jury sides with graffiti artists over building owner

[Limbo Pete]

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

It's holding water due to the juries interpretation of the federal copyright law of artists; not the quality of art itself...which is always subjective.

It could be complete shit and it could be protected if this bs ruling passes

Also, all art is graffiti if it's done on a medium/object that does not belong to the artist itself without consent.

I guess the consent aspect is the x factor here -- but again, it's the owners choice to keep or rid themselves of his property

all good, but your second point is irrelevant because it wasn't all graffiti, although most of it was. they always had elaborate murals etc. & other art style pieces. hence why this entire thing is holding water in court.

 

[stellarborg]

Are you a chick or something?

That's a funny comment

Somebody who you disagree with has a female attribute

And that is.... a negative thing?

Says more about you than the person you are replying to

 

[ocfightfan]

Unless there was a written agreement then I don't see how the artists have a leg to stand on. My freedom of expression shouldn't require your participation, particularly with your legally owned property.

 

[weed]

It's holding water due to the juries interpretation of the federal copyright law of artists; not the quality of art itself...which is always subjective.

It could be complete shit and it could be protected if this bs ruling passes

Also, all art is graffiti if it's done on a medium/object that does not belong to the artist itself without consent.

I guess the consent aspect is the x factor here -- but again, it's the owners choice to keep or rid themselves of his property

I don't know what to tell you dude, but it seems you're trying to goad me into an argument/discussion I never intended to have/have no interest in.

you first start drilling me with questions /points regarding investments/property contracts etc.

then you go off on a tangent arguing about what's considered art or not.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

I don't know what to tell you dude, but it seems you're trying to goad me into an argument/discussion I never intended to have/have no interest in.

you first start drilling me with questions /points regarding investments/property contracts etc.

then you go off on a tangent arguing about what's considered art or not.

No tangent -- you said it wasn't all graffiti -- merely stating none of it technically is if the owner allowed it. It's simply street art at that point.

And sorry, shouldn't assume a guy participating in a discussion thread is interested in having a discussion...

Have a good night, dude.

 

[weed]

No tangent -- you said it wasn't all graffiti -- merely stating none of it technically is if the owner allowed it. It's simply street art at that point.

And sorry, shouldn't assume a guy participating in a discussion thread is interested in having a discussion...

Have a good night, dude.

sorry man, but you did digress off tangent.

I replied to another user altogether & you replied to me without understanding the context first. after realizing this you then said "aesthetics don't really mean much" still trying to goad me into an exchange I never intended to have. & now here we are..

I don't know what the hell is up with TWR lately but it's happened to me literally 3 times today - someone replying to me at the tail end of an exchange I was having with someone entirely different, not understanding the context first of the initial exchange & steering it into a completely different direction.

that's now how discussions work. I never go up to a random group of people, & pick up right after from the last person speaks with my own agenda. that's crazy.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Juries do some strange shit sometimes

 

[Limbo Pete]

Wonder how many Sherbros paint

Shit, i've been out of the game for too long.

 

[Pinyin]

I believe the owner bought the building after it had been allowed to become an outdoor aerosol art gallery by the previous owner.

Real Estate values skyrocketed in LIC, and the new owner(s) who are real estate developers did what most developers do and demolish an old building, to make way for a more modern and efficient building.

Where they made the mistake though, was before demolishing the building, they painted over all the art with white paint. If they would have just demolished it without painting over the art work, this would have never been brought to litigation.

A very arrogant and costly mistake, depending upon how the judge rules.

 

[Rematch]

I believe the owner bought the building after it had been allowed to become an outdoor aerosol art gallery by the previous owner.

Real Estate values skyrocketed in LIC, and the new owner(s) who are real estate developers did what most developers do and demolish an old building, to make way for a more modern and efficient building.

Where they made the mistake though, was before demolishing the building, they painted over all the art with white paint. If they would have just demolished it without painting over the art work, this would have never been brought to litigation.

A very arrogant and costly mistake, depending upon how the judge rules.

How was it arrogant in any way, shape or form for the owner(s) of property to paint his/her/their own damn property? Geezee-weezee. It's become bizzarro world.

 

[Curmudgeon]

That's a funny comment

Somebody who you disagree with has a female attribute

And that is.... a negative thing?

Says more about you than the person you are replying to

Lol, thought so.

 

[Culombo]

I believe the owner bought the building after it had been allowed to become an outdoor aerosol art gallery by the previous owner.

Real Estate values skyrocketed in LIC, and the new owner(s) who are real estate developers did what most developers do and demolish an old building, to make way for a more modern and efficient building.

Where they made the mistake though, was before demolishing the building, they painted over all the art with white paint. If they would have just demolished it without painting over the art work, this would have never been brought to litigation.

A very arrogant and costly mistake, depending upon how the judge rules.

what does it matter that it was painted over if it was going to be destroyed anyways ?

 

[Quipling]

How was it arrogant in any way, shape or form for the owner(s) of property to paint his/her/their own damn property? Geezee-weezee. It's become bizzarro world.

Because US law provides (very limited) rights to artists who are invited to decorate something so that their work doesn't get arbitrarily destroyed without notice. He bought the building knowing that it was used in that way, and allegedly didn't follow the very simple law for dealing with those rights - providing notice.

what does it matter that it was painted over if it was going to be destroyed anyways ?

The fact that he painted it over suggests that his claim that he was always planning on demolishing it was a bit of bullshit.

You don't renovate stuff you're about to demolish.

 

[Limbo Pete]

 

[nhbbear]

This is absurd. It’s his property. He owns it and any art that is painted on his property. Personally, I think making the warehouse into apartments with those Murals would be cool, but a jury ruling in fable of people that don’t own the property is crazy.

 

[Limbo Pete]

This is absurd. It’s his property. He owns it and any art that is painted on his property. Personally, I think making the warehouse into apartments with those Murals would be cool, but a jury ruling in fable of people that don’t own the property is crazy.

It's not cut and dry like that. Seems counter intuitive, but art laws don't quite work like that way. Weird as it may seem, artists can still have some rights over stuff they made that is now in the possession of other people (even if those other people have the copyright, etc).
That being said, i'm surprised that a jury would find the particular art in this case to fall under VARA.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

What about a beautifully crafted statue of Robert E. Lee? At one time, people allowed it to be there but now they want it removed. Does that artist "deserve dignity and respect"?

 

[Limbo Pete]

What about a beautifully crafted statue of Robert E. Lee? At one time, people allowed it to be there but now they want it removed. Does that artist "deserve dignity and respect"?

Interestingly enough, there is a huge distinction under these laws between moving and destroying a sculpture.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

Interestingly enough, there is a huge distinction under these laws between moving and destroying a sculpture.

How is the guy supposed to move a mural painted on the side of a building?