jury sides with graffiti artists over building owner

[Stoic1]

If I spray painted the Judge's car and called it art I wonder if he would feel the same way?

 

[Limbo Pete]

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

Well, with a professionally painted mural, destruction of the art is going to hing heavily on whatever agreement they came up with before hand. Like, the artists have to be notified or something. Under VARA, just destroying it without notice can cause problems, but it may not. The law here isn't uniform. I'm pretty surprised a jury found these street art murals fell under it, but it's not as though other professional work wouldn't; the concept isn't new at all. I don't think it applies here though imo but i'm by no means an expert or whatever. In the case of a sculpture, the process is much more rigid. If I built a sculpture on commission and it was installed in a city park, they can't just come along and destroy it to put something else there. It would most likely have to be moved.

 

[SleepyBoy]

So all those kids that got detention for drawing on desk in schools actually had there rights trampled on.

I drew a picture of my teacher banging a buffalo on my desk, and the Nazi didn't even try to preserve the art even though it was very popular with my peers.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

So all those kids that got detention for drawing on desk in schools actually had there rights trampled on.

I drew a picture of my teacher banging a buffalo on my desk, and the Nazi didn't even try to preserve the art even though it was very popular with my peers.

Public school teachers are natural fascists.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

Well, with a professionally painted mural, destruction of the art is going to hing heavily on whatever agreement they came up with before hand. Like, the artists have to be notified or something. Under VARA, just destroying it without notice can cause problems, but it may not. The law here isn't uniform. I'm pretty surprised a jury found these street art murals fell under it, but it's not as though other professional work wouldn't; the concept isn't new at all. I don't think it applies here though imo but i'm by no means an expert or whatever. In the case of a sculpture, the process is much more rigid. If I built a sculpture on commission and it was installed in a city park, they can't just come along and destroy it to put something else there. It would most likely have to be moved.

I hear you I'm just being a shit. But to continue the thought experiment, what if there's a mural honoring confederate war heroes and people want it gone? Do they have to remove the wall and send it to a museum?

You could make the case that removing the wall is too great a burden on the property owner, but you'd also have to make the case that the content is so offensive that it warrants violating the artist's right to expression.

Sounds like an opportunity for some Better Call Saul lawyer to make a name for himself if this ever comes up.

 

[Limbo Pete]

I hear you I'm just being a shit. But to continue the thought experiment, what if there's a mural honoring confederate war heroes and people want it gone? Do they have to remove the wall and send it to a museum?

You could make the case that removing the wall is too great a burden on the property owner, but you'd also have to make the case that the content is so offensive that it warrants violating the artist's right to expression.

Sounds like an opportunity for some Better Call Saul lawyer to make a name for himself if this ever comes up.

It's not the same kind of issue if the artist isn't alive. But believe me when I say that art law gets really, really convoluted.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Judge is a piece of shit.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

It's not the same kind of issue if the artist isn't alive. But believe me we I say that art law gets really, really convoluted.

So can someone destroy a Michelangelo mural? He's not alive.

 

[Limbo Pete]

So can someone destroy a Michelangelo mural? He's not alive.

That's different. This lawsuit deals with an artist retaining certain rights to what they make even if they dont own it. I know it sounds weird.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

That's different. This lawsuit deals with an artist retaining certain rights to what they make even if they dont own it. I know it sounds weird.

It's all different which is why you can't make enough rules to keep it from spiraling out of control. I think if you bought it, you should be able to burn it, unless it's deemed a national treasure which should have a very high standard. In my opinion, this graffiti case is a travesty.

 

[Limbo Pete]

It's all different which is why you can't make enough rules to keep it from spiraling out of control. I think if you bought it, you should be able to burn it, unless it's deemed a national treasure which should have a very high standard. In my opinion, this graffiti case is a travesty.

I hear ya, but for what it's worth VARA make more sense using different examples.

 

[7437]

Fuck graffiti "artists". You don't own your medium, you don't get to vandalize it

try reading the OP.

 

[Prefect]

I don't like this because I like street art. Businesses are just going to say no to avoid this bullshit.

 

[jonharrison]

That's different. This lawsuit deals with an artist retaining certain rights to what they make even if they dont own it. I know it sounds weird.

You seem to have some knowledge about these laws, so I’m asking this as an actual question. What if it had been inside a private residence? Say an artist was talking about needing a space to practice, so a homeowner offers a room in their home for say a baby mural. Does the artist maintain rights to that work too? What if the homeowner sells the home and the new owner paints over it?

 

[Limbo Pete]

You seem to have some knowledge about these laws, so I’m asking this as an actual question. What if it had been inside a private residence? Say an artist was talking about needing a space to practice, so a homeowner offers a room in their home for say a baby mural. Does the artist maintain rights to that work too? What if the homeowner sells the home and the new owner paints over it?

It's heavily dependent upon what sort of agreement they work out, which is why aspiring muralists and their patrons need to get things in writing. To fall under VARA, though, the art has to meet some nebulous criteria of being "substantial". Random practice painting in somebody's house wouldn't cut it for several reasons. But there are certain rights the artist still retains at all times, which involve the nature of the representation of their work. The home owner couldnt alter the painting and then pass it off as authentic, for example.

 

[jonharrison]

It's heavily dependent upon what sort of agreement they work out, which is why aspiring muralists and their patrons need to get things in writing. To fall under VARA, though, the art has to meet some nebulous criteria of being "substantial". Random practice painting in somebody's house wouldn't cut it for several reasons. But there are certain rights the artist still retains at all times, which involve the nature of the representation of their work. The home owner couldnt alter the painting and then pass it off as authentic, for example.

I appreciate the info, not being able to take credit for another’s work makes sense to me. The “substantial” criteria seems a little more subjective than I’d like most legal criteria to be, but I suppose art itself is inherently subjective.

 

[nhbbear]

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.

I just don’t understand how they could have any say in what he does with his property. That just seems insane to me. Just because you paint something on a building should not mean that you can stop it from being renovated, torn down, painted over, vandalized-anything the property owner wants to do.

 

[Limbo Pete]

I just don’t understand how they could have any say in what he does with his property. That just seems insane to me. Just because you paint something on a building should not mean that you can stop it from being renovated, torn down, painted over, vandalized-anything the property owner wants to do.

It does though. Art laws reserve certain rights to the artists at all times, and others more nebulously.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Sorry, noticed how you replied to bald on the follow up.

And again, im just reiterating that the skill level of the art isn't a factor. To some people, all graffiti is trashy -- due to the illicity of it

I think their skill level does come into play, if it has monetary value.

If that was a banksy, the owner would be trying to sell the painting, not turn it into apartments.

 

[Limbo Pete]

I think their skill level does come into play.

This is really important. Any random crap throw up on a wall wouldn't cut it. It's incredible how weird and subjective art laws can get. But if these are professional artists making money off the images, and they had an agreement to paint there, then I can sorta see how the jury came down the way it did (although I still gotta disagree in this particular case) given that he altered them. It's the painting over it that seems to have screwed the building owner here because you can't just alter professional murals even if it is on your property. Granted, he was tearing the building down after, but I suppose I can see the technicality even if it is a stretch.