Banksy launches homewares shop in dispute over trademark
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
In 2008 DailyMail did a report that provided highly convincing evidence that Banksy is Robin Gunningham [1]. Since then several other pieces of evidence have come out pointing to Robin Gunningham [2][3]. But for some reason in the press they like to latch onto much weaker evidence for other candidates, like Robert Del Naja, to try to "teach the controversy" as it were. Journalists apparently have difficulty comparing multiple layers of evidence coming from different angles with unsubstantiated statements, which I think is kind of sad. I'm pretty sure that it's really that journalists like to just keep the dream alive, even though they know it's kind of silly. I guess it turns out if people are sympathetic to you keeping your identity secret, all you have to do is deny it no matter what and they will just always report your identity as being in dispute.
On the other hand, Wikipedia's treatment of the subject is good, which is something [4].
1: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1034538/Graffiti-...
2: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/early-banksy-auction-13291...
3: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/banksy-geographic-...
4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksy#Personal_life_and_dispu...
i know that not defending/protecting a trademark can cause you to loose it.
i also understand that trademarks are limited to categories, which is why we can have "LINUX" washing powder. but that washing powder is not pretending to sell Linux Software.
whereas this banksy merchandise is in my understanding rather clearly pretending to be banksy artwork.
how is that not obviously infringing on his trademark?
why would banksy be forced to sell his own merchandise to protect his trademark?
i thought the point of a trademark was that it must not be confusing.
LINUX washing powder is not confusing. banksy merchandise is. or am i missing something?
if i buy a banksy greeting card then i most definitely assume that it is licensed because i would not consider that they'd be allowed to do so without licensing.
if that is the issue though, wouldn't it be enough for banksy to put a price on the license?
you want to sell banksy greeting cards, you need to get a license from banksy. he just needs to put the price high enough to make it worth his while, and/or to make it unprofitable for the would-be licensee.
Copyright law is automatic, but it does complicate things if the original author of a copyrighted work is unknown or difficult to contact. For licensing, you need a name and address of an entity to license from. The whole idea behind Banksy's art is that he's anonymous, so precludes the idea of licensing his work.
> you want to sell banksy greeting cards, you need to get a license from banksy
That is exactly the sort of thing opening a store with tangible goods will allow.
banksy is using his mark, and so is disney. i am making the difference between disney movies and disney merchandise. how would disney merchandise not infringe on disney movies if they are created by independent companies without permission?
>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.”