Post by markgraham on Mar 21, 2018 11:43:38 GMT
Hi all!
I was just wondering if anyone could clarify a few things for me with regard to stencil graffiti / street art, anonymous artists, and selling t-shirts.
I did a search on here for "graffiti" and found two related threads, in which I came across the phrase/concept 'Non faciat malum, ut inde veniat bonum' (for those not familiar with it that are reading this, it basically means that nobody should be allowed to use the law to profit from illegal acts - i.e. no graffiti artist could sue someone for using a photo or derivative work of a piece of graffiti that they'd created somewhere illegally).
In the case of the thread I just read, someone was making a book of photographs they'd taken of graffiti, which was said to be also arguably "fair dealing" ("fair use" to the Americans) due to the nature of the book.
If hypothetically a piece of graffiti were recreated by an unrelated third party for sale on t-shirts, presumably that caveat wouldn't apply, but I was wondering what are the implications for t-shirt printing companies wishing to make graffiti-based t-shirts in terms of copyright?
Now, most people in the civilised world nowadays will have heard of Banksy, the stencil graffiti artist. He creates stencils at home or in a workshop, then uses them to daub his artwork elsewhere, usually somewhere illegal.
If he's creating the stencils at home, presumably he would also be creating legal versions of the eventually-illegally-daubed work at home or in his workshop before taking the designs to the streets, so the illegal part of the situation comes much later than the creation of the stencils and the artwork. Does this mean that stencil artists do retain copyright of their work, even though the version that most people get to see is the final illegal version of the piece, or does the illegal creation of the final piece counteract the fact that it is a reproduction of an earlier legal work?
How does this situation fare with regard to "the tort of passing off"? If someone unaffiliated with the artist were advertising "Banksy t-shirts" that contained only his illegally-daubed artwork (as oppose to the legal canvas pieces he's made) for example, would that be considered "passing off" or even a trademark infringement? (I think I read somewhere that trademarks don't necessarily need to be registered to be enforceable as long as they were recognisable as being owned by a specific party? I.e. the difference between "TM" and an R in a circle?) Or would all of this paragraph be covered by the latin phrase I quoted earlier?
I mentioned briefly earlier that Banksy has, in addition to his illegal graffiti, made legitimate canvas-based art, such as the wonderful "Monkey Parliament" but has maintained his anonymity even when releasing these pieces for sale, instead getting agents to deal with the sale for him.
If we know for sure that a legally-created canvas piece is a "Banksy" but the public don't know who "Banksy" actually is, is that artwork still protected by copyright, or does the anonymity of the artist counteract the copyright?
Lastly, is the latin phrase quoted above a globally-accepted rule, or would it only apply to graffiti that was made in the UK, or is there a convention that certain countries adhere to but not others for this sort of case?
Please help.
I didn't find the right solution from the Internet.
References:
www.copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1593
Medical Device Animation
Thanks
I was just wondering if anyone could clarify a few things for me with regard to stencil graffiti / street art, anonymous artists, and selling t-shirts.
I did a search on here for "graffiti" and found two related threads, in which I came across the phrase/concept 'Non faciat malum, ut inde veniat bonum' (for those not familiar with it that are reading this, it basically means that nobody should be allowed to use the law to profit from illegal acts - i.e. no graffiti artist could sue someone for using a photo or derivative work of a piece of graffiti that they'd created somewhere illegally).
In the case of the thread I just read, someone was making a book of photographs they'd taken of graffiti, which was said to be also arguably "fair dealing" ("fair use" to the Americans) due to the nature of the book.
If hypothetically a piece of graffiti were recreated by an unrelated third party for sale on t-shirts, presumably that caveat wouldn't apply, but I was wondering what are the implications for t-shirt printing companies wishing to make graffiti-based t-shirts in terms of copyright?
Now, most people in the civilised world nowadays will have heard of Banksy, the stencil graffiti artist. He creates stencils at home or in a workshop, then uses them to daub his artwork elsewhere, usually somewhere illegal.
If he's creating the stencils at home, presumably he would also be creating legal versions of the eventually-illegally-daubed work at home or in his workshop before taking the designs to the streets, so the illegal part of the situation comes much later than the creation of the stencils and the artwork. Does this mean that stencil artists do retain copyright of their work, even though the version that most people get to see is the final illegal version of the piece, or does the illegal creation of the final piece counteract the fact that it is a reproduction of an earlier legal work?
How does this situation fare with regard to "the tort of passing off"? If someone unaffiliated with the artist were advertising "Banksy t-shirts" that contained only his illegally-daubed artwork (as oppose to the legal canvas pieces he's made) for example, would that be considered "passing off" or even a trademark infringement? (I think I read somewhere that trademarks don't necessarily need to be registered to be enforceable as long as they were recognisable as being owned by a specific party? I.e. the difference between "TM" and an R in a circle?) Or would all of this paragraph be covered by the latin phrase I quoted earlier?
I mentioned briefly earlier that Banksy has, in addition to his illegal graffiti, made legitimate canvas-based art, such as the wonderful "Monkey Parliament" but has maintained his anonymity even when releasing these pieces for sale, instead getting agents to deal with the sale for him.
If we know for sure that a legally-created canvas piece is a "Banksy" but the public don't know who "Banksy" actually is, is that artwork still protected by copyright, or does the anonymity of the artist counteract the copyright?
Lastly, is the latin phrase quoted above a globally-accepted rule, or would it only apply to graffiti that was made in the UK, or is there a convention that certain countries adhere to but not others for this sort of case?
Please help.
I didn't find the right solution from the Internet.
References:
www.copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1593
Medical Device Animation
Thanks