Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just when you thought things couldn't possibly get any stupider...
Vandals defaced a building in NYC with graffiti. The building owner eventually tore the building down in order to build a new structure on the property. The vandals sued claiming the owner destroyed their "art".
The case went to a judge in Brooklin who sided with the vandals-awarding them a $6.7 million settlement.
The owner gave them permission to paint there. There were given no warning that he was painting over the works, so they had no chance to remove them or photograph them. That seems to be where the case comes from.
Just when you thought things couldn't possibly get any stupider...
Vandals defaced a building in NYC with graffiti. The building owner eventually tore the building down in order to build a new structure on the property. The vandals sued claiming the owner destroyed their "art".
The case went to a judge in Brooklin who sided with the vandals-awarding them a $6.7 million settlement.
The owner gave them permission to paint there. There were given no warning that he was painting over the works, so they had no chance to remove them or photograph them. That seems to be where the case comes from.
The owner gave them permission to paint there. There were given no warning that he was painting over the works, so they had no chance to remove them or photograph them. That seems to be where the case comes from.
Don't bring facts into a perfectly good 'get off my lawn' style rant.
Just when you thought things couldn't possibly get any stupider...
Vandals defaced a building in NYC with graffiti. The building owner eventually tore the building down in order to build a new structure on the property. The vandals sued claiming the owner destroyed their "art".
The case went to a judge in Brooklin who sided with the vandals-awarding them a $6.7 million settlement.
It’s relevant because it means it wasn’t vandalism as the OP claims. I used to pass by this building everyday, it was famous because of the murals. Tourists were often photographing it, and TV and movie scenes were filmed there.
The article doesn't talk about vandalism at all. Where are you getting that idea?
Because...that's what graffiti is! If I "tag" your car with a spray bomb, are you going to pay me as an artist? That judge seems to think you should.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
