Banksy Radar Rat • Dirty Funker 12", by met on Apr 14, 2024 12:54:29 GMT 1,

Apr 8, 2024 17:40:48 GMT 1 mandem said:

Apr 8, 2024 8:10:07 GMT 1 met said:

Because that 2008 release was dishonest and cynical: Calculated to give the impression of legitimacy — in order to fill certain trouser pockets with cash, by selling hundreds of records which would otherwise have languished on store shelves or in a warehouse.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with this.

PCO
Please do not use Banksy's images for any commercial purpose, including launching a range of merchandise or tricking people into thinking something is made or endorsed by the artist when it isn't .

I see the point you're making, underlined - but at no point were the DF releases marketed or sold as being official Banksy releases, as far as I'm aware. If they had been, they've have been priced much higher accordingly at time of release - whereas they were £6.99.

There's a 25+year history of bootlegging and cheeky samples of music via the various labels he set up over the years, and some releases were hastily pulled as a result of some major label, but there was no attempt by Dirty Funker, nor the label, to claim these releases were legit Banksy covers.

Looking at the Discogs edit history for a couple of these releases (I've not got time nor inclination to check every one!) the submissions weren't made by the same people, nor by the label/artist themselves - some credit 'Sleeve: Banksy' others 'Robert Banks'.

Discogs - similarly to wikipedia - is user-controlled content, so I think some vinyl dealers / sellers tried to claim these as legitimate in order to manipulate the market.

You stepping up and voicing disagreement is appreciated; it's what the marketplace of ideas is all about.

With luck, exchanges like this might even assist one or two other members in establishing their own positions, or in nuancing their existing opinions on the subject.


__________


Initial side comments on your reference to "cheeky samples of music":



The music analogy is excellent, and I've no issue with sampling per se. My assessment of these things generally comes down to factors such as:

(i)  degree of copying;

(ii)  innovativeness of usage (including how, or the extent to which, the source material is reworked); and

(iii)  actual or presumed intent of the sampler.



Taking snippets from myriad sources to create something fresh and transformative isn't a problem.

Andrew Weatherall's production work on Screamadelica immediately comes to mind. It was truly inspired.



But contrast the above with Paul Glancy pretty much reproducing wholesale entire images by a famous artist, and slapping them onto record sleeves.

The latter seems transparently exploitative. A cheap (albeit highly effective) effort to receive unmerited attention and sell crate‑loads of extra Dirty Funker records.

Moreover, this was Glancy forcing an association with somebody who was far more successful. It looks like he was seeking to elevate himself by basking in reflected glory. But how many sidebusters have ever commanded respect, as opposed to disdain?


__________


You make an important distinction, between:

(a)  the marketing speak of Paul Glancy / Dirty Funker and his label; and

(b)  whatever resellers of the records might say in their own sales listings.


For the avoidance of doubt, my focus was solely on the actions of Glancy and the original releases of his Dirty Funker records. Descriptions or misdescriptions by resellers were not taken into account by me.


__________


We share further common ground in that I'd be comfortable accepting on faith that the Dirty Funker records were not expressly marketed or sold as being official Banksy releases.



There may however be a divergence between us on the constituents of guilt.

In my view, no untrue statement was necessary for a line to have been crossed.

Paul Glancy was fully conscious of what he was doing, and what could be achieved commercially simply by appropriating and reproducing Banksy's art without consent.



Calculations that Glancy will likely have made:


1.  Banksy's images would be the main selling point for a majority of buyers, not the fact the records were by Dirty Funker.


2.  The images would conveniently also serve as a false endorsement, misleading consumers by suggesting Banksy actually supported Dirty Funker's music.


3.  There was zero need to lie about the stolen status of the artwork, e.g. by falsely claiming it to be official. Because the releases alone, featuring immediately-recognisable images on their sleeves, would be sufficient to dupe many Banksy fans into believing the image use was legitimate.


4.  Even among the more cautious and astute Banksy fans who wouldn't be completely fooled, some would nevertheless remain uncertain enough to buy the records anyway, just in case they might possibly be official.


5.  Keeping schtum about the status of the images (i.e. whether they were authorised or unauthorised by Banksy) could in itself become a buzz‑marketing tactic — with the resulting chatter and speculation possibly leading to increased sales, especially among the large contingent of consumers who fear the possibility of missing out on a good deal or investment opportunity.



The above conduct and mindset is what I was referring to when I previously mentioned the cynicism of the Dirty Funker release. Likewise with the dishonesty, which included a dishonesty by silence or omission.



As a more secondary point, the original retail pricing of Dirty Funker releases wouldn't in itself offer a compelling rebuttal, given that past releases featuring authorised Banksy images (on labels such as Wall of Sound or Parlophone) were never priced differently at source than any other vinyl or CDs.


__________


Although it shouldn't make a difference to its persuasiveness, I'll add that my stance here is generally consistent with English case law on the tort of passing off (something the Dirty Funker releases could arguably be accused of).



Passing off requires there be a misrepresentation, but this doesn't have to be a falsehood or exaggeration. The misrepresentation can be an express statement or just implied, including from the defendant’s actions.

Similarly, passing off need not be deliberate; it may occur regardless of the defendant having acted intentionally or unintentionally. What a judge will instead consider is conduct, and whether the relevant goods or services were offered in a way that deceived the public.

As for the number of people affected, a claim can be initiated and passing off can still be established even if most people were not actually deceived or misled.


__________


Lastly, it is worth touching upon the cumulative impact of releases such as those by Dirty Funker and DJDM.

The confusion they've sown over their status and legitimacy should not be underestimated.



How else would there be so many misinformed, oblivious or deluded collectors around?

Plenty continue to buy Dirty Funker and DJDM records, for sums of money that are sometimes comparable to what releases featuring authorised Banksy images go for, like the We Love You or Badmeaningood series.

That's the level of market ignorance and stupidity we are currently facing.

It is a disheartening reality.

Apr 8, 2024 17:40:48 GMT 1 mandem said:

Apr 8, 2024 8:10:07 GMT 1 met said:

Because that 2008 release was dishonest and cynical: Calculated to give the impression of legitimacy — in order to fill certain trouser pockets with cash, by selling hundreds of records which would otherwise have languished on store shelves or in a warehouse.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with this.

PCO
Please do not use Banksy's images for any commercial purpose, including launching a range of merchandise or tricking people into thinking something is made or endorsed by the artist when it isn't .

I see the point you're making, underlined - but at no point were the DF releases marketed or sold as being official Banksy releases, as far as I'm aware. If they had been, they've have been priced much higher accordingly at time of release - whereas they were £6.99.

There's a 25+year history of bootlegging and cheeky samples of music via the various labels he set up over the years, and some releases were hastily pulled as a result of some major label, but there was no attempt by Dirty Funker, nor the label, to claim these releases were legit Banksy covers.

Looking at the Discogs edit history for a couple of these releases (I've not got time nor inclination to check every one!) the submissions weren't made by the same people, nor by the label/artist themselves - some credit 'Sleeve: Banksy' others 'Robert Banks'.

Discogs - similarly to wikipedia - is user-controlled content, so I think some vinyl dealers / sellers tried to claim these as legitimate in order to manipulate the market.

You stepping up and voicing disagreement is appreciated; it's what the marketplace of ideas is all about.

With luck, exchanges like this might even assist one or two other members in establishing their own positions, or in nuancing their existing opinions on the subject.


__________


Initial side comments on your reference to "cheeky samples of music":



The music analogy is excellent, and I've no issue with sampling per se. My assessment of these things generally comes down to factors such as:

(i)  degree of copying;

(ii)  innovativeness of usage (including how, or the extent to which, the source material is reworked); and

(iii)  actual or presumed intent of the sampler.



Taking snippets from myriad sources to create something fresh and transformative isn't a problem.

Andrew Weatherall's production work on Screamadelica immediately comes to mind. It was truly inspired.



But contrast the above with Paul Glancy pretty much reproducing wholesale entire images by a famous artist, and slapping them onto record sleeves.

The latter seems transparently exploitative. A cheap (albeit highly effective) effort to receive unmerited attention and sell crate‑loads of extra Dirty Funker records.

Moreover, this was Glancy forcing an association with somebody who was far more successful. It looks like he was seeking to elevate himself by basking in reflected glory. But how many sidebusters have ever commanded respect, as opposed to disdain?


__________


You make an important distinction, between:

(a)  the marketing speak of Paul Glancy / Dirty Funker and his label; and

(b)  whatever resellers of the records might say in their own sales listings.


For the avoidance of doubt, my focus was solely on the actions of Glancy and the original releases of his Dirty Funker records. Descriptions or misdescriptions by resellers were not taken into account by me.


__________


We share further common ground in that I'd be comfortable accepting on faith that the Dirty Funker records were not expressly marketed or sold as being official Banksy releases.



There may however be a divergence between us on the constituents of guilt.

In my view, no untrue statement was necessary for a line to have been crossed.

Paul Glancy was fully conscious of what he was doing, and what could be achieved commercially simply by appropriating and reproducing Banksy's art without consent.



Calculations that Glancy will likely have made:


1.  Banksy's images would be the main selling point for a majority of buyers, not the fact the records were by Dirty Funker.


2.  The images would conveniently also serve as a false endorsement, misleading consumers by suggesting Banksy actually supported Dirty Funker's music.


3.  There was zero need to lie about the stolen status of the artwork, e.g. by falsely claiming it to be official. Because the releases alone, featuring immediately-recognisable images on their sleeves, would be sufficient to dupe many Banksy fans into believing the image use was legitimate.


4.  Even among the more cautious and astute Banksy fans who wouldn't be completely fooled, some would nevertheless remain uncertain enough to buy the records anyway, just in case they might possibly be official.


5.  Keeping schtum about the status of the images (i.e. whether they were authorised or unauthorised by Banksy) could in itself become a buzz‑marketing tactic — with the resulting chatter and speculation possibly leading to increased sales, especially among the large contingent of consumers who fear the possibility of missing out on a good deal or investment opportunity.



The above conduct and mindset is what I was referring to when I previously mentioned the cynicism of the Dirty Funker release. Likewise with the dishonesty, which included a dishonesty by silence or omission.



As a more secondary point, the original retail pricing of Dirty Funker releases wouldn't in itself offer a compelling rebuttal, given that past releases featuring authorised Banksy images (on labels such as Wall of Sound or Parlophone) were never priced differently at source than any other vinyl or CDs.


__________


Although it shouldn't make a difference to its persuasiveness, I'll add that my stance here is generally consistent with English case law on the tort of passing off (something the Dirty Funker releases could arguably be accused of).



Passing off requires there be a misrepresentation, but this doesn't have to be a falsehood or exaggeration. The misrepresentation can be an express statement or just implied, including from the defendant’s actions.

Similarly, passing off need not be deliberate; it may occur regardless of the defendant having acted intentionally or unintentionally. What a judge will instead consider is conduct, and whether the relevant goods or services were offered in a way that deceived the public.

As for the number of people affected, a claim can be initiated and passing off can still be established even if most people were not actually deceived or misled.


__________


Lastly, it is worth touching upon the cumulative impact of releases such as those by Dirty Funker and DJDM.

The confusion they've sown over their status and legitimacy should not be underestimated.



How else would there be so many misinformed, oblivious or deluded collectors around?

Plenty continue to buy Dirty Funker and DJDM records, for sums of money that are sometimes comparable to what releases featuring authorised Banksy images go for, like the We Love You or Badmeaningood series.

That's the level of market ignorance and stupidity we are currently facing.

It is a disheartening reality.