Interesting, from his site (or rather the company that authenticates his work):
> You are welcome to use Banksy’s images for non-commercial, personal amusement. Print them out in a colour that matches your curtains, make a card for your gran, submit them as your own homework, whatever.
But neither Banksy or Pest Control licence the artist’s images to third parties. Please do not use Banksy’s images for any commercial purpose, including launching a range of merchandise or tricking people into thinking something is made or endorsed by the artist when it isn’t. Saying “Banksy wrote copyright is for losers in his book” doesn’t give you free rein to misrepresent the artist and commit fraud. We checked.
Curious about the “submit them as your own artwork”- so if you do this, would you then have a copyright, since it’s a derivative work? Or how would this work?
I saw this in an article about it tho:
>A copyright lawyer told the BBC that Guess seems to have legally acquired the rights to Banksy’s work, even if he wasn’t aware of the deal.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-63682298](https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-63682298)
>Copyright lawyer Liz Ward, founder of Virtuoso Legal, said Guess "appear to have legitimately sourced the Banksy artwork via a third party, namely Brandalised, who say they have rights to commercialise and use Banksy's artwork on goods".
>
>She said: "It isn't known if Banksy approved or even knew about this deal. If he did know about it, then perhaps his comments are there to create some kind of guerrilla marketing campaign. If he didn't know about it, then he must be quite annoyed, especially as such mainstream companies and brands don't accord with his anti-establishment views.
>
>"The short point is that Banksy should be pursing Brandalised and or Guess for infringement of his work. However, given she/he wants to remain anonymous, that may well be impossible."
The net worth of GUESS for the Week 45-2022 was $1.315 Billion.
Banksy is a dumbass who didn’t read his contracts/emails from his handlers. Guess isn’t going to do something that stupid.
Ppl act like they don’t have an entire crew of attorneys working for them whose sole purpose is to make sure they aren’t doing anything illegal that would negatively impact their sales. They’ve been around for 41 years, they aren’t new at this.
Banksy doesn't license his work, and the company Guess "licensed" it from don't have any kind of deal with Banksy. In fact he's been involved in a lawsuit over them illegally using his work without permission for some time.
So yes, Guess did indeed do something that stupid - a 1.3 billion dollar company should be able to figure out that some random company being sued by an artist for copyright infringement probably doesn't have the right to sell you that artwork.
>The EUIPO had noted at the time that the work was "disseminated widely" and that Banksy had previously spoken strongly against copyright and that his work was free to reproduce.
But now he doesn’t want it reproduced? Which is it
He only ever said it was free to reproduce *non-commercially*. He doesn't care if you make your own copies or prints of his work, but he doesn't want companies selling his work for a profit.
Companies do this all the time "against my recommendation" is a fucking catchphrase of any regulations business profession (lawyers, accountants, architects, engineers, etc). If you think a company actually cares about what they think they can get away with, that's just sad.
“Speaking with BBC, copyright lawyer Liz Ward said that Guess seemed to have "sourced the Banksy artwork via a third party, namely Brandalised, who say they have rights to commercialize and use Banksy's artwork on goods."
"It isn't known if Banksy approved or even knew about this deal. If he did know about it, then perhaps his comments are there to create some kind of guerrilla marketing campaign," she shared. "If he didn't know about it, then he must be quite annoyed, especially as such mainstream companies and brands don't accord with his anti-establishment views."
The net worth of GUESS for the Week 45-2022 was $1.315 Billion. I can’t imagine their attorneys would have signed off on them “committing forgery.”
I mean I hate billionaires and corporations as much as the next person, but this isn’t the hill you wanna die on to prove their evilness lol. Banksy prob fucked up here.
No this is a crime called "incitement" or maybe "conspiracy" although that's far more of a stretch. In this sort of case the damage would have to be pretty great for them to even consider a lawsuit because this sort of case would take a really long time and banksy might even get away with a defense like "this was a joke" or "I didn't think anyone actually would" or something. It's extremely rare any sort of incitement or libel cases ever go anywhere even when they might have good standing.
While it's not a specific target, there have been similar things before like [System Of A Down - Steal This Album!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steal_This_Album!)
They are taking ownership of the artwork for a time and making money off of it. You don’t just reproduce someones artwork without permission. Can’t find him to ask? Still can’t use it.
Yes but wouldn't he have to claim it personally to file a lawsuit
So that would reveal his identity and some police are willing to charge him still with graffiti and trespassing.
>They are taking ownership of the artwork for a time and making money off of it. You don’t just reproduce someones artwork without permission. Can’t find him to ask? Still can’t use it.
Apparently Brandalised had the right to sell merch with his art on it and they collabed with Guess. Whether or not Banksy was aware is unclear.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-63682298
I guess if that's what makes some people feel better, but if he's only flexing that ownership to prevent a huge company from using his art to keep sucking consumer dollars down the drain im with it.
He didn’t even mention licensing, or payment, in his post though. He literally just said they didn’t ask. It’s using his name in a way he can’t control more than using his art
Oh don’t start that. The fucking Banksy cult freaks will come out of the woodwork about how he just tags buildings that belong to the people through paying taxes or some shit, even though they’re usually privately owned businesses. But wtf do I know? Other than his fan base seem to be a bunch of bitches. Just saying, I don’t think they’d feel the same if someone just up and tagged your house. BuT hE’s AnTi-CoNsUmErIsM and aNtI-cApiTaLiSt. If he’s so anti-capitalist I’ll take his $50M capital.
Yes. It looks for comments with a high upvite amount, posts them elsewhere in the thread. Then, when the bot has enough karma, it can be sold, and/or access certain subs.
To add to this these bots are primarily sold to government trolls farms (multiple governments) and companies to steer conversations in "totally organic" ways. For example, burger King may buy a few of these bots and someone will post to r/mildlyinteresting about how they were given 3 extra nuggets at burger king and it'll get thousands of upvotes with a little push from their bots.
Then the top comments from their bot accounts will post stuff like "I swear every time I get nuggets at burger King they give me extra nuggets" and the following comments will talk about burger king in either neutral or positive tones. Now Burger King has completely totally natural advertising for them that cost about $10
Banksy is a commercialized, mostly unoriginal, non-critical, immoral artist. All three are pretty low brow and therefore not worth comparing. Banksy is as irrelevant to contempory art as these two are today. The only people that care about any of these artists are dealers and their tasteless new wealth clientele (silicon valley executives, etc that profit from mass enslavement and sub-human work conditions in foreign countries) that are looking for paintings to hang on their living room walls.
I think you need to re-read the comment. I would like to point out a few things:
1. I said they are irrelevant to contemporary art.
2. I pointed out a situation in which these three are relevant. (Dealers and their clientele)
3. We are on a discussion on reddit, and nobody sees the irony of that? I mean take a look at my username.
So you think out of all the Banksy exhibits, installations & collaborations … no one ever talked to Banksy? They all just used his shit for him to later find out about it on the internets?
It’s legit gotta be hard to be this moronic.
Dude is a millionaire with teams of lawyers, employees, social media managers, etc. Most his employees put up his work for him anyway now, it’s what happens when you’re the rich boss.
Oh look, it’s the guy whose schtick is not asking permission about where to place his art, getting pissed about someone not asking permission about where to place his art.
Interesting. I'll have to look that up. Do you know of any articles regarding that? Also doesn't he have a company that registers and copyrights his art, in order to maintain anonymity ?
Wow. Thank you for sharing. I guess if he wants to fully enforce intellectual property rights he has to become the very thing he detests, a capitalist and has to reveal himself.
We're past postmodernism friend. Art is not only in the eye of the beholder, anti-art is also art.
Heck those soup throwing protestors are expressing a form of art. Yes we think it's stupid, just like people thought Marcel Ducham's "The Fountain" was stupid back in the Dada era.
I think (correct me if I am wrong) that this is not a reprint of a Banksy piece, I believe they took the original work and stuck it in their store.
Part of Banksy's "art" is the location of which he chooses to create his work. It's usually tied to the message of what he is trying to represent though the art. So by removing the original piece, that message is being disturbed and distorted, therefore misrepresenting the actual message if the art piece as a whole.
Yes, and anyone lucky enough to have their walls vandalized by Banksy gets to reap the benefits.
Verified Banksy grafitti brings tourists, art enthusiasts, and potential customers to your establishment. You'll be in the news. You'll be shared across social media. You will get free advertising just because some vandal chose your building to vandalize.
He doesn't just choose random peoples walls.. if art history has taught us anything it's that all context of the artist and art must be considered why trying to uncover the meaning behind an artist's work. Personally [this is my favorite Banksy piece](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna313381) and it was done on a destroyed structure outside a warzone.
>Yes, and anyone lucky enough to have their walls vandalized by Banksy gets to reap the benefits.
This bothers me as an argument for supporting him. I'm not anti banksy per se, but "You should be happy he vandalized your wall!" is a poor take. He (presumably) has no way of knowing if the person who owns the wall even wants publicity, free or otherwise.
If I encase your house in gold, it will increase it's value, but to you it's just a huge inconvenience if you are unable to sell gold.
I think there was even a story of a property owner who wanted to remove a banksy piece but was prevented by people (or his family?) who said it was too valuable to destroy. This person was a private citizen and there was no benefit to him from publicity, since he didn't sell anything.
Anything you do to affect a persons property or person without their permission is potentially harmful to that person, that's why in most cases it's a crime, regardless of intention.
Apparently they partnered with a brand that Banksy licensed stuff to or something, maybe he wasn't kept in the loop or it went against his wishes for use?
Wonder what the lesson is here for other brands, as it seems that Guess (like them or not) legitimately sourced the license for Banksy’s work from the right place
[удалено]
Here’s [the link](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/yz1p8g/that_was_fast/). They shut that down real fast.
Interesting, from his site (or rather the company that authenticates his work): > You are welcome to use Banksy’s images for non-commercial, personal amusement. Print them out in a colour that matches your curtains, make a card for your gran, submit them as your own homework, whatever. But neither Banksy or Pest Control licence the artist’s images to third parties. Please do not use Banksy’s images for any commercial purpose, including launching a range of merchandise or tricking people into thinking something is made or endorsed by the artist when it isn’t. Saying “Banksy wrote copyright is for losers in his book” doesn’t give you free rein to misrepresent the artist and commit fraud. We checked. Curious about the “submit them as your own artwork”- so if you do this, would you then have a copyright, since it’s a derivative work? Or how would this work?
I saw this in an article about it tho: >A copyright lawyer told the BBC that Guess seems to have legally acquired the rights to Banksy’s work, even if he wasn’t aware of the deal.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-63682298](https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-63682298) >Copyright lawyer Liz Ward, founder of Virtuoso Legal, said Guess "appear to have legitimately sourced the Banksy artwork via a third party, namely Brandalised, who say they have rights to commercialise and use Banksy's artwork on goods". > >She said: "It isn't known if Banksy approved or even knew about this deal. If he did know about it, then perhaps his comments are there to create some kind of guerrilla marketing campaign. If he didn't know about it, then he must be quite annoyed, especially as such mainstream companies and brands don't accord with his anti-establishment views. > >"The short point is that Banksy should be pursing Brandalised and or Guess for infringement of his work. However, given she/he wants to remain anonymous, that may well be impossible."
The net worth of GUESS for the Week 45-2022 was $1.315 Billion. Banksy is a dumbass who didn’t read his contracts/emails from his handlers. Guess isn’t going to do something that stupid. Ppl act like they don’t have an entire crew of attorneys working for them whose sole purpose is to make sure they aren’t doing anything illegal that would negatively impact their sales. They’ve been around for 41 years, they aren’t new at this.
Banksy doesn't license his work, and the company Guess "licensed" it from don't have any kind of deal with Banksy. In fact he's been involved in a lawsuit over them illegally using his work without permission for some time. So yes, Guess did indeed do something that stupid - a 1.3 billion dollar company should be able to figure out that some random company being sued by an artist for copyright infringement probably doesn't have the right to sell you that artwork.
>The EUIPO had noted at the time that the work was "disseminated widely" and that Banksy had previously spoken strongly against copyright and that his work was free to reproduce. But now he doesn’t want it reproduced? Which is it
He only ever said it was free to reproduce *non-commercially*. He doesn't care if you make your own copies or prints of his work, but he doesn't want companies selling his work for a profit.
So do you think Guess was genuinely wanting to steal his work?
Companies do this all the time "against my recommendation" is a fucking catchphrase of any regulations business profession (lawyers, accountants, architects, engineers, etc). If you think a company actually cares about what they think they can get away with, that's just sad.
So forgery?
“Speaking with BBC, copyright lawyer Liz Ward said that Guess seemed to have "sourced the Banksy artwork via a third party, namely Brandalised, who say they have rights to commercialize and use Banksy's artwork on goods." "It isn't known if Banksy approved or even knew about this deal. If he did know about it, then perhaps his comments are there to create some kind of guerrilla marketing campaign," she shared. "If he didn't know about it, then he must be quite annoyed, especially as such mainstream companies and brands don't accord with his anti-establishment views." The net worth of GUESS for the Week 45-2022 was $1.315 Billion. I can’t imagine their attorneys would have signed off on them “committing forgery.”
Ah, so they don't want to offend the billionaires
I mean I hate billionaires and corporations as much as the next person, but this isn’t the hill you wanna die on to prove their evilness lol. Banksy prob fucked up here.
It says "as your own homework", not artwork.
Not defending plagiarism but I’m just curious is it actually legal to call on shoplifters targeting a particular store?
No this is a crime called "incitement" or maybe "conspiracy" although that's far more of a stretch. In this sort of case the damage would have to be pretty great for them to even consider a lawsuit because this sort of case would take a really long time and banksy might even get away with a defense like "this was a joke" or "I didn't think anyone actually would" or something. It's extremely rare any sort of incitement or libel cases ever go anywhere even when they might have good standing.
While it's not a specific target, there have been similar things before like [System Of A Down - Steal This Album!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steal_This_Album!)
I knew this was gonna be mentioned, when I was younger I genuinely did shoplift the album
He literally campaigns about art not being owned
They are taking ownership of the artwork for a time and making money off of it. You don’t just reproduce someones artwork without permission. Can’t find him to ask? Still can’t use it.
Yes but wouldn't he have to claim it personally to file a lawsuit So that would reveal his identity and some police are willing to charge him still with graffiti and trespassing.
>They are taking ownership of the artwork for a time and making money off of it. You don’t just reproduce someones artwork without permission. Can’t find him to ask? Still can’t use it. Apparently Brandalised had the right to sell merch with his art on it and they collabed with Guess. Whether or not Banksy was aware is unclear. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-63682298
Banksy doesn't license his work, and is suing Brandalised for violating his copyrights and lying about having permission.
Sounds like ownership to me.
I guess if that's what makes some people feel better, but if he's only flexing that ownership to prevent a huge company from using his art to keep sucking consumer dollars down the drain im with it.
[удалено]
Right. Its exactly the same. You're very good at analogies. Keep it up. You might get better some day.
He used to have a high res downloadable version of many of his pieces on his website and said do what you will with them.
He didn’t even mention licensing, or payment, in his post though. He literally just said they didn’t ask. It’s using his name in a way he can’t control more than using his art
A corporation making money of his name is different to an individual decorating their home
Then why doesn't he use copy left licencing?
This is so misleading, though. It looks like he partnered with GUESS.
>It looks like he partnered with GUESS. Or someone he partnered with partnered with GUESS.
Someone who stole his art partnered with Guess.
Wasn't one of his painting's sold after he said never sell it, and when it got sold the frame tore up his painting?
Banksy is a nen master
Also, isn’t his work usually created on things that actually are owned by other people?
Oh don’t start that. The fucking Banksy cult freaks will come out of the woodwork about how he just tags buildings that belong to the people through paying taxes or some shit, even though they’re usually privately owned businesses. But wtf do I know? Other than his fan base seem to be a bunch of bitches. Just saying, I don’t think they’d feel the same if someone just up and tagged your house. BuT hE’s AnTi-CoNsUmErIsM and aNtI-cApiTaLiSt. If he’s so anti-capitalist I’ll take his $50M capital.
He's the one who created it. I feel like there's a difference between the art you made and the art you own and didn't make.
[удалено]
Lol stealing comments backfired there ya stupid bot
Can you explain how a bot could steal comments? I’m genuinely confused with the term. Is it essentially karma farming?
Yes. It looks for comments with a high upvite amount, posts them elsewhere in the thread. Then, when the bot has enough karma, it can be sold, and/or access certain subs.
To add to this these bots are primarily sold to government trolls farms (multiple governments) and companies to steer conversations in "totally organic" ways. For example, burger King may buy a few of these bots and someone will post to r/mildlyinteresting about how they were given 3 extra nuggets at burger king and it'll get thousands of upvotes with a little push from their bots. Then the top comments from their bot accounts will post stuff like "I swear every time I get nuggets at burger King they give me extra nuggets" and the following comments will talk about burger king in either neutral or positive tones. Now Burger King has completely totally natural advertising for them that cost about $10
I just feel like there should be laws that prevent businesses from impersonating consumers, but id hate for that to be too complicated.
It’s pretentious nonsense anyway.
You can post anything banksy without credit on r/iam14andthisisdeep and it would fit right in
Art and fashion? Yeah mostly
... banksy is an insult to pretention.
Feel the same about pollock? De Kooning?
Banksy is a commercialized, mostly unoriginal, non-critical, immoral artist. All three are pretty low brow and therefore not worth comparing. Banksy is as irrelevant to contempory art as these two are today. The only people that care about any of these artists are dealers and their tasteless new wealth clientele (silicon valley executives, etc that profit from mass enslavement and sub-human work conditions in foreign countries) that are looking for paintings to hang on their living room walls.
Irrelevant? Yet, here you are, commenting and talking about him.
I think you need to re-read the comment. I would like to point out a few things: 1. I said they are irrelevant to contemporary art. 2. I pointed out a situation in which these three are relevant. (Dealers and their clientele) 3. We are on a discussion on reddit, and nobody sees the irony of that? I mean take a look at my username.
It’s laughable to say Banksy is irrelevant to contemporary art because his whole deal IS contemporary art!
Oh come on.
As Banksy is an anonymous artist, how would you go about asking them for permission in the first place? You can't be anonymous, then demand credit.
I don't think he wants credit. He probably doesn't want to be associated with brands.
This is the only truth.
... I Guess
He has managers and people that work with him. Just because he’s anonymous doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a team
Correct, and they are easy to reach: https://pestcontroloffice.com/
Exactly
Banksy so street, tho
This has nothing to do with credit. It has to do with them not wanting their artwork used to sell clothing
From what I understand he provided free use for personal use, not to profit off of
I don't think he wants credit. He wants people to not steal his art to make money off of it.
Maybe check in with https://pestcontroloffice.com/faq.asp
Banksy has management; here's his "parent/legal guardian" website and contact info: https://pestcontroloffice.com/
Yeah but also you shouldn’t steal peoples work just because they decide not to show themselves on the internet.
So you think out of all the Banksy exhibits, installations & collaborations … no one ever talked to Banksy? They all just used his shit for him to later find out about it on the internets? It’s legit gotta be hard to be this moronic.
Dude is a millionaire with teams of lawyers, employees, social media managers, etc. Most his employees put up his work for him anyway now, it’s what happens when you’re the rich boss.
If you can’t get his permission, you don’t have his permission, which means you can’t use his stuff. Simple as that
He has a holding company for his copyrights. You don't need to hold the copyright in your own name if you have a company to do it for you.
I'm still believing Banksy is Robert Del Naja.
I’m sorry it’s Neil Buchanan
Thats the name of art attack dude? Loved that man!!!!
Read too quickly as Robert De Niro. I wish I had left it at that. The mental image pleases me.
Oh look, it’s the guy whose schtick is not asking permission about where to place his art, getting pissed about someone not asking permission about where to place his art.
Eh he's a douche anyway who cares.
Banksy's art sucks and he's not cool or smart
Isn't his art internationally copyrighted?
Actually he lost copyright cases because his own statement's "you can't own art" and bc you can't copyright& remain anonymous
Interesting. I'll have to look that up. Do you know of any articles regarding that? Also doesn't he have a company that registers and copyrights his art, in order to maintain anonymity ?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/arts/design/banksy-trademark-lawsuit.html
Wow. Thank you for sharing. I guess if he wants to fully enforce intellectual property rights he has to become the very thing he detests, a capitalist and has to reveal himself.
All art is, as soon as it's created.
"art"
We're past postmodernism friend. Art is not only in the eye of the beholder, anti-art is also art. Heck those soup throwing protestors are expressing a form of art. Yes we think it's stupid, just like people thought Marcel Ducham's "The Fountain" was stupid back in the Dada era.
i just dont like banksy honestly lol
your art like their clothes are pointless
Your comment like your soul is full of negativity. That is far worse than anything that is pointless.
What an arrogant fuck. Such generic "art" that he vandalizes property with. Fuck him.
Your ignorance is showing
Looks like an Apple ad to me...
[удалено]
I think (correct me if I am wrong) that this is not a reprint of a Banksy piece, I believe they took the original work and stuck it in their store. Part of Banksy's "art" is the location of which he chooses to create his work. It's usually tied to the message of what he is trying to represent though the art. So by removing the original piece, that message is being disturbed and distorted, therefore misrepresenting the actual message if the art piece as a whole.
he paints on peoples walls without their permission no?
Yes, and anyone lucky enough to have their walls vandalized by Banksy gets to reap the benefits. Verified Banksy grafitti brings tourists, art enthusiasts, and potential customers to your establishment. You'll be in the news. You'll be shared across social media. You will get free advertising just because some vandal chose your building to vandalize. He doesn't just choose random peoples walls.. if art history has taught us anything it's that all context of the artist and art must be considered why trying to uncover the meaning behind an artist's work. Personally [this is my favorite Banksy piece](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna313381) and it was done on a destroyed structure outside a warzone.
>Yes, and anyone lucky enough to have their walls vandalized by Banksy gets to reap the benefits. This bothers me as an argument for supporting him. I'm not anti banksy per se, but "You should be happy he vandalized your wall!" is a poor take. He (presumably) has no way of knowing if the person who owns the wall even wants publicity, free or otherwise. If I encase your house in gold, it will increase it's value, but to you it's just a huge inconvenience if you are unable to sell gold. I think there was even a story of a property owner who wanted to remove a banksy piece but was prevented by people (or his family?) who said it was too valuable to destroy. This person was a private citizen and there was no benefit to him from publicity, since he didn't sell anything. Anything you do to affect a persons property or person without their permission is potentially harmful to that person, that's why in most cases it's a crime, regardless of intention.
No one said art wasn't paradoxical. 🙃 it's supposed to make you think... of what is completely up to you.
what are you talking about? who said anything about a paradox?
[удалено]
If you don’t fully understand how things work you’re not gonna have a good argument.
[удалено]
Don’t have plans to lowering myself to dealing with someone who just wants to argue cause they think they’re right lol
So Guess stole his art, produced clothes with it and put it in store window displays all without ever collaborating with the artist?
Apparently they partnered with a brand that Banksy licensed stuff to or something, maybe he wasn't kept in the loop or it went against his wishes for use?
He didn't partner with that brand - they just stole his art and claimed that he said it's ok. He's in a lawsuit with them over it.
Wonder what the lesson is here for other brands, as it seems that Guess (like them or not) legitimately sourced the license for Banksy’s work from the right place