[tartarus]

 Just saw this on Stik's facebook, seems like a good idea to try and persuade him and others to leave the art where it is and where it should be. 




Share as much as you can, if it effects his bottom line, surely he will decide to leave stuff alone. 

Stik made this with and for the kids, Lamberty seems to think its for him to profit from. 

www.change.org/p/andrew-lamberty-return-our-community-mural/share?after_sign_exp=default&just_signed=true

[tartarus]

Come on peeps, if we dont at least show we want the pieces to stay where they are, what hope is there!

takes a few seconds to get it signed.

[Deleted]

If Stik created the artwork as a mural with multiple figures and Lamberty chopped it up. Then Lamberty is guilty of defacing a mural. Cutting up a painting and selling it off in pieces does nothing for Lamberty's credibility as an art dealer.

[tartarus]

Seems your not at all wrong there ploppi. This just came up on Stik's facebook.

This bit sums someone up quite nicely.

"preservation of cultural property against the greed of the people of dubious reputation"

FIGHTING ABOUT RECOVERY a $ 1 million street art - SIGN THE PETITION
Street art can not be ignored, you can not escape it, but you can steal it. In large metropolitan widely understood Street Art is everywhere, and the first question to be posed in the debate on the art of appearing in public space is: Is it worth something, and if so how much ?.
Street art can not be certain the property owner of Cheltenham in the UK he woke up with his head in the potty, when the wall of his home intervention created Banksy. Worth PLN 5 million tag was finally completely destroyed worth $ 1 million container with works Stik-and disappeared in 2014. From the area of ​​one of the primary schools in Gdansk to appear in with the card, on sale 'in one of the galleries in London, led by a star television Andrew Lamberty. These are just two examples of illegal intervention, the value of which was undeniable, but for some reason the values' did not notice the originators of projects and original owners, and others noticed it.

Street art can not be certain about the incident owner Last disappearance of Gdansk container from the popular artist spoke min. Trudy Prescott from King's College London. Dr. Rt, which now leads second Ph.D. focusing it on just such acts of cultural vandalism like this from Polish. Dr. Trudy Prescott commented on the matter:
S,Ingerencja in intergralne work of art (eg. By cutting pieces of it) for further commercial use is immoral and unethical. Unesco's International Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural Property 'of 1999. Contains clear guidelines on such practices as fragmentation or division into parts, to then sell that destroyed the cultural further.'
Trudy Presscott notes that Unesco has long since established recommendations for such cases and does not apply only to what we call the global cultural heritage, but art in general. It is true that in our case Polish probably not been stolen, and at most a breach of duty by the organizers. They do not in time realize that the work-Stik and the art market in the express pace acquire value. If the wall was created for the people, it should remain on the street, and not become a tool of economic success for those or other people. Therefore Stik confirms the authenticity of their works only if the money gained from the sale will feed into a valuable community purpose. Another strategy to combat greed principals in 2016. Blu suggested removing its murals of urban space. These two events, it is in any case an attempt to remind that the street belongs to its people. Unfortunately, people living next to street art because of the constant indoctrination of local explaining to them that the street belongs to all largely forgotten that artists creating on the street form for ordinary citizens. Code of Ethics of the Unesco supports local communities who are fighting for the preservation of cultural property against the greed of the people of dubious reputation, or those who belong to the privileged groups (often it goes hand in hand ed. Ed.) The Code of Ethics is a testimony of a bona fide art dealers. Then, when for unknown reasons the country of origin of the work is not able to adequately assess the losses which resulted in the disappearance of a cultural or art, you can use the code of Unesco. The following text, Unesco's International Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural Property '. Petition for return of works Stika can sign here. For now it made it 308 people.

Environment dealers of art and cultural goods is aware of the crucial role played by trade in cultural goods and their distribution in the process educate and inspire all people. We are concerned about the growing number of illegal practices in the field of export of cultural goods, and so here are applicable zaady professional ethics. With him will be easy to distinguish between the legal sale of this illegal and morally reprehensible. In his daily activity we will seek to eliminate these bad practices:

1) Professional dealers of art and cultural property will not import, export, buy, sell and trade in cultural goods, if only will occur a serious risk that the cultural object or work of art can come from theft, illegal smuggling and illegal exports.

2) dealer, who acts as agent people seller to the buyer will provide information regarding the person selling the good culture, its full name and address. Dealer for its part, must ensure that the legal title to the works owned, so they do not doubt that the work comes from a legal source.

3) dealer or trader who has reasonable grounds to believe that the cultural object may be a product of discreet removal from the place of its original destination or cultural object has been acquired illegally or unfairly will not help in the sale, resale etc. unless it obtains consent State in which there is a cultural. In addition, a person who is in possession of cultural goods (if the transaction but there) take the permissible legal steps to return the item to the country of origin

4) Dealer, who believes that, good culture 'comes from illegal sources will not participate in such procederze except as there is the consent of the country, which exports this type of work. If the dealer has a good culture, and you of which was exported claim the right to return, the dealer shall immediately return the object while taking all steps to work with you which is a cultural object has been exported.

5) Traffickers cultural property will not exhibit, present in the media of cultural goods to sell later they possess good culture.

6) Traders and dealers in cultural goods will not destroy, separate, or sell parts of the work, which was
initially created as a whole.

7) Dealers will do their best not to separate the already divided cultural property that has been created as a whole, eg. By selling to different people.


8) Violation of this Code of Ethics will be rigorously investigated by the appropriate authority will include dealers and traders in cultural goods. A person aggrieved by the unethical conduct dealers can then submit to this body with a request for examination and the result of settlement of the dispute will be made public.

[Deleted]

Some things that don't add up regarding the container. is that Lamberty clearly knew the art was a lot more valuable than the container that he bought. So was he watching the whole thing like a hawk and moving in as fast as possible before anyone notices.

The other thing is the making of derivative works of art without the artists permission.

Art is protected by copyright and usually to prevent the art being altered in any way and derivative works made without the artists permission. Which to me looks like Lamberty made derivative works by cutting up one work of art and selling the cut up pieces as individual works by Stik.