[Martin Whatson]

Got this from Stencilrevolution.

artichokeltd.bigcartel.com/
That is a link to the website of a guy that sells photos of streetart.
What an idiot.
The photos is even in an edition an signed and numbered BY THE PHOTOGRAPHER.
Some fucking people.

[Existencil]

Wow.

[runningdog]

whatson said:

Got this from Stencilrevolution.

artichokeltd.bigcartel.com/
That is a link to the website of a guy that sells photos of streetart.
What an idiot.
The photos is even in an edition an signed and numbered BY THE PHOTOGRAPHER.
Some f**king people.

Could you articulate what your problem is with this, exactly?

[Martin Whatson]

I think its a bit strange that some people take photos of other artists work (also seems like there is BAD photos). Sell them of a website earning money on other peoples work AND sign it as his own without even give the original artist some credit for the piece.
How would you think of a guy selling Banksy, Neate or Micallef prints, just that it was a photocopy of the screenprint.
This is not photographic art, just a documentation of other artists work and he earn money on this.
That is my problem.

[ricosg11]

Not that I dont like it myself, but isnt that what stenciling is?

[runningdog]

Artists have been copying off each other forever, this isn't so different.
I can understand your problem if they're just shit photos, but there are a couple of Ebay sellers who do proper hand printed b&w stuff on Ilford paper, and go to a lot of trouble to find good pieces. It's better than taking part of the wall away with a big drill, isn't it?

Have a look at this guy's website, he just likes taking photos of graffiti and putting it in his magazine at cost/loss. www.verynearlyalmost.com

[goffy]

If they were for a book I could see their worth. To sell as signed, limited edition photographic prints, they would have to be something special.

[meatbag]

I know it goes on but it's still pretty lame IMO.

[Curley]

runningdog said:

whatson said:

Got this from Stencilrevolution.

artichokeltd.bigcartel.com/
That is a link to the website of a guy that sells photos of streetart.
What an idiot.
The photos is even in an edition an signed and numbered BY THE PHOTOGRAPHER.
Some f**king people.

Could you articulate what your problem is with this, exactly?

Theft of intellectual property and making money of some one else's talent are my first issues.

[stillborncrisps]

curley said:

Theft of intellectual property and making money of some one else's talent are my first issues.

Isn't this what Banksy was doing when he admitting to bootlegging band posters (Blur being one of them) in the early 90s?

[Curley]

stillborncrisps said:

curley said:

Theft of intellectual property and making money of some one else's talent are my first issues.

Isn't this what Banksy was doing when he admitting to bootlegging band posters (Blur being one of them) in the early 90s?

But he did not set up a shop to sell on a mass scale which is what is going on here.
(im referring to the shop in Spitalfields Market)

i believe that he is copyrighting his images to put a stop to this.

i agree there are other photographers that do hand pulled Blk & white etc which are much more artistic but these are just plain copies of streetwork - zero talent involved just leeching of some one else's talent.

[dave313perry]

I dont have a problem with this, its a total different end of the market, its pays homage to the artwork, although i do believe its pretty lame at best and doesnt interest me personally!

[corblimeylimey]

I've got no problem with Martin Bull (shellshock photo's & banksy guide book) doing this, check out his ebay listings...

stores.ebay.co.uk/shellshockphotos

but for artichokeltd.bigcartel.com to price them at £45+ and sell them as limited editions is pretty crap IMO

[moonstomp]

It’s a simple case of supply and demand, if there is no market for them it’ll fold and if there is I think I might start selling limited edition sh1ts on sticks!

[Curley]

This is the kind of thing i was referring to:-



This was one street away from the Warhol V Banksy exhibtion.

[moonstomp]

curley said:

This is the kind of thing i was referring to:-



This was one street away from the Warhol V Banksy exhibtion.

I wonder if he's selling that Eelus as "a Banksy"?

[baldwin]

Must be the same person that designed this msn advert. ;D

banksyforum.proboards82.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1186689184

[corblimeylimey]

moonstomp said:

I wonder if he's selling that Eelus as "a Banksy"?

That Eelus is in fact DOLK ;D

[jonpud]

curley said:

This is the kind of thing i was referring to:-



This was one street away from the Warhol V Banksy exhibtion.

Does anyone really have a problem with this street seller making a few quid for selling some photographs transferred to canvas?

I totally agree with whatson when he calls the bloke selling 'limited edition' photo's a prat, its the limited edition bit that makes it pathetic but this guy on the street who has taken photo's of 'public property' and is then selling them on, can't see a problem with it myself! Bet Banksy wouldn't either, if anything I bet he would be right behind him for making a living, the guy aint exactly driving a ferrari!!

And how can any artist copyright street art? It was done in the name of art and due to the locations used you would have to deem it a gift to the public, therefore let them use it as they see fit! If I wasn't lucky enough to own official Banksy works then perhaps I would be tempted to buy something like this? The true arseholes are those who buy art who don't give 2 fucks about it apart from lining their pockets with the hard earned of those who really do like it!!

Only an opinion!!

[moonstomp]

corblimeylimey said:

moonstomp said:

I wonder if he's selling that Eelus as "a Banksy"?

That Eelus is in fact DOLK ;D

I bow down to your superior knowledge

[Daniel Silk]

I think selling photos of Graffiti is fine, as long as they are at a reasonable price and the seller is not trying make a name for themselves by saying they are Limited Edition

[corblimeylimey]

moonstomp said:

corblimeylimey said:

That Eelus is in fact DOLK ;D

I bow down to your superior knowledge

www.handmadeposters.com/display.aspx?menuid=8&prodid=13

[jonpud]

admin said:

I think selling photos of Graffiti is fine, as long as they are at a reasonable price and the seller is not trying make a name for themselves by saying they are Limited Edition

Spot on sir!!

[corblimeylimey]

admin said:

I think selling photos of Graffiti is fine, as long as they are at a reasonable price and the seller is not trying make a name for themselves by saying they are Limited Edition

Yeah, like Martin stores.ebay.co.uk/shellshockphotos

jonpud, I'm sure you're right about the copyright issues, it's like any photo taken in a public space, you don't need the permission (or signed release) of any person in the photograph to publish it, and the photographer will then own the copyright on the photograph.

[jonpud]

At least anyone buying one of these would be buying it because they liked it, not because it might be worth a few quid in a couple of years!

On the copyright issue, if Banksy did copyright the flower thrower image from his prints/canvas work then surely this would cover the same images painted in public places, then taking photo's and selling on would become an indirect breach of the copyright?!

Hmmm my brain hurts!!

[marshman]

corblimeylimey said:

admin said:

I think selling photos of Graffiti is fine, as long as they are at a reasonable price and the seller is not trying make a name for themselves by saying they are Limited Edition

Yeah, like Martin stores.ebay.co.uk/shellshockphotos

jonpud, I'm sure you're right about the copyright issues, it's like any photo taken in a public space, you don't need the permission (or signed release) of any person in the photograph to publish it, and the photographer will then own the copyright on the
photograph.

Copyright is an interesting thing that I don't profess to know that much about, however my firm has a LOT of art all over the world, it commissions plenty of pieces for our offices and we even have a division which deals with it!

www.artatswissre.com/flash/index.cfm

However they advise me that they are not able to publish on the internet all the original pieces we have as they do not have copyright to do so (we have a selection of Hirsts from 1982 some of which were borrowed by him for the recent exhibition which are not on the site but are in the Gherkin meeting rooms and there is a rumour we have a complete set of Kates!)

I mean I have the facilities to make mugs and coasters and all sorts of stuff with images on and had planned to do a set of 6 Kate mugs and coasters as I kinda think they would be nice, but I might be alone as I often am If someone wants to buy it then they will, if they dont then they wont. Pure supply and demand as someone has already said here.

[saltandiron]

jonpud said:

On the copyright issue, if Banksy did copyright the flower thrower image from his prints/canvas work then surely this would cover the same images painted in public places, then taking photo's and selling on would become an indirect breach of the copyright?!

Copyright is automatic
www.ipo.gov.uk/copy/c-claim/c-auto.htm
www.ipo.gov.uk/copy.htm
Banksy (and anyone else for that matter) owns the copyright on every image he or she creates. I'm not sure how it applys to photographs of a copyrighted material though.

The charging bull on wall Street in NY is an interesting case, kinda similar to this.....
www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20060921-1411-chargingbulllawsuit.html

[corblimeylimey]

saltandiron said:

jonpud said:

On the copyright issue, if Banksy did copyright the flower thrower image from his prints/canvas work then surely this would cover the same images painted in public places, then taking photo's and selling on would become an indirect breach of the copyright?!

Copyright is automatic
www.ipo.gov.uk/copy/c-claim/c-auto.htm
www.ipo.gov.uk/copy.htm
Banksy (and anyone else for that matter) owns the copyright on every image he or she creates. I'm not sure how it applys to photographs of a copyrighted material though.

The charging bull on wall Street in NY is an interesting case, kinda similar to this.....
www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20060921-1411-chargingbulllawsuit.html

It's not quite the same for public art in public spaces and photographs of it, the photographer becomes the artist and automatically owns the copyright on their own photographs.

Check my flikr account out, I've taken quite a few shots of the new Banksy piece in Glastonbury, I now own the copyright on my photos of it, someone else can take their own pics, but no one can legally publish my photo's of it without my permission.

[saltandiron]

corblimeylimey said:

saltandiron said:

Copyright is automatic
www.ipo.gov.uk/copy/c-claim/c-auto.htm
www.ipo.gov.uk/copy.htm
Banksy (and anyone else for that matter) owns the copyright on every image he or she creates. I'm not sure how it applys to photographs of a copyrighted material though.

The charging bull on wall Street in NY is an interesting case, kinda similar to this.....
www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20060921-1411-chargingbulllawsuit.html

It's not quite the same for public art in public spaces and photographs of it, the photographer becomes the artist and automatically owns the copyright on their own photographs.

Check my flikr account out, I've taken quite a few shots of the new Banksy piece in Glastonbury, I now own the copyright on my photos of it, someone else can take their own pics, but no one can legally publish my photo's of it without my permission.

I'm no expert so sure you're right. My main point really was that there isn't an issue of 'if banksy copyrights one of his images' becuase copyright is automatic.

If anyone fancies some light Friday afternoon reading there's some here
www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm

[goffy]

What does Copyright have to say about this?