Why should I ask my assailant’s permission to keep a rock he’s just thrown at my head?

That means the permission to keep the rock must be asked of the assailant, by the target.  In other words, not diametrically opposed at all.  The opposite of opposite, in fact.  What we laypeople refer to as “the same.”

I know the issue’s been cleared up, but you know how I can never just shut up.

The very idea that Banksy stole justifies stealing from big guys who make us see their stuff, Banksy hypocritically stole from a little guy who had put his idea in a book.  And stealing this sort of material isn’t the tired graffiti/pop art cultural criticism that Banksy champions; it doesn’t mean anything to “recontextualize” something if no one knows the context it started in. 

Banksy isn’t just stealing words, and he’s not just stealing an idea, he’s stealing the “street cred” of having this great thought and mincing around in it like a Halloween costume.  He’s using the thoughts of others to build up the Banksy brand.

If you want to help the Crap Hound guy out he happens to have a Kickstarter up to reprint the issue that Banksy stole from:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/947849256/crap-hound-6-death-telephones-and-scissors

If Banksy is really up for this whole free culture thing, maybe he should fund the whole Kickstarter in one go.  He has more money than Jesus and he obviously places great cultural value on the book.  And more importantly, he made money on that same idea that he stole – the very, very least he could do to fix this is to hand money back to reprint something that is great enough that he plagiarized it. 

Take ancient Rome as an example. They perceived many great Greek cultural artefacts and copied them. Statues, paintings, plays, histories, popular sayings, architecture, comments, military tactics; everything. Did those Roman authors and artists give proper attribution to their sources of inspiration? Not at all, most of the time.

Making sure to give proper attribution should be thought of as a nicety, merely a way of respecting those artists one is responsible for copying. Just because some brilliant thinker from the past managed to reach the same giddy heights of creativity as you doesn’t mean you should feel bad for harping on the same idea, not that you should even credit them. Sometimes you might actively choose to credit them; not out of duty or need but out of fear of being caught out.

Essentially, crediting serves few real purposes.

1) Celebrating a respected precursor.
2) Assuming authority by drawing on the legacy of a precursor for your own ends.
3) Keep your records, such as patents or publishing, in legal order.
4) Make it easier for un-attributive douchebags to trace the history of the idea you created in order to seem more authentic.

Remember kiddies, all originals are dead. Copying without attribution is not bad for you.

If the Pepsi corporation projected ads onto the front of your house, wouldn’t you be annoyed?

If advertisers are angry at someone drawing mustaches on their billboards, it’s because they’re defacing their intellectual property, not because they’re defacing their physical property.

Put it this way: if instead of using ink, Banksy projected mustaches onto the ads so that it didn’t harm the paper at all, would the advertisers have any less right to be angry? If not, then I think we’re agreeing that what’s important is the intellectual property.

But if we’re talking about intellectual property, then the notion of public squares, free speech and “remixing” can come into the conversation.

Speaking of which, here’s the Skrillex version:

“Any advert you see in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours to take, re-arrangeeeee DROP THE BASS WUB WUB WUB WUB…”

Copyright trolling on BoingBoing is weird.  Where’s Cory when you need him?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjTZpafEwe4

Not even a little bit. In fact I think I was kind of saying exactly the opposite, that it’s no different than anything else. Compare it to my painting my house a color you don’t like. You can’t tell my house to shut up, can you? And you can’t avoid seeing it when you walk down the street either. No, you have to “shut up and take it,” right? Yes, yes you do.

You don’t have a right to control everything that passes through your line of sight. You’re not Louis XIV.

Look at ancient Rome. They saw all this great Greek stuff, and they copied it. Statues, paintings, plays, histories, popular sayings, architecture, military tactics, everything. Did the Roman authors and artists properly attribute their sources of inspiration? Most of the time, not at all!

Attribution is a nicety – a way of showing respect for those one is consciously aware of copying. Just because some brilliant thinker thought something up 500 years ago doesn’t mean you should feel bad for thinking the same thing, nor that you even need to credit them. But sometimes you might actively choose to credit them – not out of duty or need – but out of respect and admiration.

Essentially, crediting serves only a few real purposes.

1) Celebrate an admired precursor.
2) Borrow authority/legacy of a precursor for your own ends.
3) Keep legal/financial records, such as patents/publishing, in order.
4) Make it easier for future scholars to trace the history of something.

Remember kids – all of the originals are dead. Copying is good for you.

Of course we know that’s not really what he means, but the right to “take, re-arrange, and re-use” is something many here advocate for, and it’s essentially something we already have so long as the corporations don’t get their way. Their viewpoint may be taking it to the extreme, but the idea behind it is sound and considering that art is fundamentally about taking, rearranging, and reusing the things that came before – yes, I believe we do have that right.

Yeah.  Wotta genius.

http://www.banksy.co.uk/indoors/badartists2.html