The point isnt that it is illegal to do, but the criticism expressed towards many societal issues and capitalism. The fact that it is often done clandestinely is more an indication for a desire for his personal privacy and/or safety I would guess, albeit I admit that it meshes well with the anti system message.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

It seems hypocritical from my standpoint. He can use private property as much as he wants for his art, but no one can infringe on his god given copyright? He can't have it both ways, either they are both in the wrong or neither of them are.

[–] hate2bme@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

The problem is this isn't a person using his art, it's a company using it to make more money. So in this case he can have it both ways.

[–] jwiggler@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I don't necessarily agree with the person you responded to, and I could be wrong here but I don't really think Banksy is actually invoking their copyrights, just using it as an idea to criticize private property in general. Similar to how your own "god given copyright" is in itself a criticism. It's more like, "look our property laws that are meant to protect the art-maker mean nothing to big companies. Why should the property laws that are meant protect big companies mean anything to us?"

I get how you could see it as hypocritical, but I think fundamentally Banksy probably isn't advocating for stronger copyright laws here...

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

This it it. Banksy's not demanding money there. What's noted is that Guess has decided to join in and therefore its property is publicly up for grabs.