702
Evil company vs artist
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
702 points (100.0% liked)
People Twitter
7835 readers
190 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
wait wait wait wait ... if I vandalize property, do I get intellectual property rights over the creation?? Or even ignoring the legal aspect, do I get moral rights to the creation? Not sure I have the balls to make that claim.
Yes, you absolutely do get Copyright protection: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom (see the section on “Qualification for protection”)
You don’t get property rights over the physical object, but you automatically get copyright protections on the work itself.
Those are completely separate things and there’s no reason they would be tied together.
How is creating a work of art by an artist of worldwide renown on an ugly bare concrete wall vandalism? If it in some way affected the utility or even the aesthetics, you might have a point. But trying to make a crime out of improving public spaces through art is just silly.
except that it's literally a crime to vandalize public spaces to impose your ideas, aesthetics, and art on the public. Are you in actual denial or what is happening here?
this is not a comment on my opinion of Banksy's artistic value. But a major component of their art is the simple fact that it IS a crime. If you take that away, it loses most of its meaning.
Cool...so it's ok for businesses to force their ideas, aesthetics, and art on the public because...money?
I think it's more ownership and permission than money (although unfortunately they often overlap). You're allowed to paint your own house, but not somebody else's unless you have permission to do so.
Exactly. You can get a permit to place artwork on public property, but there's a significant amount of red tape there. You can even be commissioned to place artwork on public property, but that's pretty niche.
If you don't want to deal with that, place your artwork on private property and display it publicly from there.
You should be able to form your arguments about the merits of Banksy's work and whether or not they commit crimes without pulling in emotional and irrelevant facts like, "I don't like everything I can see advertized (typically on private property) from public."
Look, their whole shtick is that their art is criminal. That's their fucking gimmick. I don't know why people are pushing back so hard on this.
You're not wrong that it's illegal or that that is part of Banksy's "gimmick". I agree with you that, legally, what they do is vandalism.
But I'd guess you're getting pushback because you seem to be defending private property, which Banksy and perhaps their more politically-knowledgeable fans, likely view as unjust on the whole.
I'm guessing by the downvotes there some people here that don't understand what banksy does exactly. Although they do occasionally use some canvas and frames, most of their work is graffiti.
Exactly. It's amazing graffiti, but it's graffiti all the same.
curious how you know it's vandalism. like murals are a thing, getting approval from the building owner is a thing, one of the parts I miss most about my hometown was the art everywhere, but "fuck you" if you use spray paint as your medium I guess
You're asserting that Banksy gets permission from the owner of the wall before they paint on it? If so there's a lot of people out there pretending to know nothing about it when some art appears on their walls.
I'm not asserting anything, I was asking why he was asserting that it was definitively vandalism lol
If they had paid for use of the wall it would be very easy for them to prove it's not vandalism. They've never said they had permission, that I'm aware of. Can you link to them saying they do?
dude. as I just said im literally not trying to make a point, I don't care enough to find a link or whatever. please get off my booty cheeks lmao
The point is we don't know, so we can't be sure it's vandalism. We just don't know.
It makes money to have a famous artist give them free art
I thought about that as well, but don't forget that this can also be commissioned. Where I live this happens a lot on places where they know people are gonna spray anyway. It's a lot nicer to look at and other sprayers are less likely to spray over it
To be fair, we all know that Banksy's work was not commissioned by anyone.
Banksy got da balls
No, you don’t.