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.
Oh, it absolutely is. IF the painters had simply defaced someone else's property, without permission, then the owner can correct the problem any way they choose. However, if the property owner gives permission to outside "contractors" to paint artwork on his building, he has entered into a binding contract with them, as evidenced by the court ruling. If he removes or destroys that art without notifying them and getting their permission, he has violated that contract, even though it was a verbal contract.
Take a few law courses and you will understand contract law. An agreement can be written on a piece of toilet paper, or even verbal, and it becomes binding. He agreed to let them "improve" his property by them painting it, and then he destroyed that artwork.
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.
"There were given no warning that he was painting over the works,"
Why should they have to be?
It is NOT thier building and the owner is FREE to do with property as he pleases.
I'd bet this is appealed and overturned as it should be.
"There were given no warning that he was painting over the works,"
Why should they have to be?
It is NOT thier building and the owner is FREE to do with property as he pleases.
I'd bet this is appealed and overturned as it should be.
Most definitely -- no doubt this is some crazy stuff -- but definitely they weren't vandals...they were given permission to create these murals and the owner himself enjoyed the artwork until he needed to make use of his investment.
Oh, it absolutely is. IF the painters had simply defaced someone else's property, without permission, then the owner can correct the problem any way they choose. However, if the property owner gives permission to outside "contractors" to paint artwork on his building, he has entered into a binding contract with them, as evidenced by the court ruling. If he removes or destroys that art without notifying them and getting their permission, he has violated that contract, even though it was a verbal contract.
Take a few law courses and you will understand contract law. An agreement can be written on a piece of toilet paper, or even verbal, and it becomes binding.
According to Wolkoff he didn't tell them they had any rights to it, merely that he didn't mind them doing graffiti on it as he was planning to tear it down anyways.
They knew he was tearing it down when they got permission to grafitti...they didn't own anything, this is a bad law...they get 6.7 million dollars because a guy tore down his own building when he told them in advance it was coming down.
Also, the law doesn't appear to need permission from the owner as long as it is accepted art of some community value and duration. Bad law.
"There were given no warning that he was painting over the works,"
Why should they have to be?
It is NOT thier building and the owner is FREE to do with property as he pleases.
I'd bet this is appealed and overturned as it should be.
It is their artwork.
It's not entirely different, nor entirely the same (this is where I lose 90% of the posters in this forum since they can't deal with nuance), than a gallery. If a piece of artwork is displayed in a gallery, the gallery can't destroy the artwork and say "well, it was on my wall"
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.
