The unauthorized copying of Banksy works is widespread–a stroll through London’s popular markets in Camden and Brick Lane and a quick search online proves that. His work has been printed and reproduced on everything from mugs to mouse mats.
Friday, March 01, 2019
Why Banksy is finally going to court to stop merchandising
The unauthorized copying of Banksy works is widespread–a stroll through London’s popular markets in Camden and Brick Lane and a quick search online proves that. His work has been printed and reproduced on everything from mugs to mouse mats.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
This is a bit wild to wrap your head around. The fact that Banksy needs to sacrifice some aspect of their artistic manifesto in order to protect what they stands for seems to be an intense paradox and conundrum for the artist. I also find it odd that in order to maintain weighty claims to your own property via trademark you have to show that you actually use it enough for other people not to so so as well. And while I kind of understand this given the purpose of a trademark is to prevent unfair competition through copying of another’s original ideas, I do not really understand how lesser use should suddenly grant others the right to take and to twist that which you have spent time and energy creating. It is a tricky situation for such an artist with a message like Banksy’s to have to stand between staying true to themselves and having others stay true to them.
Banksy has long interested people because of how they approach the making and consumption art; especially the bold, brash, anti-capitalist styles and messages. Late last year, Banksy reached headlines again for shredding a work immediately after it was sold at an auction. Banksy doesn't much care for money-making bulls***. There is such an issue with that though because we do live in a world where everyone needs to make money, and artists use copyright as a way of protecting their own ideas, but also for supporting themselves. It surprises me that Banksy is taking action against the use of their art, but I also don't think it is invalid and unwarranted. Banksy explores different ways of consuming art, and when their art is exploited sometimes the message is changed, although the changing becomes a part of the art itself. I don't think it's okay though for an artist to be exploited of all their work. Their ideas are creative and unique, and it seems like today is the day that we no longer that freedom of use that Banksy once protected.
What a strange occurrence. Banksy is such a strange human being in the way that he approaches and deals with art and copyright infringement of his work. I think that the Milan judge did the right thing in case of Banksy and this Italian company. He’s never sued people previously for copying his art or using it for promotional purposes. Why now has he/his company started to care? I understand why the judge noted that the use of Banksy’s name amounted to the trademark infringement, and he didn’t care much in regards to the promotional material. Again, other people have done it before, why is this Italian company in trouble now? Also copyright is such a sensitive issue within the art world. I personally don’t know how it all works, but I can definitely recognize how murky this situation is and because Banksy’s work is in public places, it’s hard to claim the copied images.
Banksy is such an interesting artist and it seems even more on brand for him to do something so unexpected and of brand that he changes people’s opinions on him. Copyright and artists intellectual property is such a strange discussion in the art world and the surging environment. Everyone needs recognition and the ability to make money in any industry just to survive. Banksy work in unique and daring ways in comparison to the rest of the art world with his hidden identity and world renowned theatrics and disappearing act. This is such a strange environment with how Banksy works. I think Banksy and other artists of course have seen in recent years that artists cannot be exploited for all of their work and drive in the world. There is a lot of things wrong with the industry and in the environment that has surrounded the art community.
This is somewhat besides the point of the article, but why is it that the public assumes this artist of unknown identity is a man? Is it that the world sees the art they produce--bold, outspoken, anti-establishment--as being masculine in ideology? Back to the point: towards the end of the article, the author argues that in order to control the merchandising of their intellectual property, Banksy should start selling their own merchandise. I am not familiar in the slightest with the laws that pertain to this issue, but I think there is probably a middle ground that does not violate Banksy’s anti-capitalist goals. If they must generate a product line in order to protect the licensing, could they not give they products away for free, or use them to raise funds for non-profit organizations? Furthermore, I wonder whether it might be more in line with Banksy’s politics to allow museums to sell branded items. Although they would not necessarily maintain control, their art would (although it is certainly not that simple) feed into more art, not into capitalist churning.
This article-- and Banksy’s art politics as a whole-- is fascinating. In my opinion, Banksy is far too late to win this legal quest. His artwork has already been established as a pinnacle of contemporary pop art, and merchandising of his iconic pieces has been occurring for nearly two decades. If anything, I think that the mysterious identity of the artist and his public pranks (such as the recent shredding at Sotheby’s) only amplify the fanaticism surrounding Banksy and his work. He’s also obviously not alone in the long list of artists whose masterpieces have been reduced to t-shirt motifs and mugs. I can thoroughly understand the frustration with the commodification of art from the artist’s perspective, but I can’t deny that I don’t buy into it as an art-appreciating consumer. I am torn in this debate, but I admit that I don’t believe that Banksy will ever be able to thoroughly purge merchandise and reproductions of his artwork.
I was fascinated by this article because I am not sure that this is an issue that can be solved effectively through the law. Banksy clearly has a very specific brand and, in an ideal world, everyone would just respect their desire to remain anonymous and not exploit their artwork. There are, however, a certain number of laws that protect intellectual property and an artist’s right to prevent others from profiting off of their efforts. It is tricky, however, in the case of Banksy, because they would need to reveal their real name in order to protect their artwork. Giving their name, however, is clearly not something they are willing to do and something that they should not be compelled to do. This presents a very complicated conundrum, one that the current laws on intellectual property are not quite equipped to deal with. I wish there was an easy answer but, given the current laws and what they require, I do not know if Banksy will be able to maintain their artistic vision and be able to stop others from merchandising.
This is a tricky spot for Banksy. He should be compensated for his art especially knowing how widespread it has become. That is to say that people can’t sell it anymore because that would definitely go against his message as proclaimed in this article. However, everyone knows that the art on those trinkets are Banksy art and so the vendor is really selling it as their own but as something “with Banksy art on it.” This is when copyright should really be fought for and he doesn’t have to be compensated all that much if he chooses not to be but just a few cents on every item with his art on it would do him a lot of good. It would reinforce his copyright claims when he has them and it would finance any means he needs to do more art whether that is travel or supplies, etc. I think it is smart to hit the court at this point but he should drive deeper, there has to be a way to keep his message and have copyright.
I thought this article was very interesting because Banksy has such a confusing enigma, and to hear that he was becoming involved with the law, made him almost sound too real, and too human (even though he is a real human, he has not presented himself in that was for years on end). By getting involved with legal action I thought Banksy would have to reveal more information about himself, like his first name, right away, but apparently, the thought of doing so is what stopped him from pursuing further action, after this. I think it’s ironic that people are making his anti-capitalistic art into “Banksy Merch” as that literally conveys the complete opposite message of his intention. While yes, this ends up happening to every great artist, it 1) has been happening to him for years already and 2) usually happens once they’re dead. My main question for Banksy is what made this instance different: why now?
The entire persona of Banksy is one that I do not think people are comfortable with yet. After their stunt of shredding a painting after it was sold at auction, Banksy seems to be a lot more vocal about how their work is viewed and how it should not be reproduced or sold. This is a complicated request because the anonymous artist cannot stand up for themselves publicly without ruining the hidden persona they desire. As the article speaks about their lawyers, it is obvious that there are some people in the world that know who the physical form of Banksy is. Occasionally I question how they have made it so long without being exposed but then I really question if I would want to really know who the body behind the artist is, it is part of the fun not knowing. As for the legal troubles, I think Banksy has some serious thought into their legal team.
Post a Comment