physical mass? What? EDIT: If ownership is determined on physical mass, when someone parks their car outside my house, and I glue the car to my house; the car then belongs to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 But *if* the paint belongs to the artist (am unsure as to you're paint has been abandoned argument, and would be interested to learn of the legal basis for that); then the artist could say, I want my specific paint back, in the format in which I left it. He could certainly say that. I doubt that he would have any legal basis to enforce it. It's also, worth pointing out that the paint (or artist materials), in the specific configuration in which they were applied to the wall; may well be worth more (money) than the building itself. Irrelevant I think. If I was the artist; I would frame it more like the building (which is of lesser value) is attached to my artwork. If your paint was there first and someone attached a building to it, then you (as the artist) might have a point. If the building was there first then you (as the artist) don't. Just because the building is a bigger physical entity; does that mean it has more credence in legal terms? The fact that the paint was applied to the building and not the other way around is the important fact I think. I'm curious, when two individuals have separate items of property (in this case, paint, and, wall); that become attached, such that it is not possible to split them; what is the basis upon which the law determines ownership? Is it monetary value? Physical mass? What? It's difficult to think of any other examples... But I think the key thing is which was there first and which was applied to other. EDIT: If ownership is determined on physical mass, when someone parks their car outside my house, and I glue the car to my house; the car then belongs to me... That would be you stealing the car. If however they glue the car to your house, and then leave it... (Assuming it's some sort of unbreakable glue) then the car goes with your wall. Who took the action of attaching property a (paint) to property b (wall) is just as important as the fact that property b was in situ and property a was applied to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 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. Not true. Your posts aren't your copyright. Otherwise you could sue anyone for quoting you without your permission. You have to apply for copyright. They may be your intellectual property but thats not the same as copyright. You have to register for copyright to make it a legal entity, until you do anything that exists is merely public domain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Unless the T&Cs that I agreed to have assigned the copyright to the forum, then they are. Everything you write or create is copyright by default. I couldn't sue for someone quoting though, that would covered under fair use. You do not have to apply for copyright, it is intrinsic in having created something. Here, read this http://www.lawdonut.co.uk/law/intellectual-property/copyright/how-does-copyright-work- How does copyright work? Copyright protects the creators of original text, artwork, recordings, films, computer programs and some databases. It gives you automatic control over the rights to copy, perform, broadcast or adapt your material, though limited use is allowed without your permission for private study, teaching in schools and reviews. Copyright for literary, dramatic, musical and artistic material and for computer software lasts for the lifetime of the creator plus an additional 70 years from the end of the year in which the creator died. Copyright for other material lasts for 25, 50 or 70 years. It is up to you to enforce copyright yourself. Although copyright is automatic, you may want to add the copyright symbol © or the words 'copyright - all rights reserved', together with your name and the year of creation, to the copyright material to help emphasise that copyright exists. You should also keep copies of the original work and dated records of when it was disclosed to other people. Even so, enforcing your rights if someone adapts your work can be difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Unless the T&Cs that I agreed to have assigned the copyright to the forum, then they are. Everything you write or create is copyright by default. I couldn't sue for someone quoting though, that would covered under fair use. You do not have to apply for copyright, it is intrinsic in having created something. Here, read this http://www.lawdonut.co.uk/law/intellectual-property/copyright/how-does-copyright-work- So maybe the posts one was a bad example. Turns out you're right you annoying sod! See the section on "protecting your own works" http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/definition/copyright Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 So gracious of you to admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Ive just seen the wall on Sky News where the piece of Vandalism has been removed ,and the wall looks a lot better now, nice and clean . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Ive just seen the wall on Sky News where the piece of Vandalism has been removed ,and the wall looks a lot better now, nice and clean . I bet that you wouldn't be complaining if he vandalised your wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.