Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/12/12/notice-and-staydown.html
…
2 Likes
How does this differ from theft?
7 Likes
This is precisely the kind of ownership, possession and copyright discourse that Banksy’s work opens by it’s very nature. I would think that Banksy is delighted that a corporation has subverted the narrative in terms of who owns the content or the physical object itself. Banksy’s work is all about being owned by both everyone and no one at the same time.
5 Likes
If you think this is unfair, strap in: tomorrow, we’ll learn whether the European Union will proceed with the new Copyright Directive, and with it, Article 13, which will require all platforms to create ContentID-style copyright filters that anyone can add anything to, with impunity, to censor anything on the internet merely by making unsubstantiated copyright claims.
If this is true then wouldn’t it be interesting if multiple people or groups sent in mass fraudulent requests to cripple the system as designed? (should it come to pass). If there’s a high risk of unaccountable abuse then seems like a good thing to weaponize on purpose to make a point over how poorly conceived it is.
My assumption is that the people setting this up aren’t expecting anyone to use this in an adversarial way (even though that is what its used for). So why not take it to its logical extreme and push it until it breaks?
17 Likes
Oh my god! Cyberterrorism etc. /s
1 Like
If the barrier of entry to put in a fake claim is laughably low then seems like a logical thing to exploit. Seems more like a feature than a bug.
6 Likes
Oooh Sick burn!
2 Likes
Hmmm. I think everyone would agree that willfully destroying someone else’s property is a crime.
After the gavel went down on the sale, the painting now belonged to the purchaser, and Banksy or his cohort destroyed it when they pushed the the self-destruct button. Maybe it’s funny, but is that okay simply because it’s Banksy and he’s cool? He didn’t need to push the button, it was a choice.
And would it make a difference if the painting self-destructed by itself through no action by anyone after the purchase?
Or what if the art was intended to have a self-destruct mechanism that was never actually used, but an agent of Canal+ pushed the button and destroyed it? Is it just the thoughts of the artist that make the actions of the button pusher a crime or not?
2 Likes
It’s pretty much guaranteed that this was staged. And in any event it actually made the painting even more valuable due to its notoriety.
7 Likes
Sounds plausible. What was the final disposition–did someone independent actually buy it? Unless so, we can’t know what the final value was.
1 Like
I recalleded a thread about stock photos with people in the same dire straits, thought it was here but I think it was this one:
That’s gotta hurt!
3 Likes
True but the art world is full of shenanigans and BS. It’s a lot of speculation, money laundering, and god knows whatelse. Not to mention that a lot of artists never see a cent from these auctions unless they’re a celebrity like Banksy, and even then there’s quite a few Banksy pieces that were not intended to be private ended up in collector’s hands.
Banksy’s stunt, even if staged, does show what they think of the whole auction process. They’ve also staged other stunts, like one in NY years ago where they made a pop-up shop selling Banksy originals for 20 bucks a pop right before a major auction was to be held for his works.
However collectors justify their crazy expensive purchases with quite a lot of ease. After all the owner of the half destroyed piece was actually pretty jazzed about it, since they own something Banksy tried to destroy.
3 Likes
Last I checked the buyer was anonymous (convenient) and have stated they will go through with the sale.
4 Likes
I heard the auctioneer say “a Banksy”, not “a painting”. That’s what was bought, and that’s what was delivered.
6 Likes
I’d like it if this could be implemented, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the bar for frivolous copyright takedowns is much higher for Joe Schmoe as opposed to a megacorp like Sony.
2 Likes
I think you have hit one of significant aspects of this art event/object.
Automatic penalties for false assertion of copyright are the only solution to this issue, but the entrenched interests will fight this.
That’s exactly what one game reviewer on YouTube does. Previously:
Yeah i remember that video, very well played.
