The actual case: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2024/2892.html
Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal advice. I accept no liability whatever for any reliance placed upon it.
Founded by Alan Robertshaw and @Blackbeltbarrister
https://youtube.com/blackbeltbarrister?sub_confirmation=1
source
I like the Art of Law's Law of Art. More please!
Thanks Alan, very informative and enjoyable 👍👍
Moron in a hurry! lol.
Thank you for another very interesting and useful video. Not sure when Ill use it as not very arty, but you never know what the future holds ;-). If you like animal art, look up Lynda Bell, she is a New Zealand artist and does awesome paintings. I think her website is called "art by lynda bell". Looking forward to your next video. 🙂
So we can say what we want but if you say bad things about the wrong people/government/organisations there will be consequences
Very interesting and informative. Many thanks
Last time I was "discomfitted" was when one of my older sisters stole my bag of liquorice comfits. Imagine how discomforted I was when my other sister snaffled my Pomfrey cakes soon after!
There must be significant scope for artistic parodies of those in our present government at risk of instant prison sentences 🙂 Pleased to see you're looking much better.
Great video!
The moron-in-a-hurry test is interesting, because I was always told that trading standards weren't interested in dealing with pubs that gave Pepsi to people asking for Coke.
Nice to see the lads keeping an eye on you ! Face looks better too.
most (modern) art , is a crime
Isnt use of logo "passing off" at common law .
you cannot libel the truth though, art or no art ?
Nice one Al, lookjng a lot better now 👍
I always considered everything Banksy did (and does) to be a crime.
Looking much better mate 👍
So I suppose that extinction rebellion will try to pass off soup on paintings as transformative modern art or perhaps a contemporary form of art criticism
We must protect art souls.
You stuck that duck on your chair with Blu-Tack didn't you? Everyone knows that TV is all smoke and mirrors.
More symmetrical by the day.
Breaking copyright and trademarks by passing off is not free speech.
Glad to see that your face is looking much better. Opposite side for the thumbnail to usual.
Love all this copyright, trademark legal stuff. The problem is the poor artist likely spent a small fortune on legal advice and legal costs alone could be used to bully.
If the court case had been won by the company ——— along with heavy fines ——— Banksy would be in trouble
Very interesting. Thank you.
8:32 just in case anyone thought companies like that had a conscience, they instructed lawyers and removed all doubt…
I always liked the definition
Art : anything made that is not purely utilitarian …
Thanks for yelling us about 'malicious falsehood'. Didn't know that.
A certain soup manufacturer and Andy Whahole
No one has free speech in the UK, since if it offends someone it illegal. Since anything can be offensive and likely is to someone no one has free speech.
I would like know about free speech in general. I'll tell you why …
Article 10 of the human rights act states we have it, free from governmental interference even online..
But it caveats that in certain circumstances the government may not can but may restrict that right given certain circumstances. One of which would be rioting. But it also reinforces that it can only do so if it has very good reasons.
It appears that the police are taking this to extremes and employing incitement laws as a reason. So what's the point of article 10 if it is abused by those who wish to.
How the F%#* could you call this art .
It is deliberately masquerading as another identity, if it was done to someone’s personal profile it would be akin to identity theft.
Being called insolvent in some countries is a great libel/slander. Check out the "three B's" of Singapore…the 3 "B" words that you will be sued for if you use them against another person.
Two peas in a pod…
How would members of the public oppose the introduction of a foreign population when recent laws have been made against causing offence? For example, the Jewish board of deputies wrote the 1965 race relations act (Group libel act) which was introduced by Jewish MP Frank Soskice. There was another in 1968 and Jewish MPs Leon Brittan and Greville Janner brought in others. Is it lawful to speculate this was a Jewish conspiracy to make it illegal to call out Jewish conspiracies?
I think Dan will be too busy grifting racists.
Good Art is always a crime to Rulers