theconversation.com: The elusive Bristol street artist Banksy has hit the headlines again recently after opening a store named Gross Domestic Product in South London. It is (literally) a shop window where people can see displayed objects and buy them online. Products for sale include the Union Jack stab-proof vest as worn by Stormzy at Glastonbury festival, disco balls made from discarded police riot helmets and other items showcasing Banksy’s art.
11 comments:
I love when arts find creative ways to handle legal disputes like copyright and trademark. In art and writing its very unfair when people profit off of the creative work of others (but it is a very common problem). It is interesting to see how different artist handle it and how they find new ways to bring attention to the problem. Sometimes it can be hard to determine the economic value of creativity and artistry. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, that pretty much sums up why it is so hard to value art. Legal action stops creative processes when an artist has to spend their time defending their work they lose the time they could be creating or becoming inspired. Art is such a crucial part of the human experience so it is sad to see when it is taken advantage of for economic purposes, but I mean that's the world we live in. “Going to have to play the game” is the last quote of this article and it is sad but very true. You have to hit all the checklist boxes before you can really start doing something valuable.
After randomly watching a documentary on the artist during a plane ride, I immediately had an interest and appreciation for Banksy. I love the mystery of him and the powerful statements he made with his art. He let his art do the talking instead of letting the public focus on the face behind it. However, this recent article has shown some light on some of the hypocrisy of the artist. Based on what the article has described, it appears that Banksy is using his art to make another big statement on unfairly using artists work after a gift card company used his art in their material. It’s an important message, but there is some irony in the fact that Banksy is the big man using his power to go against a smaller company which asked for his permission for the work. I don’t believe it should be used without his wishes, but Banksy should think about the possibilities of copyright to protect his work for certain.
It is very intriguing whenever something new created by Banksy pops up somewhere. After doing the little research I have done on Banksy, I love his political art that always asks many questions. In this article is it shared that Banksy is fighting with companies who want to use his artwork for their own financial gains. It is very interesting with the fact that Banksy is still unknown as an artist in that we don't know who he is as a person. So, being unknown, it will be difficult to copyright his work as companies continue to put them on greeting cards and other merchandise. It is interesting to go back and look at that Banksy said that "copyright is for losers" and now he is in a position where it might benefit him. I can relate to how putting up your artwork under copyright is unfair, but it seems to be more unfair that people are continuing to use it without permission or punishment.
-Pablo Anton
I’ve been following Banksy’s art since I was in seventh grade, from when I studied his graffiti in art class. His political art is often satirical, very relevant to today and stimulates thought. It’s frustrating to see other companies try to profit off of his public art to the point where Banksy needs to take legal action to trademark / copyright his work. That’s the last thing he wants to do. I feel like the whole point of his art is to be non-conformist to “high art”, meaning it’s not copyrighted and isn’t in fancy galleries. It makes his artwork accessible. It reaches a wider audience, being just on the street and people can take photographs of it to share it with the rest of the word. But at the same time, this puts his work at risk for others to profit off of it or use it without his permission. Personally I find that the way the article depicted copyright to be somewhat problematic. Copyright is in place to protect the artist's intellectual property, their original work. Yes, artists can then profit off of their work but that is their right no? They spend their time and resources creating something and they should be receiving credit for it. I understand why Banksy made this move to settle this legal dispute and I think it’s his right to claim ownership to his art when someone else wants it. It does not degrade the originality and meaningfulness to his art anyway. In response to the card company, I think it’s super disrespectful for them to take advantage of Banksy's artistic intention to not copyright his artwork.
The connection between law and art has always been a confusing and interesting idea to me. It is understandable, yet simultaneously disappointing that there is so much legal protection needed in order to protect the rights of artists in the world. Artists are usually the underdogs and more often than not use their art to fight for others in similar positions. Now Banksy is not what I would consider an underdog, but his anonymity gives the idea that he could be absolutely anyone, including those lowest on the capitalist food chain. But navigating this world as an artist becomes so tricky and lowers the accessibility for some artists to profit from their works, so watching such a big force such as Banksy attempt to navigate this complicated world could really aid some artists attempting similar things on a different scale.
I didn’t realize how much Banksy’s anonymity affects their brand. While I’m not surprised that companies want to sell Banksy’s work, it's interesting to think about how commerce and consumerism effects their art. Since Banksy is an artist that is anti-establishment, to see the government, in some ways the esterblishment” dictate how their art is produced is fascinating. As the article says, in many ways it goes against the idea of Banksy’s art. I’m don’t believe the authors statement at the end of how Banksy has become the Goliath because they have lawyers and their art is commercially valuable. Despite Banksy’s efforts when opening the shop, their most well known pieces are still at risk for trademark infringement and though they have lawyers they did not get everything their way. I wonder where this will go and how Banksy will protect the trademark of the Hip Hop Rat and Flower Thrower.
There are a few issues with this. I get that the artist is trying to protect his legal identity by filing for trademark protection. The artist is not a brand. He is an artist creating art. He doesn’t want to apply for copyright protection (which would ultimately protect his artistic works) because he doesn’t want his real name released. The law is against him here and as the article mentioned he’s acting more like Goliath instead of David. The greeting card company offered him royalties which he refused, but yet he is selling his art? This is saying, I can sell my art, but you can’t sell my art. He’s also saying “copyright is for losers” but I’m gonna trademark all of my stuff to keep others from being able to use my art on their products. That is not what trademark law is meant to protect. Trademark law is meant to protect a brand, like Pepsi. Copyright is meant to protect artists because of the value associated with the creative process. Also too is the mention in the article about corporate lawyers which leads me to believe that Bansky is less about anti-consumerism and more about making as much money as he can and not letting anyone else share his art (and it’s powerful messages) with the world. If that is the case, then his messages are meaningless and his antics are childish.
There are a few issues with this. I get that the artist is trying to protect his legal identity by filing for trademark protection. The artist is not a brand. He is an artist creating art. He doesn’t want to apply for copyright protection (which would ultimately protect his artistic works) because he doesn’t want his real name released. The law is against him here and as the article mentioned he’s acting more like Goliath instead of David. The greeting card company offered him royalties which he refused, but yet he is selling his art? This is saying, I can sell my art, but you can’t sell my art. He’s also saying “copyright is for losers” but I’m gonna trademark all of my stuff to keep others from being able to use my art on their products. That is not what trademark law is meant to protect. Trademark law is meant to protect a brand, like Pepsi. Copyright is meant to protect artists because of the value associated with the creative process. Also too is the mention in the article about corporate lawyers which leads me to believe that Bansky is less about anti-consumerism and more about making as much money as he can and not letting anyone else share his art (and it’s powerful messages) with the world. If that is the case, then his messages are meaningless and his antics are childish.
Since I was a freshman in high school, I have always been absolutely enamored by Banksy’s work and the mystery surrounding their anonymity. Banksy, out of all people, has always been an anomaly to me as well, in the way they play into the ideas of capitalism through their aggressive fight for their trademark and their brand, but also completely disassociates with capitalism through their work. Yes Banksy is “going to have to play the game” but in all honesty, they have been playing the game since day one, it is just getting harder for them to keep up since they are now a target in the eyes of so many people. The idea of copyright of graffiti and street art makes sense (given what I learned about in Production Personnel Management about copyright), however there are numerous questions that I have which come into play when the work that is done illegally. Whatever route Bansky goes, they are going to have to continue to be diligent in maintaining their anonymity and their ownership of their work if they want to maintain the same status they have now.
I have followed Banksy’s work for as long as I can remember and I am always intrigued when I see a new article about him come out in the news. It always seems like he is toeing the line between his anonymous street personae and the mega popular artist he is seen by the world at large. This article is a good example of that where by trying to keep other people from profiting off of his work, he is actually risking being brought fully into the spotlight and has ended up making more money off of his work than he originally had. This is one is particularly odd to me, because it seems like he has not cared about these things in the past. My favorite Banksy story is the one where one of his paintings was being sold at auction, and when it was actually sold, it started to shred itself. He was trying to make a statement about how the work itself is inconsequential and no one should profit off of it, but in reality he made it worth so much more by having it self shred like he did.
I feel that Banksy is such an intriguing artist. He's so relevant, and every time he does anything, the entire world knows about it. I think that he has such an incredible presence in our society, and the fact that he is doing all this trademark stuff seems to be valid, since he doesn't want other profiting off of his work. Because he is so public, I can see how the trademark issue might become a problem. It is weird because it seems like that's what he wants, so that he can gain national attention, and it seems to be the opposite of what he usually, or used to, want. He tends to have all of his work shown off, and I love seeing everything he does, especially like when it shredded at that auction. The fact that he even comes up with this stuff is so cool, and I would love to get inside the brain of people who are planning it all.
Post a Comment