Had Banksy "abandoned" some paint as a grafitto on my wall, and then someone took my wall along with the grafitto, with the intent to petmanently deprive me of it, then yeah, arguably, there's a theft
I understand the dish was put there as part of the art, but in theme with your comment, I would see it as an "unsolicited gift" and the property owner it is attached to / painted on is indeed the new owner.
I have rummaged through my own bin in the past looking for misplaced items that might have gone in the bin. Once I found a £20 note and 3 new missing underpants in there. I was not expecting the £20 note!
I got arrested once for finding a broken TV near some bins. The police said that I didnt do enough checks to see if anybody owned it. So they confiscated it. Was before social media when police used to abuse people with impunity.
To my mind it is the same as any graffiti . Owner of wall ect on which it is sprayed is responsible for it. When my wall had very nasty graffiti on it, I was told by police that I had to remove it or cover it up. I’d thought the council should do it using anti graffiti team of people on “ community “ orders.
Interesting legal point. It is an offense "to display" an offensive sign (Sect 5, Public Order Act). But what is "displaying"? Creating the sign is surely displaying. But as owner of the wall are you also "displaying" the sign? What if you refuse anyone permission to remove the sign from your wall - are you then "displaying" it?
I once read somewhere that meetings held whilst walking were more creative and productive. I wonder if that is true of learning the law? It's been working for me so far, and losing a couple of students over the edge might be a small price to pay.
That isotopic testing thing is mad! Fake oil paintings can be detected because of nuclear bombs detonated in 1945 because of the fact that isotopes such as strontium-90 and cesium-137 that can be found in oil did not exist in nature previously. If a picture contains these isotopes, it is certainly painted after year 1945
One of my friends is an art appraiser and she specialises in one obscure pigment. But they have a database of all sorts of materials, pigments, type of brush hairs, canvases etc and when they were first available in different parts of the world.
Good evening to you. Superb scenery, yay! The blue is delightful. As is the information - abandoned has no owner. And I wonder of the legal definition of 'abandoned' now. I do know of The Stig but not who he (?) is, similarly Banksy. Ah, life in the cultural backwaters. Thank you. 😊.
So a question for you about art and copyright if I take photos of someone's graffiti/artwork who owns the copyright do I have the copyright to the photo which I think I do? Can I sell my Photo as my own work or not? Usually when I've take photos of street graffiti/artwork, I look for their tag must admit. cannot make out what the tags mean but it means something to the artist. Look forward to your answer..
Had a case where a picture agency threatened client with copyright infringement for using a photo of some artwork. We argued that the photo wasn't sufficiently transformative of the original art so couldn't have its own IP. They did drop the case rather than risk that being tested in court.
In Italy, especially Rome, graffiti is widespread. It started from the days of the Empire where graffiti was used for political campaigning, curses, recommendations, even advertising for services. The 'creators' knew it was temporary and might have to recreate it. Fast forward and even though it's more in paint rather than charcoal or chalk, the casual visitor might be astounded by the amount of graffiti that is seen. Most of it is just 'tagging' but there are political slogans, poetry, etc. and some is really good artwork. I found it useful to navigate by. The biggest thing to realise is that NONE of it is daubed on their ancient architecture or historic buildings. The artists respect that value.
*Banksy is living proof of how some 'artists' are able to play the Art-world for fools* His work & his _cliche'd_ ideas are frankly third rate trash - but his ability as a marketer is 1st class. Those with the money buy his work - because it makes them feel *_'radical' & edgy_* without losing their wealth
Is it third rate trash? I'm not really a fan of 'the art world' but banksy is one of the few artists that actually says something to me. Its better than yet another meditation on 'what is art' Anyway, I'm not sure why your gatekeeping is any more acceptable than the 'art worlds'
@@benholroyd5221 Doesn't that make you a gate-keeper as well ? 😉 I'm happy it gives you meaning - but it doesn't take away from my main point. Banksy art, is a popular item among the super rich & famous; for exactly the reason I stated. Owning his work - makes them feel 'edgy' & 'radical'. Banksy knows this & plays to their vanity. In any other realm - he would be called a cynic - but in the rarefied air of the art-world he is considered a daring artist - whose reputation is based on nothing more than cheap political posturing. He is today's street version of Andy Warhol - Damien Hirst - Jeff Koons. *Good news is -- the dogs bark & the circus will eventually roll on*
@@PaxAlotin-j6r you seem to be conflating 2 ideas. If the establishment liked the sex pistols, that wouldn't detract from the music. Yes the establishment might not get it and are trying to be edgy and cool. That is orthogonal to the music they are producing. I remember this conversation when $indieband 'sold out', purely because they got popular. Selling out is producing crap music for the main stream, not happening to be popular.
@@benholroyd5221Conflating ? Nope. The 'establishment' as you put it - never went to their concerts or dressed like them. As far as I am concerned - Visual Art is an entirely different arena. The radicals & bad boys of the past - like Caravaggio lay forgotten until they were 'rediscovered' for reasons that dovetailed with US Propaganda & the Cold War. The use of artists to promote an agenda is as old as the hills. What is new is the commodification of the 'Radical' as a marketable commodity in the Art world. The famous photograph of Che Guevara has been turned into T-shirts - shopping bags - or as part of a 'uniform' - that those _'playing at being revolutionary'_ chose to wear in order to feel like they are important. The only difference is that the rich & well heeled are catered to by Banksy originals. If he were truly 'anti-capitalist' he could make is works ephemeral so that they last only a few hours or days or fall apart - like Andy Goldsworthy. But that's not what he wants. He loves the money & prestige the Art-market gives him - while polishing his credentials as an 'Anti-Art' figure.
@@PaxAlotin-j6r "The 'establishment' as you put it - never went to their concerts or dressed like them." No. but if they did. would the sex pistols still be anti establishment? They havent changed anything, theyre still saying and doing the same things. This is my point. another artist, 'ranksy' does the same kind of art work as banksy, but he never got famous. if he gets caught, the police arrest him, is he anti art too? If an artist says a thing. that thing should stand on its own terms, it shouldn't be devalued because of how others treat it. If i smear my own faeces on someones lamborgini to make a point. am I then a sell out when the owner thinks my 'artwork' is amazing and offers me a million quid? or should I remain poor and let him remain rich because that would keep the art 'pure' or whatever?
Could you do a video explaining why Banksy hasn't been prosecuted for vandalism and trespass when other street artists are? Especially in this two tier age.
OFF TOPIC - Could you please comment on UK law as it applies to the Disney+ case ongoing in the USA. In short, a wife died due to food allergy at a Disney theme park (allegedly because the waiter stated that the food was safe). Disney is claiming that the husband's compensation case should be dealt with 'out of court', because that was mandated by the terms and conditions in a Disney+ free trial (which has long since expired) once taken out. Would a lifetime ban on taking any Disney group company to court like that stand in the UK?
Glad you brought up the 5 Points case. I remember Leonard French covering it a few years ago. There was actually a bit more to it than that. The owner of the building not only destroyed the artworks. He destroyed the artworks in express violation of a court-ordered injunction, while the case was being adjudicated. If I remember right, he apparently stood on-site behind a bunch of workmen, shouting encouragements while they whitewashed over everything! That was why he got such a massive judgement against him. Because of his willful wrongdoing, the court awarded the maximum statutory damages against him, for each artwork destroyed. Adding up to the $6.7M
A BBC headline the other day made me laugh! *Moment Banksy Rhino defaced* - by the guy that put his tag over it. Really? What exactly do we think Banksy did to that wall then? But I guess it doesn't count as graffiti if you're a fancypants guerrilla artist, beloved by the art establishment. 😅
There is a great UK channel about Dumpster Diving! He indeed got stopped by the Police, someone reported him but tbh they have better things to do and nothing came of it :)
I was a full time bin diver of industrial and retail bins, to my knowledge everything in the bin belonged to the bin contractor, in any case the reality is that no one wants anything they have thrown away and i never got into trouble .
I'm sure I read somewhere that National Trust have a ban on capturing images on their property. Clearly everyone does. the advice is contradictory - Taking photographs or filming for private, non-commercial use is welcome at most of the places in our care. This means that any photographs or footage taken must not be used to earn money, promote business or given to photography libraries or agencies. then it says you are ok to take pictures outdoors, not indoors, but do the conditions in the first paragraph count??
The ministry of defence is aware of these failures which put soldiers and public at risk of harm or death no action taken towards Capt Wilmont but instead promoted him exposing the corruption with the MOD #SafetyFirst #Whistleblower
Thinking about what was said about the certificate of authenticity only being issued 2 years after. If the sattelite dish taker comes back and asks for a certificate, proving he does indeed have the original artwork. Are "painting on walls" obligated to provide one? They may not want to for obvious reasons, but can they be compelled?
The thing it's on inevitably belongs to someone, ergo you can't 'nick it's without stealing that individuals or organisations property, whatever other factors there may be that will always be true, simple as that.
What about children? When parents seperate and lets say Parent A becomes homeless, if Parent B still has the children 50% (or more) of the time; but Parent A claims the child benefits (while applying for homelessness) does the local authority rrefard the children as abandoned?
What I thought was funny was someone graffiti'ed on his graffiti and people said that was a terrible thing to do :) Even Banksy wouldn't have a problem with that.
I'm ex BBC World Service and years ago a piece was done by a Ukrainian Producer on the rise of Graffiti Art, across Europe, which she found so interesting because under an incredibly strict regime, people will always find an outlet to express. Belfast is another example. Banksy is an Expression Hero.
There's a drummer I like, 'Baby' Sommer. He has some amazing tales of growing up behind the Wall. Hence how he got into jazz and avant garde. It was so subversive.
@@artmedialaw Gunter helped lead the way to 'Acceptable behaviour, Not Acceptable behaviour ', we all know what is morally right, however some people forego that in order to survive. It took, and takes a lot of guts for the Gunters and Banksy's of our Great Orb, to keep doing what they do, because it is a question of societal morality, without government nor religion. It's called Freedom of Expression.
an imtresting not covered, with most new banksy's, the a lot more interacting with their environment? than your normal Banksy, of just wall, the wolf howling moon, painted on a satellite dish, with moon shaped dish loses a lot of if contects, the same the rhino climbing over the car, with the can once more there no context, would rhino standing on its back legs? even the mountain goat struggle with little out crop on the wall, it painted on? some back to my question, where does art begin, and stop, what just building it so happen to painted as in the case? sculpture or something a lot building have with very ornate out sides of carved stones etc.
You so need to talk about A.I at some point because that brings up similar issues especially scraping the internet is that legal or illegal is that stealing or not I say it isn't it depends if it's protected in law if it's a right in law that people can do that like gathering for educational reasons or other version of the law across the world
That would be a great topic for a vid; especially as down here it's the Duchy who own it. But also the question of, do you still own your house when it collapses into the sea? (To save you time: No)
I greatly appreciate Banksy and his art/message. But...if someone painted a giant gorilla on my wall overnight i would have my hackles out. If i own that wall . Banksy doesn't work with the owner's property, he just does it, to the delight of the public which i understand. However, Banksy tends to choose places thst cant cause a danger to anyone e.g: the phone boxes under that bridge which i found hilarious. He is expressing those rights but unfortunately, it can encourage extremely untalented plonkers painting anyone's property at any time. All the way to the Supreme Court in the USA is ludicrous. They are as corrupt as a monk in a nunnery. 😖☕
No you can't just graffiti over a banksy to your delight because these images are already on privately owned property. Basically graffiti is a criminal act. I'd even go further and say the owner of the building accepts the initial graffiti as sufficient consideration for damages caused and thus has ownership of the 'art'. Any subsequent damage by anyone else is open to full financial damages. In the country I grew up in, anything connected to the fabric of a building immediately became whole with the building which precluded any creditor simply removing it without going through legal proceedings against the title. I think more thought has to be placed on the issue of the rights of freeholders/landholders rather than 'art'.
the council owns our rubbish as soon as its placed into one of their bins, and its all protected by consumer rights legislation through your local council on behalf of large multi billion pound companies who take dibs on all the resources. they earn billions while you receive threats of fines or worse to keep you in check.
That tends to only happen if they're cooled on camera doing criminal damage in something like a protest and that's when the public freak out and think put them in jail but most of the other artwork is real artwork and it's done in the way spoke about in this video someone pretended to be part of the council or something in a vest paints it on no police about and just leaves the person will never be found or charged either if they could technically be charged leaving you with your rights and what you can do about these things If you spray over one of his paintings it probably could be criminal damage if the council wants that and you are court on camera But then how long will you actually get there was that whole 10 years things for damaging statues longer than some criminals probably get not happening in reality But you can't destroy stuff if it's on your property that's safe
No need to steal anything, just great it yourself and claim it to be a Banksy. It's not like the artist will expose themselves by going public to refute the claim🤫
12:05 the sea gulls just said "we designed this for Kristal" it is absolutely beautiful sea gulls. People will love it and take heaps of pictures📱 🖼️ . 🤩😎🆒🫡🪨⛰️🪺🪹💫🪶🕊️🪽🦤🐋🐳🦭
Had Banksy "abandoned" some paint as a grafitto on my wall, and then someone took my wall along with the grafitto, with the intent to petmanently deprive me of it, then yeah, arguably, there's a theft
I thought I was watching the Fast Show for a minute....
Ain't life brilliant!😂
The Fast Show . . .one of the best comedy shows in a generation.
_'Suit you Sir'_ 😆
Sandra!!!!!!!
I thought exactly the same 🤣🤣🤣. Aren't Bansky art pieces greeeaaat!
This is the most wonderfully eccentric video ever! Love it. Learned loads.
I just like to ramble whilst I ramble. But glad you got something out of it!
Mind you don't step off the cliff!😂
I envy you that beautiful sea air😢@artmedialaw
Surely the art on the satellite dish belongs to the owner of the dish, and art on a wall belongs to the owner of the wall
The dish was put there by banksy as well, apparently.
@@skellious Did he have permission from the landowner or is he a litter lout as well as a graffitist?
I understand the dish was put there as part of the art, but in theme with your comment, I would see it as an "unsolicited gift" and the property owner it is attached to / painted on is indeed the new owner.
I have rummaged through my own bin in the past looking for misplaced items that might have gone in the bin. Once I found a £20 note and 3 new missing underpants in there. I was not expecting the £20 note!
At last a UA-cam lawyer who is not a narcissistic exhibitionist on the make!
Well said!
I got arrested once for finding a broken TV near some bins. The police said that I didnt do enough checks to see if anybody owned it. So they confiscated it. Was before social media when police used to abuse people with impunity.
Very interesting.
Thank you for the Great Art Explained recommendation. So good I subscribed.
Why am I thinking Paul Whitehouse? Brilliant!
Wow what a stunning part of the Country! Enjoy!
Another interesting video.
The New York graffiti case made me chuckle.
Stunning scenery.
Very interesting and very informative. The scenery is fantastic. Many thanks for the legal explanations and great views
To my mind it is the same as any graffiti . Owner of wall ect on which it is sprayed is responsible for it. When my wall had very nasty graffiti on it, I was told by police that I had to remove it or cover it up. I’d thought the council should do it using anti graffiti team of people on “ community “ orders.
Interesting legal point. It is an offense "to display" an offensive sign (Sect 5, Public Order Act). But what is "displaying"? Creating the sign is surely displaying. But as owner of the wall are you also "displaying" the sign? What if you refuse anyone permission to remove the sign from your wall - are you then "displaying" it?
I once read somewhere that meetings held whilst walking were more creative and productive.
I wonder if that is true of learning the law? It's been working for me so far, and losing a couple of students over the edge might be a small price to pay.
I do find it easier to remember stuff whilst I'm walking. If I sit still for a video I often lose my thread.
It's a small, but worthy price 😊
The best Post I've enjoyed all day (so far).... On many levels.
Thank you.
That isotopic testing thing is mad!
Fake oil paintings can be detected because of nuclear bombs detonated in 1945 because of the fact that isotopes such as strontium-90 and cesium-137 that can be found in oil did not exist in nature previously. If a picture contains these isotopes, it is certainly painted after year 1945
One of my friends is an art appraiser and she specialises in one obscure pigment. But they have a database of all sorts of materials, pigments, type of brush hairs, canvases etc and when they were first available in different parts of the world.
Good evening to you. Superb scenery, yay! The blue is delightful. As is the information - abandoned has no owner. And I wonder of the legal definition of 'abandoned' now. I do know of The Stig but not who he (?) is, similarly Banksy. Ah, life in the cultural backwaters. Thank you. 😊.
Why does he never get knicked for it but young teens get arrested for similar legally all the time?
So a question for you about art and copyright if I take photos of someone's graffiti/artwork who owns the copyright do I have the copyright to the photo which I think I do? Can I sell my Photo as my own work or not? Usually when I've take photos of street graffiti/artwork, I look for their tag must admit. cannot make out what the tags mean but it means something to the artist. Look forward to your answer..
Had a case where a picture agency threatened client with copyright infringement for using a photo of some artwork. We argued that the photo wasn't sufficiently transformative of the original art so couldn't have its own IP. They did drop the case rather than risk that being tested in court.
Nicking the Banksy of the howling wolf may not be a crime but nicking the satellite dish probably was.
In Italy, especially Rome, graffiti is widespread. It started from the days of the Empire where graffiti was used for political campaigning, curses, recommendations, even advertising for services. The 'creators' knew it was temporary and might have to recreate it. Fast forward and even though it's more in paint rather than charcoal or chalk, the casual visitor might be astounded by the amount of graffiti that is seen. Most of it is just 'tagging' but there are political slogans, poetry, etc. and some is really good artwork. I found it useful to navigate by.
The biggest thing to realise is that NONE of it is daubed on their ancient architecture or historic buildings. The artists respect that value.
*Banksy is living proof of how some 'artists' are able to play the Art-world for fools*
His work & his _cliche'd_ ideas are frankly third rate trash - but his ability as a marketer is 1st class.
Those with the money buy his work - because it makes them feel *_'radical' & edgy_* without losing their wealth
Is it third rate trash?
I'm not really a fan of 'the art world' but banksy is one of the few artists that actually says something to me.
Its better than yet another meditation on 'what is art'
Anyway, I'm not sure why your gatekeeping is any more acceptable than the 'art worlds'
@@benholroyd5221 Doesn't that make you a gate-keeper as well ? 😉 I'm happy it gives you meaning - but it doesn't take away from my main point. Banksy art, is a popular item among the super rich & famous; for exactly the reason I stated. Owning his work - makes them feel 'edgy' & 'radical'. Banksy knows this & plays to their vanity. In any other realm - he would be called a cynic - but in the rarefied air of the art-world he is considered a daring artist - whose reputation is based on nothing more than cheap political posturing. He is today's street version of Andy Warhol - Damien Hirst - Jeff Koons. *Good news is -- the dogs bark & the circus will eventually roll on*
@@PaxAlotin-j6r you seem to be conflating 2 ideas.
If the establishment liked the sex pistols, that wouldn't detract from the music.
Yes the establishment might not get it and are trying to be edgy and cool. That is orthogonal to the music they are producing.
I remember this conversation when $indieband 'sold out', purely because they got popular. Selling out is producing crap music for the main stream, not happening to be popular.
@@benholroyd5221Conflating ? Nope. The 'establishment' as you put it - never went to their concerts or dressed like them. As far as I am concerned - Visual Art is an entirely different arena. The radicals & bad boys of the past - like Caravaggio lay forgotten until they were 'rediscovered' for reasons that dovetailed with US Propaganda & the Cold War.
The use of artists to promote an agenda is as old as the hills. What is new is the commodification of the 'Radical' as a marketable commodity in the Art world. The famous photograph of Che Guevara has been turned into T-shirts - shopping bags - or as part of a 'uniform' - that those _'playing at being revolutionary'_ chose to wear in order to feel like they are important. The only difference is that the rich & well heeled are catered to by Banksy originals. If he were truly 'anti-capitalist' he could make is works ephemeral so that they last only a few hours or days or fall apart - like Andy Goldsworthy. But that's not what he wants. He loves the money & prestige the Art-market gives him - while polishing his credentials as an 'Anti-Art' figure.
@@PaxAlotin-j6r
"The 'establishment' as you put it - never went to their concerts or dressed like them."
No. but if they did. would the sex pistols still be anti establishment? They havent changed anything, theyre still saying and doing the same things.
This is my point. another artist, 'ranksy' does the same kind of art work as banksy, but he never got famous. if he gets caught, the police arrest him, is he anti art too?
If an artist says a thing. that thing should stand on its own terms, it shouldn't be devalued because of how others treat it.
If i smear my own faeces on someones lamborgini to make a point. am I then a sell out when the owner thinks my 'artwork' is amazing and offers me a million quid? or should I remain poor and let him remain rich because that would keep the art 'pure' or whatever?
Could you do a video explaining why Banksy hasn't been prosecuted for vandalism and trespass when other street artists are? Especially in this two tier age.
OFF TOPIC - Could you please comment on UK law as it applies to the Disney+ case ongoing in the USA.
In short, a wife died due to food allergy at a Disney theme park (allegedly because the waiter stated that the food was safe). Disney is claiming that the husband's compensation case should be dealt with 'out of court', because that was mandated by the terms and conditions in a Disney+ free trial (which has long since expired) once taken out.
Would a lifetime ban on taking any Disney group company to court like that stand in the UK?
If you have such potentially lethal dietary requirements, you should not dine out. Your safety is your responsibility.
Glad you brought up the 5 Points case. I remember Leonard French covering it a few years ago.
There was actually a bit more to it than that. The owner of the building not only destroyed the artworks. He destroyed the artworks in express violation of a court-ordered injunction, while the case was being adjudicated. If I remember right, he apparently stood on-site behind a bunch of workmen, shouting encouragements while they whitewashed over everything!
That was why he got such a massive judgement against him. Because of his willful wrongdoing, the court awarded the maximum statutory damages against him, for each artwork destroyed. Adding up to the $6.7M
Yeah. We were all bewildered by that!
A BBC headline the other day made me laugh!
*Moment Banksy Rhino defaced* - by the guy that put his tag over it.
Really? What exactly do we think Banksy did to that wall then?
But I guess it doesn't count as graffiti if you're a fancypants guerrilla artist, beloved by the art establishment. 😅
There is a great UK channel about Dumpster Diving! He indeed got stopped by the Police, someone reported him but tbh they have better things to do and nothing came of it :)
What’s the channel name?
9:21 Far-out 😮 is that a crack or is it a old ship working site?
Hi Al, really interesting! Thanks! Fab view too!
Get the ole lungs going!
Shooting two vids on the trot after a very long walk was possibly pushing it a bit!
I was a full time bin diver of industrial and retail bins, to my knowledge everything in the bin belonged to the bin contractor, in any case the reality is that no one wants anything they have thrown away and i never got into trouble .
I'm a big fan of Freecycling.
He’s called robin guningham
The art belongs to the artist but banksy gives it away. Then it goes to the owner of the canvas or the wall or garage.
_De minimis non curat lex_ isn't used enough.
I'm sure I read somewhere that National Trust have a ban on capturing images on their property. Clearly everyone does. the advice is contradictory - Taking photographs or filming for private, non-commercial use is welcome at most of the places in our care. This means that any photographs or footage taken must not be used to earn money, promote business or given to photography libraries or agencies. then it says you are ok to take pictures outdoors, not indoors, but do the conditions in the first paragraph count??
The ministry of defence is aware of these failures which put soldiers and public at risk of harm or death no action taken towards Capt Wilmont but instead promoted him exposing the corruption with the MOD #SafetyFirst #Whistleblower
Thinking about what was said about the certificate of authenticity only being issued 2 years after. If the sattelite dish taker comes back and asks for a certificate, proving he does indeed have the original artwork. Are "painting on walls" obligated to provide one? They may not want to for obvious reasons, but can they be compelled?
No, because they would have no contractual right to the certificate.
What about abandoned ships and wreck? Though abandoned the owners still seem to retain title even after 100 years.
Your always walking on those cliffs, are you lost? do you not have a home to go to any more? :) :)
Great info, thanks for sharing.
It's meant to belong to everybody. Someone claiming it's thiers to profit from is like someone cutting down rainforests.
The thing it's on inevitably belongs to someone, ergo you can't 'nick it's without stealing that individuals or organisations property, whatever other factors there may be that will always be true, simple as that.
Magnificent view, utterly stunning ❤
Have just been watching"The Rise and Fall of 18th Century Smugglers | Our History" which you might find interesting.
Ooh yes. Do you have a link?
Really enjoyed this thank you 👍
If you paint on a wall I would have thought it was a debatable point as to whether it was abandoned or given to the owner of the wall.
Surely it belongs to whoever owns the ‘canvas’ … simple
Yep if its on your wall or what ever it becomes your property not to mention the act of criminal damage to your property 😂
Can you please explain the Bill of Rights?
Why would someone destroy a Bansky!
Because he's a fraud. Basically cloned the French artist 'Le Rat'. Needs to be locked up like other graffiti criminals.
@@John-c4r1o steady on, pillock
Why hasn't he been arrested? He's a criminal not an artist & his childish scribbling isn't art.
@@susanalderson8267 in your opinion
What about children? When parents seperate and lets say Parent A becomes homeless, if Parent B still has the children 50% (or more) of the time; but Parent A claims the child benefits (while applying for homelessness) does the local authority rrefard the children as abandoned?
What I thought was funny was someone graffiti'ed on his graffiti and people said that was a terrible thing to do :) Even Banksy wouldn't have a problem with that.
🥇😆
I'm ex BBC World Service and years ago a piece was done by a Ukrainian Producer on the rise of Graffiti Art, across Europe, which she found so interesting because under an incredibly strict regime, people will always find an outlet to express. Belfast is another example. Banksy is an Expression Hero.
There's a drummer I like, 'Baby' Sommer. He has some amazing tales of growing up behind the Wall. Hence how he got into jazz and avant garde. It was so subversive.
@@artmedialaw Gunter helped lead the way to 'Acceptable behaviour, Not Acceptable behaviour ', we all know what is morally right, however some people forego that in order to survive. It took, and takes a lot of guts for the Gunters and Banksy's of our Great Orb, to keep doing what they do, because it is a question of societal morality, without government nor religion. It's called Freedom of Expression.
an imtresting not covered, with most new banksy's, the a lot more interacting with their environment? than your normal Banksy, of just wall, the wolf howling moon, painted on a satellite dish, with moon shaped dish loses a lot of if contects, the same the rhino climbing over the car, with the can once more there no context, would rhino standing on its back legs? even the mountain goat struggle with little out crop on the wall, it painted on? some back to my question, where does art begin, and stop, what just building it so happen to painted as in the case? sculpture or something a lot building have with very ornate out sides of carved stones etc.
You so need to talk about A.I at some point because that brings up similar issues especially scraping the internet is that legal or illegal is that stealing or not I say it isn't it depends if it's protected in law if it's a right in law that people can do that like gathering for educational reasons or other version of the law across the world
Marine law is somewhat different of course. Below high water mark fascinating distinctions are made on property abandonment.
That would be a great topic for a vid; especially as down here it's the Duchy who own it. But also the question of, do you still own your house when it collapses into the sea?
(To save you time: No)
Is that path for Rangers to drive on? Or is it for anybody to? 9:17
Very interesting, thank you.
I greatly appreciate Banksy and his art/message. But...if someone painted a giant gorilla on my wall overnight i would have my hackles out.
If i own that wall .
Banksy doesn't work with the owner's property, he just does it, to the delight of the public which i understand.
However, Banksy tends to choose places thst cant cause a danger to anyone e.g: the phone boxes under that bridge which i found hilarious.
He is expressing those rights but unfortunately, it can encourage extremely untalented plonkers painting anyone's property at any time.
All the way to the Supreme Court in the USA is ludicrous. They are as corrupt as a monk in a nunnery. 😖☕
Two tier policing again, if they know who he is he should be prosecuted for vandalism.
No you can't just graffiti over a banksy to your delight because these images are already on privately owned property. Basically graffiti is a criminal act. I'd even go further and say the owner of the building accepts the initial graffiti as sufficient consideration for damages caused and thus has ownership of the 'art'. Any subsequent damage by anyone else is open to full financial damages. In the country I grew up in, anything connected to the fabric of a building immediately became whole with the building which precluded any creditor simply removing it without going through legal proceedings against the title. I think more thought has to be placed on the issue of the rights of freeholders/landholders rather than 'art'.
Is he flytipping ?
I think we are all missing the real point here; Banksy should be prosecuted for littering and criminal damage.
Exactly, two tier policing again.
@@2handsandwiches Indeed, he is well-known for being a socialist.
the council owns our rubbish as soon as its placed into one of their bins, and its all protected by consumer rights legislation through your local council on behalf of large multi billion pound companies who take dibs on all the resources. they earn billions while you receive threats of fines or worse to keep you in check.
Street artist = Graffiti vandal.
Are you black belt Barbies dad?
graffiti is usually on stuff so to steal it you need to steal what it has been painted on.
When was graffiti a legal activity
Painting animals is wrong, hillarious😂.
When does the transition from criminal damage and trespass to "street art" happen?
When the council reckon they can get more for selling pictures of it than the cost of cleaning it off?
That tends to only happen if they're cooled on camera doing criminal damage in something like a protest and that's when the public freak out and think put them in jail but most of the other artwork is real artwork and it's done in the way spoke about in this video someone pretended to be part of the council or something in a vest paints it on no police about and just leaves the person will never be found or charged either if they could technically be charged leaving you with your rights and what you can do about these things If you spray over one of his paintings it probably could be criminal damage if the council wants that and you are court on camera But then how long will you actually get there was that whole 10 years things for damaging statues longer than some criminals probably get not happening in reality But you can't destroy stuff if it's on your property that's safe
Can you steal a crown?
Does it depend on the crown?
No need to steal anything, just great it yourself and claim it to be a Banksy. It's not like the artist will expose themselves by going public to refute the claim🤫
We never got the video of the legacy of nazi looted art???
Is Guerilla art Aboriginal dot art?
Banksy is overrated.
The Banksy exhibition in Glasgow was amazing.
Overrated crap
12:05 the sea gulls just said "we designed this for Kristal" it is absolutely beautiful sea gulls. People will love it and take heaps of pictures📱 🖼️ . 🤩😎🆒🫡🪨⛰️🪺🪹💫🪶🕊️🪽🦤🐋🐳🦭
no its theving