4 ms·
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 anythin
by 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 agoThat'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 agoYes, 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.)