Well it's made me laugh. Contact Kezler Gallery pretty sure they will be interested in a deal on this one.

<abbr>...
</abbr>

Christ almighty. Yeah so it's withdrawn from being sold on here but somehow I doubt it's going back on the wall! This guy's just going to find another way to flog on his stolen goods.

Hang fire!!!!, Bonsai may not have been the person who removed it, he might have bought it later on down the line you seeeeee, 

I will take the blame, it was me who lifted it, i almost fell off the bleeding ladders and all, i was drunk and didnt know what i was doing.
Soz.

I put it up there in the first place.

....

Is that because you do not want to sell and just buy a print or is it your worried that technically it's not yours to sell. Due to the piece being taken down without the artist or the wall owners permission.

there in lies the problem of stolen street art it does actually belong to someone and often not the person who took it down. Particular problem with invaders work as they are quite small and do not require the removal of the wall.

Not reall sure who would appreciate it. If you put a pic up it will as usual be a mess as strangely enough not designed to be taken down ..........funny that. No consideration for a loyal art collector he should sell stuff in galleries.

no one here can say if the owner gave permission to remove or not... in fairness owners are more than entitled to remove street art from their property and do with it as they please. Unless we know it's stolen, I don't think there's any place to take the moral high ground here, it's like any other sales thread - if you're not interested, like I'm not, then just move on to the next thread.

if any evidence that art was removed without owner's permission, then entirely different matter. artist's permission irrelevant in my opinion unless it was a commission.

If Invader left a piece on my wall then I would argue it had been abandoned and as the wall owner I could remove it and do as I pleased with it. In which case it becomes my property when on the wall and if removed by another party becomes a crime of theft against the wall owner not the artist. The artist could argue that this piece could not be reproduced and copies sold as it's their intellectual property, but not ownership of the physical form as it had been given or abandoned, much the same as a street drop piece. You would not expect Adam Neate to come out and say all those works I left around the street when I was younger should not have been picked up and they are my property.  

Dear both
The fact is that there is no diffinative ownership because its on your property You could claim it is abandoned but that is a claim. The crime of vandalism is a seperate point. Eg I leave my car on your drive because it is not taxed which is a crime does not make any difference to the ownership.

The point I am making is in Invaders case ownership is not definitive because it is on your wall. You as the wall owner can claim what you like. Just as Invader the artist can claim what he likes but only a legal case would define ownership and it could go eitherway and lots of factors would be involved such as how long had it been left before his claim, the permanency of the piece.
Consider the following - Invader claims he did not put the piece up but it was taken from his studio or a show and put up by an unknown 3rd party he has identified it as his stolen property and would like it bac as it is a valuable piece of art.
So it is not definitive that the piece belongs to the wall owner let alone someone who just took it down. The definitive owner of the piece is Invader all others can dispute and make a claim against that. It being on your wal does not make the object legally yours however nor does it give Invader the right to come and take it down either. The law on such things in my view is not a or b as both sides could make a claim. Being the artist does not enable proof that you are the vandal that put it up.   

"they could sue you if you burn/ dispose of it. Owners do have the right to do what they like with un-commissioned street art on their property. "
Actually yes they could. May or may not win. Owners do not have the right to do what they like with anything that is not their property

Harry the point on him being a street artist and asking for it back is not the issue. The issue is and was at the start of this thread which has now been deleted was the trading of a piece of street art by Invader which I am saying the person in possession of has disputable legal rights to.

Re invader he was doing street pieces before he was selling loads. Re his shows I would actually say the pieces near the gallery to a certain extent are part of the show as opposed to promote the show. Eg if he does a show in London in September it will be packed and will sell out and will not depend upon people seeing an Invader to remind them or ensure they buy a piece. But more a case of the show and his work living on after the show has closed. His mark on the city for all to see. Not for people to tear down and flog they always look plastered together after they have been ripped off. If you want an Invader buy one just not a street piece. Eg would you buy a print or a canvass all ripped and torn.

Below is a sample not he one being talked of on this thread and this is in my view in better condition than most

...

Harry Invader has always gained more column inches by his street rather than his gallery work as his name and gallery work came from his street work. The fact that he has shows bears no relevance really if anything it's the opposite.
Bonsai you seem determined to justify yourself.
Paris Counsel owned the wall - surely this supports the claim the piece was for the people of Paris not for the likes of you to trade.
Possession could be argued as ownership but my point is just that it is an argument not definitive. Just as it could be argued its stolen again not definitive.
Invaders permission to place you have no knowledge of and again this is a small part of the ownership argue
You could argue that it was the removal of unauthorized graffiti but again it is also the unauthorized removal of an art piece from public property Andre remover had no idea of ownership or permissions when he / she removed. One thing is unlikely is that it was owned by them prior to the claims your making.
Ownership arguments are never redundant. This piece which you won't show a pic of to highlight the great care in removal does have ownership and sale issues as pointed out. You placed it up for trade to members of the forum so I am just pointing out those issues to members and also highlighting the disdain that most street art lovers have for these pieces and those that trade in them.

Sierra not angry just pointing out the facts to people. Legally I understand ownership rules somewhat and as statedBonsai is trading something he does not have definitive ownership of IMO. The point made and questioned the history of the piece and why trade rather than sell.
You on the other hand seem more keen to look at my legal aspect than question the legitimacy of the said removed piece. Something and the points/questions asked in the first post I would want people to consider before parting with their Banksy in exchange for this piece. Note this is also a piece an object placed on a wall that is removed from a wall so it is not the same as paint over paint on a wall. Bonsai would like it to be but it is not and that's partly the reason why he and others can trade in these removed pieces.