On November 18,2022, Graffiti Artist Banksy invited his fans to go “help themselves” to the clothing from Guess on Regent Street After the Store used his artwork without permission. “Please go to GUESS on Regent Street. They’ve helped themselves to my artwork without asking, how can it be wrong for you to do the same to their clothes?”
The GUESS X Brandalised collection was revealed earlier in the month and included Banksy’s Graffiti with “Guess Attitude”.
Brandalised says it offers licenses to the world’s most famous graffiti and works with brands including HUAWEI and Eleven Paris.
This is not the first time that the graffiti artist, known for his clever satirical designs, has run into copyright problems.
In 2020 the artist was stripped of copyright for the Flower Thrower Artwork,after a two year legal battle with card firm Full Colour Black.
The anonymous street artist was stripped of three more trademarks in 2021, for Radar Rat, Laugh Now and Girl With Umbrella, taking the number of trademarks lost to four.
Banksy refused to reveal his identity to judges who refused to uphold his copyright to the image because, ‘he cannot be identified as the unquestionable owner of such works as his identity is hidden’.Banksy was told he was ‘acting in bad faith’ by remaining anonymous. He had previously said ‘copyright is for losers’.
Chelsea Mendez
Related posts:
ORIGINALFAKE
Fan Fiction
Copyright Chicken
Banksy by Tatiana Garcia
A World Not Unlike Our Own
L.H.O.O.Q.
Banksy: Beautiful Crimes
Powered by YARPP.
I remember seeing the case on social media and initially thinking it was funny that Banksy invited his fans to steal from Guess, since they had stolen from him. But as I thought about it more, I realized how problematic such a small announcement could be. I understand his frustration with having his art stolen, but making a statement like that is dangerous. Regardless of whether people are fans or not, they could take it too far and use it as an excuse to commit wrongful acts, which could potentially harm others a consequence I’m sure Banksy never intended. Some people argue that he should have taken the matter to court, but given his desire to remain anonymous, that would have defeated the purpose of his whole approach. I think a better alternative would have been to protest Guess by encouraging people not to shop there until the artwork was returned or placed back where Banksy intended it to be.
Though Guess did steal Banksy’s artwork, his encouragement of retaliation in the form of shoplifting embodies the saying “an eye for an eye”. Guess stole his property, so he encourages his fans to steal their property. While this may be a saying embedded in the morals and values of certain individuals, I do believe that this is inherently hypocritical and immoral. There are alternative paths of resolution that mitigate further violations of the law. For instance, legal retaliation could have been an appropriate alternative. Banksy’s proposal neglects the possibility of a violent outbreak that may impact both shop workers and shoplifters. Further, he neglects the criminalization of those he encourages which may detriment their lives immensely.
There definitely is an issue today with stolen art, especially with the use of A.I. While it is unfortunate and understandably frustrating that a large company, whether intentional or unintentional, used Banksky’s art without his permission. However, I don’t think that instigating his fans to commit a felony is the right thing to do at all. That being said, I do think that it was also wrong of Guess to steal his artwork. Regardless if it was unintentional, there were many processes to creating/releasing a collection. The stolen artwork should not have slipped through the cracks. I’m not too knowledgable about copyright laws, but Banksky’s history of copyright issues does seem a bit troubling (either on his character or copyright laws itself). As for Banksky’s choice of remaining anonymous, I think that is completely his choice to do so.
I definitely understand his frustration. I think any artist of any medium would agree that having something you worked hard on get stolen, posted without credit, and especially get profited off of is both disrespectful and angering. I don’t know much about the legal system, but I can’t believe there is not a way Banksy can get someone to testify on his behalf. There’s many people with disabilities, illnesses, or like Banksy, want to remain anonymous and I’m sure there’s a system in place for them, so the judges’ rulings seem a bit like an excuse to be honest.
It is unfortunate that these are Banksy’s circumstances when it comes to the rights of his artwork, but I don’t fully agree with his execution of this. Asking or encouraging his fans to steal from the store is not a good thing to encourage, especially when those people can get in trouble for going to steal just because he said so and they’re his fans. While I don’t like big corporations, I think there could’ve been a better way for him to get back at them and not include others in his drama. As for the rights to his artwork, what can he honestly expect considering they can’t give an anonymous person the rights to something because they don’t know if it’s a random person pretending to be the anonymous painter or the actual anonymous painter. I think that is good on their part to do their due diligence and not give out rights to things without knowing who it is they’re giving it to.
It is unfortunate that these are Banksy’s circumstances when it comes to the rights of his artwork, but I don’t fully agree with his execution of this. Asking or encouraging his fans to steal from the store is not a good thing to encourage, especially when those people can get in trouble for going to steal just because he said so and they’re his fans. While I don’t like big corporations, I think there could’ve been a better way for him to get back at them and not include others in his drama. As for the rights to his artwork, what can he honestly expect considering they can’t give an anonymous person the rights to something because they don’t know if it’s a random person pretending to be the anonymous painter or the actual anonymous painter. I think that is good on their part to do their due diligence and not give out rights to things without knowing who it is they’re giving it to.
I love Banksy and what he does as an artist. I love the rebellious style that he has and the little messages that make you think when looking at his work. I think he has every right to fight for what he has made himself, but trying to evoke people to steal from a company is just wrong in my humble opinion. I think there are better ways to fight for work that is being copyrighted especially it is your work. Fight the good fight.
I appreciate the Artist’s work and his desire to stay anonymous. If uncovered, the artist can be faced with many charges due to the amount of graffiti he has done. I understand why Banksy is upset by the Guess collection, and I laugh at the reasoning he provided for why people should rob the store. This should not be taken seriously. He is an artist that is very expressive in his work, as the defacement of public property is a serious issue. It is also up to his fans to take what he says with a grain of salt. People should not actually go and rob the store. I also think that one of the consequences of being a “street” artist is the fact that your art can’t really be copyrighted, and people will use your art elsewhere.
The situation involving Banksy and the unauthorized utilization of his artwork raises intriguing inquiries regarding the essence of street art and ownership. While his actions can be interpreted as a form of retaliation, it also underscores the irony of a company appropriating someone else’s art for profit.
Additionally, Banksy’s choice to maintain anonymity has played a significant role in the legal challenges he has encountered. These copyright laws, which he has contended with, are in place to safeguard artists and their creative works. Therefore, while Banksy may adopt a provocative stance on copyright, it is understandable that he seeks acknowledgment and control over the usage of his art.
This specific instance of copyright disputes underscores the ongoing tension between street art and commercialization. Ultimately, it serves as a reminder of the necessity for a thoughtful and nuanced approach to intellectual property, artistic expression, and the ethical use of artwork, whether it pertains to street art or the commercial realm.
This was an interesting case since I don’t think there’s a right or wrong side. Considering both parties did wrong by the store Guess not getting the permission to use Banksy’s artwork, and also the artist for not allowing to uphold the copyright process. Additionally, the artist had a good intention in letting the people know about this issue and create a political action in form to demand right compensation.
Being a huge Banksy fan myself, it’s not out of pocket for him to do something like this. The real struggle comes from the idea that art itself is a huge stream of copyright. Many famous pieces and artists that we know and love today all stem from some sort of copy of another artist. Art has been building on itself and other artists for decades. However, when a large corporation such as GUESS uses Flower Thrower without making any modifications or acknowledgments to Banksy, it warrants a reaction such as this.
After taking an art appreciation course, I was super intrigued by Banksy’s art and vibe in general. It is very cool to see the way Banksy perceives society and how that shows up in their art. Companies like Guess and basically consumerism in general feel like it goes against Banksy’s morals or at least what I have interpreted. Knowing that companies like Guess can just take their art and use it to promote their products seems super frustrating. Especially when the choice of fighting back to uphold the copyright is unattainable without revealing their identity. However, I love Banksy’s response to the situation. They kind of made a good point that Guess did not ask so why should Banksy’s fans have to ask as well?
While I appreciate Banksy fighting back against a large corporation, I do not think that promoting stealing is the best way to do it. This is because it only punishes the workers of that store, who are not wealthy owners profiting off stolen artwork. He must have known that his anonymity makes it incredibly hard to “claim” his work. In my opinion, he should have figured out some other way to punish the people at the top.
The problems related to the copyright of art are definitely prevalent. Especially for now we got such easy access to artworks/resources/AI bots online. I remember I talked to my friends who major in art and design saying that basically this industry is making money by coping others’ ideas. In such an environment I understand the anger of Banksy. Big companies like GUESS in this story are constantly exploiting the work of art workers. In this case Banksy, as a famous artist with influence, can still advocate for himself. But most of the time, the individual artists and studios do not even have the power or voice to call it out. Even though Banksy should definitely rephrase his words in a way that does not promote crime. I do believe stealing intellectual property is as wrong as stealing physical property.
Honestly I am in support of Banksy’s reaction to his artwork being used without permission. I do agree it is petty however, corporations are equally as petty by not only stealing his artwork but also by not admitting that it is his artwork. There is no way for him to win these trademark cases because he doesn’t want to be revealed to the world (his whole brand revolves around his anonymity). These huge corporations just take advantage of the weak and honestly if the GUESS store was thrashed, it’s well deserved.
In the case of Banksy and Guess, I firmly believe that Guess is in the wrong. Although Banksy’s comments about discouraging copyrighting are a little hypocritical in light of his recent battles with copyright laws, he is still entitled to just compensation for the use of his original pieces. I think that the loss of copyright ownership over all of his pieces due to his anonymity is completely unfair. A major part of his brand as an artist is the fact that he maintains anonymity even though his pieces are famous. It is also important to his safety as he often creates incredibly controversial pieces and has garnered a lot of anger towards him. Regarding Guess, they should not have profited off of designs that were not produced by them or paid for to the original artist. This is something that is incredibly common in the fashion industry but that does not excuse that it is not ethical and incredibly disrespectful to the artists who have actually put effort into their designs, rather than copying and pasting someone else’s work on a t-shirt and claiming it as “new designs”. Banksy should be compensated, and Guess should be punished (even if it’s just socially).
In the case of Banksy and Guess, I firmly believe that Guess is in the wrong. Although Banksy’s comments about discouraging copyrighting is a little hypocritical in light of his recent battles with copyright laws, he is still entitled to just compensation for the use of his original pieces. I think that the loss of copyright ownership over all of his pieces due to his anonymity is completely unfair. A major part of his brand as an artist is the fact that he maintains anonymity even though his pieces are famous. It is also important to his safety as he often creates incredibly controversial pieces and has garnered a lot of anger towards him. Regarding Guess, they should not have profited off of designs that were not produced by them or paid for to the original artist. This is something that is incredibly common in the fashion industry but that does not excuse that it is not ethical and incredibly disrespectful to the artists who have actually put effort into their designs, rather than copying and pasting someone else’s work on a t-shirt and claiming it as “new designs”. Banksy should be compensated, and Guess should be punished (even if it’s just socially).
This was a crazy situation to read about. It made me think more about how corporations are taking advantage of social movements for profit, especially the fashion industry. Buying an $80 shirt with the word rebel on it, made in a sweatshop kinda beats the whole purpose of being a rebel. I feel the same way about clothing companies taking graffiti art that’s commenting on real social issues and movements, profiting off of it, and all that money going to the same big-wigs and executives who are supporting social injustices. Which makes it sad to see another big company getting away with profiting off of somebody else’s creativity, hopefully, one day the courts will stand up for anonymous artists, or at least compromise and have them use a fake name to uphold their copyright.
I am able to see both sides in this story, but both parties are at fault in my opinion. Banksy has every right to be upset and he demonstrated his anger with what he said. I think that Guess was unprofessional and disrespectful to steal his art, however it is a tough discussion since Banksy chooses to keep his identity anonymous Guess in turn used that to their advantage. It seems as though he was also encouraging his fans to commit a crime, all around both parties are in the wrong and it could have definitely been handled better. It does not make sense to me why someone would want to promote committing a crime after a crime was committed as an act of revenge. That is not the proper way to handle a situation such as this one and immaturity was shown.
In the battle between GUESS and BANKSY, I firmly believe that GUESS is in the wrong and that they should not have used BANKSY’s art for profit. While it is a little hypocritical for BANKSY to have made disparaging comments towards the copyright process and then be upset about how his copyright process was executed, he created this works of art and should be entitled to compensation for them. I feel as though it was unfair of BANKSY to be stripped of his copyrights to these pieces in the first place due to his commitment to anonymity because anonymity is a major part of his brand as an artist and compromising that would have compromised his standing as an artist. It could have also compromised his safety as he has made numerous controversial pieces that have garnered a lot of anger towards him. Regarding GUESS, even if it was a different artist, I think it is incredibly disrespectful and greedy for them to profit off of work they have not produced or paid for. This is not the first time they have been accused of stealing designs, something that is incredibly common in the fashion industry as a whole, and they should be reprimanded for it (even if only socially).
This was a crazy situation to read about. It made me think more about how corporations are taking advantage of social movements for profit, especially the fashion industry. Buying an $80 shirt with the word rebel on it, made in a sweatshop kinda beats the whole purpose of being a rebel. I feel the same way about clothing companies taking graffiti art that’s commenting on real social issues and movements, profiting off of it, and all that money going to the same big-wigs and executives who are supporting social injustices. Which makes it sad to see another big company getting away with profiting off of somebody else’s creativity, hopefully, one day the courts will stand up for anonymous artists, or at least compromise and have them use a fake name to uphold their copyright.
The case of Banksy and the unauthorized use of his artwork raises interesting questions about copyright, ownership, and the nature of street art. While his actions may be seen as a form of retaliation, it also highlights the irony of a company appropriating someone else’s art while profiting from it. Banksy’s decision to remain anonymous has been a significant factor in the legal challenges he has battled. This entire debacle has raised many interesting questions that may not have been discussed previously, as it is very rare for such famous artists to remain anonymous. Relationships between art, authorship, and the value placed on anonymity versus recognition have all been highlighted here. Furthermore, it is crucial to recognize that copyright laws exist to protect artists and their creative works. While Banksy may have a provocative stance on copyright, it is understandable that he seeks recognition and control over the use of his art. This is just one example of the intersection and inevitable tension between street art, commercialization, and legal frameworks. The actions taken by Guess are not alone in the commercialization space and prompt further discussions about the ownership of art in public spaces, the role of corporations in appropriating street art for profit, and the complexities of copyright in the context of anonymous artists.
The case of Banksy and the unauthorized use of his artwork raises many interesting questions about the nature of street art and ownership. While his actions may be seen as a form of retaliation, it also highlights the irony of a company appropriating someone else’s art while profiting from it.
Furthermore, Banksy’s decision to remain anonymous has been a significant factor in the legal challenges he has faced. These copyright laws, which he has been battled on, exist to protect artists and their creative works. So, while Banksy may have a provocative stance on copyright, it is understandable that he seeks recognition and control over the use of his art. This particular case of copyright battles highlights the ongoing tension between street art and commercialization. Ultimately, I believe that this incident serves as a reminder of the need for a thoughtful and nuanced approach to intellectual property, artistic expression, and the ethical use of artwork, both in the realm of street art and in the commercial world.
With what was done to his artwork, I can understand Banksy’s reaction, but it seems like what he said was in the heat of the moment. Promoting stealing is obviously not the right thing to do, but with the way corporations function, there definitely needs to be something done. If individuals do not have the right to steal other’s intellectual property, then how are corporations any different? This is an issue that only the government can really enforce, and that in itself has seen no progress.
I don’t really know which side to take personally. I’m a big fan of BANKSY and feel that his thoughts and messages on social injustice, consumerism and materialism, war and conflict, identity, and freedom of expression are all issues that people should be aware of. It definitely does raise the question of property rights, artistic integrity, and ethics in regards to GUESS taking a piece of BANKSY’s artwork, however I don’t support the encouragement of crime as a way to rebel. However, I feel like GUESS is doing BANKSY a favor by promoting and preserving his work and introducing it to a much wider audience.
Copyright is a complex domain in art and the behavior by Banksy is an unconventional approach to the topic by remaining anonymous. However, his act of encouraging his fans to take cloths from the store is an illegal way to protest against the abuse of copyright laws by big corporations (although I can understand the intention of the act) and may cause legal consequences. I think there can be better means to make his statement instead of breaking laws (especially to defend another law).
I am torn by reading this article. On one hand, I have a huge respect for Bansky and artists in general, as they make a lot of effort to create something they are passionate about. Seeing his art pieces used by the company to make profits, he must feel very devastated as this is used without his consent. On the other hand, although Bansky does not explicitly tell his followers to rob Guess, his words definitely would incentivize crime actions. At the end of the day, there may not be anything gained to Bansky, but lost to both him and his followers.
Having your own art being taken from you is something that I can understand will elicit a response like that, but I feel like it was definitely something that Banksy said in the heat of the moment. Maintaining social order is definitely a top priority, but there is something that does need to be done with the power that corporations possess over the individual.
I can’t fully support Banksy directly encouraging crime, but I do have a lot of respect for the artist. His commitment to anonymity makes a huge comment on the nature of graffiti as an art form. It seems a bit playground-esque to say “they stole from me, go steal from them,” but in a sense I interpret this less as a criminal instruction, and more as yet another art piece. Banksy is known for eccentric, political, and thought-provoking work, and this signage is right in line with that. I feel that less than Banksy actually wanted to see if people would steal from GUESS, they wanted to see if people would *actually* go through with it.
I’m on the fence about this topic. I agree that it’s not fair that Banksy is having his work plastered all over the world and brands are making money off of it without his permission. These companies are stealing his artwork and that’s not fair. But at the same time I don’t think him asking his supporters to steal from GUESS does anything. His supporters will get arrested for this and it affects their lives more than his. If he wants to do something about it he should fight his own battles.
I think Banksy is arguably less in the wrong here. Although both parties are acting inappropriately, Banksy suggested something based on what should be morally right and didn’t explicitly tell his followers to rob Guess. However, his sense of justice isn’t accepted by the law. He should definitely be punished, laws are universal, but it sucks that he must sacrifice anonymity for support from copyright law.
I’m completely torn on this. I agree with Banksy on why he is so angry, it’s not fair that these companies can use his art without his consent and make money off of it. But at the same time I don’t think it’s right for Banksy to tell his supporters to rob the GUESS store because his supporters will get arrested and this won’t affect him at all. He’s not seeing how doing this won’t fix the problem, sadly companies don’t care.
I can understand why Banksy did what he did if this situation is true. Many times, people who are victims of copyright infringement are not able to seek the justice they deserve. In a lot of cases, big brands with a lot of money steal from smaller artists who are not able to defend themselves adequately. Banksy’s action can demonstrate that it is never acceptable to steal from somebody and that actions have consequences. However, I do think that Banksy’s actions can lead him in serious legal trouble, so I do not necessarily support his actions.
Although giving immoral corporations what they deserve sounds like a good thing, there are still some legal and social problems with Banksy’s actions. The main problem is the fact that Banksy doesn’t own the copyright of his works which is not a problem caused by the government’s decision, but rather the law not issuing copyright to anonymous people. Therefore despite being known for anonymity, Banksy cannot ask the government to violate their own law for just one person, because then it will never stop at one person.
Frankly, I believe everyone is in the wrong here, just like the saying that “two wrongs don’t make a right.” Promoting a crime in response to another crime does not lead to anything productive. However, I can truly sympathize with Banksy’s frustrations as artists’ works are often taken without permission. This is especially defeating when these artworks are cheapened into consumerist designs and distributed to the public. Since Banksy is anonymous, I can understand that taking legal action against GUESS may be more difficult than an artist that’s connected to their personal identity.
I completely understand Banksy’s frustration with GUESS for having their art stolen. However, encouraging crime is not a good look and I feel like people will attach it to him being a graffiti artist. This style of art much like rap music is already associated with delinquency/crime because of its proximity with black culture and media portrayal. Encouraging crime will give those that generalize graffiti art more of a reason to criminalize it.
I do think it is wrong for guess to use his art without asking but his act of defiance was not acceptable. It encourages others to commit a crime. Shoplifting Guess might have appeal because it is a huge company that would not suffer greatly. It is just to send a message. But his supporters will he gets charged while he gets his petty revenge.
In this situation it seems like both parties are in the wrong. GUESS should not have used the artwork, especially after Banksy explicitly stated that he was not ok with it. The company took advantage of the fact that he had no legal right to his artwork, and that the court system would not uphold his claim to the art because of his anonymity. Banksy also should not have promoted shoplifting from the store, as it was kind of a tit for tat retaliation. However, I understand his frustration, and to be honest if I was protected under anonymity as Banksy is I probably would have responded similarly in this situation.
I think that the legal case that Bansky had against GUESS was really interesting and I understand his anger in losing it. Bansky is an artist; most of his image and prestige come from his confidentiality regarding his identity. His whole image and ‘brand’ revolves around it. I think that GUESS shows extreme disrespect in stealing his art, especially after explicitly being told by the artist that he does NOT want them to use it. Despite GUESS’s disrespect in stealing from Bansky, I am not sure that it is morally correct for him to relate to another crime. I don’t think cruelty should be returned with cruelty and it could be possible for him to be the bigger person.
Banksy has long been loathed by many governments because of the artist’s knack for lampooning government missteps. It’s not surprising that someone would use his anonymity to counter him and use it to try to find out who he really is. But then again, Banksy appears to have merely satirized Guess online, and he himself neither participated in nor asked his fans to participate in the theft, so it’s hard to see it as a crime. Guess’s intent to provoke the artist was essentially a publicity stunt, not really to sell the clothes, and it clearly got what it wanted.
My opinion on Banksy shifts from good to bad but for the most part I appreciate his art as well as his adherence to anonymity. His body of work has definitely become a cultural phenomenon and it is pretty gross that companies and corporations can profit off of his art and his messages. Still, not being able to copyright your work is the price of anonymity, and it is always going to be a losing battle if he stays true to his ideals. It is admirable if he does stay true to himself, and his style is distinct enough to be identified readily (I believe he even confirms which works are his on his website based on user submissions). At the same time, it’s pretty cozy on his part to encourage theft while playing no part and taking no risks. It rubs me the wrong way to see him speak through his fans in this way.
For me personally, I tend to feel strong towards artists in particular when they are accused of a crime and have their art work stolen from them just because of the effort they put into it just to be stolen by someone else. I don’t like how Banksy has to reveal his identity just to claim art that is clearly his. It’s unfair that it didn’t happen once, but a few more times after that. Especially someone as notable as Banksy, it should be obvious that his artwork has a certain style that everyone recognizes and he wouldn’t lie about it because he doesn’t sell his art in the first place and that he paints truly for the passion of it to share with others and not make a profit.
It is interesting to witness the battle between Banksy and brands that have unfairly used his artwork. These brands did not ask for his permission and he retaliated by having his fans steal from their stores. It is an interesting dilemma of who is at fault for the crime because it seems like Banksy took the copyright problem into his own hands and brands like Guess might have thought that they can use the anonymity of Banksy to their advantage. It also demonstrates the unfair position that artists have and sheds light on how they might need more help or advocating in the public eye.
The concept of retribution in this situation raises some interesting ethical and legal questions. While it is understandable that Banksy might feel frustrated and violated by the unauthorized use of his artwork, encouraging fans to take clothing from Guess as a form of retribution might be viewed as promoting vigilantism or an eye-for-an-eye mentality. It is also interesting how this artist chooses to act through his fans, suggesting Banksy is stuck in an ethical dilemma where they are conflicted between wanting justice and upholding the law.
The case provides an interesting angle to analyze as the actions of Guess as a brand are not the most ethical but neither is the response from Banksy completely ethical. Given the legal precedent, however, it is possible that neither entity committed a crime. This bodes a necessary examination with regards to copyright laws in general. When considering every individuals rights to privacy, it seems justifiable that an artist should be able to remain anonymous yet still have possession and claims to their own art. This also bodes examination as to what can be done when the law fails the individual as Banksy was essentially wronged by the legal system with regards to claims for his art. Consequently, he was almost forced to act in an unethical manner that would not have been required if he was given rights to his own artwork from the beginning.
Ultimately, I think Banksy’s statement is simply an act of defiance and rebellion against GUESS. He himself is not stealing the clothing, and there are enough deterrences from stealing from such a large and prominent brand name store that the chances of people listening are slim. Additionally, despite being a prominent artist in the graffiti scene, Banksy does not hold enough influence to form a rebellion. But, I am interested by the argument that because he is deciding to keep his identity a secret, he cannot hold copyright claims. I don’t quite understand it, when it is still intellectual property of a persona.
While looking at the comments, it is astounding to me that several people are against what Bansky said. GUESS is a huge store that would not lose much if they took anything. Not to mention, I really do not think that several people would listen to this, common sense you know? I guess that would be giving people the benefit of the doubt. Banksy spoke with anger, which is completely valid since so many companies are stealing his work and not crediting him for it. Which is a slap in the face to any artist.
It’s interesting to see how a lot of people do not advocate Banksy’s actions here, but thing is – if all legal courses of action have been taken in order to uphold justice, and failed, what else is there to do? I would say that it might not be in the best interests of the common person, if we are to allow corporations to essentially take whatever they want under the justification that ‘we shouldn’t encourage people to do bad things.’
While it is horrible that people are violating the copyrights of others, ‘an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind’. This kind of attitude is not acceptable, even if you are wronged, you should not do wrong-doing onto others. Its pretty basic stuff.
Even though Banksy is “anonymous,” they’ve created this brand for themself, the same way an author or singer creates a stage name. While there’s no attributable (legal) identity associated with the persona, that doesn’t mean the artist’s work can be thrown around by large cooperations. With that being said, Banksy’s suggestion for his fans isn’t morally correct either. It’s tough, because as a kid you’re taught to “treat others the way you want to be treated” with the intention of promoting positivity, but in this case Banksy’s using the idea to get back at GUESS.
If Banksy is telling the truth then this situation is a good demonstration of how the laws of copyright can be actively abused by big corporations that have the resources to fight legal battles against small artists that don’t have those resources. There has been an almost infinite amount of similar situations to this one, where a smaller artists artwork is stolen and they are relegated to small acts of rebellion such as calling for shoplifting of the corporation that stole their work.
Admittedly, I applaud Banksy for his work; Not just because of the quintessential execution but also his purposeful precepts. Regardless my „bias“ towards him, I am inclined to believe that every artist is to keep the right of being protected against plagiarism. The wish to stay „anonymous“ should not take that away.
Certainly, GUESS should have respected the copyrights of his art; Any artist‘s art for that matter. But Banksy was in the wrong too. Just like the saying, „Two wrongs don’t make it right“, Banksy potentially inaugurated others to „unwillingly“ commit a crime.
It is interesting how laws only apply to some people and how easily loop holes can be found. Because in a given system it would be difficult to give a copyright to someone who has no real identity. But that doesn’t mean that their artwork is not their own. There is give and take with the freedom banksy has for being anonymous.