5 ms·

> This is good. I don't understand why people hate on it so much. I think following quote by Banksy/Sean Tejaratchi[1] explains why there are so strong feeling

> This is good. I don't understand why people hate on it so much. I think following quote by Banksy/Sean Tejaratchi[1] explains why there are so strong feelings about advertizing. Of course, not _all_ advertizing is bad, as your example shows. Only the vast majority... "People are taking the piss out of you every day. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you. You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity. Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head. You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs." [1]https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Banksy https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Banksy

witty_username 10y ago
> You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity. Completely wrong. Advertisers have to follow the law and that includes these laws. For example, if an advertisers uses your photo without your permission, you can sue them for copyright infringement.
- beefield 10y ago
  Of course. Maybe it is good to note that the quote is from a graffiti artist around ten years ago. From his point of view advertisers are allowed almost anything compared to what he is allowed, which is pretty much nothing.
  - kobayashi 10y ago
    That's such a shallow and self-serving view, though. Advertisers must negotiate and pay a property-owner for the right to display their ad. Graffiti artists are able to enter into similar agreements. When graffiti is authorized and/or invited by property owners, the artwork is welcome. When unauthorized, graffiti is usually no more than vandalism of someone else's property and thus infringement on their personal rights.
    - beefield 10y ago
      Yes, but how I read that sentence is that Banksy is talking about the relationship between the advertiser and the one seeing the advert, not the one selling the space to advert. _Even_ _if_ Banksy made all required agreements, he would still be severely limited regarding how he is allowed to use existing ads and e.g. communicate to the people criticism regarding the ads. I do not expect everyone to agree with his views, as this is pretty much the core of the IP discussion that has been going on for quite a long time. (And just to note, I almost kept only the first paragraph of my original comment for why people have strong feelings against ads, but decided to include also the rest for some context.)

witty_username 10y ago

> You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity. Completely wrong. Advertisers have to follow the law and that includes these laws. For example, if an advertisers uses your photo without your permission, you can sue them for copyright infringement.

beefield 10y ago
Of course. Maybe it is good to note that the quote is from a graffiti artist around ten years ago. From his point of view advertisers are allowed almost anything compared to what he is allowed, which is pretty much nothing.
- kobayashi 10y ago
  That's such a shallow and self-serving view, though. Advertisers must negotiate and pay a property-owner for the right to display their ad. Graffiti artists are able to enter into similar agreements. When graffiti is authorized and/or invited by property owners, the artwork is welcome. When unauthorized, graffiti is usually no more than vandalism of someone else's property and thus infringement on their personal rights.
  - beefield 10y ago
    Yes, but how I read that sentence is that Banksy is talking about the relationship between the advertiser and the one seeing the advert, not the one selling the space to advert. _Even_ _if_ Banksy made all required agreements, he would still be severely limited regarding how he is allowed to use existing ads and e.g. communicate to the people criticism regarding the ads. I do not expect everyone to agree with his views, as this is pretty much the core of the IP discussion that has been going on for quite a long time. (And just to note, I almost kept only the first paragraph of my original comment for why people have strong feelings against ads, but decided to include also the rest for some context.)