Sign in to follow this  
A guy in the Chesapeake

Graffiti Artists sue building owner for painting the building

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

https://wamu.org/story/18/02/13/n-y-judge-awards-6-7-million-to-artists-whose-graffiti-was-destroyed/

IANAL - but, I honestly don't understand how a court could have arrived at this decision.   


 

Rather unfortunate acronym but I agree this is a dysfunctional decision. Judges are often crazy and decide all sorts of stupid bullshit. For a short time, due to a similarly crazy decision handed down in a lawsuit, our HOA could not spend dues money on any material object including office supplies. Fortunately that got thrown out the window in a subsequent decision. This is why we have Supreme Courts on both the state and national level.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you had ever gone to 5 pointz and seen the artwork...yes, it's art....you'd understand a little better.  This was a tourist attraction.  This artwork can not be recreated. this artwork was whitewashed by the developer so he could then demolish the buildings and build high end condos....

 

"In his verdict, the judge reportedly said that the owner of the site showed no remorse in destroying the work of the graffiti artists; he went on to add that he might have been more lenient had the developer waited to receive demo permits and removed the graffiti 10 months later than he did."

 

"the developer behind the 5 Pointz site, had illegally whitewashed the work of dozens of artists"  this is compensation for world class art that  was illegally destroyed."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dacapo said:

if you had ever gone to 5 pointz and seen the artwork...yes, it's art....you'd understand a little better.  This was a tourist attraction.  This artwork can not be recreated. this artwork was whitewashed by the developer so he could then demolish the buildings and build high end condos....

 

"In his verdict, the judge reportedly said that the owner of the site showed no remorse in destroying the work of the graffiti artists; he went on to add that he might have been more lenient had the developer waited to receive demo permits and removed the graffiti 10 months later than he did."

 

"the developer behind the 5 Pointz site, had illegally whitewashed the work of dozens of artists"  this is compensation for world class art that  was illegally destroyed."

I understand what you're saying - but, the art overrides owner's rights and responsibilities?   "illegally whitewashed"?  Did the owner have a contract w/the graffiti artists to preserve their work?  I see this as a violation of ownership rights - and not sure how the court's interpretation is established and supported. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I understand what you're saying - but, the art overrides owner's rights and responsibilities?   "illegally whitewashed"?  Did the owner have a contract w/the graffiti artists to preserve their work?  I see this as a violation of ownership rights - and not sure how the court's interpretation is established and supported. 

If they demolished the building without the permits they'd need for such construction work anyway, then yeah the owner deserves a big penalty. It's possible... perhaps even likely, but not for me to say..... that the community was benefiting from the graffiti. That only puts a slight obligation on the owner of the property, it's up to the community to show the value and let it the property owner share the benefit.

Did the graffiti artists have permits to paint the building, and follow code; while the owner did not? Dysfunctional upending of the rights & obligations here. Not that property should be able to do whatever the fuck they want, but it's a two way street.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An idiotic decision by a judge.

Stop the presses!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, it's OK for anyone other than the owner to paint a wall?

Idiotic.

Treat it like a Banksy, Take it off and sell it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

If they demolished the building without the permits they'd need for such construction work anyway, then yeah the owner deserves a big penalty. It's possible... perhaps even likely, but not for me to say..... that the community was benefiting from the graffiti. That only puts a slight obligation on the owner of the property, it's up to the community to show the value and let it the property owner share the benefit.

Did the graffiti artists have permits to paint the building, and follow code; while the owner did not? Dysfunctional upending of the rights & obligations here. Not that property should be able to do whatever the fuck they want, but it's a two way street.

-DSK

I'd agree.   

Cap - not intending to diminish your position, and honestly interested in local precedent that outsiders may be ignorant of.  Is there some kind of preservation declaration that has been applied to such things?   I honestly don't know what the basis is, but I know Philly has some buildings that are preserved as art - one is a favorite dive bar @ 13th & Pine - Dirty Frank's.  Go google the place - the murals on the wall are pretty interesting 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let some kids paint on your property and it's no longer truly yours thanks to the Visual Artists Rights Act.  

The owner had let the artists graffiti over his property and gave them a venue for display for years. His demolition permit may have been blocked and he might never have been able to develop his property. This ruling is going to make property owners wary of art on their property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By allowing the art to stay on it's wall for a certain amount of time, the owner gave tacit approval/permission for the art to be there. By removing it w/o allowing the artists to reclaim their work, he in essence took from the artists that which he had permitted to be there.

I don't agree with the fine, but I do agree that there should have been some effort made to preserve the work.... Two wrongs, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

By allowing the art to stay on it's wall for a certain amount of time, the owner gave tacit approval/permission for the art to be there. By removing it w/o allowing the artists to reclaim their work, he in essence took from the artists that which he had permitted to be there.

I don't agree with the fine, but I do agree that there should have been some effort made to preserve the work.... Two wrongs, etc.

I appreciate the sentiment - but, how much does the building owner owe anyone else if he decides its in his best interest to tear down structures and put something else up?   If I let someone paint a billboard on the side of my barn - do I owe 'em anything if a tornado rips up the barn and I decide not to erect another one?    How would the artists in this case "reclaim their work"?     

I'm not a lawyer or an artist - but it seems that the differences in medium (and ownership of that medium) would warrant different handling as well.    Someone else said it above - anyone painting anything on private/public property, no matter how nice it is, will have to be charged with criminal trespass now to ensure that the property owner's rights aren't diminished by tacitly permitting the decoration to remain. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At some point "public art" becomes part of the public domain. You may own the wall, but you don't own the image that you have allowed to be on the wall. Therefore you can not destroy the image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'd agree.   

Cap - not intending to diminish your position, and honestly interested in local precedent that outsiders may be ignorant of.  Is there some kind of preservation declaration that has been applied to such things?   I honestly don't know what the basis is, but I know Philly has some buildings that are preserved as art - one is a favorite dive bar @ 13th & Pine - Dirty Frank's.  Go google the place - the murals on the wall are pretty interesting 

 

as far as I know about the building, when the developer allowed artists to paint their art work (graffiti)  he never expected it to become a world renown art.  People used to call it the graffiti museum.   The aritis (over a dozen) were trying to get the building to be listed as a historic site ( as NYC's the birthplace of street art/hiphop and breakdancing)  but before that was granted the developer whitewashed the artwork before any permits for demolition were granted...

 

I have no problem with developers doing something with a property, but the artists won compensation because this was done in a real low class kind of way....without the actual permits.  and 6-7 mil. is a drop in the bucket for what the property is worth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, dacapo said:

as far as I know about the building, when the developer allowed artists to paint their art work (graffiti)  he never expected it to become a world renown art.  People used to call it the graffiti museum.   The aritis (over a dozen) were trying to get the building to be listed as a historic site ( as NYC's the birthplace of street art/hiphop and breakdancing)  but before that was granted the developer whitewashed the artwork before any permits for demolition were granted...

 

I have no problem with developers doing something with a property, but the artists won compensation because this was done in a real low class kind of way....without the actual permits.  and 6-7 mil. is a drop in the bucket for what the property is worth. 

Sounds like the owner did the smartest thing he could have then. If the building was listed  as a historic building he would have been permanently fucked and could have never torn it down. What a crock. People paint on my building and wind up with more rights to my property then I have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see the building before it was whitewashed and demoed..... Anyone got a link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice! (Or.... It was before it got destroyed)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chinabald said:
2 hours ago, dacapo said:

as far as I know about the building, when the developer allowed artists to paint their art work (graffiti)  he never expected it to become a world renown art.  People used to call it the graffiti museum.   The aritis (over a dozen) were trying to get the building to be listed as a historic site ( as NYC's the birthplace of street art/hiphop and breakdancing)  but before that was granted the developer whitewashed the artwork before any permits for demolition were granted...

 

I have no problem with developers doing something with a property, but the artists won compensation because this was done in a real low class kind of way....without the actual permits.  and 6-7 mil. is a drop in the bucket for what the property is worth. 

Sounds like the owner did the smartest thing he could have then. If the building was listed  as a historic building he would have been permanently fucked and could have never torn it down. What a crock. People paint on my building and wind up with more rights to my property then I have. 

Sounds to me like he might have done the whitewashing to circumvent the official process. Time is money and yeah he owns the building. That does not convey total right to any thing at all; for example one of my neighbors and I discussing politics one day, he got into a rant about his property rights and he'd goddammed before he let the gubbermint tell him blah blah blah..... at break in the action I said, "Good, then you won't be mad at me for opening a medical waste disposal dump in my back yard; then when it's full I'll just set it on fire and open a radioactive waste dump."

If the owner already knew that process was under way to preserve the art then he should have worked a deal with the artists; maybe he tried and they were too stupid or greedy? Anyway I can see if he acted like a jerk trying to take shortcuts, then uncorked a rant at the judge, this might not be the result of a crazy judge after all.

Apparently a good bit of the art survived anyway. The artists could easily have taken their own photos, or perhaps even made a plan with the owner to remove and preserve that particular wall. When people get stupid and want to argue instead of solve whatever the problem is, this is what results.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Apparently a good bit of the art survived anyway. The artists could easily have taken their own photos, or perhaps even made a plan with the owner to remove that particular wall. When people get stupid and want to argue instead of solve whatever the problem is, this is what results.

-DSK

That's the bit I have trouble with. In the 21C, given the resolution, cheapness and ubiquity of cameras, how can the artists claim that their work was destroyed? It's still available, just not on its original setting.

The building owner was undoubtedly a smart-arse and trying to pull an end run, but the artists trying to get the building classified as untouchable got the pushback they deserved. They should have collectively bought it off the owner if they were serious.

Going to be interesting to see how this plays out on appeal.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see graffiti, no matter how awesome and well liked, as a reason to grant the artists any rights to private property. On this basis, I think the decision was wrong to give the money directly to the artists for the owner's malfeasance. 

On the other hand, I disagree with those that simply side with the owner as it was his building. As much as it pains property owners, heritage orders are a legal means of preserving buildings for the public benefit, even if that reduces the owner's profits or capability to sell. The attempt to end run that process is, in my opinion, worthy of punitive damages and given the value of the property and value of the art taken away from the public - the fine does not seem excessive. My only gripe is that this should have been awarded to the people (i.e. the government) who could have passed on whatever funds they felt the artists deserve themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Saorsa said:

So, it's OK for anyone other than the owner to paint a wall?

Idiotic.

Treat it like a Banksy, Take it off and sell it.

 

 

 

The original link was just to a headline, not the whole story.  It said he allowed them to cover the building with graffiti.  If he allowed it to stand for 7 years after that, and they had access to it, they may have had "Adverse Possession" right under common real estate law.  I would need to read the entire story, before I could  rush to the conclusion that this was a travesty of justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A picture of The Mona Lisa is not the Mona Lisa.

By not painting over the graffiti as soon as it went up, the owner gave implied permission for it to be there.

I'm not crazy about illiterate High School kids spray painting outlines of dicks and boobs on playground walls, with black spray cans they stole from dad's garage, but some of this stuff that was destroyed was sophisticated artistry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

That's the bit I have trouble with. In the 21C, given the resolution, cheapness and ubiquity of cameras, how can the artists claim that their work was destroyed? It's still available, just not on its original setting.

The building owner was undoubtedly a smart-arse and trying to pull an end run, but the artists trying to get the building classified as untouchable got the pushback they deserved. They should have collectively bought it off the owner if they were serious.

Going to be interesting to see how this plays out on appeal.

FKT

Yeah, a picture of a piece of art is just as good as the original.  So if I take this photo I just downloaded of, say, the Mona Lisa and take it to Sotheby's I'll rake in $200,000,000 easy.  Opening bid.

I don't often call people ignorant but that is truly just about the dumbest thing I've read on the Internet. 

Except perhaps TRUMP 2020 MAGA!!!  No, its dumber.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Sounds to me like he might have done the whitewashing to circumvent the official process. Time is money and yeah he owns the building. That does not convey total right to any thing at all; for example one of my neighbors and I discussing politics one day, he got into a rant about his property rights and he'd goddammed before he let the gubbermint tell him blah blah blah..... at break in the action I said, "Good, then you won't be mad at me for opening a medical waste disposal dump in my back yard; then when it's full I'll just set it on fire and open a radioactive waste dump."

If the owner already knew that process was under way to preserve the art then he should have worked a deal with the artists; maybe he tried and they were too stupid or greedy? Anyway I can see if he acted like a jerk trying to take shortcuts, then uncorked a rant at the judge, this might not be the result of a crazy judge after all.

Apparently a good bit of the art survived anyway. The artists could easily have taken their own photos, or perhaps even made a plan with the owner to remove and preserve that particular wall. When people get stupid and want to argue instead of solve whatever the problem is, this is what results.

-DSK

Cool story bro

Zoning and use are completely different then someone trying to get an easement or a restriction on my property keeping me from full use and enjoyment of what I have paid for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Left Shift said:

Yeah, a picture of a piece of art is just as good as the original.  So if I take this photo I just downloaded of, say, the Mona Lisa and take it to Sotheby's I'll rake in $200,000,000 easy.  Opening bid.

I don't often call people ignorant but that is truly just about the dumbest thing I've read on the Internet. 

Except perhaps TRUMP 2020 MAGA!!!  No, its dumber.

 

Not the artists' building. How do they get property rights?

Consider this. A building is designed by an architect (firm of architects). That involves quite a lot of IP. Does that mean that said building can never be torn down or its facade utterly changed?

If not, why not?

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Not the artists' building. How do they get property rights?

Consider this. A building is designed by an architect (firm of architects). That involves quite a lot of IP. Does that mean that said building can never be torn down or its facade utterly changed?

If not, why not?

FKT

They get property rights, as has been pointed out above, by being given access to the property, be being "open and notorious: (a legal term of art) about their use of the property, and having continuous use for 7 years.  It's called adverse possession.  Simple common law.  Once someone has established a specific type of use on private property and openly continued it over time, with or without the owner's knowledge, but certainly with the owner's knowledge, they can very likely successfully sue to continue that specific use.  E.g. walking path or art wall.

It's why Rockefeller Center in NYC shuts down its internal streets every year on January 1st for some hours to clearly break the time chain of public access.  Plus placing plaques in the pavement at each street entrance that declare "Private Property.  Entrance granted solely by discretion of Owner".

The artists clearly had control of the property.  Note the painted sign stating:  "No painting without permit".  Heck, even the kids had a better process than the one the owner followed (or, more correctly, didn't follow.)

BTW, almost all an architect's work is done off the property, thus adverse possession doesn't come into play.  Neither, unfortunately, do mechanic's liens if the client stiffs the design team...unlike carpenters.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The owner could have solved this easily if he had just given the artist's a limited access agreement at the outset, with an expiration date or notice period.  It's sheer stupidity or ignorance on the owner's part. 

Apparently, mental acuity is not a requirement for doing real estate deals in NY.  But that's been proven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chinabald said:

Cool story bro

Zoning and use are completely different then someone trying to get an easement or a restriction on my property keeping me from full use and enjoyment of what I have paid for. 

As noted above...They get property rights, by being given access to the property, be being "open and notorious: (a legal term of art) about their use of the property, and having continuous use for 7 years.  It's called adverse possession.  Simple common law.  Once someone has established a specific type of use on private property and openly continued it over time, with or without the owner's knowledge, but certainly with the owner's knowledge, they can very likely successfully sue to continue that specific use.  E.g. walking path or art wall.

BTW, the term is "quiet enjoyment".  But it doesn't apply here.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s a billionaire out here that has to keep a small access road open to the beach through his property. If I recall, same reason. It’s always been there, and he knew it when he bought it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Not the artists' building. How do they get property rights?

Consider this. A building is designed by an architect (firm of architects). That involves quite a lot of IP. Does that mean that said building can never be torn down or its facade utterly changed?

If not, why not?

FKT

I take it you've never read Ayn Rand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Left Shift said:

As noted above...They get property rights, by being given access to the property, be being "open and notorious: (a legal term of art) about their use of the property, and having continuous use for 7 years.  It's called adverse possession.  Simple common law.  Once someone has established a specific type of use on private property and openly continued it over time, with or without the owner's knowledge, but certainly with the owner's knowledge, they can very likely successfully sue to continue that specific use.  E.g. walking path or art wall.

BTW, the term is "quiet enjoyment".  But it doesn't apply here.  

Only lawyers could have ever come up with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

A picture of The Mona Lisa is not the Mona Lisa.

By not painting over the graffiti as soon as it went up, the owner gave implied permission for it to be there.

I'm not crazy about illiterate High School kids spray painting outlines of dicks and boobs on playground walls, with black spray cans they stole from dad's garage, but some of this stuff that was destroyed was sophisticated artistry.

He gave permission for it to be there but I sincerely doubt that in perpetuity was considered.  It was empty and sitting there for re-development at some time.

He may well have given permission to paint on his wall but he didn't give up rights to the wall.

2 hours ago, Left Shift said:

As noted above...They get property rights, by being given access to the property, be being "open and notorious: (a legal term of art) about their use of the property, and having continuous use for 7 years.  It's called adverse possession.  Simple common law.  Once someone has established a specific type of use on private property and openly continued it over time, with or without the owner's knowledge, but certainly with the owner's knowledge, they can very likely successfully sue to continue that specific use.  E.g. walking path or art wall.

BTW, the term is "quiet enjoyment".  But it doesn't apply here.  

It's paint on a wall, after 7 years, repainting is not unusual.  As soon as the owner heard they were going for possession for whatever reason he painted over it.  Just like access to  a  footpath with a gate that must be closed one day a year to maintain property rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Not the artists' building. How do they get property rights?

Consider this. A building is designed by an architect (firm of architects). That involves quite a lot of IP. Does that mean that said building can never be torn down or its facade utterly changed?

If not, why not?

Simple, the architect was either hired to design the building (relinquishing their rights under the "work for hire" rule) or they licensed their intellectual property to the building developer. In both cases, the limit of the architect's rights is determined at the point where he sells his time or licenses his work to the developer. The architect is free to include a clause in the contract for his work that gives him rights over the building being torn down if they like, but unless they do that, their contract with the developer precludes them from doing anything more than that.

The owner of the building in this case did not hire the artists and did not come to an agreement with them on the use of their work. As far as the intellectual property angle is concerned, the artists retain full rights over their work because the owner did not negotiate an arrangement where he had any rights over it.

Thing is, in this case, the intellectual property rights are not the issue here. If the owner was, perhaps, taking highly detailed pictures and selling them in an art gallery - then they would come into it. This case is more analogous to the owner of an art gallery allowing artists to display their work in his stores and destroying their works that he allowed them to display because they were on his property. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

He gave permission for it to be there but I sincerely doubt that in perpetuity was considered.  It was empty and sitting there for re-development at some time.

He may well have given permission to paint on his wall but he didn't give up rights to the wall.

It's paint on a wall, after 7 years, repainting is not unusual.  As soon as the owner heard they were going for possession for whatever reason he painted over it.  Just like access to  a  footpath with a gate that must be closed one day a year to maintain property rights.

"As soon as" doesn't cut it.  If a footpath has been used by neighbors openly and for a proper length of time, if the neighbors want to claim perpetual use of that foot path - for footpath use only - they can sue for adverse possession. 

Before you buy any property, you might want to learn some stuff.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Simple, the architect was either hired to design the building (relinquishing their rights under the "work for hire" rule) or they licensed their intellectual property to the building developer. In both cases, the limit of the architect's rights is determined at the point where he sells his time or licenses his work to the developer. The architect is free to include a clause in the contract for his work that gives him rights over the building being torn down if they like, but unless they do that, their contract with the developer precludes them from doing anything more than that.

The owner of the building in this case did not hire the artists and did not come to an agreement with them on the use of their work. As far as the intellectual property angle is concerned, the artists retain full rights over their work because the owner did not negotiate an arrangement where he had any rights over it.

Thing is, in this case, the intellectual property rights are not the issue here. If the owner was, perhaps, taking highly detailed pictures and selling them in an art gallery - then they would come into it. This case is more analogous to the owner of an art gallery allowing artists to display their work in his stores and destroying their works that he allowed them to display because they were on his property. 

I have never seen an anti-demolition contract in an architectural contract.  I can't imagine that a developer would ever agree or that an architect, other than Howard Roarke, would want such an agreement.  Even Frank Lloyd Wright acquiesced to the very regrettable demolition of the Imperial Hotel in Tokyo.

More germane are agreements for the installation for public art, where the artist retains some or total control over future de-acquisition or relocation of the piece.  Essentially the warehouse artists claimed that they had achieved some level of control over the fate of their pieces.

The owner, perhaps naively, set up a circumstance where they could plead their case.  Not for theft of IP,  but damage to art created with the owner's knowledge and permission to the point that they had established a case for adverse possession of their "canvas".

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Art is a transient medium. Deal with it.

I was very involved in theater, there is nothing left except echoes and photographs.

Edited by Ishmael
tanstaafl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Left Shift said:

I have never seen an anti-demolition contract in an architectural contract.  I can't imagine that a developer would ever agree or that an architect, other than Howard Roarke, would want such an agreement.  Even Frank Lloyd Wright acquiesced to the very regrettable demolition of the Imperial Hotel in Tokyo.

I've never heard of one either. My point was simply that such a clause could exist if both parties agreed to it and, more importantly, that an architect will establish the limits of their rights on the intellectual property at the time the owner "acquires" it. This was not done with the artists and so the two situations are not really as analogous as FKT believes. 

 

1 minute ago, Left Shift said:

More germane are agreements for the installation for public art, where the artist retains some or total control over future de-acquisition or relocation of the piece.  Essentially the warehouse artists claimed that they had achieved some level of control over the fate of their pieces.

The owner, perhaps naively, set up a circumstance where they could plead their case.  Not for theft of IP,  but damage to art created with the owner's knowledge and permission to the point that they had established a case for adverse possession of their "canvas".

Kind of my point raising the analogy of an art gallery owner burning down people's canvas in his gallery. By allowing the artists to use the building as their canvas and not arranging to maintain rights to the canvas they painted on prior, the owner set up a situation where the artists (and public) get a say in the destruction of the works in question. The owner made a stupid arrangement in which they didn't have an exit clause when they wanted to rid themselves of the art they allowed displayed on their property. That's on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true of painting, sculpture or architecture.   Like the Lascaux cave paintings, the Great Buddha or the temples at Chichen Itza.   Deal with it.

Sorry your life work seems to you so transitory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

I've never heard of one either. My point was simply that such a clause could exist if both parties agreed to it and, more importantly, that an architect will establish the limits of their rights on the intellectual property at the time the owner "acquires" it. This was not done with the artists and so the two situations are not really as analogous as FKT believes. 

 

Kind of my point raising the analogy of an art gallery owner burning down people's canvas in his gallery. By allowing the artists to use the building as their canvas and not arranging to maintain rights to the canvas they painted on prior, the owner set up a situation where the artists (and public) get a say in the destruction of the works in question. The owner made a stupid arrangement in which they didn't have an exit clause when they wanted to rid themselves of the art they allowed displayed on their property. That's on them.

Bingo.  Not such a crazy judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not crazy, just stupid.

It should never have made it to court. The artist and his lawyer should be sanctioned for being "frivolous and vexatious".

Graffiti giving you ownership rights FFS! It used to be a crime.

Like I said, only a lawyer could think up that sort of absurd shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

I take it you've never read Ayn Rand?

Correct - never been quite *that* desperate for reading matter.

I do know about adverse possession, just didn't realise it applied to a case like this. It wouldn't here, AFAIK.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I understand what you're saying - but, the art overrides owner's rights and responsibilities?   "illegally whitewashed"?  Did the owner have a contract w/the graffiti artists to preserve their work?  I see this as a violation of ownership rights - and not sure how the court's interpretation is established and supported. 

What part of illegal don’t you understand?? The owner did not get proper permits before beginning his project. His actions were illegal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

What part of illegal don’t you understand?? The owner did not get proper permits before beginning his project. His actions were illegal. 

Some people believe that property rights are more sovern than anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, HardOnWind said:

Some people believe that property rights are more sovern than anything. 

If they want different laws they can convince a majority of people to eject a majority of reiresentativescto pass new jaws for the executive to sign and ifbthose Laws are written constitutionally ( in cases like this) demolition and building permits may no longer be the law of the land. 

Until

thatbtime, the owner will be considered a criminal for taking his criminal actions 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Not crazy, just stupid.

It should never have made it to court. The artist and his lawyer should be sanctioned for being "frivolous and vexatious".

Graffiti giving you ownership rights FFS! It used to be a crime.

Like I said, only a lawyer could think up that sort of absurd shit.

Graffiti doesn't give people "ownership rights" any more than walking an openly accessible path on private property gives pedestrians "ownership rights". This isn't about ownership rights, it's about the rights granted under the law, in particular, the Visual Artists Rights Act. 

And you need to stop blaming the judge. He followed the law and let the jury decide the case. There is a very strong case under VARA for the artists to sue for destruction of their art. Like it or not, the owner of the building does not and did not own the art he destroyed. He allowed it to be painted on his property but he did not get those "ownership rights" you are so concerned about.

The fault for this decision is on the property owner's poor agreement. If he had arranged for rights to the art, which is property under the law and owned by the artists until such time as they relinquish it, he wouldn’t be in the situation he is now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I do know about adverse possession, just didn't realise it applied to a case like this. It wouldn't here, AFAIK.

It wouldn't here because we don't not give the same rights to artists the US does. There is nothing like VARA here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an odd one..the whole philosophy behind modern street art is it's lack of permanence.

The whole point is it belongs to the community..and no one.

It's the community or often the council that complains  whenever a Banksy gets accidentally destroyed. Street art is not suposed to be protected from other artists overpainting.

Looks like these artists are being a bit "anti" the street art philosophy and want a compensation for their work.

OTOH, the owner should have got a permit for destruction of the building..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Left Shift said:
14 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

That's the bit I have trouble with. In the 21C, given the resolution, cheapness and ubiquity of cameras, how can the artists claim that their work was destroyed? It's still available, just not on its original setting.

The building owner was undoubtedly a smart-arse and trying to pull an end run, but the artists trying to get the building classified as untouchable got the pushback they deserved. They should have collectively bought it off the owner if they were serious.

Going to be interesting to see how this plays out on appeal.

FKT

Yeah, a picture of a piece of art is just as good as the original. 

In a way it's better. It's on something you own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Left Shift said:

"As soon as" doesn't cut it.  If a footpath has been used by neighbors openly and for a proper length of time, if the neighbors want to claim perpetual use of that foot path - for footpath use only - they can sue for adverse possession. 

Before you buy any property, you might want to learn some stuff.

 

Did you understand " Just like access to  a  footpath with a gate that must be closed one day a year to maintain property rights. ""  Openly" and "Proper length of time" seem ambiguous.

Before you issue legal opinions you might want to find the laws of the local jurisdiction.  I actually had a 3 foot easement to provide community access to the water in Maryland.  In the years I lived there only one person ever tried to use it and that was a group who went around on their own checking on easements.  They tried to tell me I needed to maintain it in such a way as to permit access.  I told them that I wasn't about to cut down any of the seven tulip poplars on it.  All of them were there before I bought the property.

This case doesn't have anything to do with right of way.  Here is a civilized way to display art on buildings.  Get the permission of the owners and if they decide it is no longer wanted find another space if the mural merits further display.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

If they want different laws they can convince a majority of people to eject a majority of reiresentativescto pass new jaws for the executive to sign and ifbthose Laws are written constitutionally ( in cases like this) demolition and building permits may no longer be the law of the land. 

Until

thatbtime, the owner will be considered a criminal for taking his criminal actions 

Never edit regardless of the amount of drunk typing. Good on ya Gouv. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

The fault for this decision is on the property owner's poor agreement. If he had arranged for rights to the art, which is property under the law and owned by the artists until such time as they relinquish it, he wouldn’t be in the situation he is now. 

The fault for this decision is on the brain damaged lawyers and judges who created those insane laws in the first place - this sort of shit grows out of dribbles of precedence - no legislature ever created this sort of insanity out of whole cloth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*IF* the building had been covered under some kind of historic/artistic preservation declaration prior to the owner's painting it, and the owner proceeded to willfully violate the terms of that declaration, I could see the issuance of a municipal fine.  Do you need a permit to maintain the exterior of your real estate in NYC?   

Otherwise - I see the graffiti artists as having enjoyed the good will (or absence of objection) of the owner, but, disagree that the VARA grants their graffiti a higher priority than the building owner's right to do with his property whatever he see fit, IAW with established restrictions.    I understand the "burn the canvas" comment Bent offered above, but, the big difference here is that the canvas is portable, and isn't the property of the Gallery - do the artists displaying their paintings have a right to prevent the gallery owner from painting the walls or displaying something else?  

There's no way that I see this warranting a multi-million dollar payout to graffiti artists who seem to have painted the building with no permission or agreement from the building owner.    As others have said - it'll be interesting to see what happens if this is appealed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Did you understand " Just like access to  a  footpath with a gate that must be closed one day a year to maintain property rights. ""  Openly" and "Proper length of time" seem ambiguous.

Before you issue legal opinions you might want to find the laws of the local jurisdiction.  I actually had a 3 foot easement to provide community access to the water in Maryland.  In the years I lived there only one person ever tried to use it and that was a group who went around on their own checking on easements.  They tried to tell me I needed to maintain it in such a way as to permit access.  I told them that I wasn't about to cut down any of the seven tulip poplars on it.  All of them were there before I bought the property.

This case doesn't have anything to do with right of way.  Here is a civilized way to display art on buildings.  Get the permission of the owners and if they decide it is no longer wanted find another space if the mural merits further display.

 

These are not legal opinions, just based on a lot of experience dealing with the ins and outs of land use law, platting conditions, and zoning and building permit conditions.  The are worth what you are paying.

However, to help you out.  The legal phrase is "open and notorious", which means that users of the path (or art wall) are doing in a public and obvious way, not late at night or furtively.  The proper length of time to establish adverse possession is usually 7 years.  

Of course the case doesn't have anything to do with right of way.  R.O.W. is an entirely different subject.  The case has to do with adverse possession. The path example is a very typical case of adverse possession.  It seems it even might have affected you, although you mis-understand it. 

In your case, the irregular use of the easement would not meet the basic test for establishing adverse possession.  The group checking the status of the easement, however, was in their rights to do so - it obviously shows up on public records - and you were in your rights to show them it was impassable - unless there is language in your deed or building permit that required maintaining the easement, perhaps as the qui pro quo for some other benefit the property had received in the past (e.g. density, setbacks), or just as a zoning condition.  In which case, you could be required to whack down those poplars if the group finds they are correct and presses their case through the courts.  (Not sure I'd want some old poplar stand in a hurricane, but that's a different discussion.)  If I were you, I'd research your property title and if possible have that easement removed from your title if you can prove it has in fact not been used and has been inaccessible for the appropriate length of time (typically 7 years).  Or you could find that you are in violation of a particular permit/plat condition.  Which you could continue to ignore, of course.

BTW, it is NOT possible to adversely possess public property.  Not even if you've been doing so since 1776.  I use as my private  yard a nice swath of an unopened R.O.W.   It has been hedged off and used as a private yard since the house was built 90 years ago.  I harbor no illusions that I own that bit of land.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

These are not legal opinions, just based on a lot of experience dealing with the ins and outs of land use law, platting conditions, and zoning and building permit conditions.  The are worth what you are paying.

However, to help you out.  The legal phrase is "open and notorious", which means that users of the path (or art wall) are doing in a public and obvious way, not late at night or furtively.  The proper length of time to establish adverse possession is usually 7 years.  

Of course the case doesn't have anything to do with right of way.  R.O.W. is an entirely different subject.  The case has to do with adverse possession. The path example is a very typical case of adverse possession.  It seems it even might have affected you, although you mis-understand it. 

In your case, the irregular use of the easement would not meet the basic test for establishing adverse possession.  The group checking the status of the easement, however, was in their rights to do so - it obviously shows up on public records - and you were in your rights to show them it was impassable - unless there is language in your deed or building permit that required maintaining the easement, perhaps as the qui pro quo for some other benefit the property had received in the past (e.g. density, setbacks), or just as a zoning condition.  In which case, you could be required to whack down those poplars if the group finds they are correct and presses their case through the courts.  (Not sure I'd want some old poplar stand in a hurricane, but that's a different discussion.)  If I were you, I'd research your property title and if possible have that easement removed from your title if you can prove it has in fact not been used and has been inaccessible for the appropriate length of time (typically 7 years).  Or you could find that you are in violation of a particular permit/plat condition.  Which you could continue to ignore, of course.

BTW, it is NOT possible to adversely possess public property.  Not even if you've been doing so since 1776.  I use as my private  yard a nice swath of an unopened R.O.W.   It has been hedged off and used as a private yard since the house was built 90 years ago.  I harbor no illusions that I own that bit of land.  

 

When I sold that property the buyer was a lawyer who went to a lot of trouble to get the easment removed.  He still hasn't cut down the poplar trees I guess he just felt good winning something no one really wanted.  It was an easement.  Theoretically, like digging up a sewer line it was available when needed and I couldn't do anything with it.  Since it ran down the side of the property line and the  the building codes required 10 feet from the line for a building line I couldn't be bothered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Saorsa said:

When I sold that property the buyer was a lawyer who went to a lot of trouble to get the easment removed.  He still hasn't cut down the poplar trees I guess he just felt good winning something no one really wanted.  It was an easement.  Theoretically, like digging up a sewer line it was available when needed and I couldn't do anything with it.  Since it ran down the side of the property line and the  the building codes required 10 feet from the line for a building line I couldn't be bothered.

Alls well that ends well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

The fault for this decision is on the brain damaged lawyers and judges who created those insane laws in the first place - this sort of shit grows out of dribbles of precedence - no legislature ever created this sort of insanity out of whole cloth.

VARA didn't grow out of brain damaged lawyers, activist judges, or court precedence. It was written in 1990 by the US government in order to abide by the protection of an artists "moral rights" as per their agreement in the UN at the Berne Convention. This came from international agreements worked out between the US and other countries in regards to copyright - they enacted European style "moral rights" in exchange for the rest of the world extending the lifetime of copyright out to a stupid period past the end of an artists life (you're welcome Disney lobbyists).

I know you got yourself all lathered up to blame the court system and lawyers for bringing/allowing a frivolous suit... but that just isn't the case here. The Visual Artists Rights Act was written by politicians to enact "moral rights" of visual artistic works of a singular nature. Protecting one-of-a-kind paintings is exactly what it was designed to do. Just because that one-of-a-kind painting happens to be in the style of graffitti doesn't negate that - especially when it wasn't an act of vandalism but done with the legal permissions of the property owner. In fact, if the judges tried to throw this one out, the courts would be acting exactly as you accuse them of - creating precedent that goes against the laws as written and against the will of the country's legislature. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O/K, then fuck the Europeans and their "Moral Rights".

They should just go back to killing each other - they do that better than anyone - and leave property rights alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Saorsa said:

This case doesn't have anything to do with right of way.  Here is a civilized way to display art on buildings.  Get the permission of the owners and if they decide it is no longer wanted find another space if the mural merits further display.

You're right - it isn't to do with right of way. It is about the legal rights of an artist to their singular works of visual art as granted under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990. And, whether you think it "civilised" or not, that work is protected by laws your congress critters passed in order to get the rest of the world to agree on extending copyright for your entertainment industry's benefit.

More importantly, the thing everyone seems to miss because the art style is one you associate with illegal vandalism, the artists had the express legal permission of the owner to paint where they did. This isn't a case where they committed an illegal act and then tried to claim rights from it - they were given legal permission to create their artistic works on the property but he did not get their legal permission to destroy it. The LAW created a situation where the owner's perhaps unwise arrangement created a conflict between two people's rights. One the judge expressly acknowledged might have tipped in the property owner's favour had he not sought to end-run the law by preemptively destroying the works.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

O/K, then fuck the Europeans and their "Moral Rights".

They should just go back to killing each other - they do that better than anyone - and leave property rights alone.

It's not the Europeans' fault the US passed those rights into law. They didn't force the US to do what they did (hell, we're a signatory and don't have rights as encompassing as VARA). That's solely on the US & it's politicians - they traded their copyright being accepted worldwide (extending at least fifty years after the artist's death) for giving the Europeans the "moral rights" some of their countries desired. The US got what it wanted and it wrote the law in such a fashion it could be applied as it was.

I'm a little surprised you, of all people, are having an issue putting the blame where it belongs - on those writing the laws. It's not like you had much respect for Congress before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

You're right - it isn't to do with right of way. It is about the legal rights of an artist to their singular works of visual art as granted under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990. And, whether you think it "civilised" or not, that work is protected by laws your congress critters passed in order to get the rest of the world to agree on extending copyright for your entertainment industry's benefit.

More importantly, the thing everyone seems to miss because the art style is one you associate with illegal vandalism, the artists had the express legal permission of the owner to paint where they did. This isn't a case where they committed an illegal act and then tried to claim rights from it - they were given legal permission to create their artistic works on the property but he did not get their legal permission to destroy it. The LAW created a situation where the owner's perhaps unwise arrangement created a conflict between two people's rights. One the judge expressly acknowledged might have tipped in the property owner's favour had he not sought to end-run the law by preemptively destroying the works.

Why does he need legal permission (other than building permits) to demolish his own property?

Which of these rights are affected?

  • right to claim authorship
  • right to prevent the use of one's name on any work the author did not create
  • right to prevent use of one's name on any work that has been distorted, mutilated, or modified in a way that would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation
  • right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation

Here is the site in question.

1920px-View_of_5_Pointz,_January_20,_201

Wouldn't I have every right to head up there and tag their shit?

The artists, Mr. Ebert said, had destroyed more graffiti than Mr. Wolkoff: About 11,000 murals, he added, had come and gone at the complex in about the last decade. “That was the deal at 5 Pointz,” he said.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Saorsa said:

Why does he need legal permission (other than building permits) to demolish his own property?

Which of these rights are affected?

  • right to claim authorship
  • right to prevent the use of one's name on any work the author did not create
  • right to prevent use of one's name on any work that has been distorted, mutilated, or modified in a way that would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation
  • right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation

Additionally, authors of works of "recognized stature" may prohibit intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a work. Exceptions to VARA require a waiver from the author in writing.

That is the right affected. The one that happens to be the very next line under your Wikipedia copy/paste. You honestly didn't think you'd be caught cherry-picking like that? Fuck Saorsa, that's even stupider than your usual schtick.

He hadn't yet gotten legal permission (i.e. the permits) necessary to demolish his building. Which is why he decided to intentionally destroy their work, because it might have prevented him from obtaining it as people were seeking a heritage order on the building (as is the public's right). Again, something the judge made a point of highlighting - that he'd have had more of a leg to stand on had he not tried to end-run around the legal process.

 

 

1 minute ago, Saorsa said:

Here is the site in question.

1920px-View_of_5_Pointz,_January_20,_201

Wouldn't I have every right to head up there and tag their shit?

If you had the permission of the property owner and the artist - yes, you would have "every right" to do so. The artists had gotten permission from the property owner to use the building as the canvas for their work, and sorted out between themselves such that they weren't destroying one another's works.

The building owner made an arrangement that he possibly didn't understand the full ramifications of given VARA. That is on him, not the artists. He fucked up, not the artists. He is paying the price for intentionally destroying one of a kind visual works of art that he had no legal right to. Don't like the laws, get your congress-critters to change them. The artists are not at fault for that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's bullshit Bent - you can't write laws that cover any inconceivable possibility down the road - that's what court interpretations are for.

And this interpretation was moronic. Even allowing for the judge to stupidly find in the "artists" favour the award should have only been $1

What's next? Can't hose a kids chalk drawing off your driveway? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

That's bullshit Bent - you can't write laws that cover any inconceivable possibility down the road - that's what court interpretations are for.

Sorry, Sloop, but on this one - you're talking out your ass. The law explicitly covers singular works of visual art that are of "recognised stature". If this had been a gallery of world renown sculptures the property developer took a sledgehammer too, you wouldn't raise an eyebrow at the ruling even though they were on his property. If the developer had burnt the negatives of a world famous photographer because he had been living (legally) rent-free in his building, you'd have been fine with the ruling too. The reason this is even a blip on your radar is that the art in question happens to be world famous graffiti style murals.

The judge cannot just rule that the law didn't mean graffiti-style art, when the law states it must simply be singular (or limited edition) works of visual art. Especially as the owner completely consented to it being painted on the building. It's not like someone just came along and tagged a random window and it's being given legal . This is a building that the artists had complete legal permission to use as a canvas, became world famous, and the owner was so confident he was in the right that he decided the best time to destroy the works was under the cover of night. 

 

13 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

And this interpretation was moronic. Even allowing for the judge to stupidly find in the "artists" favour the award should have only been $1

Mate, you're starting to act just like all the right-wing shit posters when you don't even read up on what you're whinging about. Not only did you, like the other knee-jerk conservatives, think this was about property rights (it isn't) but now you're blaming the judge for finding in the artists favour when the finding was made by a jury. Along with the recommended damages. At least take the time to look up what you're whinging about to separate yourself from the Saorsa's and warbirds. :rolleyes: 

 

13 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

What's next? Can't hose a kids chalk drawing off your driveway? 

Yes, cos clearly when the law says the work must be of "recognised stature" and we're talking about a building once famous around the world for it's graffiti-style murals, the next step is the stick figure chalk drawings of a neighbourhood kid on your driveway. For fuck's sake, Sloop, if you're going to go full retard - just move to Florida and start cross-dressing like Hillary Jack. At least then we know you're one of THOSE Canadian nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

Why does he need legal permission (other than building permits) to demolish his own property?

Which of these rights are affected?

  • right to claim authorship
  • right to prevent the use of one's name on any work the author did not create
  • right to prevent use of one's name on any work that has been distorted, mutilated, or modified in a way that would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation
  • right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation

Here is the site in question.

1920px-View_of_5_Pointz,_January_20,_201

Wouldn't I have every right to head up there and tag their shit?

 

 Quote:  The artists, Mr. Ebert said, had destroyed more graffiti than Mr. Wolkoff: About 11,000 murals, he added, had come and gone at the complex in about the last decade. “That was the deal at 5 Pointz,” he said.

The artists had a clear system to ask permission to paint, referring to it as a "permit" and sending would-be artists to their website to obtain permission and show their skills.  The permit requirement's painted on the warehouse door, so every one entering can see it.  So, yes, the graffiti could be painted over if you received permission.  

So, no, you wouldn't have "every right", as the owner hadn't given you permission.  Nor had the group of artist's to whom the owner had given permission. 

And I am dead certain if you tried, it would look like a 4-year-old's "valentine card" drawn in crayon on a kitchen wall. 

So just put this discussion in the category of arguments I've lost, and if I had an open mind I could have learned something, but didn't.  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Here is the site in question.

1920px-View_of_5_Pointz,_January_20,_201

Wouldn't I have every right to head up there and tag their shit?

It doesn't really look like a free for all to me.

Looks pretty cool, though not much to my taste.

The cost to have that done to your building if that's the look you wanted would be staggering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

<SNIP>

 

Mate, you're starting to act just like all the right-wing shit posters when you don't even read up on what you're whinging about. Not only did you, like the other knee-jerk conservatives, think this was about property rights (it isn't) but now you're blaming the judge for finding in the artists favour when the finding was made by a jury. Along with the recommended damages. At least take the time to look up what you're whinging about to separate yourself from the Saorsa's and warbirds. :rolleyes: 

 

Yes, cos clearly when the law says the work must be of "recognised stature" and we're talking about a building once famous around the world for it's graffiti-style murals, the next step is the stick figure chalk drawings of a neighbourhood kid on your driveway. For fuck's sake, Sloop, if you're going to go full retard - just move to Florida and start cross-dressing like Hillary Jack. At least then we know you're one of THOSE Canadian nuts.

It absolutely IS about property rights, and the discussion centers upon the hierarchical relationship between property rights and the "artist's" rights -  and I know which I hold to be preeminent.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

It absolutely IS about property rights, and the discussion centers upon the hierarchical relationship between property rights and the "artist's" rights -  and I know which I hold to be preeminent.   

The discussion might be centred around that, but the case and the decision does not. Sloop has been bitching about the judge's decision. Which was actually the jury's decision. I refer to that. And he's blaming the judge for upholding the LAW as written. The owner did not have the right to destroy that art under the law. Whether you think it important or not, that is how your laws are written. If the judge were to ignore that and toss the case out - they would be rightfully accused of ignoring the legislature's will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

The discussion might be centred around that, but the case and the decision does not. Sloop has been bitching about the judge's decision. Which was actually the jury's decision. I refer to that. And he's blaming the judge for upholding the LAW as written. The owner did not have the right to destroy that art under the law. Whether you think it important or not, that is how your laws are written. If the judge were to ignore that and toss the case out - they would be rightfully accused of ignoring the legislature's will.

I understand your point, and think that the law as its currently interpreted is flawed if it places a higher priority on preserving graffiti than it does in preserving a property owner's right to do as he pleases with his property (within established legal guidelines, of course).   The fact that the graffiti artists heard he was planning to do something w/the building and THEN took action to try to establish it as some kind of protected entity shouldn't be a factor, IMHO.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I understand your point, and think that the law as its currently interpreted is flawed if it places a higher priority on preserving graffiti than it does in preserving a property owner's right to do as he pleases with his property (within established legal guidelines, of course).   The fact that the graffiti artists heard he was planning to do something w/the building and THEN took action to try to establish it as some kind of protected entity shouldn't be a factor, IMHO.   

First of all, just because the images were done by kids with spray cans from a culture different from yours does not remove the work from the category of art.  Sorry, your bias is showing, badly.  The law was "currently interpreted" by a jury to apply to a collection of images that had become quite well-recognized, curated by a knowledgeable committee of artists and, in fact famous.  How does that not properly trigger the proper application of the law?  

Second.  A property owner's right "to do as he pleases" is severely constrained by all sorts of laws.  For which you are, largely, very glad.  As am I.   In this case his "rights", were constrained by a law that he was unaware of, but stumbled right into.  It may be a case of unintended consequences or "no good deed goes unpunished", but the sneaky way he tried to remove the art was his undoing.  He had better options.

There's a phrase - it may be New York-centric - that applies to the owner's situation:  "Hard cheese, Buddy".  Or, perhaps: "Cry me a river".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Additionally, authors of works of "recognized stature" may prohibit intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a work. Exceptions to VARA require a waiver from the author in writing.

That is the right affected. The one that happens to be the very next line under your Wikipedia copy/paste. You honestly didn't think you'd be caught cherry-picking like that? Fuck Saorsa, that's even stupider than your usual schtick.

He hadn't yet gotten legal permission (i.e. the permits) necessary to demolish his building. Which is why he decided to intentionally destroy their work, because it might have prevented him from obtaining it as people were seeking a heritage order on the building (as is the public's right). Again, something the judge made a point of highlighting - that he'd have had more of a leg to stand on had he not tried to end-run around the legal process.

 

 

If you had the permission of the property owner and the artist - yes, you would have "every right" to do so. The artists had gotten permission from the property owner to use the building as the canvas for their work, and sorted out between themselves such that they weren't destroying one another's works.

The building owner made an arrangement that he possibly didn't understand the full ramifications of given VARA. That is on him, not the artists. He fucked up, not the artists. He is paying the price for intentionally destroying one of a kind visual works of art that he had no legal right to. Don't like the laws, get your congress-critters to change them. The artists are not at fault for that.

They would have to be "Artists and works of recognized stature"  Yep it was right there but I didn't want to quote it because it was irrelevant to graffiti. 

Graffiti is a transient 'art'.  Everyplace around it gets covered or overwritten from time to time.  It is not permanent.  One of the most recognized graffiti artists in DC was Cool "Disco" Dan and his 'art' got painted over all the time.

You missed this part.  Which is the reason I left it out.  Wouldn't I have every right to head up there and tag their shit?

Quote

 

The artists, Mr. Ebert said, had destroyed more graffiti than Mr. Wolkoff: About 11,000 murals, he added, had come and gone at the complex in about the last decade. “That was the deal at 5 Pointz,” he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saorsa said:

They would have to be "Artists and works of recognized stature"  Yep it was right there but I didn't want to quote it because it was irrelevant to graffiti. 

No, it wasn't irrelevant. That graffiti on that building were works of recognised stature. World renown in fact. Just because you don't like graffiti art doesn't mean the courts get to ignore that.

 

2 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Graffiti is a transient 'art'.  Everyplace around it gets covered or overwritten from time to time.  It is not permanent.  One of the most recognized graffiti artists in DC was Cool "Disco" Dan and his 'art' got painted over all the time.

You missed this part.  Which is the reason I left it out. 

Not applicable to this particular situation. The artists had the owner's permission to paint on the building. They also had each other's permission when needed to paint over one another's works. The work was only transient when permission was granted. The work of "Disco Dan" that got painted over would have been on property he had no permission to paint on. He was breaking the law. This was not a factor here.

 

2 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Wouldn't I have every right to head up there and tag their shit?

Because they had the owner's permission to use the building as a canvas and you did not have their permission to "tag over their shit". They didn't break the law in painting their works, having permission from all the people needed to do so. You would be breaking the law in painting over theirs. As the court's decision showed the building owner had when illegally painting over the works in question.

You don't like the decision or the law - I get that. But your personal opinion doesn't change that law. As the law currently stands, the decision was correct. And your view is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Wouldn't I have the right to head up there and tag their shit?"

Oh, please, please do.  Post pictures.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites