Re:Banksy's Fake Store Is an Attempt to Abuse Trademark Law ...
by cormacrelf on Sunday October 27, 2019 @02:31AM
(#21368172)
You understand what? Graffiti is copyrightable.
He can’t transfer it because that (in general) must be done in writing and with a signature. Any target of copyright litigation will demand to know who is purported to have assigned copyright, so just putting “Banksy” there won’t hold up. Those are the evidentiary issues.
Re:Banksy's Fake Store Is an Attempt to Abuse Trademark Law ...
by droithomme on Sunday October 27, 2019 @02:30AM
(#21368171)
Graffitti is copyrightable.
In the US copyrightable works can be copyrighted by an anonymous or pseudononymous creator. There's even a box to check if the creator is anonymous.
https://www.copyright.gov/eco/help-author.html
Perhaps in the EU anonymous works can not be copyrighted?
Re:Banksy's Fake Store Is an Attempt to Abuse Trademark Law ...
by anticensor on Sunday October 27, 2019 @03:14AM
(#21368293)
They can, but you cannot remain anonymous before a court in Europe.
The potential non-copyrightability of graffiti I understand but I am failing to understand the anonymous ownership issue. Why he cannot transfer the copyright for the work to a corporation which enforces the copyright? -- it isn't like he needs to register the work before transferring it to the company, the berne convention assures that.