[krsdcbl]

Tldr; this article seems highly biased and tries to paint Banksy as an evil corporate mastermind who tries to damage a small home business by ways of shady litigation - while the issue at hand looks more to be that said business tries to make profit off pictures he won't print as merch and prohibiting this is complicated legally without disclosing one's true name.

The article plays on sympathy for the "poor little home run shop" versus Banksy ressorting to "evil lawyers". Feel like it's grossly misrepresenting the matter on purpose.

[jtbayly]

But which one has a big corporation? The article clearly and seemingly correctly points out that Banksy is a much bigger corporation and that corporation is lying through its teeth about what is happening.

[cookie_monsta]

Agreed. Particularly shoddy journalism implying that the artist got 12.2M for a painting when it was actually sold by a private collector.