What Massive Attack dude is a QAnon guy? Is that actually for real, because I find it really hard to believe. Their latest concert was interspersed with visuals of Trump being involved with vile things.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Banksy launched his own online store
- Thread starter Youngfossil
- Start date
I'll quote another user, I didn't really do much research on that since he's saying it's a Banksy alter ego:
OK, I was starting to think that him being Qanon supporter is some well known thing, but now I'm starting to think that PMS341 may have gotten that wrong.
I bought a t shirt, i can't wait for him to send me a bag of dog doo doo with his tag on it.
No worries. No I don't believe the ideas that banksy supports to ever coincide with anything QAnon does.
I submitted an application for a shirt and wrote deeply nihilistic response for the "does art matter?" question.
~sips tea~
~sips tea~
When searching for "Del Naja QAnon" this thread is literally the second search result on Google. It's nonsense.
Applied for one of the prints. Would genuinely hang it on my wall, no way I would sell it on. I guess we shall see if I'm lucky!
It would be very unlike banksy to do a bit on consumerism and hypocrisy with art in the middle
Anyone who thinks Del Naja is aligned with QAnon needs their head examining. Do 5 minutes worth of research on the guy and his politics over the years, and then spank yourself and promise never to be so stupid again.
I applied for a shredded t-shirt which unlike the rest of you cunts I just plan on wearing and not selling on at some point.
I wanted one of the wall clocks but fuck that for £500.
I wanted one of the wall clocks but fuck that for £500.
A bit of a bump as i don't know if people are interested.
https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...st-loses-legal-battle-flower-thrower-graffiti
The store is probably going to cost him his trademark.
That seems really fucking harsh to me.
https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...st-loses-legal-battle-flower-thrower-graffiti
The store is probably going to cost him his trademark.
That seems really fucking harsh to me.
Leave it to the market to commodify and steal art at every opportunity. Banksy not having rights to their work because of what, anonymity? It seems so perverse. How about you don't put clearly transformative art work that you don't own on t-shirts and gift cards.
Meanwhile, huge multinationals clearly circumvent all sorts of laws to get an edge, like US companies opening a tiny office in The Netherlands or something and establishing their European HQ there. It is clear as day what they're doing. But because the loophole exists, it's allowed. No further scrutiny needed.
Last edited:
Eh, it sounds like this trademark stuff is all just a publicity stunt anyway. Like performance art in law, if that makes any sense. If they really do care about their trademark, then they should get better lawyers and stop doing weird stuff to attempt to circumvent trademark laws.
I feel like even caring about their trademark is kind of antithesis to their art, but that's just my opinion.
I feel like even caring about their trademark is kind of antithesis to their art, but that's just my opinion.
I don't think that's right.
To me it looks like it is what it is. Banksy doesn't want his art used for something like greeting cards, but they're trying to get the case through without revealing his identity (the general consensus is that most of his appeal is due to the anonymity, so he stands to lose a lot if he does reveal it). So for him it's a choice between sacrificing his art to companies having free use to capitalise on his anti-capitalist art, or sacrificing his anonymity and a chunk of his appeal. It's not about the trademark itself, it's about stopping the use of his art in ways that go against his wishes.
The art market crashed so hard in 2008 and has never fully recovered. I wonder if COVID will be the nail in the coffin of art sales.
I'm not going to pretend like I know anything about trademark law, but here are two articles that give more detail about what's happening in this case:
One from when Banksy first opened his pop-up shop:
“A frankly pointless step” – why Banksy pop-up shop could hinder trademark case
Anonymous street artist Banksy has opened a pop-up shop in London in response to an ongoing trademark dispute with a card manufacturer. The attorney representing the card company reacts to the opening.
www.worldtrademarkreview.com
And one about the ruling from a few days ago:
Gross Domestic Failure – Banksy trademark portfolio “at risk” after registration ruled invalid
Street artist Banksy has had a trademark for one of his well-known artworks cancelled for being filed in bad faith, with the panel claiming that Banksy’s Gross Domestic Product shop “undermined” the case.
www.worldtrademarkreview.com
After reading those articles, I admit that I still don't fully understand everything. It does at least seem like I was wrong in thinking that Banksy is trying to make this some kind of performance art thing. It does seem like they're legitimately worried about their trademarks. One thing I was right about is that Banksy apparently has a terrible lawyer.
About the actual ruling, I don't know what to tell you. It seems like it's impossible to have anonymity and a trademark. That seems like it makes sense, as a person who knows nothing about trademark laws, because if the person is anonymous, then how do you even prove that they made the art?
And like I said before, I feel like Banksy would do a lot better for themselves if they just stopped caring about their trademark. Yeah, their art is being exploited by capitalism now, but that was inevitable. If they didn't care about it, then they could at least still appeal to their anti-capitalist ideals. But now they've thrown that out the window by trying to commodify their own artwork. Granted, it sounds like they're only trying to do that for superficial reasons to prevent others from commodifying it, but it still seems like a move that's unbecoming of the actual art itself.
In the US this likely wouldn't be an issue for Bansky. Authors can register copyrights for creative work under pen names. The only difference is the length of the copyright will be shorter with a pen name, but, it can also be amended later with the real name (lets say 20 years later the author isn't worried about anonymity anymore) to provide the full protections a real named author would get. Assuming it would apply to artists as well
Reading those links, I think you're right about Banksy's lawyers, if the ruling wasn't enough to go by, even before then people were saying it wasn't going to work.I'm not going to pretend like I know anything about trademark law, but here are two articles that give more detail about what's happening in this case:
One from when Banksy first opened his pop-up shop:
“A frankly pointless step” – why Banksy pop-up shop could hinder trademark case
Anonymous street artist Banksy has opened a pop-up shop in London in response to an ongoing trademark dispute with a card manufacturer. The attorney representing the card company reacts to the opening.
And one about the ruling from a few days ago:
Gross Domestic Failure – Banksy trademark portfolio “at risk” after registration ruled invalid
Street artist Banksy has had a trademark for one of his well-known artworks cancelled for being filed in bad faith, with the panel claiming that Banksy’s Gross Domestic Product shop “undermined” the case.
After reading those articles, I admit that I still don't fully understand everything. It does at least seem like I was wrong in thinking that Banksy is trying to make this some kind of performance art thing. It does seem like they're legitimately worried about their trademarks. One thing I was right about is that Banksy apparently has a terrible lawyer.
About the actual ruling, I don't know what to tell you. It seems like it's impossible to have anonymity and a trademark. That seems like it makes sense, as a person who knows nothing about trademark laws, because if the person is anonymous, then how do you even prove that they made the art?
And like I said before, I feel like Banksy would do a lot better for themselves if they just stopped caring about their trademark. Yeah, their art is being exploited by capitalism now, but that was inevitable. If they didn't care about it, then they could at least still appeal to their anti-capitalist ideals. But now they've thrown that out the window by trying to commodify their own artwork. Granted, it sounds like they're only trying to do that for superficial reasons to prevent others from commodifying it, but it still seems like a move that's unbecoming of the actual art itself.
I understand what you're saying and I agree with a lot of it, my comment was more about my views on Banksy's intentions with the shop and the case.
However, in the second article it says that the company "sells street art greeting cards, often using artwork by Banksy". So it sounds like I was wrong anyway, and they've been using his artwork for a while already, but they then decided to make a case against his trademark for whatever reason?
So looks like you're right about him defending the trademark for the sake of it, I'm not sure what the card company stands to gain from this though.
I really don't know much about trademark laws haha. I think I'm mixing it up with copyright.
No one, the person you are quoting has no idea wtf they are talking about.
OP
OP
Wow I made this a year ago. Man what a good time that was.
Also did anyone get anything they ordered from here?
Also did anyone get anything they ordered from here?