Hacker News Reader

Comment by cookie_monsta | Hacker News Reader

I can kind of get this. He wants to remain anonymous but he doesn't want to see his work on every shonky piece of merch in every dollar store in town.

Both of those seem like reasonable desires. Nobody's disputing that he's the creator after all. It looks to me like copyright law is broken, but I guess parliament won't be rushing to fix it to plug gaps for edge cases involving anonymous street artists.

What surprises me more is that there isn't a wave of faux Banksys flooding the market - sure the artist has a style but it's not absolutely unreproducible. And if, in legal terms, nobody's Banksy doesn't that mean that we're all Banksy?

View on HN

How is banksy going to protect their work if they cannot even prove they made it? I don't even believe all the 'banksy' originals over the years came from one person, it's more likely a group.

Honestly it's frustrating to watch an anonymous entity decorate the city while still expecting people not to use their work. The way banksy has established themself as a figure would indicate they want the art to be free and open for all to use. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, which is to say you cannot be anonymous and trademark your artwork.

For the same reason that Satoshi Nakamoto is likely one person and not a group, so is Banksy. too hard to keep a secret like that for as long as it has been. I'm surprised we haven't seen more people claim to be Banksy, as we have with Satoshi but perhaps it's easier to profit from pretending to be SN than it is by pretending to be Banksy.

Three may keep a Secret, if two of them are dead

The system somehow allowed John le Carre and Andy McNab to protect their work and identity years before the world got to know of David Cornwell, or McNab's real ex-SAS identity. So is losing anonymity in copyright a recent innovation?

That an artist cannot have a pen name and remain anonymous seems to be a fault with the current system, not with the choice to remain anonymous.

You can authenticate works by the artist here: https://pestcontroloffice.com/

The major art dealers who sell his work know who he is. They keep the secret because it's profitable.

This obviously sounds like something that could be possible, but equally possible is that there is no banksy and it is simply a marketing tactic, where banksy was originally one person that evolved into random artworks from many people.

Given how it started I think this is BS. He was a graffiti artist who got a lot of recognition, it wasn't an art/marketing scam because if it was the recognition would have come a lot faster.

I'm happy he is selling his work to people for lots of money, they are idiots for buying it, doesnt mean the works aren't good, but they are still idiots.

So his desire for anonymity is actually feeding rich people's profits?

Also if he doesn't challenge this small boutique business then he can't challenge Hallmark if)when they do the same thing. These guys out themselves in the firing line by trying to make money off his work, he doesn't want them to. His public graffiti work is for public consumption. This is a private company selling copies of his work for private consumption. Yes he is using copyright/trademark law which he has protested against but until the law changes he is forced to do it. Trust me if the card company wins then hallmark or someone similar will decimate their (boutique card) business by pumping out tons of similar stuff at low cost.

He's a performer in a music group that has sold millions of records and performed live all over the world. If he wanted to be anonymous, I suggest he's chosen the wrong career.

Robert Del Naja is almost definitely not actually Banksy, although he is "friends" with him. (Although I personally think Bansky might likely be a collective)

> And if, in legal terms, nobody's Banksy doesn't that mean that we're all Banksy?

Most certainly not, I can barely draw a stick figure.

Neither can he. Just get a stencil.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com