Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
i mean stuff on ownership etc.
to be honest, i'm just really tired/
But then, we don't know that one way or the other.
and reflect on the fact this is probably the most prominent visual artist of his generation.
politicians are like monkeys
it is funny AND makes you fink about stuff
Banksy's bought into this - part of his 'subversion' is that he turns other people's properties in parts of pieces of art. If you acknowledge our model of property ownership, which Banksy implicitly does because his art is a deliberate attempt to subvert it, then you also have to accept that the landowner can do with it as they please.
(Banksy is shit, btw)
(brace yourselves, DiS, this could be the bore off of the century)
one of the things mentioned in Chapter II that only the copyright holder can do? I can only see stuff about lending and copying and stuff.
Although maybe there's a more nuanced argument to be made about exhaustion of rights somewhere in this. But maybe not.
on these kind of things.
(You can waive moral rights, but that's not quite the same thing)
You can just decide to not enforce it, though.
Doesn't mean that the property owner owns the copyright in the artistic work. The "author" (artist in this case) has an exclusive economic right to dealing in that work, so the property owner doesn't have the right to sell it.
If the copyright holder (Banksy, presumably, unless he's assigned the rights to someone else) doesn't enforce his rights then there aren't any consequences for the unauthorised seller. But that doesn't mean they ever had the right to sell it in the first place.
that sounds a bit mental.
like, if i spaypaint a cock on your car, and then you sell your car, can i kick off about that?
But as for the wider point... You have one person who owns the car, and another who owns the copyright to her artistic work on the car, so you're into hand wavy balance of convenience territory.
seems absolutely nonsensical to me tho
That's basically what intellectual property rights do - treat intangible things as if they're tangible.
If that helps at all.
Doesn't mean you still haven't done something illegal, but that alone doesn't prevent copyright from subsisting in a work in the first place.
I think it's good, separating things like that
Ultimately the judge had to decide if it better served the interests of justice to respect the artists' moral rights or the building owner's property rights.
the owner of the property/car is within their rights to get the artwork removed, right?
And the answer seems to be: it depends. The law isn't an algorithm that gets applied without context, so it likely depends on the situation.
But, y'know, life is grey areas and all that.
if you drew a shit on someone's wall and then wrote "Banksy" on it.
Really makes you think.
all i can see is that the sincura group are some kind of events/concierge/lifestyle thing (whatever that means). maybe they're acting upon part of the owners? idk.
is there anything we don't agree on?!?!?!?!?
I don't particularly like it.
(Post count +1)
people who own property that has been 'decorated' by bansky get this company to manage the removal and sale of the work.
seems fine to me, it's their property, hey own the work don't they? they can do what they like i think. i'm reading a book that is a little bit about this sort of thing, like if owners of works of art / historical documents, have the moral right to destroy it if they choose to. like, you can't do it with listed buildings, so is it right to be allowed to do it with artworks?
i reckon in this case it's totally fine tho - i wouldn't want a stupid bansky picture on my home.
So they have no rights to it. The property issue is a complication but doesn't change that basic precept.
they do own the work tho don't they? if they own it they can sell if no?
And the artistic work as two separate things, if that helps.
and how copywrite is different for each
In that a recording is just one fixation of the song. Which is why it makes sense to treat them differently. I always think of orchestras and recordings of e.g. Beethoven stuff to keep the distinction clear in my head.
but i can't really accept it in reality
thanks for trying tho
i have learnt something today
banksy paints some rubbish on someone's house, they then remove the piece of the wall that the 'art' is on, and then sell the wall for the cost price of the bricks, so don't add any value due to the banksy?
can they do that - claim they are selling their bricks but not the artwork?
But I think it would be very, very hard to argue that they're infringing his copyright by selling the bricks which were once the artistic work.
that you have to ask the permission of the copyright holder to sell, say a painting you commissioned from them? Or do they pass the copyright on to you when you buy it from them?
And I'll get it wrong from memory, because the default legal situation for commissioning in copyright, registered/unregistered designs and patents is different. But just because you commissioned a work doesn't necessarily mean you own the copyright in that work.
The other issue is exhaustion of rights. If an artist sells you a painting, they can't exert their copyright to prevent you selling it in, because their rights were exhausted in the first sale.
It says so in the CDPA somewhere but I can't remember which way round it is (not my day job)
But presumably if he's not that arsed then there's no problem. right?
Nobody's going to enforce his rights for him.
i really wanted to go to that show (i didn't get round to it in the end)
I don't remember any Banksys on there.
he's anonymouse, right? so people can do what they like to his stuff and he cant do anything about it cos he doesnt actually exist
definitely true - trust me, im an expert
am a shit artist