Banksy Radar Rat • Dirty Funker 12"

[peas]

Jun 20, 2021 10:26:55 GMT 1 UK Art Dealer said:

With original receipt - ends tonight, can’t be many left like that

www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Banksy-Radar-Rat-Dirty-Funker-LP-with-Original-Receipt-/124770360473?_trksid=p2349624.m2548.l6249

Much lolling at the perceived increase in value of a fake item because it comes with a receipt.

[Lazarus II]

To be fair, look at the price people pay for the stuff given away to the kids at GDP if it comes with a KFC receipt or indeed the grail of a Dartford Tunnel Crossing receipt😊

[Gurn]

Jun 20, 2021 11:29:02 GMT 1 Lazarus II said:

To be fair, look at the price people pay for the stuff given away to the kids at GDP if it comes with a KFC receipt or indeed the grail of a Dartford Tunnel Crossing receipt😊

At least that was by Banksy.

[Jonny Wednesday]

Hi All,

i know its not a for sale thread but looking to get an idea of what Banksy dirty funker 12" vinyl - future, brown with radar rat goes for. I've not seen one sold recently. 

I forgot I had one and only found it packing for a house move.

Thanks in advance

[Acme Thunderer]

Dec 7, 2021 21:25:04 GMT 1 Jonny Wednesday said:

Hi All,

i know its not a for sale thread but looking to get an idea of what Banksy dirty funker 12" vinyl - future, brown with radar rat goes for. I've not seen one sold recently. 

I forgot I had one and only found it packing for a house move.

Thanks in advance

These sold today at auction - www.tateward.com/auction/search/?au=64&sd=2

[Jonny Wednesday]

Perfect. Thanks Acme

[Jonny Wednesday]

For sale: Banksy Dirty Funker future 12" vinyl. Brown sleeve with the radar rat logo.

Excellent condition. Not sure if there is still a market for these on the forum.

£250.00 ono

 

[influence]

So, whats a good starting price point here for 1?

[njr911]

Discogs. They are pricey...

Words Words Words Words Words Words Words Words Words Please Deleted My Post,

[Daniel Silk]

Just spotted a Banksy Radar Rat 12" record currently on ebay, with bidding so far up to £264 -
www.ebay.co.uk/itm/234773001776

[Daniel Silk]

Banksy Radar Rat at auction, currently £129 -
www.ebay.co.uk/itm/234804415726

[KaL976]

More bootleg/chancer tat going for actual money

Words words words words, left a box of them behind in a move, words words words, I'm still a dumbass.

[syndicath]

banksy record "dirty funker - future"

from 2008 - radar rat

price: 800.- euros

limited to 1000

located in vienna, austria

[00mardy00]

Hi,



I am looking to sell the below Radar Rat album covers, all with original LPs.

Price - Open to offers

Location - London


I am looking to sell and am open to all (reasonable!) offers. Thanks

[soupy]

🚩 *Fake Copies of Banksy - Album Covers (with LPs) for sale

[00mardy00]

Wow, maybe I'm new to this forum, but I am a bit taken aback by your comment there. By what basis are you claiming they are fake? Happy for any *serious* buyer to assess them for themselves.

[mandem]

They mean fake as in these were mass-produced with unauthorised license of the image.

They're genuine DF records, no doubt.

[met]

Apr 4, 2024 15:27:04 GMT 1 00mardy00 said:

Hi,



I am looking to sell the below Radar Rat album covers, all with original LPs.

Price - Open to offers

Location - London


I am looking to sell and am open to all (reasonable!) offers. Thanks

Apr 4, 2024 15:31:50 GMT 1 soupy said:

🚩 *Fake Copies of Banksy - Album Covers (with LPs) for sale

Apr 4, 2024 16:56:02 GMT 1 00mardy00 said:

Wow, maybe I'm new to this forum, but I am a bit taken aback by your comment there. By what basis are you claiming they are fake? Happy for any *serious* buyer to assess them for themselves.

Apr 4, 2024 18:35:57 GMT 1 mandem said:

They mean fake as in these were mass-produced with unauthorised license of the image.

They're genuine DF records, no doubt.

These would seem to be Dirty Funker records.

And just like all other Dirty Funker records featuring images by Banksy, the use of that imagery was unauthorised.

It was appropriated and exploited by third parties, without the consent of the artist himself.



As referred to above by mandem, what you are therefore offering can simultaneously be described as:

(a)  authentic Dirty Funker records; and

(b)  Banksy knockoffs, or Banksy fakes.

[My sole qualification is that I don't believe there exists a licence. This was more likely a case of straight theft, without any accompanying paperwork.]



But by a long stretch, the main selling point of the records is the stolen Banksy imagery on their sleeves. As opposed to the actual music — which at best will be of secondary concern to most owners.

Hence "Fake Copies" being a fair description by soupy, even if broad‑brush.


__________


I myself would actively discourage anyone from buying both these particular records and others like them.

They have no legitimate place on this platform, or in the Banksy market proper.



And so, at least in my view, posts (including repetitive ones) that inform or remind others of the true status of these records are beneficial to the wider community of collectors.

Whenever possible, it's important that we acquire items in a fully‑informed manner, with open eyes.

A marketplace filled with too many ignorant or deluded buyers is never healthy. It can only benefit the more predatory sellers among us, who are happy to take advantage of every dupe they encounter.

[00mardy00]

Hi met, thanks for enlightening me about the history of the record covers. I see now why they may be referred to as ‘fake’, even if they are not ‘fakes’. I purchased these in 2008 under the impression they were legit associated with Banksy. So, in this case I was the ignorant buyer then and the ignorant seller now! In any case, I am selling them for what they are then, as collectors are interested in them, which I can also understand. I agree, it is important that people know exactly what they are buying (and selling), so thank you for adding this information to the post.

[Onket]

Sure there are plenty of interested buyers out there, as these have been sold via these messageboards before, and will be again, despite what the pompous self-appointed fun police say.

Welcone to the boards, and good luck with the sale.👍

[met]

Apr 5, 2024 9:30:54 GMT 1 00mardy00 said:

Hi met, thanks for enlightening me about the history of the record covers. I see now why they may be referred to as ‘fake’, even if they are not ‘fakes’. I purchased these in 2008 under the impression they were legit associated with Banksy. So, in this case I was the ignorant buyer then and the ignorant seller now! In any case, I am selling them for what they are then, as collectors are interested in them, which I can also understand. I agree, it is important that people know exactly what they are buying (and selling), so thank you for adding this information to the post.

No worries. Happy to help.

And I appreciate your courtesy reply. Especially its non‑defensiveness, which is most refreshing.


__________


As for you initially believing the Dirty Funker records were officially connected to Banksy, this is unsurprising.

Plenty of other collectors have been in the same boat. And many, many more continue to be.

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.


__________


Paul Glancy (a.k.a. Dirty Funker) can, without unfairness, be described as a parasite.

He has been consistent with his thieving.

Every Banksy image on his record sleeves (whether Radar Rat, Kate or Happy Choppers) was appropriated. Used unofficially, without consent from the artist.



Of course, Glancy is far from being the only person who has leeched off Banksy in this manner.

But it's his Dirty Funker records in particular which seem to have duped the most collectors into wrongly believing they're genuine Banksy items.

Similar accusations can be made against the DJDM (≠ Danger Mouse) releases from 2008, featuring stolen Laugh Now and Keep It Real imagery.


__________


Among enthusiasts of Banksy's artwork, your previous self was probably in the majority. A majority that is in large part oblivious or misinformed.

This has helped to establish an arguably dominant culture, where:

(i)  falsehoods are perpetuated in a seemingly-never-ending cycle of nonsense; and

(ii)  countless fans are repeatedly getting misled and ripped off.



No wonder we keep witnessing ridiculous or disheartening situations like:

(a)  Still Sane (Elizabeth II as Aladdin Sane, by the Bristol artist IncWel) being prominently displayed at one of the unofficial "Banksy" exhibitions that have toured around the world charging elevated entrance fees;

(b)  people on Instagram showing off their new tattoos of a panda with handguns, accompanied by the hashtags #banksy and #banksytattoo; and

(c)  Dirty Funker and DJDM records actually being sold for three‑figure sums.



It's the blind leading the blind.

Plus, every now and then, it is also the knowledgeable-yet-unscrupulous manipulating and shafting the blind.


__________


Welcome, and thanks for crossing over to the side of the better‑informed minority.



In terms of our numbers, there isn't yet a critical mass — one that could lead to a tipping point, based on increased awareness within the marketplace for Banksy ephemera.

Hopefully, we'll get there eventually.

And if such a tipping point is ever reached, the demand for fake Banksy records might then suddenly take a long‑overdue nosedive.

[met]

Apr 5, 2024 10:09:56 GMT 1 Onket said:

Sure there are plenty of interested buyers out there, as these have been sold via these messageboards before, and will be again, despite what the pompous self-appointed fun police say.

Welcone to the boards, and good luck with the sale.👍

If the text I've highlighted in red was partly or wholly directed at me, my thoughts are as follows:



1.  "pompous"

A fair comment, or at least not unfair, albeit one that mainly appears to be about the tone of my post.

Tone is an aspect I do try to keep in mind when drafting (I normally aim for "robotic") — especially when there's a risk it can detract from the substance of my posts, thereby making them less effective.

Happy to take this criticism on the chin.



2.  "self-appointed"

This feels weak.

Because literally anybody who steps up, sticks their head above the parapet, and voices their thoughts/experiences or debates a position, can be described as self‑appointed.

That's been the case with you, just as it has with me, and with pretty much all of our fellow members who are active participants on the forum.



But query also what the alternatives are:

Indifference? Members biting their tongues, for fear of possibly rocking the boat or causing upset?

If we're advocating for apathy or cowardice, or for people to just shut up and stop expressing their views, then I would argue that defeats the very purpose (and potential benefits) of a public message board.



3.  "fun police"

Here is where it gets interesting, where there's a proper criticism that seemingly relates to the substance of my post.

Now, if anyone feels that members who share opinions and factual information, or who give others a heads‑up about marketplace perils, are "policing" the forum and ruining the "fun", then so be it. It's their call to make.

Though I would suggest this may be a distortion of both definitions. The latter one in particular, since I don't consider it "fun" when people end up paying over the odds as a result of not knowing what they were really buying.



That said, I do accept the overpaying could be great fun, at least for sellers who might have no qualms about exploiting information asymmetries they are the beneficiaries of.

When expensive Banksy tat is offloaded onto ignorant buyers (those quite often under a misapprehension regarding the status of such tat and its actual connection to the artist), there may well be full‑on belly laughs afterwards from some of the sellers involved.

And maybe even more so when those sellers sense they can count on rarely being challenged — perhaps having previously received free passes from knowing onlookers who chose to remain silent.

[Onket]

Maybe a bit of self-reflection is required. Perhaps all round.

[met]

Apr 8, 2024 10:12:38 GMT 1 Onket said:

Maybe a bit of self-reflection is required. Perhaps all round.

Not sure if I understand what you mean here.

But for what it's worth, my initial post was based on a couple of first principles.

They served as the foundation and underlying motivation for that post (as well as for plenty of others I've written):


A.  Stealing from artists is wrong

B.  Informed collectors > Uninformed collectors



Neither of these seems extreme to me. Or even controversial, for that matter.


__________


If your own position is different, it would be interesting to hear. Because we could then identify a substantive disagreement of principle between us. One that might even lead to insightful exchanges of contrasting views.



But if your own position on the above first principles is actually similar to mine, this too would be good to hear. It would mean there was no substantive disagreement of principle between you and me.

What might then still separate us would likely be relatively trivial — whether down to differences in preferred approach, in emphasis or degree of militancy, or just in our personality types.

And as far as I'm concerned, those are the kinds of differences to be celebrated here. They, especially, are the ones that enrich this forum.

[alberti]

Talking about ignorant and education and getting the first principles totally wrong

It is not a fake no a knockoff as per definition. A fake or knockoff is a product that is an exact copy or imitation of an authentic item and I don't recall Banksy releasing these. It is a bootleg, that is a product sold illegally without any authorisation. Also, Banksy always said that he is fine people using his image as long as it is not sold as Banksy art; he is actually the main reason why he lost his court case against that company doing postal cards (aside not commercialising his products/images).

For sure, copying is wrong but when the artist itself says a) he doesn't care and b) fails to create a company to sell merchandising and crap (to protect his image under the IP law, which is more or less based on competition in market); then anyone is free to use the image and no, it is not stolen images (it was not at that time, it is now for anyone thinking of doing another printing since Banksy has a duly registered company now).

[Deleted]

Apr 8, 2024 13:32:07 GMT 1 alberti said:

Talking about ignorant and education and getting the first principles totally wrong

It is not a fake no a knockoff as per definition. A fake or knockoff is a product that is an exact copy or imitation of an authentic item and I don't recall Banksy releasing these. It is a bootleg, that is a product sold illegally without any authorisation. Also, Banksy always said that he is fine people using his image as long as it is not sold as Banksy art; he is actually the main reason why he lost his court case against that company doing postal cards (aside not commercialising his products/images).

For sure, copying is wrong but when the artist itself says a) he doesn't care and b) fails to create a company to sell merchandising and crap (to protect his image under the IP law, which is more or less based on competition in market); then anyone is free to use the image and no, it is not stolen images (it was not at that time, it is now for anyone thinking of doing another printing since Banksy has a duly registered company now).

He said it's ok to use as long as not for commercial purposes, he's not ok with it being used to make money, is the gist of it

[u%hdjfka c]

who did Panda with handguns?

[mandem]

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.

[met]

Apr 8, 2024 13:32:07 GMT 1 alberti said:

Talking about ignorant and education and getting the first principles totally wrong

It is not a fake no a knockoff as per definition. A fake or knockoff is a product that is an exact copy or imitation of an authentic item and I don't recall Banksy releasing these. It is a bootleg, that is a product sold illegally without any authorisation. Also, Banksy always said that he is fine people using his image as long as it is not sold as Banksy art; he is actually the main reason why he lost his court case against that company doing postal cards (aside not commercialising his products/images).

For sure, copying is wrong but when the artist itself says a) he doesn't care and b) fails to create a company to sell merchandising and crap (to protect his image under the IP law, which is more or less based on competition in market); then anyone is free to use the image and no, it is not stolen images (it was not at that time, it is now for anyone thinking of doing another printing since Banksy has a duly registered company now).

Thank you for the post.



1.  Terminology


Words sometimes have a multitude of broadly-accepted definitions.

This might include minor variations of meaning (e.g. a restricted meaning as well as a more generic one), where each still relates to the same notion. There may also be geographical or generational differences in the commonly-understood meaning of certain terms. Or subtle differences of definition, depending on whether a word is serving as a noun or an adjective.

I was using the terms "fake" and "knockoff" in their broadest sense, just equating them to "not genuine" or "an unsanctioned copy".

Your own narrower definitions would actually be comparable to the meanings I attribute to other words, like "counterfeit" and "forgery".


At the risk of labouring the point, note as well how misunderstandings can arise due to different assumptions about which aspects specifically are being referred to.

For example, when I describe as fake a Dirty Funker record with a Banksy image on its sleeve, it could easily be inferred that I'm saying, "That's a fake Banksy record" or "That's a fake Dirty Funker record". Whereas my intended meaning is closer to "That's a fake Banksy" — the emphasis being on the image, rather than the overall product.


Most important, however, is the fact there seems to be no substantive confusion between us regarding what we're discussing.



2.  Banksy's position on others using his imagery


Your reference to the artist having "always said that he is fine people using his image as long as it is not sold as Banksy art" is misleading.

Via his website, Pest Control Office, and comments to the press, he has long made a straightforward distinction:


A.  Non‑commercial use and personal amusement

Example: You or me printing an image from Banksy.co.uk and sticking it on our fridge.

[Advance consent provided by the artist = Okay]


versus


B.  Unauthorised commercial use

Example: Paul Glancy stealing Radar Rat, Kate and Happy Choppers imagery, and using it on the sleeves of Dirty Funker releases — piggybacking on Banksy's popularity to sell records that most collectors would otherwise have no interest in.

[Theft from the artist = Not okay]


__________


Set out below is a handful of the many comments Banksy has posted on his website over the years, regarding the use by others of his images.

Both the letter and spirit of his words seem consistent and clear:


This shop is intended for personal amusement only, not for mass producing product. Thanks.


Please note:
This shop is for personal amusement only. Please don't use it to start a business. Thanks.


Banksy does not produce greeting cards or print photo-canvases or paint commissions or sell freshly baked bagels. Please take anything from this site and make your own (non‑commercial use only thanks).


You're welcome to download whatever you wish from this site for personal use. However, making your own art or merchandise and passing it off as ‘official’ or authentic Banksy artwork is bad and very wrong.



3.  EUIPO cases


Regarding the European Union Intellectual Property Office cases in recent years between Pest Control Office and Full Colour Black, some conclusions you've drawn are incorrect.

However, this would only be a collateral issue, because the cases relate to legislative and regulatory concerns, especially trademark registration requirements, which are distinct from the principles‑based arguments I was focusing on.


[My wariness of forum posts on the EUIPO cases is that they're frequently muddled or littered with inaccuracies.

Authors of such posts rarely give the impression of understanding this specialist area, even when they seem fully at ease about commenting. Perhaps they rely solely on superficial press coverage of the cases, without (a) also reading the source materials like the EUIPO decisions themselves, or (b) first trying to get a basic grasp of intellectual property law, including the crucial differences between copyright and trademark.

For want of time and inclination, I try to avoid engaging in these instances, bearing in mind Brandolini's law and the technical nature of the subject matter.]


__________


There may be issues we still disagree on, but I hope the above helps to clarify my stance.

Apr 8, 2024 13:35:53 GMT 1 @revert said:

Apr 8, 2024 13:32:07 GMT 1 alberti said:

Talking about ignorant and education and getting the first principles totally wrong

It is not a fake no a knockoff as per definition. A fake or knockoff is a product that is an exact copy or imitation of an authentic item and I don't recall Banksy releasing these. It is a bootleg, that is a product sold illegally without any authorisation. Also, Banksy always said that he is fine people using his image as long as it is not sold as Banksy art; he is actually the main reason why he lost his court case against that company doing postal cards (aside not commercialising his products/images).

For sure, copying is wrong but when the artist itself says a) he doesn't care and b) fails to create a company to sell merchandising and crap (to protect his image under the IP law, which is more or less based on competition in market); then anyone is free to use the image and no, it is not stolen images (it was not at that time, it is now for anyone thinking of doing another printing since Banksy has a duly registered company now).

He said it's ok to use as long as not for commercial purposes, he's not ok with it being used to make money, is the gist of it

This is the kind of conciseness I am constantly aspiring to, but almost always fail to achieve. Thank you.

Apr 8, 2024 14:26:44 GMT 1 u%hdjfka c said:

who did Panda with handguns?

Julien Fanton D'Andon*, a French director who specialises in advertising commercials for beauty and luxury brands.



It was in 2005, shortly after graduating from Penninghen in Paris (an institution that teaches art direction, communication and interior architecture), that D'Andon designed his panda with handguns for the French youth-clothing brand, Kulte.

A few years later, in 2009, the panda was taken on as a logo by the then‑new record label, Bad Panda Records.



Presumably due to its aesthetic and sensibility, the image is regularly misattributed to Banksy.

And as is often the case with falsehoods, in a seemingly-never-ending cycle, they are perpetuated by consumers of information — who accept what they read at face value and then further disseminate it without bothering to fact‑check beforehand.



Having done a quick search on this message board, a hat‑tip seems well‑deserved:

ilmambo looks to have been the first forum member to mention D'Andon, way back in March 2012*.

[met]

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.