Hmmm who has one of them handy ?

Or his Framed print.

He started out way before this board existed, pre Banksy ebay board, and before Banksy could sell out of a print edition.

Again I don't like his stuff, but he's been around for a damn long time, painted a good few illegal walls, and can cut a tight stencil, which is more than 90% of the plebs out there.

</div>But what youre saying with the download is the equivalent to people stealing martins prints from a gallery. The correct analogy would be you ripping the documentary, changing the credits and distributing it as if you made it yourself.

If Martin makes an original print, and you steal it and hang it in your home, it's the same as illegally downloading the Banksy documentary and watching it.

If Martin steals an artists work and calls it his own, it's the same as stealing the documentary and changing the credits to claim you made it.

Easy.

I think youre missing the point, but in this scenario the film makers would feel zero financial impact, just as the artist that made the original knife painted ballerina feels no financial impact on Whatson stealing his image and making prints. All of the impact is emotional. The reason why, is because the check has already been written by HBO to the "artists" to create the film with the distribution rights. HBO may feel a financial impact, but they may not. Those are pretty advanced stats.

So as I said above, Its stealing and re-labeling. The original artist would feel an emotional impact, and deserves money from these print sales. Hands down. But is he currently missing it, because the money went to whatson INSTEAD of him? No. 


*Edit: Not arguing anything here. This is theft from an artist. Its happened in the past where a close friend of mine did something similar. He offered the original artist all his profits from the print, and was honest about attempting to better the scenario, Whatson at one point will have to come clean about it, before the internet does it for him.

And I still like Whatson's work, and wish him luck in his show. 

Edit: I had a soapbox that I wrote... But really not that big of a deal... HX didn't you buy that Sandra Chevrier Hand Embellished (Batman from behind on her forehead) Now I'm really angry!!! I missed it by seconds!!!!

Not as nice as yours .dappy !!

Couldn't agree more with this comment.

There's a lot to be said about maintaining a dignified silence and resisting the urge to lash out. Especially when it's clear to everyone else that a person is conflicted because of the direct vested interest they have at stake.

Rants and defensive posts by dealers are seriously counterproductive. As natstan expressly stated and others have suggested, they just come across as unprofessional.

----------

No doubt Amy and Samy Bouzaglo would describe their own responses to "haters" as completely legitimate — the right to protect their business, and evidence of their great passion. Most others, I suspect, would see things a little differently.

Nice!

he simply took the photo of an original painting, opened it in illustrator, pressed "live stream" and the layers were made for him. Those layers were turned into screens. Thats it. he didnt smooth the anchor points out, didnt customize it at all aside from adding the colors on top. 

Anyone who has done their 1st year graphic design course knows what his process is, luckily the majority of it looks great. Drops mic, lol. 

I know as a graphic designer but have you seen hirst and his dots, have you seen other art? Most of the pieces are incredible easy to make, but when it is so easy to make. People still pay money for those 'easy' images. Banksy also used images for his stencils and prints, i still can not see what the difference is?
Imo he did not steal a thing. Yes he used a picture as the base of his image. And yes he took that image and did 'his Whatson thing' on it. That is what artists do.... At least a lot of them
Blek used his own picture on a couple of his prints/images but he also took existing photographs and used them.
just my 2cents

You do have a point there.

anyone and their dog can trace a photo or picture or print using a magic lantern to enlarge it and then cut a stencil from that.

most can even do decent faces.

Whatsons trademark seems to be the taggy stuff which is applied to an image.

I think Chevrier is fine on copyright as she tends to collage the images as opposed to use a complete image.