71–80 of 80 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good artists borrow, great artists steal -- Pablo Picasso
Here's the story on that quote. It's not Picasso https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/03/06/artists-steal/
I had two problems. First, I really didn't like the tone of the card company. They're selling someone else's work (whether legal or not), and then were condescending toward the person who made it. They say they're just trying to honor Banksy, but they paint him as an out-of-touch rich asshole. Second, it's hard to know for sure, but I think this analysis misses the bigger point... I feel like opening a small shop tha…
> they paint him as an out-of-touch rich asshole. That’s because that’s how he has treated them. Lying about them and what they are doing is nasty. That’s what Banksy did.
Maybe it's moot, but... yes, Banksy makes a lot of money off his work sometimes.
But there's some things worth mentioning:
1. He also spends a lot of money on his work (look at Dismaland, which was only $1/ticket). 2. Much of his high-priced work is sold by private collectors and he doesn't get the money 3. Or, the one he did sell directly was art itself, and the sale was part of the art (it got shredded) 4. And lastly, he donates it. Like all the profits from this store are getting donated.
I wouldn't necessarily confuse "there's a lot of money surrounding Banksy" with "Banksy is rich".
I can kind of get this. He wants to remain anonymous but he doesn't want to see his work on every shonky piece of merch in every dollar store in town. Both of those seem like reasonable desires. Nobody's disputing that he's the creator after all. It looks to me like copyright law is broken, but I guess parliament won't be rushing to fix it to plug gaps for edge cases involving anonymous street artists. What surprises…
He's a performer in a music group that has sold millions of records and performed live all over the world. If he wanted to be anonymous, I suggest he's chosen the wrong career.
> We legally photograph public graffiti and make it available to you Is that how the copyright works in the UK??? Like I can photograph anybody's art and just sell prints? That doesn't sound right.
If he painted something without permission on someone else's wall (for example), I don't have a problem with the owner of the wall trying to profit from it. And if he painted something without permission on a wall owned by a Government, funded by "The People", I don't have a problem with anyone trying to profit from it via photographic reproduction (modulo local copyright / ownership laws of the country the wall is i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can, but you cannot remain anonymous before a court in Europe.
You can't in the US either, but the creator wouldn't need to appear before a court, the copyright holder would.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it isn't. The closest that UK copyright law gets is that there's an exemption for photographs of "sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public". (See section 62 at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... .) But Banksy's pictures are just straight "artistic works". There's no need to class t…
What is the difference between works Of artistic craftsmanship and artistic works? His works are generally permanently situated in a public place. I would think that taking a picture of any random public wall with graffiti on it is legal. But you seem to be saying that there are two kinds of art, and that the kind that is “worse” gets protection, but the better kind didn’t get protection. Very odd.
The whole situation is interesting at the very least. The only comment I have is that I have to fault the article for making a lot of assumptions and leaps to conclusions on Banksy’s intentions, it sort of unilaterally declares that Banksy is selling out and cheating the system. But what they want is far simpler: they don’t want other people claiming they’re Banksy, and they want to remain anonymous. The article gets…
> they don’t want other people claiming they’re Banksy No. This is obviously not the problem. Nobody at that greeting card company was claiming to be Banksy. The problem is that they are making money off of a Banksy work of art without his permission. His behavior is quite clearly protecting his financial interests in his own work. That’s actually the only explanation that makes sense. The other option being that he’…
I can kind of get this. He wants to remain anonymous but he doesn't want to see his work on every shonky piece of merch in every dollar store in town. Both of those seem like reasonable desires. Nobody's disputing that he's the creator after all. It looks to me like copyright law is broken, but I guess parliament won't be rushing to fix it to plug gaps for edge cases involving anonymous street artists. What surprises…
The major art dealers who sell his work know who he is. They keep the secret because it's profitable.