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.
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.
How, exactly, do you remove your "tags" once they are spraypainted on? Now, maybe the property owner should have demanded that the vandals strip the graffiti off before tearing the building down, but that would seem unnecessary.
Moral of the story: Don't agree to allow "art" to be displayed on your property.
Nope.
Moral is if you agree, provide a heads up you're removing it. Don't do it in the middle of the night. They can't stop him from removing it if he gives them notice, giving notice would protect him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake
How, exactly, do you remove your "tags" once they are spraypainted on? Now, maybe the property owner should have demanded that the vandals strip the graffiti off before tearing the building down, but that would seem unnecessary.
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.
Idiocracy was not a comedy-it was a prophecy. Just off on the time frame.
Meanwhile, in other parts of the country, property owners can be fined for not cleaning up or painting over graffiti.
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.
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.
Incredible.
The owner invited the graffiti artists to use his building. It can’t be vanadalism if the owner of the beholding Ives his permission. Now whether or not he has a right to remove the intellectual property of the artists from his property is a meaningful question but given that you keep presenting it as “vandalism” makes it really easy to dismiss the whole presentation as whackadoodle on your part.
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.
When the owner of the building gives access to paint on his/her building, it isn't vandalism. Whether you deem it "art" or not, isn't up to you. There are plenty of graffiti artists out there, some making big bank. Graffiti is an artform, but I know that to you, arguing that is just something for moonbat libruls.
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.
Heh...the poster and others like him are notorious for these types of posts.
How, exactly, do you remove your "tags" once they are spraypainted on? Now, maybe the property owner should have demanded that the vandals strip the graffiti off before tearing the building down, but that would seem unnecessary.
You are right that there is no way to remove the art. If someone tried to remove a wall and someone got hurt from a weakened structure collapsing wouldn't the owner be sued for that too?
I am leaning to the side of the owner, it is his private property and he told the artists that he was planning on tearing the place down when he gave them permission.
Knowing about this law now, I will never give permission for someone to create art on my property or rentals. Why would I if I lose part of the rights to my property in being nice? He just lost $6.7 million of his own property, because he chose to alter his own building that he legally owned.
P.S. They may be vandals in other cases, but not this case, they got permission.
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.
Read your own damn source. That isn't what happened.
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.
