- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 15,231
- Reaction score
- 0
Freaking liberals
They should've of pooled their money, formed a co-op and bought the building.
Owner said he was always going to demo it.
Interesting. Is Vara a city, state, or federal act?
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.
Not bad, but then people go on and ruin it by doing some crap on the sides.these were some of the classic pieces that were up over there at 5 Pointz
It's holding water due to the juries interpretation of the federal copyright law of artists;...
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.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.
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.
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 murals were copyrighted?
Sucks something fierce that its all gone. Was really hoping to make it there some day.these were some of the classic pieces that were up over there at 5 Pointz
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.
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.
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.Ok. I was under the impression one needs to register a copyright in able to sue for infringement. Never heard of the VARA business.