[O.T.' ish ] Removing that Banksie?

[letshaveit]

What beats me is how they could they have taken it off the wall without damaging it extensively?

Any suggestions - just in case he does one on my gable end.

[Brian Gaff]

I just cannot figure out what is going on with this. I mean why did they not contact him about it and when is graffiti art and when is it not, and can anyone grab something apparently not owned and make money out of it. There is something very wrong here. as for getting it off, I guess this depends what it was painted onto.

I note people are now selling any old rock they picked up in Russia and calling it a meteorite and selling it on Ebay.

Brian

[polygonum]

It is owned. The physical art work was owned by the owner of the wall it was painted onto.

It looks like they removed a section of the wall! Though whether that was full brick thickness or only a thing surface layer was not clear. The pictures appeared to show a new layer of render.

It was an area of, maybe, two metres across by one and a half up.

[Lobster]

damaging it extensively?

I was wondering the same. I think most Banksy art is done on rendered brick/block work; they remove and replace the entire section of wall. God only knows how that works without damaging the painting itself.

This morning's paper mentioned a previous instance where someone paid £48K to airlift a painted-on 2.5-ton section of walll to the USA for auction.

I find the whole thing totally bizarre I have to say; not least because apparently the Great Man never authenticates his work, so nobody buying it can be assured ofg getting the genuine article. I don't even understand how anybody even knows a Banksy is even a Banksy - I mean, who decided that the daubings on the side of Poundland last week were actually a Banksy and ergo worth many tens of thousands of pounds?

[Brian Gaff]

So they owned the wall, did they commission the artwork and under what terms?

Brian

[Brian Gaff]

Maybe he let it be known. reading between the lines it was actually dedicated at some point I seem to recall, as art for the community, so in fact although the owners own the wall can they just remove public art?

Brian

[Andy Cap]

damaging it extensively?

They take a high-definition image, destroy the wall and get an artist to copy it onto a new bit of plaster !!!! Whether this is still worthy of recognition is a topic of debate.

Andy C

[Nightjar]

That would be breach of copyright. The owner of the wall owns the image painted onto it, but has no right to copy it.

Colin Bignell

[Nightjar]

It is art when you can find somebody daft enough to pay for it.

In the absence of any contract to the contrary, painting an image on a wall makes the image the property of the wall owner. However, under EU rules, enacted into UK law in 2006, a royalty is due to the artist upon sale if the value of the sale exceeds EUR1,000.

Colin Bignell

[tim.....]

In the absence of a prior contract agreeing differently. Anything permanently attached to a building immediately becomes the property of the building owner.

tim

[polygonum]

Agreed.

And if they did not commission the work, it was in many ways a form of graffiti - and I don't think anyone could complain about a wall owner doing whatever was necessary to remove or cover up any such graffiti. Indeed, under some circumstances they might effectively be forced to do something about it - e.g. libellous, racially divisive, etc.

[Apellation Controlee]

damaging it extensively?

Cutting [1], clamping together and removing a 2 x 1.5m piece of wall (which looks to be what happened) doesn't sound beyond the bounds of possibility. It's a common technique for archaeologists.

[1] The usual method.

[Peter Johnson]

I suppose the strangest thing is that a section of the wall was removed in daylight and the occupier of the building (Poundland) was unaware of it until someone said 'Oi. Where's the Banksy?'

[Apellation Controlee]

All you have to do is appear as if you're going about your lawful business (one of you should be clutching a clipboard) and nobody is likely to question it.

[Dave Liquorice]

Aye, one of the media articles said they had scaffolding around and sheeting. It does seem a bit odd that the store manager didn't question it but if the "workmen" had done their homework on who was the actual building owner (the store is almost certainly renting) and produced an offical looking works permit and works description(*) that would satisfy all but the most suspicious.

(*) Work in the area above the Banksey, guttering, rerender, painting.

[djc]

Why should he. If the work is outside, not disturbing the shop its not his problem.

[Dave Liquorice]

Well if I was a store manager and a load of workmen started hacking lumps out out of one of the walls I'd want to know what they were up to. I must admit if they had suitable looking paper work I'd be less suspicious and wouldn't stop the works but I would still get on the phone to head office or the landlord or their agent.

Removing the outer leaf is not likely to have been a very quiet operation...