Banksy's Fake Store Is An Attempt To Abuse Trademark Law To Avoid Copyright Law
from the this-is-nuts dept
You may have seen the headlines lately, saying that famed pseudonymous street artist Banksy was being "forced" into opening up a pop up store in London in order to secure a trademark and prevent "a greetings card company" from selling "fake Banksy merchandise." Banksy also claimed that the company was "attempting to take custody of my name." Banksy and Banksy's artwork are somewhat famous for protesting against commercial incentives and traditional capitalism -- so many people rushed to Banksy' defense because, from the initial description, it sounded like Hallmark or some sappy corporate giant of that nature was trying to rip off Banksy images for its own benefit.
Turns out that the story is very, very different. And it doesn't make Banksy look very good at all once you understand the details. First, the "greeting card" company in question, Full Colour Black, has responded via a Facebook post, and you realize it's a tiny home-based business and it's not trying to take anyone's name or sell fake merchandise at all. Indeed, contrary to some of the reporting, it's not "suing" over anything. It just put forth a completely legitimate challenge to Banksy's sketchy and probably illegitimate trademark on the "flower bomber" image (the official name of which is apparently "Rage, Flower Thrower.")
As you know, to get a trademark, you need to show "use in commerce." And Banksy wasn't selling the flower bomber image -- though it does appear others are selling sculptures and posters of the work that was produced (as always) in secret, in Jerusalem, in 2005. In 2014, an organization representing Banksy, with the clever name of "Pest Control Office Limited", filed and received the registered trademark on the image.
However, since it wasn't clear how the image could qualify as a trademark in the first place, a small three person greeting card company sought to invalidate the trademark. As Full Colour Black explains:
Loud Tie Weasels are being used to paint our tiny business as a 'big corporate group' and paint Banksy as the harddone-by artist. There are only three people in our small business. We don’t have high powered legal teams on three continents, we don’t have a Management teams dealing with Hollywood and we certainly don’t have highly effective PR teams. We also can’t afford to open high earning hotels with celebrity acts on the grand piano nor can we steal the thunder from Stormzy’s amazing performance at Glastonbury.
All of that is Corporate Activity. We are not corporate... we sell greetings cards from our home. It is ENTIRELY untrue that we are attempting to “take custody” of his name”. This line has been invented by his Corporate Lawyers to try and gain sympathy from you. He’s made this up!!!
As they further explain, they run a small business that does photography and sells cards involving public graffiti:
We legally photograph public graffiti and make it available to you - the public. We know that you don’t have the unlimited budgets of Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt or Christine Aguilera. You cannot afford to buy one of his official canvases. We make cards because Banksy never makes anything available to his fans. We all love his graffiti. He doesn’t want you to have it and he’s hoping to trick you into thinking that we’re hurting his business. We’re not.
We don’t infringe his rights in any way. We don’t use his trademarks or his brand name. We make cards that feature Banksy’s Public Graffiti. It’s a legitimate enterprise.
So... that last part did make me wonder a bit -- because it's not exactly clear if the statements here are true. As we've noted in the past, there are significant legal questions around the copyright status of public graffiti art, with some courts coming down on the side of the graffiti artists, sometimes in ludicrous ways. And, of course, that's resulted in more and more litigation.
But... that's all about copyright. In reading the news coverage of all of this, I was stumped as to why were were discussing trademark at all -- until I realized something kind of important. Banksy is using trademark because Banksy can't use copyright without revealing who Banksy is. Full Colour Black's lawyer, Aaron Wood, explains:
“We are contesting the validity of one of his EU trademarks on the basis that he has freely permitted it to be reproduced such that it no longer functions as a trademark (if it ever did), on the basis that he never intended to use it as a trademark and that he is trying to register for collateral purposes (ie, to avoid evidential issues with copyright and to avoid having to file a ‘statement of use’ in the US).”
Either way, Banksy, on the advice of "arts lawyer" Mark Stephens, seems to think that setting up a pop up shop with the (okay, absolutely brilliant) name "Gross Domestic Product", which will exist for a few weeks but never actually open to the public (though sales will happen online), somehow will re-establish the trademark in question:
Mark Stephens, an arts lawyer and founder of the Design and Artists Copyright Society, called the case a “frankly ludicrous litigation” and is giving Banksy legal advice.
“Banksy is in a difficult position,” he said. “Because he doesn’t produce his own range of shoddy merchandise and the law is quite clear – if the trademark holder is not using the mark, then it can be transferred to someone who will.”
Except, as with much of this story coming from the Banksy side, this is absolutely misleading. There isn't "litigation" happening at all. And this is not about "shoddy merchandise." This is about challenging the legitimacy of what certainly looks like an illegitimate trademark. And Full Colour Black's attorney highlights that, if anything, this shop harms Banksy's case, because they're not even arguing that the trademark fails for lack of use in commerce, but rather that the whole trademark is a sham to get around copyright law -- and this stunt supports that argument:
“If it were a revocation case then the strategy would be ill-conceived,” he claims. “The real error, however, is that this isn’t a revocation case on the basis of non-use, so it’s a frankly pointless step which doesn’t stand up to scrutiny from anyone with a modicum of knowledge of trademark law. In fact, this has strengthened the arguments that the marks are a false attempt to monopolise his work in bad faith [and to] circumvent copyright law and trademark law. Banksy may be a subversive character but the same law applies to him.”
Indeed, as others have noted, Banksy has been increasingly aggressive about enforcing trademark claims regarding people selling works based on Bansky art -- despite historically arguing against things like copyright:
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.
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.
The whole situation is kind of crazy when you think about it. Banksy doesn't want to use the law that actually covers the artwork, copyright, because that would likely require an outing of whoever is behind Banksy. And, according to Banksy, "copyright is for losers." But Banksy as a concept has become so profitable that now it's suddenly trying to stop anyone else from making money from Banksy-related works -- and appears to be abusing trademark to make that happen.
Full Colour Black, the greeting card company, notes that it's been trying for years to send Banksy some money, but that it's gotten nowhere:
We’ve written to Banksy, his team and his lawyers many times since 2010 to say that we want to pay royalties to him. He doesn’t want it. We believe he’s making so much money already; a couple of hundred pounds a year from us probably wouldn’t even cover the cost of his handmade shoes.
I’ll say it once again… don't be fooled folks. He’s using weasels to paint our tiny little business as a 'big corporate’ and paint himself as the poor artist. Look beyond his slick PR. He’s out of your league but he wants your sympathy. If you really want to support the little guy… stand by us. We’ll continue to offer you amazing graffiti and we can post it to you across the world.
This really does look like Banksy gone corporate in the worst sense -- abusing trademark law for no good reason at all and (worse) lying about it and pretending that a small home-based business is a big corporate entity trying to "seize" Banksy's name, when that's not even close to the truth. Banksy could just confirm that copyright law (and much of trademark law) is for losers, and let this small shop sell these cards that only serve to make Banksy's own artwork more and more valuable. The fact that all of this comes at a time when Banksy just sold a painting for $12 million, and part of the reason it's worth that is the kind of fame driven by people photographing and sharing Banksy's work, suggests that maybe Banksy should ditch some of the "copyright" lawyers advising Banksy, and go back to some more Banksy roots.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anonymity, banksy, cancellation, copyright, flower bomber, greeting cards, trademark, use in commerce
Companies: full colour black
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I gotta start paying attention to the comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP screwing everything up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am finding it hilarious that a person who's work is condemning consumerism, corporatism, capitalism, etc is, once he saw how much money there was to be had, acting like a corporation protecting its brand in order to maximize income from it.
Banksy has, literally, become the thing he/she/it criticized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's only enough to buy several houses!
I’ll say it once again… don't be fooled folks. He’s using weasels to paint our tiny little business as a 'big corporate’ and paint himself as the poor artist.
...
The fact that all of this comes at a time when Banksy just sold a painting for $12 million,
Won't someone think of the poor starving millionaire...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"You either die a hero, or get rich enough to afford expensive law firms."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't argue on this point
And, according to Banksy, "copyright is for losers."
IP is being used for censorship again. What a surprise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It’s almost as if copyright exists in its modern state for the sole purpose of censoring speech~. Imagine that~.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wouldn’t trademark law do the same? I assume it would require the person holding that trademark — which I would assume is Banksy themselves — to disclose their identity as the owner of that trademark, anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They make cards with other people's art on them whether public or not is making profits off of Banksy's art. Legitimate they claim, but let them make their own grafitti and put that on their cards would be legitimate business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Better get after all those people that take pictures of landmarks too.
Make your own Eiffel Tower you filthy parasites!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
https://www.rd.com/advice/travel/eiffel-tower-illegal-photos/
Care to revise your comment? :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. Is there some particular reason why I should?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"https://www.rd.com/advice/travel/eiffel-tower-illegal-photos/
Care to revise your comment? :D"
Is that all ya got?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just do not distribute your "illegal" picture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good thing China made a town just like Paris and a tower so you can take pictures there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If France made it illegal to take pictures of their beloved eiffle tower, its because they have messed up. The personal photos people take of landmarks is not wrong unless they sell it or reconstruct copies without permission from the owner or owners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
France heard that cameras steal people's souls.
They have a very real and legitimate concern about what could happen to the tower if all the tourists make off with it's soul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You can photograph some art for your personal use, but you can't copy it to sell or make money from it, at least that is the way copyright worked when I last checked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They don't let cameras into museums anymore do they or maybe you just can't take photographs of certain masterpieces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A trademark can be originated by a corporate entity or trust, which could be structured to hide the identit(ies) of Bansky.
A copyright, even if originally registered by a trust or corporation, requires identifying the individual or individuals who fixed the artwork in the medium of the wall. And the copyright assignment to the trust or corporate entity who would then hold it. And to meet evidentiary standards, that person can not be anonymous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks for the info. 👍
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wouldn’t trademark law do the same?
No, trademark can be registered by a corporation -- like Banksy's "Pest Control Office Limited"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How do you open a LLC for such purposes “assuming he has never done official commissions that allows such access and connections or something Never really got into it ”when you market in what is basically grey to dark area legal matter artwork? He’s been all over the world smashing the state but now the legitimate businessman part comes in? Does he know Kobe? “What am I saying?” Is the queen a fan? Does trump have a fun side?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Problem is this company FULL COLOR BLACK ripped me off as well.
So don't believe them.
They ripped of my image.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bansky, meet Babs. Hopefully she can fully explain the Streisand Effect to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sure Banksy hates that his art is generating controversy and new markets are opening for it. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not all publicity is good publicity. While this may draw attention to his art it's doing so in a manner that rather nicely undercuts any 'anti-copyright', 'anti-corporate' message or image he may have wanted to cultivate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
For me it seems to possibly be a manufactured controversy to raise the banksy brand and generate new business. Banksy is fine. I would consider buying something not too expensive just for the creative marketing of this controversy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not even very good bait...
Someone attempts to abuse trademark law because they don't want to comply with the requirements of copyright law, attempts to portray themselves as a 'poor put-upon artist' while having recently sold one of their works for millions and their opponent as oppressive corporation despite it being a company of three, and that would be enough to sucker you into paying him?
You might want to stay away from email entirely, I can only imagine the number of 'nigerian princes' who would love to have a chat with you with standards that low.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not even very good bait...
If I buy something from Banksy I would expect some art. If I respond to a Nigerian prince email I would expect my bank account to be looted. There's a difference.
I'm fine with artists drumming up contrived for fake controversy. They do it constantly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not even very good bait...
"contrived OR fake controversy" is what that was supposed to be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not even very good bait...
Well, if you're happy being manipulated by a hypocrite knock yourself out I suppose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tech Dirt Swings and Misses!
If Hallmark had been doing this, TD would be all over them for using the works of others. But since this is a small "home based" business, that is somehow okay?
Banksy has the means to defend his works, but the majority of street artists don't and these people have been using the works of others without permission. Just because it appears on someone's building doesn't mean that the artist forfeits all rights to it. More and more, "graffiti" is a form of commissioned art. Tech Dirt completely misses this point in their argument that these people are being picked on by Banksy. They are not, they are stealing. They just happened to steal from someone that fights back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tech Dirt Swings and Misses!
If he/she/it/they are going to use the law as a club against others then the same law applies to them. They can't just make things up.
If Hallmark was doing the same thing it would be the same situation, excepting only that it would be two teams of well-paid lawyers fighting each other instead of just one versus a tiny company but the attempt to muddle copyright and trademark would still be there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tech Dirt Swings and Misses!
Just tell me this.. "What is up with all the mean spirited birthday cards?" I mean some of those cards are just so rude!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tech Dirt Swings and Misses!
He implicitly waved his copyright and thus no stealing is going on. But I guess that's an inconvenient fact and we all know you have no use for facts since it makes it so much easier to spout lies then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tech Dirt Swings and Misses!
Where and when did he wave right to copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Tech Dirt Swings and Misses!
When he refused to register his works with the Copyright Officeamd declared that “Copyright is for losers,” I suppose. I mean, he could still register most of his works if he wanted, but for the time being, he has implicitly and explicitly waived any right to declare copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tech Dirt Swings and Misses!
Banksy's works are supposedly not commissioned though.
If a graffiti artist marks up a wall that belongs to someone else, without the owner's permission, the artist has absolutely no rights to it. Their rights are surrendered when they choose to engage in vandalism for their medium. That art now belongs to the owner of the wall, and they can do whatever they please with it.
You don't get to ignore the property rights of others while simultaneously claiming unfounded property rights of your own just because you're an "artist".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tech Dirt Swings and Misses!
If his art shows up on a wall as vandelism and also shows up on a canvas in an art gallery, are you saying he has no right or copyright to protect it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Tech Dirt Swings and Misses!
If his art shows up as graffiti, then, assuming the AC you are responding to is correct, the artist's copyright interest in the graffiti is null and void and the artist can't go after people taking pictures of it. The owner of the property being photographed might have a leg to stand on.
If the art shows up on canvas, then the canvas piece operates under different rules.
That they might be the same image should be irrelevant.
The whole thing should be irrelevant, however, given that Banksy has said "copyright is for losers" - if that were true, Banksy wouldn't give a shit about his art being photographed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tech Dirt Swings and Misses!
Maybe, but all of a sudden he sold some painting for $12MM! That's some kind of game changer. Maybe he should at least go for a poor man's copyright!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tech Dirt Swings and Misses!
Stating in public "copyright is for losers" is not the same as "I hereby grant full permission for others to use my work, directly or as derivative works".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tech Dirt Swings and Misses!
Exactly. People seem to miss the point or are to 'in love' with the romantic deception of graphitti, the medium is someone else's property that IS protected by law.
Art itself is a misnomer in that value or perception is solely based on the viewer not the artist when monetary value is created. Not to mention the fact that all modern art is just a vehicle for money laundering in itself. But 'art' created on anothers property without commission or permission regardless of its intent or impact is just an act of rebellion and/or illegal activity and in the end is ironically the value on which its based.
In the end, while either visually pleasing or annoyingly presented, graphitti and modern art are shams themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
poison at the roots
See what happens when you criticize occupation governments?
They bury you in legalese, and call you a fraud for the paltry sums you earn to resist them, and try to “return you to your roots.”
I mean-whoever “they” are....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Banksy did not sell the painting
Bansky is a hypocrite in many ways, but his selling his 2009 "Devolved Parliament" for $12M is not one of them. According to Sotheby's, the painting was sold on behalf of a private individual who obtained it from Bansky in 2011.
They also report that Bansky made some changes in the painting, and he offered the comment “Record price for a Banksy painting set at auction tonight. Shame I didn’t still own it.”
The truth of the matter could be anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's not there!
Maybe Banksy is dead, and the corp-people simply have no way to present him for the copyright application, but love making cash they don't have to share with the creator of their merchandise. After all, if nobody knows who he is, maybe he isn't. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He's not there!
Maybe.. he has been wisked away in the trunk of some car like Howard Hughes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no research
So let's put it simply, Full Colour Black is a company that relies on selling cards with Banksy's graffi art. With no permission whatsoever from Banksy.
It is surprising for a "tech" site you have no idea what the Creative Commons license states: "you're free to copy and share but not to sell". What makes you think Banksy doesn't agree with that principle?
XKCD author also uses the CCL. So you would support a company making a book out of his comics?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no research
You realize there are multiple Creative Commons Licenses, right? There are six of them, in fact. Three of them allow commercial uses of the licensed work. The XKCD license is explicitly the Attribution-NonCommercial variant of the license.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/
In any case, Banksy isn't using a Creative Commons License; that would require them to explicitly state the use of the license. It's not something that just gets applied to creative works in the absence of other licensing arrangements. Arguably, the ability to enforce a CC License implicitly rests on copyright law in the first place -- which brings us back to the entire point of this article, doesn't it? Banksy is trying to use trademark law in order to get the benefits of copyright law without taking the steps of actually claiming their implicit copyright in the works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]