Banksy for theater poster
February 4th, 2009 by storm
what can i say? it’s all there. a classic rip-off case. we are almost getting comfortable with underground club flayers designed by bunch of Banksies 
. What makes this case worse – this theater show is supported by art funds, soros, EU comunity, Danish culture institute, banks. All their logos are there except there is nothing mentioned about Banksy.
(123 votes, average: 4.79 out of 5)
Loading ...
as much as i like banksy, i can’t see how an image scrawled/stenciled on public property suddenly becomes his own. if it is on public property, it is in the public domain and as such is open to copying.
its the nature of the beast.all nice to look at though!
copy/paste:
“Ok guys. I see you didn’t understood a single shit from what I was saying. “Use it for your personal amusement only” – that was a friendly suggestion. Because, you see, I’m a criminal. And not only I vandalize public property, I don’t give a shit about copyrights, I’m ripping off photographers, illustrators, I do abuse commercial symbols and general icons. I’m a “criminal in law”. I’m operating on the street level; I’m alone against the wall … except there may be cops behind the corner.
I can (probably) be an impersonation of someone called Banksy. And I can be fake. There can be a bunch of me and there can be no one. I’m nobody and nobody can come to arrest me. But you are someone and you represent someone.
In this case I ripped off illustration from children’s story book. And now listen carefully – as this is a nice trick. If you steal stolen – it doesn’t make you less guilty. Got it?
If you can imagine me going out clearing copyrights for the work that I’m ripping off for my street art – then you are lunatic (at least ). But if you make poster with your name and logo – I guess you must go and ask children’s book publisher permission.
That’s it.
Peace & love.
Banksy.
…”
was that from a translation??? there were few interesting typos there??? it doesn’t read like any of the banksy stuff i have read..
@Daz: you must know that that is rubbish?? ok so lets say that ” I don’t see how an image put on the internet/TV/ad campaign/t shirt (anywhere someone can see it)suddenly becomes your own”
yes once you put something out there you leave it open for ripping…but that doesn’t make it right.
Some people really have to get the difference between public domain and public visible
hey sparcs,
i can see where you are coming from, but there is a big difference between selling an image on a shirt( or an idea to a campaign) and painting something on someone elses property.
if he painted on his stuff, its his. if he paints on someone elses, it isnt. it isnt a case of the difference between public domain and public visible, its about ownership of property, intellectual or otherwise.
it is pretty shameless to copy the guys work though
most laws are pretty clear about it(well ones that bother about this sort of thing)…it stays the artists… no matter where it is… just because i do it on a mates t-shirt doesn’t mean its his…
the legalities of how it got there do not come into play… otherwise there is no crime….
…He’s a street artist he swipes symbols and art from all over the place and puts it… all over the place. It’s not his, but it is funny though because as soon as you copy his ‘illegal’ street art you get done for copyright infringement I’ve seen that picture of the little girl with the heart balloon before in loads of places. The thing about art is that most artists that draw or paint on paper or canvas don’t copyright their work. The more people rip it off though the more that original piece of art is worth.
the copyright is inherent as soon as the work is done….depending on where you live/are..
well sparcs, if he painted on my house , and i painted over it, do i then own the copyright to magnolia painted walls?
i can’t see how an image is an artists own if painted on someone elses property.
not that i know what the danish flyer says, and not that i am well versed in copyright laws, but i would suggest in this instance banksy’s work is well-known enough that this designer is probably not claiming they created that, merely picked it for the flyer because it is aesthetically pleasing.
Yes, this is a rip off.
But I think they get away with it because most of Banksy’s art is graffiti on public places (technically vandalism),
so it isn’t copyrightable.(not true. YTWWN)They might have done it simply because of Banksy’s recognition. They could have changed the girl to look different, but kept it exactly the same.