jury sides with graffiti artists over building owner

Interesting. Is Vara a city, state, or federal act?
 
This should be a pretty simple case of, if you own the property you can do whatever the hell you want to do to it at any time unless there's some written contract stipulating otherwise
 
People okay with the dude painting over this stuff better not ever say anything else about "destruction of culture" ever again.

Because like it or not, eventually stuff like this becomes a reflection of the history of the neighborhood, especially when you let it continue unabated for so long. This is like the guy who wanted to destroy the Biggie mural in Brooklyn and didn't understand why people got so upset about it. Eventually, you get a masterpiece and it becomes the poster child of the neighborhood. Just because it's contemporary doesn't mean that it doesn't have value.

UFzYOfp.jpg
 
People okay with the dude painting over this stuff better not ever say anything else about "destruction of culture" ever again.

Because like it or not, eventually stuff like this becomes a reflection of the history of the neighborhood, especially when you let it continue unabated for so long. This is like the guy who wanted to destroy the Biggie mural in Brooklyn and didn't understand why people got so upset about it. Eventually, you get a masterpiece and it becomes the poster child of the neighborhood. Just because it's contemporary doesn't mean that it doesn't have value.

UFzYOfp.jpg


these were some of the classic pieces that were up over there at 5 Pointz

5-Pointz-3.jpg

4911051791_54ed7d6681_b.jpg
 
i dont understand why this act exists...

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.
i dont see why that is something worth protecting. you voluntarily put your art on someone elses property when they allow you to, it should be fully understood that they can do whatever they want with it.

again i dont understand why this protection exists. would it not make more sense that if an artist wanted this assurance, it be agreed upon case-by-case between the artist and the property owner?
 
Last edited:
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.

I know very little on the subject, but I imagine you have to be permitted to demolish a building; is it at all possible that the owner painted over the building to make the permitting process go more smoothly (knowing he may not be permitted to demolish the building because of the art)?

In spirit this law doesn't seem much different than laws that protect historic buildings. Seems like if a business owner either engages in a contract with artists for such work, or they buy a property with such work already on display, that the owner/purchaser should be responsible for understanding the potential consequences of that.
 
I know very little on the subject, but I imagine you have to be permitted to demolish a building; is it at all possible that the owner painted over the building to make the permitting process go more smoothly (knowing he may not be permitted to demolish the building because of the art)?

In spirit this law doesn't seem much different than laws that protect historic buildings. Seems like if a business owner either engages in a contract with artists for such work, or they buy a property with such work already on display, that the owner/purchaser should be responsible for understanding the potential consequences of that.

That's not a bad comparison. The thing with VARA is that it's about protecting representation. Even if they don't own the property on which their art is constructed, VARA came about due to a need for artists to have control over how their work continues to exist in their absence. In other words, you can't just change somebody else original, professional artwork. It's a part of their portfolio and they use it to solicit more business.
 
These murals were copyrighted?
They definitely would have fallen under copyright, but from what I can tell that isn't the issue in this case. People can get into trouble with VARA even if they own the copyright to something. It's not that he was using the images without their permission, it's that he altered them.
 
these were some of the classic pieces that were up over there at 5 Pointz

5-Pointz-3.jpg

4911051791_54ed7d6681_b.jpg
Sucks something fierce that its all gone. Was really hoping to make it there some day.
 
I can't be the only one on here that paints
 
The owner of the building originally permitted graffiti artists to decorate his building with graffiti, but then changed his mind when he decided to convert his factory into an apartment complex.

No good deed goes unpunished.
 
They definitely would have fallen under copyright, but from what I can tell that isn't the issue in this case. People can get into trouble with VARA even if they own the copyright to something. It's not that he was using the images without their permission, it's that he altered them.


Ok. I was under the impression one needs to register a copyright in able to sue for infringement. Never heard of the VARA business.
 
Ok. I was under the impression one needs to register a copyright in able to sue for infringement. Never heard of the VARA business.
Copyright with art can get really weird. It's often very convoluted, with different rights spread out over different parties. If I make a painting, I own all rights to it without having to register anything. I sell that painting, those rights don't all automatically transfer unless specifically agreed upon.
 
damn some good art in those last few pictures. wish I had stopped on by to check them out before they were eradicated from existence... oh well...

its a shame but in the end the building was eventually going to be demolished. can't really side with the artists in this case. it's like creating art using perishable food. you know it's going to be destroyed eventually and you still do it. can't be sad that it rots away.. I am sure the analogy isn't really the same but whatever...

cry about it but move on I say...
 
Back
Top