Banksy's not bad, for what he is. In a lot of ways he's the cultural opposite of the Damien Hirst sort—everything Hirst likes Banksy hates and vice versa. But he's not particularly interesting stylistically, and a lot of his work is derivative, if pleasant to look at. His anti-consumerist screeds are similarly fun to listen to, but not particularly bright.
Unlike you, I don't pretend I know enough about the circumstances of Hirst's cases to lay down judgment. I know next to nothing about the art he produces, just enough to understand that perhaps he's doing something more impressive than I think he is. With that as context, there's a possibility that there's more to the lawsuits than the media is showing, and so I give him the benefit of the doubt.
Sorry, omitted a word. A very bad person. Shutting down soneone's elses art because it includes, among several other things, a picture of one of your own, clearly used to make a social commentary about art, is shitty. Especailly since that particular Hirst piece is itself derivative if not an outright copy. No pretending.
Other people using his work is pure bullshit in my eyes. If you want to have a picture of a skull made of diamonds, make a picture of a skull made of diamonds, or pay someone else too. Don't rip off someone else's work.
I doubt Hirst would get so much criticism from defending his work if he were less successful, and his work was being ripped by someone more successful.
Decide for yourself if this is ripping off Hirst, or creating a legitimate new work that mocks Hirst and his crowd.
This part is interesting:
"But Hirst's complaint was seen as ironic by some in the art world, given the controversy surrounding the provenance of his skull. Three weeks after the artist unveiled the £50m sculpture, another artist, John LeKay, claimed he had been producing similar jewel-encrusted skulls since 1993."
