jluhiex
New Member
Posts โข 402
Likes โข 223
December 2016
|
Art Wanted, by jluhiex on Jul 12, 2017 18:16:01 GMT 1, Many artists including Banksy have copied images from other more famous artists work, so isn't that also "profiting of someone else's artwork without permission" How do you own an art forum and not know the difference between copyright infringement and fair use? Honest question.ย
How do you as a human being not know the difference between child pornography and IP law?
Many artists including Banksy have copied images from other more famous artists work, so isn't that also "profiting of someone else's artwork without permission" How do you own an art forum and not know the difference between copyright infringement and fair use? Honest question.ย How do you as a human being not know the difference between child pornography and IP law?
|
|
randomname
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,962
Likes โข 1,810
June 2013
|
Art Wanted, by randomname on Jul 12, 2017 18:19:31 GMT 1, It is. Does that justify you profiting from intellectual property theft? Not defending WCP here or giving an opinion one way or the other but are Banksy images actually copyrighted??? If so to who? If to Banksy he would have to physically show up in court to defend it, which seems unlikely, right? I'm not sure any of the images actually are. All artwork has automatic copyright protection.
I posted this earlier, but Banksy has provided hi-res files for people to download and print for their own personal use with the provision that they could not reprint his work for profit. And when contacted through Pest Control, he's stated that his work is copyrighted and that no one has permission to reproduce his work.
But yes, I think the main reason he doesn't defend his copyrights in court is because his identity could be revealed.
It is. Does that justify you profiting from intellectual property theft? Not defending WCP here or giving an opinion one way or the other but are Banksy images actually copyrighted??? If so to who? If to Banksy he would have to physically show up in court to defend it, which seems unlikely, right? I'm not sure any of the images actually are. All artwork has automatic copyright protection. I posted this earlier, but Banksy has provided hi-res files for people to download and print for their own personal use with the provision that they could not reprint his work for profit. And when contacted through Pest Control, he's stated that his work is copyrighted and that no one has permission to reproduce his work. But yes, I think the main reason he doesn't defend his copyrights in court is because his identity could be revealed.
|
|
randomname
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,962
Likes โข 1,810
June 2013
|
Art Wanted, by randomname on Jul 12, 2017 18:21:38 GMT 1, How do you own an art forum and not know the difference between copyright infringement and fair use? Honest question. How do you as a human being not know the difference between child pornography and IP law? I know the difference. If you had any semblance of reading comprehension skills, you would understand that.
How do you own an art forum and not know the difference between copyright infringement and fair use? Honest question. How do you as a human being not know the difference between child pornography and IP law? I know the difference. If you had any semblance of reading comprehension skills, you would understand that.
|
|
overend
New Member
Posts โข 589
Likes โข 392
October 2013
|
Art Wanted, by overend on Jul 12, 2017 18:22:31 GMT 1, Not defending WCP here or giving an opinion one way or the other but are Banksy images actually copyrighted??? If so to who? If to Banksy he would have to physically show up in court to defend it, which seems unlikely, right? I'm not sure any of the images actually are. I was told by Banksy's people many many years ago that he didn't care about copyright. And I'm sure if Banksy did care about what WCP are doing it would be pretty easy for him to get them removed from eBay, and that doesn't seem to have happened for however many years they have been selling them. Pretty sure that there is a statement in Wall and Piece that states otherwise.
Not defending WCP here or giving an opinion one way or the other but are Banksy images actually copyrighted??? If so to who? If to Banksy he would have to physically show up in court to defend it, which seems unlikely, right? I'm not sure any of the images actually are. I was told by Banksy's people many many years ago that he didn't care about copyright. And I'm sure if Banksy did care about what WCP are doing it would be pretty easy for him to get them removed from eBay, and that doesn't seem to have happened for however many years they have been selling them. Pretty sure that there is a statement in Wall and Piece that states otherwise.
|
|
|
Art Wanted, by Rouen Cathedral on Jul 12, 2017 18:24:34 GMT 1, So if he's not protecting a copyright then there's no infringement.
And you gotta love those saying fair use is okay.
Here's something to explode your heads. What if the WCP copies are just art work? Not copies but an artist using banksys image to make their own art.
So if he's not protecting a copyright then there's no infringement.
And you gotta love those saying fair use is okay.
Here's something to explode your heads. What if the WCP copies are just art work? Not copies but an artist using banksys image to make their own art.
|
|
jluhiex
New Member
Posts โข 402
Likes โข 223
December 2016
|
Art Wanted, by jluhiex on Jul 12, 2017 18:25:01 GMT 1, How do you as a human being not know the difference between child pornography and IP law? I know the difference. If you had any semblance of reading comprehension skills, you would understand that. The fact that you lump the two together shows you have no semblance of being a human being.
Like everything you've ever owned is 100% authentic, conflict free...gtfo your high horse douche.
How do you as a human being not know the difference between child pornography and IP law? I know the difference. If you had any semblance of reading comprehension skills, you would understand that. The fact that you lump the two together shows you have no semblance of being a human being. Like everything you've ever owned is 100% authentic, conflict free...gtfo your high horse douche.
|
|
|
chainsaw
New Member
Posts โข 130
Likes โข 72
June 2017
|
Art Wanted, by chainsaw on Jul 12, 2017 18:26:30 GMT 1, He could just release cheap poster versions, or licence someone else to release unlimited versions, they would then have to defend the copyright in court.
They would be official licenced Banky prints and probably kill the pirating market, if they got the price point right.
A2 sized girl with red balloon poster for every students wall?
He could just release cheap poster versions, or licence someone else to release unlimited versions, they would then have to defend the copyright in court.
They would be official licenced Banky prints and probably kill the pirating market, if they got the price point right.
A2 sized girl with red balloon poster for every students wall?
|
|
randomname
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,962
Likes โข 1,810
June 2013
|
Art Wanted, by randomname on Jul 12, 2017 18:29:43 GMT 1, So if he's not protecting a copyright then there's no infringement. And you gotta love those saying fair use is okay. Here's something to explode your heads. What if the WCP copies are just art work? Not copies but an artist using banksys image to make their own art. That's not how the law works. Or ethics for that matter.
I could explain it to you if you want to know the difference. But if you want to hold on to your current beliefs regardless of any new information, that would be a waste of both our time.
So if he's not protecting a copyright then there's no infringement. And you gotta love those saying fair use is okay. Here's something to explode your heads. What if the WCP copies are just art work? Not copies but an artist using banksys image to make their own art. That's not how the law works. Or ethics for that matter. I could explain it to you if you want to know the difference. But if you want to hold on to your current beliefs regardless of any new information, that would be a waste of both our time.
|
|
|
Art Wanted, by Daniel Silk on Jul 12, 2017 18:33:28 GMT 1, From 2010 -
From 2010 -
|
|
|
Art Wanted, by Rouen Cathedral on Jul 12, 2017 18:34:05 GMT 1, So if he's not protecting a copyright then there's no infringement. And you gotta love those saying fair use is okay. Here's something to explode your heads. What if the WCP copies are just art work? Not copies but an artist using banksys image to make their own art. That's not how the law works. Or ethics for that matter. I could explain it to you if you want to know the difference. But if you want to hold on to your current beliefs regardless of any new information, that would be a waste of both our time.
Law and ethics are two different things.
But please do explain how banksy can use the flags image but an artist couldn't use his girl with balloon to create their art.
So if he's not protecting a copyright then there's no infringement. And you gotta love those saying fair use is okay. Here's something to explode your heads. What if the WCP copies are just art work? Not copies but an artist using banksys image to make their own art. That's not how the law works. Or ethics for that matter. I could explain it to you if you want to know the difference. But if you want to hold on to your current beliefs regardless of any new information, that would be a waste of both our time. Law and ethics are two different things. But please do explain how banksy can use the flags image but an artist couldn't use his girl with balloon to create their art.
|
|
randomname
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,962
Likes โข 1,810
June 2013
|
Art Wanted, by randomname on Jul 12, 2017 18:34:44 GMT 1, I know the difference. If you had any semblance of reading comprehension skills, you would understand that. The fact that you lump the two together shows you have no semblance of being a human being. Like everything you've ever owned is 100% authentic, conflict free...gtfo your high horse douche. I stated that both are crimes. Criminal copyright infringement carries a penalty of up to ten years in prison. It's not a minor offense.
To repeat, I don't think it's as bad as kiddie porn. But I do think it's absurd to try to justify intellectual property theft while personally profiting from it.
Also, I think you're not quite right in the head.
I know the difference. If you had any semblance of reading comprehension skills, you would understand that. The fact that you lump the two together shows you have no semblance of being a human being. Like everything you've ever owned is 100% authentic, conflict free...gtfo your high horse douche. I stated that both are crimes. Criminal copyright infringement carries a penalty of up to ten years in prison. It's not a minor offense. To repeat, I don't think it's as bad as kiddie porn. But I do think it's absurd to try to justify intellectual property theft while personally profiting from it. Also, I think you're not quite right in the head.
|
|
randomname
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,962
Likes โข 1,810
June 2013
|
Art Wanted, by randomname on Jul 12, 2017 18:45:04 GMT 1, That's not how the law works. Or ethics for that matter. I could explain it to you if you want to know the difference. But if you want to hold on to your current beliefs regardless of any new information, that would be a waste of both our time. Law and ethics are two different things. But please do explain how banksy can use the flags image but an artist couldn't use his girl with balloon to create their art. Under copyright law, artists are allowed to use existing artwork in their art as long as the message is changed in some way โ often through social satire or a political statement. Banksy often uses existing art as a reference point, but changes the meaning of the work significantly. This is considered fair use.
What you're not allowed to do is create an exact or nearly exact reproduction of another artist's work and offer it for sale.
In the case of girl with balloon, another artist could use that as inspiration so long as they modify it in a way that creates new meaning.
That's not how the law works. Or ethics for that matter. I could explain it to you if you want to know the difference. But if you want to hold on to your current beliefs regardless of any new information, that would be a waste of both our time. Law and ethics are two different things. But please do explain how banksy can use the flags image but an artist couldn't use his girl with balloon to create their art. Under copyright law, artists are allowed to use existing artwork in their art as long as the message is changed in some way โ often through social satire or a political statement. Banksy often uses existing art as a reference point, but changes the meaning of the work significantly. This is considered fair use. What you're not allowed to do is create an exact or nearly exact reproduction of another artist's work and offer it for sale. In the case of girl with balloon, another artist could use that as inspiration so long as they modify it in a way that creates new meaning.
|
|
jluhiex
New Member
Posts โข 402
Likes โข 223
December 2016
|
Art Wanted, by jluhiex on Jul 12, 2017 18:45:10 GMT 1, The fact that you lump the two together shows you have no semblance of being a human being. Like everything you've ever owned is 100% authentic, conflict free...gtfo your high horse douche. I stated that both are crimes. Criminal copyright infringement carries a penalty of up to ten years in prison. It's not a minor offense. To repeat, I don't think it's as bad as kiddie porn. But I do think it's absurd to try to justify intellectual property theft while personally profiting from it. Also, I think you're not quite right in the head. Letting the West Country Prince advertise here is a bit like letting someone advertise kiddie porn for sale.
I'm pretty sure anyone that would make a statement like that isn't right in the head.
Read more: urbanartassociation.com/thread/140091/wcp-west-country-prince#ixzz4mdkrwxJf
The fact that you lump the two together shows you have no semblance of being a human being. Like everything you've ever owned is 100% authentic, conflict free...gtfo your high horse douche. I stated that both are crimes. Criminal copyright infringement carries a penalty of up to ten years in prison. It's not a minor offense. To repeat, I don't think it's as bad as kiddie porn. But I do think it's absurd to try to justify intellectual property theft while personally profiting from it. Also, I think you're not quite right in the head. Letting the West Country Prince advertise here is a bit like letting someone advertise kiddie porn for sale. I'm pretty sure anyone that would make a statement like that isn't right in the head. Read more: urbanartassociation.com/thread/140091/wcp-west-country-prince#ixzz4mdkrwxJf
|
|
mla
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,104
Likes โข 1,242
June 2015
|
Art Wanted, by mla on Jul 12, 2017 18:48:03 GMT 1, He was using hyperbole to make a point -- can you not see that?
He was using hyperbole to make a point -- can you not see that?
|
|
|
randomname
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,962
Likes โข 1,810
June 2013
|
Art Wanted, by randomname on Jul 12, 2017 18:50:14 GMT 1, From 2010 -
His site went through a few versions of that. Here's another one. Note the part about "non-commercial purposes."
Banksy has a much publicised casual attitude towards recreational copyright infringement and you are invited to download whatever you wish from www.banksy.co.uk for personal use. However, making your own art or merchandise and passing it off as โofficialโ or authentic Banksy artwork is a criminal offence.... Please feel free to * Copy any www.banksy.co.uk imagery in any way for any kind of personal amusement * Make your own Banksy merchandise for non-commercial purposes * Pretend you drew it yourself for homework Please do not: * Put up signs saying "strictly no photographs" when all you do is sell photographs of my graffiti * Write 'Banksy' next to an image of a panda waving hand guns (not mine, donโt know whose it is) * Take images off my website and โlicenseโ them for a huge fee to a German calendar company
From 2010 - His site went through a few versions of that. Here's another one. Note the part about "non-commercial purposes." Banksy has a much publicised casual attitude towards recreational copyright infringement and you are invited to download whatever you wish from www.banksy.co.uk for personal use. However, making your own art or merchandise and passing it off as โofficialโ or authentic Banksy artwork is a criminal offence.... Please feel free to * Copy any www.banksy.co.uk imagery in any way for any kind of personal amusement * Make your own Banksy merchandise for non-commercial purposes * Pretend you drew it yourself for homework Please do not: * Put up signs saying "strictly no photographs" when all you do is sell photographs of my graffiti * Write 'Banksy' next to an image of a panda waving hand guns (not mine, donโt know whose it is) * Take images off my website and โlicenseโ them for a huge fee to a German calendar company
|
|
randomname
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,962
Likes โข 1,810
June 2013
|
Art Wanted, by randomname on Jul 12, 2017 18:51:23 GMT 1, He was using hyperbole to make a point -- can you not see that? Not without first taking his meds. And looking up the meaning of "hyperbole."
He was using hyperbole to make a point -- can you not see that? Not without first taking his meds. And looking up the meaning of "hyperbole."
|
|
jluhiex
New Member
Posts โข 402
Likes โข 223
December 2016
|
Art Wanted, by jluhiex on Jul 12, 2017 18:53:18 GMT 1, He was using hyperbole to make a point -- can you not see that? Not without first taking his meds. And looking up the meaning of "hyperbole." Good one
He was using hyperbole to make a point -- can you not see that? Not without first taking his meds. And looking up the meaning of "hyperbole." Good one
|
|
|
Art Wanted, by Rouen Cathedral on Jul 12, 2017 18:56:49 GMT 1, Law and ethics are two different things. But please do explain how banksy can use the flags image but an artist couldn't use his girl with balloon to create their art. Under copyright law, artists are allowed to use existing artwork in their art as long as the message is changed in some way โ often through social satire or a political statement. Banksy often uses existing art as a reference point, but changes the meaning of the work significantly. This is considered fair use. What you're not allowed to do is create an exact or nearly exact reproduction of another artist's work and offer it for sale. In the case of girl with balloon, another artist could use that as inspiration so long as they modify it in a way that creates new meaning.
But that relies on interpretation. It's not so simple.
WCP could come out and say there girl with balloon is slightly different and meant to be a artwork commenting on a variety of social aspects and with a message all its own.
You use the work significant? Please define that officially.
Law and ethics are two different things. But please do explain how banksy can use the flags image but an artist couldn't use his girl with balloon to create their art. Under copyright law, artists are allowed to use existing artwork in their art as long as the message is changed in some way โ often through social satire or a political statement. Banksy often uses existing art as a reference point, but changes the meaning of the work significantly. This is considered fair use. What you're not allowed to do is create an exact or nearly exact reproduction of another artist's work and offer it for sale. In the case of girl with balloon, another artist could use that as inspiration so long as they modify it in a way that creates new meaning. But that relies on interpretation. It's not so simple. WCP could come out and say there girl with balloon is slightly different and meant to be a artwork commenting on a variety of social aspects and with a message all its own. You use the work significant? Please define that officially.
|
|
randomname
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,962
Likes โข 1,810
June 2013
|
Art Wanted, by randomname on Jul 12, 2017 19:07:03 GMT 1, Under copyright law, artists are allowed to use existing artwork in their art as long as the message is changed in some way โ often through social satire or a political statement. Banksy often uses existing art as a reference point, but changes the meaning of the work significantly. This is considered fair use. What you're not allowed to do is create an exact or nearly exact reproduction of another artist's work and offer it for sale. In the case of girl with balloon, another artist could use that as inspiration so long as they modify it in a way that creates new meaning. But that relies on interpretation. It's not so simple. WCP could come out and say there girl with balloon is slightly different and meant to be a artwork commenting on a variety of social aspects and with a message all its own. You use the work significant? Please define that officially. I'm going to lunch, so I'll save time with a copy and paste. I think this provides a clear and concise explanation of fair use as it relates to the conversation.
Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair. This does not mean, however, that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair and all commercial uses are not fair; instead, courts will balance the purpose and character of the use against the other factors below.
Additionally, โtransformativeโ uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.
Nature of the copyrighted work: This factor analyzes the degree to which the work that was used relates to copyrightโs purpose of encouraging creative expression. Thus, using a more creative or imaginative work (such as a novel, movie, or song) is less likely to support a claim of a fair use than using a factual work (such as a technical article or news item). In addition, use of an unpublished work is less likely to be considered fair.
Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Under this factor, courts look at both the quantity and quality of the copyrighted material that was used. If the use includes a large portion of the copyrighted work, fair use is less likely to be found; if the use employs only a small amount of copyrighted material, fair use is more likely. That said, some courts have found use of an entire work to be fair under certain circumstances. And in other contexts, using even a small amount of a copyrighted work was determined not to be fair because the selection was an important partโor the โheartโโof the work.
Under copyright law, artists are allowed to use existing artwork in their art as long as the message is changed in some way โ often through social satire or a political statement. Banksy often uses existing art as a reference point, but changes the meaning of the work significantly. This is considered fair use. What you're not allowed to do is create an exact or nearly exact reproduction of another artist's work and offer it for sale. In the case of girl with balloon, another artist could use that as inspiration so long as they modify it in a way that creates new meaning. But that relies on interpretation. It's not so simple. WCP could come out and say there girl with balloon is slightly different and meant to be a artwork commenting on a variety of social aspects and with a message all its own. You use the work significant? Please define that officially. I'm going to lunch, so I'll save time with a copy and paste. I think this provides a clear and concise explanation of fair use as it relates to the conversation. Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair. This does not mean, however, that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair and all commercial uses are not fair; instead, courts will balance the purpose and character of the use against the other factors below. Additionally, โtransformativeโ uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work. Nature of the copyrighted work: This factor analyzes the degree to which the work that was used relates to copyrightโs purpose of encouraging creative expression. Thus, using a more creative or imaginative work (such as a novel, movie, or song) is less likely to support a claim of a fair use than using a factual work (such as a technical article or news item). In addition, use of an unpublished work is less likely to be considered fair. Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Under this factor, courts look at both the quantity and quality of the copyrighted material that was used. If the use includes a large portion of the copyrighted work, fair use is less likely to be found; if the use employs only a small amount of copyrighted material, fair use is more likely. That said, some courts have found use of an entire work to be fair under certain circumstances. And in other contexts, using even a small amount of a copyrighted work was determined not to be fair because the selection was an important partโor the โheartโโof the work.
|
|
|
Art Wanted, by Rouen Cathedral on Jul 12, 2017 19:23:52 GMT 1, Who's got the image that flags is based on?
Who's got the image that flags is based on?
|
|
mla
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,104
Likes โข 1,242
June 2015
|
|
|
|
Art Wanted, by Rouen Cathedral on Jul 12, 2017 19:34:07 GMT 1, Isn't there another?
Isn't there another?
|
|
|
mla
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,104
Likes โข 1,242
June 2015
|
Art Wanted, by mla on Jul 12, 2017 19:41:14 GMT 1,
|
|
hypebeast
New Member
Posts โข 190
Likes โข 312
September 2013
|
Art Wanted, by hypebeast on Jul 12, 2017 19:55:16 GMT 1, I'd be willing to bet that anyone who is bitter about WCP probably spent 20k on a Banksy print or owns a few as a nest egg one day. That being said. I think WCP is a damn genius. I have a few different businesses one being a salon/studio with the wife. Have a couple WCP prints framed up on the walls. I even have one framed up in the waiting room of my car repair shop. People love them! WCP puts out a top notch print at a good price. If you love the image and want it on your wall without mortgaging your house then do it!!
I'd be willing to bet that anyone who is bitter about WCP probably spent 20k on a Banksy print or owns a few as a nest egg one day. That being said. I think WCP is a damn genius. I have a few different businesses one being a salon/studio with the wife. Have a couple WCP prints framed up on the walls. I even have one framed up in the waiting room of my car repair shop. People love them! WCP puts out a top notch print at a good price. If you love the image and want it on your wall without mortgaging your house then do it!!
|
|
mla
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,104
Likes โข 1,242
June 2015
|
Art Wanted, by mla on Jul 12, 2017 20:03:06 GMT 1, Genius? Is the bar set that low these days?
Genius? Is the bar set that low these days?
|
|
hypebeast
New Member
Posts โข 190
Likes โข 312
September 2013
|
Art Wanted, by hypebeast on Jul 12, 2017 20:17:49 GMT 1, Genius? Is the bar set that low these days?
Unfortunately. Yes.
Genius? Is the bar set that low these days? Unfortunately. Yes.
|
|
|
Art Wanted, by Happy Go Lucky Chap on Jul 12, 2017 20:46:21 GMT 1, I bet there's also a few out there who have bought WCP in the hope that he's really Banksy, like some big elaborate hoax
I bet there's also a few out there who have bought WCP in the hope that he's really Banksy, like some big elaborate hoax
|
|
slevin
New Member
Posts โข 602
Likes โข 699
December 2015
|
Art Wanted, by slevin on Jul 12, 2017 21:41:08 GMT 1, 50 odd quid for a poor reproduction though. Would rather pick up an original print from an emerging artist.
50 odd quid for a poor reproduction though. Would rather pick up an original print from an emerging artist.
|
|
J0NNY
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,045
Likes โข 704
December 2014
|
Art Wanted, by J0NNY on Jul 12, 2017 22:24:17 GMT 1, They are actually not bad in terms of quality, well worth the money and it is all about the image. I'd rather give my money to the actual artist but if I can't I'd rather give it to someone who has put in a lot of effort to make one of these for relatively little coin, then to pay someone who has bought to sell at a profit where they can make more money in one transaction of a print then Banksy would of throughout the prints run.
They are actually not bad in terms of quality, well worth the money and it is all about the image. I'd rather give my money to the actual artist but if I can't I'd rather give it to someone who has put in a lot of effort to make one of these for relatively little coin, then to pay someone who has bought to sell at a profit where they can make more money in one transaction of a print then Banksy would of throughout the prints run.
|
|
|
Art Wanted, by Happy Shopper on Jul 12, 2017 23:01:31 GMT 1, Lots of things are illegal, but that's the same of profiting of someone else's artwork without permission... This is an art forum isn't it? Are we not supposed to care about the artists' rights? Many artists including Banksy have copied images from other more famous artists work, so isn't that also "profiting of someone else's artwork without permission"
No. It's not even slightly boardering on the same. Appropriation of images to create something new, or parody it, doesn't compare to simply making copies and selling them. It's disgraceful.
Lots of things are illegal, but that's the same of profiting of someone else's artwork without permission... This is an art forum isn't it? Are we not supposed to care about the artists' rights? Many artists including Banksy have copied images from other more famous artists work, so isn't that also "profiting of someone else's artwork without permission" No. It's not even slightly boardering on the same. Appropriation of images to create something new, or parody it, doesn't compare to simply making copies and selling them. It's disgraceful.
|
|