But in either case, both CC and GPL are based on copyright, therefore cannot use.
Why can't he use copyright? I didn't quite follow this line of thinking in the original article as well. As far as I understand it copyright per se is automatic (nowadays), so you don't have to file for it. So this doesn't prevent him from staying anonymous.
Tradmarks on the other hand have to be registered. How does he hide his anonymity in this case?
Now enforcing his rights is a completely different matter. He certainly can't hide his name from the courts then and it might even become public. But in this case there is no difference between a copyright lawsuit and a trademark lawsuit.
I am far from being a lawyer, but this makes sense to me - a trademark is designed to be associated with a brand, copyright is designed to designate a person/group as something's creator.
Citation needed. GPL can work for anything.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOtherThanSoftwa...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Tex...
>> In February this year, the judge ruled in favour of Banksy’s request for all merchandise bearing his name to be removed from the museum’s shop, but promotional materials using his name were allowed to remain. The judge noted that the documents filed in the proceedings showed a limited use of the Banksy brand.
Banksy should have GPL'd his works. Seriously.
Everyone creating artwork derived from Banksy's works, including merchandise articles, would be required to provide the sources. So if for example an Italian Museum decides to sell flower bomber T-shirts everyone could just use the design files to order at CafePress. This would promote the unrestricted dissemination of his works while putting natural limits on the commercialization by others.