Notice that sticker on the covers? It says “limited edition sleeve by Banksy” on it. They even used the Banksy logo/tag!

Embarrassingly, I had completely forgotten about and overlooked those stickers.

So thank you for the very helpful reminder.








That is properly messed up, isn't it?



My previous posts were drafted on the basis that Paul Glancy / Dirty Funker's dishonesty and cynicism broadly came down to:

(a)  being knowingly misleading through his conduct; and

(b)  lying by omission.



But the stickers do take things to another level. They amount to an express falsehood and deceit. An overt fraud.

Glancy was in effect saying to all of us:

"I view you, the Banksy fans and collectors, with such contempt that I'm going to lie straight to your faces about the legitimacy of the images on my Dirty Funker record sleeves. And you are so naive, so gullible, that you're actually going to believe me, buy multiple copies of my records, and top up my bank balance in the process.

God bless you, fools."


Admittedly hyperbolic, but if anyone feels this characterisation is too unfair, I'd be interested to hear their thoughts.

There will always be demand for fakes - cause most people can't afford real. no different than $5000 purses

In the present context, this would be a strawman, largely beside the point. And a misleading comparison.

Clarifications below.



Courtesy heads‑up


Especially for those accessing the forum by phone, what follows is a wall of text. Even I find it a tad overwhelming.

The simplest option, therefore, is to ignore the post and scroll to the next one.

For any masochists who insist on ploughing through regardless, I'd advise they grab a drink beforehand.


____________________



1.  a strawman, largely beside the point


Nobody would dispute there will always be demand for fakes. That is axiomatic.

The issues here are distinct.



1.1  The fact there will always be demand for fakes doesn't make the accompanying thieving more acceptable


[Exaggerated Gimme Shelter‑inspired analogy in support of the same argument:

There will always be rape and murder. However, this reality neither justifies nor lessens the heinousness of rape and murder.]



A first principle mentioned in an earlier post*, and the foundation for a number of comments I've previously made:


Stealing from artists is wrong


Of course, this could easily be broadened, to say that stealing from anyone is wrong.

Boring, as far as I'm concerned. A platitude.

But are there forum members who view it as controversial?


__________


Thought experiment


Imagine me posting the following:


Hello everyone,

Over the weekend, associates of mine broke into the home of my mate, sean1397. And I've since come into indirect possession of some sale items. I do really like the chap. Have known and supported him for years. But given how well his career is going, relieving him of a few cherished belongings doesn't feel like a big deal.

So what I have on offer is very nice stereo equipment, first‑edition books, framed prints, and photo albums filled with family photos and keepsakes (which could perhaps be used by somebody else for an arts-and-crafts project).

Competitive prices. DM me for pics.

No scumbag lowballers, please.

Cheers, y'all.



Now, query whether there exists any real difference in principle between trading in goods:

(a)  stolen from somebody's home (in this case, valued assets belonging to sean1397); and

(b)  resulting from an artist's most valuable asset (their intellectual property) being stolen.




1.2  The fact there will always be demand for fakes doesn't make it okay to sell fakes here


Yes, there will always be demand for low‑cost items. And for some consumers, even if those items were filched.

Nevertheless, do we really want the Urban Art Association to be used as a platform for the sale of stolen goods?

Or goods derived from the theft of, once again for emphasis, the most valuable asset an artist owns — their intellectual property?


__________


To members who are fine with IP theft, fine with artists (whom we respect and champion) being slapped in the face and ripped off, at what stage might it become uncomfortable to see the sale of knockoffs and fakes on this message board?



Take for example the Dirty Funker records with stolen Radar Rat images, or DJDM records with stolen Laugh Now and Keep It Real images.

They are tainted in the same manner as thousands of other cases of IP theft: canvases, t‑shirts, keyrings, etc. featuring unauthorised Banksy artwork, ubiquitous on eBay and elsewhere.



So if we allow the trade of fake Banksy records on the forum, then presumably we should also embrace sale threads by, say, Explosive Arts, willy‑wong‑clothing and Moody Motorz UK. Or Andrew Gallagher of Full Colour Black.

For the sake of consistency.

And if not, then why not? On what basis would they not be welcome to sell their unofficial, unauthorised tat here as well?

I ask, because their fake Banksys are no less legitimate than those released by Dirty Funker:


Explosive Arts*


willy‑wong‑clothing*


Moody Motorz UK*




It can even be argued that Explosive Arts et al. have greater legitimacy, since they're not expressly lying and claiming to sell authorised merchandise — unlike the Dirty Funker releases with stickers stating "Limited Edition Sleeve By Banksy".




2.  a misleading comparison


In the specific context of record sleeves featuring Banksy artwork, a reference to $5,000 purses seems ill‑suited.



First, the dividing line we're discussing isn't Original Banksy paintings vs Fake Banksy records. That would be absurd.

Our focus is simply on commercially-printed (≠ hand‑sprayed) record‑sleeve art, and recognising Legitimate vs Stolen Banksy images.



Second, a Luxury purse vs Fake purse analogy on its own doesn't factor in market ignorance regarding the knockoff status of so many Banksy images used on record sleeves.

As mentioned previously*, misinformed, oblivious or deluded collectors continue to buy Dirty Funker and DJDM records, for sums of money that are sometimes comparable to what releases with authorised Banksy images go for, like the We Love You or Badmeaningood series.

That appears to be a complete failure by collectors to distinguish authorised from unauthorised.


__________


We could still apply a luxury purse analogy; it just needs to be expressed differently:


In this scenario, fashionistas, who covet and absolutely can afford a Birkin 35, are spending the requisite five figures.

Yet what they sadly don't realise is that, despite seller assurances and appearances (engraved logos, serial number, stamp with year of production, etc.), the bags they're paying $12,700 for aren't actually made by Hermès.

Instead, they come from an opportunistic leather‑goods manufacturer based in Wenzhou.



As already stressed above, a similar situation has long existed in the marketplace for Banksy records, where fakes released by Dirty Funker and DJDM are also traded.

The ignorance of collectors is such that, price‑wise, there is often little to separate a shoddy knockoff from the real McCoy.


____________________



Being a natural optimist, my hope is that posts like this one might help to raise awareness among fellow enthusiasts of genuine (non‑fake) Banksy ephemera:


Informed collectors > Uninformed collectors



END. Congratulations if you made it.