"The first point relates to the illegality of affixing paint on the wall of a building without the owner's consent, which in most cases constitutes the offence of criminal damage, subject to a maximum penalty in England of ten years behind bars. Because this wasn't just any old building but a Grade I listed building, the sentencing guidelines would instruct a judge to impose on a convicted offender a longer sentence within this range."
"The second legal point relates to the intellectual property (IP) in the image. With copyright, the "author" of a work of visual art benefits from a right to stop others from making unauthorised reproductions. Does Banksy benefit from this right, even though the image might have been created illegally? In principle, yes-provided the work, for the purposes of copyright law, is considered sufficiently "original". I doubt anyone would question the originality of a Banksy!"
A Banksy appeared overnight on the wall of the Royal Courts of Justice in London on 8 September and was removed two days later. The work is ephemeral and depicts a bewigged judge beating down a protestor. Affixing paint without the owner's consent constitutes criminal damage in England, carrying a maximum sentence of ten years and potentially harsher sentencing for Grade I listed buildings. Prosecution of the artist could compromise anonymity. Copyright law can give the author exclusive reproduction rights if the work is sufficiently original, but courts might decline enforcement on public‑interest grounds. Fair dealing exceptions may allow some reproductions.
Read at The Art Newspaper - International art news and events
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]