You realize there are multiple Creative Commons Licenses, right? There are six of them, in fact. Three of them allow commercial uses of the licensed work. The XKCD license is explicitly the Attribution-NonCommercial variant of the license.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/
In any case, Banksy isn't using a Creative Commons License; that would require them to explicitly state the use of the license. It's not something that just gets applied to creative works in the absence of other licensing arrangements. Arguably, the ability to enforce a CC License implicitly rests on copyright law in the first place -- which brings us back to the entire point of this article, doesn't it? Banksy is trying to use trademark law in order to get the benefits of copyright law without taking the steps of actually claiming their implicit copyright in the works.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by chipotlecoyote.
Re: no research
You realize there are multiple Creative Commons Licenses, right? There are six of them, in fact. Three of them allow commercial uses of the licensed work. The XKCD license is explicitly the Attribution-NonCommercial variant of the license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ In any case, Banksy isn't using a Creative Commons License; that would require them to explicitly state the use of the license. It's not something that just gets applied to creative works in the absence of other licensing arrangements. Arguably, the ability to enforce a CC License implicitly rests on copyright law in the first place -- which brings us back to the entire point of this article, doesn't it? Banksy is trying to use trademark law in order to get the benefits of copyright law without taking the steps of actually claiming their implicit copyright in the works.