k47foley wrote:This sale is in no way authorized by the mysterious figure known as Banksy, and these are not official or authorized reproductions. Which makes them, like, "unsanctioned" and "underground" and "cool", right? Right?
No, it makes them possibly legal (if he even has legal grounds, which is questionable) under Banksy's own terms, which is for personal use and not to claim them as authorized. The latter criteria is met, the former is an interesting legal question.
No, that makes it STEALING SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK FOR PROFIT.
PC LOAD LETTERing gross.
Check your righteousness and try to make an argument, not a shouting match.
Like, point out site or vendor for legit prints of these particular pieces or shut it.
If these are indeed based off his street pieces, I think he and you are on shaky ground at best as to the claim of "stealing." Seems public domain is implicit in both the placement and the act itself.
Regardless, anyone using copyright law to defend Banksy's work?! HAHAHAHAHA
Guy abuses trademark, copyright, and even steals (sorry, copies) other's methodologies, etc., so the complete hypocrisy in defending him with the tools he abuses is silly at best. If the artist Banksy has a problem with it, he's a big boy and has the full legal recourse of copyright law both in this country and by international law to exercise and protect his works, including the DMCA.
He chooses not to, so I'm not sure why you're crying out for him.
And agan, that's if his some of these works even qualify for protection under copyright. Still, claiming theft on this artist's behalf is freaking funny given his methodologies and his supposed principles regarding power and capitalism, as well as other things supposedly driving his art. Real rich post of yours.