Whether you think graffiti is a crime or a limitless expression of oneself, there is one thing we can all agree on. Everyone loves Banksy. Well, that’s according to a poll held in 2019 when the mysterious master of stencil was voted as the UK’s favourite artist of all time, beating the likes of Van Gogh, Picasso, and Monet.
For the last 20 years, Banksy’s protest driven work has appeared all over the world, seemingly happening over night without anyone seeing. In 2005 the masked philanthropist shocked the world with ‘The Flower Thrower’ on the wall separating Palestine and Israel. If not already surrounded with controversy, flash forward 14 years and the striking image of a masked man throwing flowers like a Molotov cocktail was thrust into the limelight once more.
In 2019 North Yorkshire-based Full Colour Black challenged Banksy’s existing trademark of a man throwing flowers, and ultimately came out on top by winning the case. This allowed the greeting cards company to use the image and sell as one of their products. Banksy’s company was awarded the initial trademark in 2014 to remain anonymous and bypass copyright laws. Due to the artists wanting to stay in the shadows he cannot claim copyright as he has not stepped forward and personally taken credit for his designs. The EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) states that a after a trademark is given, sales must be made in the first five years for it to remain. Banksy sold none. In 2019 as a response to this ruling from EUIPO, the king of graffiti set up an online store as well as a shop front, however, was not enough to stop Full Colour Black getting what they wanted.
The problems with artists and copyright are unfortunately too many to count. However, this is a rare case with two sides to consider. On the side of the law, a trademark cannot be used instead of copyright, and for such a public image it is ignorant to think that people will not try and use it for their own gain. At the end of the day, they are fully in their right to. However, on the side of Banksy you can begin to understand why he did it. He is within his own right to stay anonymous as much as he is in his own right to own the artwork he has produced. If the only way to do both of those things is to find a legal loophole, then we can only assume that is what he has been advised to do. Generally speaking, commercialisation of artwork that sells for millions is frowned upon, so it could be considered admiral that Banksy has had the opportunity to make a quick buck but chose not to. The fact that this has happened suggests that the copyright law needs to be addressed, whether it is changed or not, well that is a different question. But a discussion must be had to prevent artists having to trademark their work to own it whilst keeping their brand of mystery prevalent.
Article written by Ben Reade.