[nullc]

Huh.

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.

[cormacrelf]

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.

[droithomme]

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?

[anticensor]

They can, but you cannot remain anonymous before a court in Europe.

[nullc]

You can't in the US either, but the creator wouldn't need to appear before a court, the copyright holder would.

[beerandt]

The copyright holder needs to prove he's the copyright holder, which is difficult to do without a paper trail to the creator.