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.
No good deed goes unpunished. They approached the owner in the 1990’s asking permission to paint. The owner demolished the building nearly 20years later and gets sued.
Slow your roll crazy pants. It isn’t “vandalism” if the owner gives permission to paint the building. Th fact that you feel th need to portray it as vandalism despite the fact your very own article mentions it is in fact art created with the owners full cooperation makes your whole premise dubious at best.
Now whether or not the owner had an obligation to notify the graffiti artists he had previously invited to work on the building so they could preserve in someway their art is the real crux of the issue. Not the fraudulent issue of “vandalism” you have presented it as. Shame on you.
It was an old, abandoned building, he let them spray graffiti on it. Bad move, obviously, on his part-and I'm actually somewhat surprised the city let the taggers create such an eyesore. Just the same, why should anyone be stopped from tearing down their own building because someone else spray painted it? The law comes across as moronic. According to the link
Quote:
" the Visual Artists Rights Act, "which has been used to protect public art of 'recognized stature' created on someone's else property," according to the New York Times.
. That doesn't mention permission anywhere. The structure is his property-he has the right (well, in any normal world) to rescind permission to spray paint on it at any time.
It's ironic that near here (Spokane), property owners are ticketed if someone vandalizes their property with graffiti and they don't paint over it.
What is even more ironic is that, according to the article, the graffitists had been painting over and redoing the "art" (aka vandalism) for years.
Lets hope this gets appealed to a court where there is a judge with a functioning brain cell.
Dude, even in a linked article you do not fail to inject fake news.
Fact: The art was not vandalism, it was painted on the building with permission from the owner.
Fact: The murals have become quite famous, drawing tourists and the like. It has become a landmark.
Fact: The law doesn't say you can't remove art, just that you give advance notice. That's all.
Fact: The removal of the art overnight in cover of darkness by the owner is what broke the law.
Fact: If the owner had given notices and warnings of the art's removal; allowing it to be photographed and preserved; nothing would have come of it.
.
No, their attorneys used that as an argument, but if you look up the law you'll see it clearly states you cannot destroy it.
this sounds straight out of Liar, Liar..Jim Carey would have gotten them 2x that amount
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.
