“The Banksy affair”: copyright and street art. Intellectual creation vs.

Material Support

ANTONELLA DE ROSA
3126015

Summary
Abstract

Introduction

I. Copyright and the Puzzle of Street Art: Application of The Law

1. Limits of Copyright Law: Anonymity and Ownership

II. The Banksy Game: “Copyright is for losers”

Conclusion: Street Art in IP’s “negative space”

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to delve into the intricate interplay between copyright and street art, in
light of the “Bansky Affair”: his contribution as street artist and political activist spotlights some
murky and elusive aspects of the application of the copyright law to street art – in particular, to
unsanctioned street artworks.
Starting with a definition of this peculiar form of art, the introduction include a brief description of
its historical evolution – from a rebellious subculture to a legitimate and fully recognised,
marketable art – that it’s at the foundation of an unseen and, in a way, paradoxal relationship
between IP Law and an artistic counterculture.
The most relevant implication of the street art’s increasing popularity is its entrance into the
commodity system which has definitely opened up the possibility of reproducing and selling
artworks that, by nature, are often anonymous and (should be) accessible to everyone. As a
consequence, controversies over their misuse have escalated and their now undeniable creative and
monetary value finally justified the incorporation of street artworks into formal intellectual property
protection.
However, several issues in the copyright’s application arising from street artworks’ peculiar
characteristics will be explored through Banksy’s art in Chapter I and II: the latter provide a more
detailed shot of Banksy case as a key attempt to survive, as street artist, in a low-IP environment.
The conclusion focus on IP’s “negative space” theory and revolves around the open question of
how to –and if- fill the legal vacuum surrounding street art.

2
 Introduction
Street art represent a unique form of artwork that is displayed in public on surrounding
buildings, streets, trains and other publicly viewed surfaces. In its original form, and as a
more elaborated evolution from graffiti movement, street art – or what is sometimes referred
to as ‘post-graffiti’1- is artwork created without authorization on either private or public
property2. In the early 90s, sub-cultures like skating, hip-hop, guerrilla communication, and
enablers like the Internet, supported the growth of the street art movement.

Nevertheless, it is in even more recent years that street art has gained recognition as a valid
form of artistic expression from mainstream cultural institutions: it has grown closer to the
contemporary art scene and, more broadly, has become part of imaginaries, thrilling
lifestyles, urban creativity, fashionable outfits and hip neighbourhoods.3

As a result, and not surprisingly, street art is now being reproduced – with or without
authorization- on clothing, posters, and commercial items, on the internet, used as backdrops
and showcased and sold in auction houses and galleries. This commercialization of street art
is also known as “The Banksy Effect” 4: the iconic and unknown British street artist – “a
counter-cultural prankster” 5 - has gained international fame, yet managing to maintain the
secret identity of who defines himself just a “graffiti artist”, underlining the typical
subversive nature of muralism as illegal and rebel form of urban art. As if his art did not
reach major cosmopolitan galleries around the globe, Banksy is determined in preserving the
essential subversive soul of his belonging-to-street art.

Despite the above-mentioned Banksy effect, the street artist is notoriously hostile to any
commercial use of his art6 that, in turn, openly provokes satire about the impact of
consumerism in our capitalist society. However, this was not enough to limit the
commodification of Banksy’s art and the selling of his works’ material supports (real wall
pieces, carved off and sold in galleries for millions of dollars). This high level of visibility,
enhanced also by social media and press, has been the premise of a whole valorisation
process affecting street art in general and requiring for it a formal protection provided by
copyright law.

Further we will see how the Banksy case, with all its peculiarities, controversies, paradoxes
and scandals, offer a lens into the complex terrain where IP law moves when it comes to
protect street artworks. In particular, for copyright profiles, street art has various problematic
characteristics inherent to an artistic movement whose legal status is definitely uncertain- it
is not an exaggeration to say that street art was born and thrive in an illegal context.

1
(Manco, 2002)
2
(Smith, 2014)
3
(Brighenti, 2016)
4
(Williams, 2013)
5
(Urbanist, 2007)
6
In this regard, the licensing section of Banksy’s website says: “Are you a company looking to licence Banksy art for
commercial use? Then you’ve come to the right place – you can’t. Only Pest Control Office have permission to use or
license my artwork. If someone else has granted you permission, you don’t have permission. I wrote ‘copyright is for
losers’ in my (copyrighted) book and still encourage anybody to take and amend my art for their own personal
amusement, but not for profit or making it look like I've endorsed something when I haven’t. Thanks”
3
 The Chapter I delves into these issues through examples from Banksy’s controversial
universe, underlining the limits of IP law when it comes to face what can be defined at same
time as an act of creation and destruction (in relation to the voluntarily deteriorated
property) - except in the case of an agreement between the owner of a building and an artist.
The distinction between ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a
copyright, and ownership of the material support in which the work is embodied clearly
raises issues not just when it comes for the trespasser (the street artist) to reclaim a fixture
(the street artwork) attached to the property, but also in case of destruction of it. The Chapter
II attempts to explore in depth the uncertainty regarding the ownership of street art
suggesting it as the most relevant constraint of the protection, especially since the choice of
a specific support usually represent the core of the creative act. Case studies such as Slave
Labour and … will help to navigate properly the issue.
This concern, together with the hindered exercise of rights under a copyright – even tough
street art is now eligible in copyright protection in US as well as in EU- and the risk of
institutionalizing a naturally subversive movement, bring to a conclusion that revolves
around what (Smith, 2014) claimed: “Economic incentives are not necessary to motivate the
creation […]. The evidence of this is on the streets, where street art continues to flourish in a
norms-based, low-IP world7”: the argument once again refers to Banksy, who have never
took copyright action in order to not revealing his identity. Relying only on registering
trademarks to protect his works of art from third-parts’ commercial use, Banksy
“circumvented the law” demonstrating exactly how street art attempt to thrive in intellectual
property’s “negative space.8”

I. Copyright and the Puzzle of Street Art: Application of The Law

For a clearer framework of the relationship between copyright law and street art, more detailed and
relevant definitions will be provided.

Firstly, copyright is a type of intellectual property that protects original works of authorship for a
limited period of time. It automatically gives creators of original material the exclusive right to
make copies, distribute, license and otherwise exploit his work as soon as it is fixed in a tangible
form of expression.
As anticipated, street art includes artworks created in an urban space, without commissions, through
various expressive mediums and techniques – not only sprays but also posters, stickers, mosaics,
abandoned objects and stencil, whose absolute “king” is Banksy.
From a legal perspective, street art has various relevant characteristics:
 Accessible to anyone and public: artworks are situated in urban environments allowing anyone
passing by to view and engage with the art without any entry restrictions or fees.
 Ephemeral, thus street artworks are meant to be transient due to deterioration or destruction.
 Free, because the artists do not expect any financial reward.
 Site-specific and closely tied to physical location, also for meaning purposes: for instance, the
message conveyed by Banksy’s “Dismaland9” was closely tied to its physical setting—an
7
(Smith, 2014)
8
(Raustiala & Christopher Springman, 2009) As defined by Raustiala and Sprigman, to exist in intellectual property's
"negative space" is characterized as existing in "the territory where IP law might regulate, but […] does not."
9
Dismaland was an experimental and interactive art installation that mimicked and mocked similar attractions and
characters of the Disney franchise. The underlining critique is towards a consumerist society careless about the big
political and social issues of our age.
4
 abandoned amusement park, influencing the overall experience and interpretation of the
artwork.
 Use of others' property: it raises the issue of the act’s legality- which, however, is not relevant to
copyright protection; More broadly, this specific trait relates to the problem of street art’s
ownership.
The harmonization of the fragmented legal landscape concerning the protection of literary and
artistic works started with the Berne Convention (1896) – signed by 179 countries.
Following the general rule for accessing copyright protection, street art can be copyrighted if the
three criteria are met:
 Protectable expression: ideas, facts and concepts have to be expressed (i.e. in a description,
illustration, database, explanation).
 Originality: in some countries, such as the US and Canada, originality requires only a “bare
minimum" of creativity; In other countries, such as France, Spain and developing countries
influenced by the civil-law tradition, originality is defined as the “imprint of the author’s
personality” on the work. Basically, when we speak of street art, originality is king: street
artists aim to leave their unique mark . However, most of scribbles, tags, graffitis consisting
of simple words and common phrases cannot be protected by copyright but case by case
originality have to be assessed: the example of Banksy’s tag below, in this context, is very
interesting.

The upright back of the capital letter “B” is missing; the letter “k“ needs the “n“ for a support; the
top of the letter “s“ is slightly disappearing and the final “y“ looks semidwarf. As very sophisticated
work, very far from simply written words, this unique tag clearly satisfies the originality threshold.

 Fixation: in some countries, most notably the US, fixation of the work in a tangible medium of
expression is a requirement to obtain copyright protection. However, issue do arise when
addressing the fixed requirement of a seemingly temporary piece. By nature, street art is
ephemeral: most artworks are temporary as they will be painted over or fade out from weather
and lack of maintenance. One could argue that street art works are not sufficiently permanent or
5
 stable to satisfy this requirement. Parallelly, the counterargument may be provided by the social
media’s widespread influence: while a mural may be easily removed, it can jus as easily be
spread throughout the internet resulting in stable reproduction. 10
Banksy’s Instagram profile is his art gallery: many present him as an artist living off the streets
and social media and using Instagram as the revenge against the world of contemporary art that
allows him to bypass traditional commercial channels and accreditation like exhibitions and
museums.
Under copyright, assuming that all the criteria are met, both economic (i.e. right to prevent others
from reproducing, publishing, communicating the artist’s work without consent) and moral rights
(i.e. integrity) are granted to street artists.
It is worth to notice that, whenever an artwork is realised on surfaces owned by municipalities or
privates without their permission, the resultant illegality – which remains a typical feature of street
art despite its evolution into a “hot commodity” – is not an obstacle to copyright protection. In other
words, the wrongdoing (i.e. fixing the work on another’s property) is not relevant to the
copyrightability of the work itself even though the protection does not exonerate an artist from
criminal proceedings.

1. Limits of Copyright Law: Anonymity and Ownership

In this context, the doctrinal landscapes remains highly ambiguous and, in particular, some limits
merges in relation to two main issues raised by street art’s own nature: anonymity – as typical trait
of street art subculture – and ownership of works that are basically part of public spaces or,
alternatively, are fixed on private properties, illegally used as medium of the art.
Anonymity is a double-edged weapon spread in the street art’s world: while it provides a protective
barrier against legal prosecution for vandalism, it also shrouds the artist’s identity, leaving observers
curious about who the creator is. Nevertheless, this reliance on concealed identity represent an
obstacle for artists to benefit from copyright protection: even if the law permits authors to register
as “anonymous” in the attempt of exercising their rights, this does not exclude the possibility of
risking the revelation of the identity during legal proceedings related to copyright protection’s
enforcement. 11
In respect of the latter issue, it is worth to notice that according to the 17 U.S.C. § 202, “Ownership
of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any
material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object,
including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any
rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does
transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property
rights in any material object.”
Basically, even if unsanctioned street art – illegally made on others’ property – can reach copyright
protection and, as a consequence, the artist hold the exclusive right to replicate, distribute duplicates
of the original work, it is a fact that the wall’s legitimate owner can freely remove and sell the
physical copy.
Therefore, on one side, copyright law does not exonerate the artist of an unsanctioned piece of art
from criminal proceedings while, on the other, protects the work as long as it meets the country’s
10
(Moe, 2022)
11
(Moe, 2022)
6
requirement Although the concept and creation of the artwork (corpus mysticum) belongs to the
artist, the material support on which the artwork is created (corpus mechanicum) belongs to the
owner. Unless explicit permission was given to the artist to finalize the piece, in which case the
artist can exercise the moral right of integrity to safeguard their creation from destruction or de-
contextualization12, the owner retains the authority to remove or alter the work at their discretion.13
In this context, it is worth noting that moral rights of authorship and integrity- encompassing the
right to prevent destruction of the work- are generally granted to street artists, by a significant
portion of the doctrine.
In Italy, the art. 20 – rule 633/1941 states that: "Regardless of the exclusive economic utilization
rights of the work provided for in the provisions of the preceding section, and even after the transfer
of those rights, the author retains the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any
distortion, mutilation, or other modification, and to any act damaging to the work itself, which may
be prejudicial to its honour or reputation.”
VARA14 in U.S. law grants authors of certain works of visual arts the right of attribution and the
right of integrity. With specific regard to destruction hypothesis, VARA requires that the owner of
the material support must attempt to inform an artist before demolishing their work. If, within a 90-
day period, the artist neglects to relocate their artwork or cover the removal expenses, the property
owner is then authorized to proceed with the destruction. Notably, under VARA, an artist's moral
rights endure irrespective of their ownership of the copyright to the work or the physical copy of the
work, distinguishing it from copyright law.15
Clearly, these protections – often parallel among different countries- imply the revelation of identity
when the work is anonymous or when a pseudonym is used.
In light of the above mentioned structural and necessary nature of the anonymity in street art 16, this
is the reason why in the conflict between copyright and property rights, the latter seems to prevail in
practical terms; protections like VARA or 633/1941, cannot prevent the right of the material
support’s owner to dispose of the work fully and exclusively – also covering it or removing it- as
long as street artists are unable or reluctant to use formal intellectual property laws to protect their
works.
However, it will be further explored the way the street art community has developed its own norms,
rules and procedures to protect street artists' intellectual property 17 and anonymous artists found
creative solutions to approach potential copyright issues – impacting on both economic exploitation
and integrity rights.

12
In the U.S., the de-contextualization of a work is limited to preventing its destruction, whereas the E.U. goes further
to define it as an infringement to the right of integrity if the work is not preserved in the original context and location
that is was originally established in.
13
(Spiegeler & García Fernández, 2019)
14
The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 was the first federal copyright legislation in United States to grant protection to
moral rights to artists.
15
(Smith, 2014)
16
Indeed, the situation of illegality and the realization on the material support of others does not seem, as of today, to
allow for the practical protection, especially of the right to the integrity of the work, and sometimes the economic
exploitation rights of the artist, particularly concerning the holder of the property right.
17
(Smith, 2014)
7
Banksy’s current strategy will be adequately deepen further, as it (1) set the bar for anonymous
street artists everywhere and (2) intercepts also some strongly relevant issues in light of recent legal
controversies involving his works and unleashing, in some cases, peculiar community actions.

II. The Banksy Game: “Copyright is for losers”

Banksy is the pseudonym for one of the most famous artist in the world, selected by Time magazine
for its list of the world’s 100 most influential people in 2010. His street art is unconventional and
sardonic: his political and social commentary have appeared on streets, walls and bridges
throughout the world since the 1990s18.
Along with the street art’s commodification process, Banksy’s work- as well as the one of other
famous street artists, such as Pure Evil and Paul Insect- has been absorbed into the commercial
world in a process of mutual reinforcement given by the unprecedented market success, unwillingly
achieved just by Banksy. Consequently, nowadays Banksy’s work is not only found in public
spaces, but also posted online, printed on t-shirts, postcards, mugs and, especially, once his artworks
have been carved off of their original support, they are often sold in galleries and auction houses for
millions of dollars.
In front of this so-called “Banksy effect”, the artist himself, in the sign of the above discussed
copyright’s limits, continues to hide and choose to create without relying on the formal copyright
protection.
In 2010, Banksy created an online website- ironic and irreverent- causing quite a buzz in the art
world. The section Use of images states:
“You are welcome to use Banksy’s images for non-commercial, personal amusement. Print them
out in a colour that matches your curtains, make a card for your gran, submit them as your own
homework, whatever.
But neither Banksy or Pest Control licence the artist’s images to third parties. Please do not use
Banksy’s images for any commercial purpose, including launching a range of merchandise or
tricking people into thinking something is made or endorsed by the artist when it isn’t. Saying
“Banksy wrote copyright is for losers in his book” doesn’t give you free rein to misrepresent the
artist and commit fraud. We checked.”
Obviously, this simple statement unlinked to any proper legal protection is not enough to prevent
his artworks’ misuse: it is a fact that Banksy attempted to take advantage of the IP system, while not
liking the copyright in particular, for obvious reasons, but addressing the legal realm of trademark.
Indeed, Pest Control Office Limited, Banksy’s representative company set up to deal with
commercial matters relating to his works, registered the denominative trademark "Banksy" and the
figurative trademarks represented by the artist's most famous works, including "Girl with Balloon"
and "The Flower Thrower."
Unlike copyright, a trademark can be registered by anyone without having to prove ownership of
the image used, thus overcoming the obstacle for Banksy of having to reveal himself, but its
function is entirely different. The trademark allows a business to label the goods it puts on the
market, serving a distinctive function for the consumer, enabling them to recognize and choose
among similar products of different origins.19
18
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksy
19
(Vasta, 2020)
8
The use of trademark regulations has allowed Banksy to prohibit any merchandising activities
carried out by third parties exploiting his depictions or his name, as they qualify as trademark
infringement. However, this strategy had to face many controversies, given by the fact that Banksy,
notoriously against commercialization of the art, never intended to use those trademarks.
Even though we won’t delve into the details of the EUIPO’s decisions on the legal disputes between
Pest Control and third parties claiming the unlawfulness of the artist’s trademarks, it is worth to
mention that one of the decision invalidated a EUTM 20 for some of Banksy’s artworks, including
the famous “Flower Thrower”- a mural Banksy painted in Bethlehem in 2005 that was trademarked
in 2014.

In this concern, Full Colour Black, a small greeting card company, argued that the necessary “use in
commerce” related to a legitimate trademark had not been shown by Banksy and, therefore, it
applied to invalidate the registration of, “Flower Thrower” in 2019 and, after two years, of “Laugh
Now” on the basis that they had been filed in bad faith under Article 59 of the European Union
Trade Mark Regulation 2017/1001 (EUTMR). In the meantime, by June 2021 a further 5 of
Banksy's trade marks for various artworks had also been declared invalid due to bad faith. The
question of bad faith is subjective and based on the applicant’s intentions when the EUTM
application was filed. For a finding of bad faith there must be an action by the trade mark owner
which reflects a dishonest intention, and an objective standard against which this action can be
measured. Bad faith may occur if the trade mark owner never had an intention to use the sign as a
trademark.21
Initially, both mentioned trademarks were declared invalid, but after Pest Control’s appeal to the
decision concerning “Laugh Now”, the sentence was overturned: in particular, the Fifth Board of
Appeal noticed that Banksy’s anonymity does not automatically give rise to bad faith, and nor does
his choice to protect his artwork by trade mark registration (instead of relying on copyright). 22
However, this victory did not change the fate of the previously invalidated trademark “Flower
Thrower”: this case’s circumstances were different since, right after Full Colour Black’s legal
action, Banksy set up a gift shop named Gross Domestic Product in Croydon. The artist himself said
at that time that virtually the only reason behind the establishment of the store, which only offered
online sales, was to win a trademark dispute, showing the commercial use of his trademarks.

20
A European Trademark (EUTM) is a trademark which is pending registration or has been registered in the European
Union as a whole. The EU trade mark system is administered by the European Union Intellectual Property Office
(EUIPO), which is located in Alicante, Spain.
21
(Reynolds, 2022)
22
(Reynolds, 2022)
9
According Full Colour Black’s attorney, “this has strengthened the arguments that the marks are a
false attempt to monopolize his work in bad faith [and to] circumvent copyright law and trademark
law” and EUIPO ruled in favor of the claimant for the reason of bad faith and anonymity – we
notice how the latter motivation, plus the unveiled mutual exclusivity between copyright and
trademark protection, would have been later reversed by the Court in “Laugh Now” case.23
What merges from this brief overview on Banksy’s history of disputes on his trademarks is the
partial inconsistency of the Intellectual Property when it comes to street art controversies involving
anonymous artists; Plus, even if the trademark law seems to protect Banksy’s economic rights of
exploitation - at a certain extent and in a not fully coherent manner- his integrity rights, as provided
solely by copyright law, faced (and still do) a different destiny.
The above mentioned primacy of property rights on copyright rights, in practical terms, finds a wide
evidence in Banksy’s case: most of his artworks have been removed, sold or distorted not without
heated reactions from the community. Indeed, addressing the ownership issue in street art, the real
choice is between the material support’s owner and the rest of the community: Banksy (and street
artists in general) physically abandons his artworks and gift them to the city. On the other hand, his
will of preservation only pass through photography, posted online on Instagram or on his website.
Banksy gives these paintings to communities. They're cultural assets that generate a huge sense of
civic pride. Morally, if not legally, we act as guardians rather than owners.
- Claire Kober, Leader of Haringey Council
Banksy himself declared:
Despite what they say graffiti is not the lowest form of art. Although you might have to creep about
at night and lie to your mum it's actually one of the more honest art forms available. There is no
elitism or hype, it exhibits on the best walls a town has to offer and nobody is put off by the price of
admission.
As local communities start recognizing the value of street art in their neighbourhoods, they are
actively seeking methods to preserve and protect it, preventing the destruction or removal of these
artworks from their surroundings. In this regard, two stories are relevant: \
In 2006, an online poll by the Bristol City Council showed strong public support (over 90%) for
preserving the Park Street Banksy, displayed on a sexual health clinic. The Council not only passed
a resolution to prevent removal but also took steps to professionally preserve the artwork. Now, the
"Park Street Banksy" has become a must-see tourist site, and most street art pieces in Bristol
identified as Banksy's work are being preserved.
In 2010, Banksy portrayed urban desolation in inner-city Detroit, with an artwork depicting a sad
child near the words "I remember when all this was trees." Swiftly removed from the site, it sparked
outrage among bloggers who believed its power was tied to its original environment.
Unfortunately, community action does not always guarantee results, as seen in the Banksy Slave
Labour case in Wood Green. Despite protests and petitions, the artwork ended up selling at auction
for approximately $1.1 million.

23
Furthermore, “Copyright is for losers” was recognized to be an ironic statement, not nullifying artist’s eligibility for
trademark or copyright protection, contrarily to what declared in the first place
10
Nevertheless, a provocative attempt of Banksy to claim his integrity/economical rights can be
spotted in Love is in the Bin: a 2018 art intervention by Banksy at Sotheby's London action house,
with the self-destruction of the famous painting “Girl with Balloon” right after it was sold at
auction. Banksy has said he prepared the self-destruct mechanism in case the work was ever put up
for auction: paradoxically, the damaged painting was sold for a record of almost £18.5 million few
years later.
The prank is a good reminder of artists’ rights in their works beyond the sale of the material
supports. In this case, it's highly likely that Banksy did not possess the right to dismantle his own
creation, given that the piece had recently been auctioned off to a new owner. Assuming the art
collector held property rights to the physical artwork, even Banksy lacked the authority to destroy it
post a legitimate purchase. However, uniquely, Banksy managed to execute this act and be
perceived as generating a new piece in the process. It's worth noting that had anyone else publicly
demolished the artwork, similar to Banksy, they would have infringed upon both the property rights
of the art collector and Banksy's moral rights as the author of the work.24

This overview of the Banksy’s affair revealed a sort of self-reliance of the artist (and of street art
community in general) through peculiar norms and defence strategies, often of creative and
irreverent nature, that, however, do not cut out the community as main driver of this unique artistic
phenomenon.

Conclusion: Street Art and IP’s “negative space”

Challenging established aesthetic norms and disrupting the straightforward application of the law,
Street Art thrive despite potential sanctions.25

24
(Rothschild & Jarvis-Tonus, 2018)
25
(Carron, 2019)
11
Within this context, the term IP’s “negative space” fits well. Coined by Kal Raustiala and
Christopher Sprigman, it is defined as “the territory where IP law might regulate, but (perhaps for
accidental or nonessential reasons) does not26." Furthermore, as (Smith, 2014) points out:
“Economic incentives are not necessary to motivate the creation […]. The evidence of this is on the
streets, where street art continues to flourish in a norms-based, low-IP world.”

As seen, street artists use new ways of building their reputation and protecting their rights. The
issues raised about Street Art emphasize the necessity of adapting the law to contemporary social
changes and artistic value27. There’s a legal vacuum surrounding Street Art: should it be filled? If
yes, how? The question stays open.
On one hand, (Carron, 2019) advances various hypotheses: categorization of Street Art as an artistic
collective good, devoid of any private right (including copyright) or, on the opposite, the
implementation of individualistic rights depending on the willingness of street artists and property
owners to collaborate. On the other, (Smith, 2014) highlights that copyright law’s grounding
justification is to incentivize authors’ creative work granting exclusive rights of moral and
economic nature; However, street art’s creation does not need economic and moral reinforcers:
rather, “street art is well-suited to low-IP treatment.”28

Bibliography
Brighenti, A. M. (2016). Graffiti, street art and the divergent synthesis of place valorisation in contemporary
urbanism. In J. I. Ross, Routledge Handbook of Graffiti and Street Art. London: Routledge.

Carron, L. (2019, November 1). Street Art: Is Copyright for “Losers©™”? – A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON
THE FRENCH AND AMERICAN LEGAL APPROACH TO STREET ART. NYSBA.

Manco. (2002). Stencil Graffiti. New York: Thames & Hudson.

26
(Raustiala & Christopher Springman, 2009)
27
(Carron, 2019)
28
(Smith, 2014)
12
Moe, B. M. (2022). When Copyright Law Meet Anonymous Street Art. Marquette Intellectual Property &
Innovation Law Review.

Raustiala, K., & Christopher Springman. (2009). The Piracy Paradox Revisited. Standford Law Review,
pp.1201-1225.

Reynolds, A. (2022, 11 29). The last laugh for Banksy? fieldfisher.

Rothschild, M., & Jarvis-Tonus, J. (2018, October 16). Banksy’s Self-Destructing “Love Is In the Bin” – A Good
Reminder of the Moral Rights of Authors. Bereskin & Parr LLP.

Smith. (2014). Street Art: An Analysis Under U.S. Intellectual Property Law And Intellectual Property’s
‘Negative Space’ Theory. DePaul J. Art, Tech. & Intell. Prop. L. 293 .

Smith, C. Y. (2014). Street Art: An Analysis under U.S. Intellectual Property Law and Intellectual Property's.
Theory, 24 DePaul J. Art, Tech. & Intell. Prop. L. 259.

Spiegeler, B., & García Fernández, A. (2019, Maggio 29). Street Art: copyright law is on the street! HEFFELS
SPIEGELER.

Urbanist. (2007). Banksy Paradox: 7 Sides of the Most Infamous Street Artist. Street Art & Graffiti.

Vasta, C. (2020, Settembre 24). Banksy: generalità prego. Archivio Bollettino - Università di Catania.

Williams, M. E. (2013, Marzo 25). Part I: Who Owns Street Art? CENTER FOR ART LAW.

13