jury sides with graffiti artists over building owner

[Quipling]

"They" being the graffiti artists?

Yeah.

Double checking myself and they won in front of the jury, but the judge still needs to review it.

Why not?

Cool. Still waiting for the judge to confirm or overturn the jury.

 

[DespicablePeep]

The story is not as simple as is laid out in the OP. The artwork was done with permission and the owner of the building did not give the artists any opportunity to save their work before painting over it. The artwork was apparently very well known and could have been removed and put in a museum.

I'm not saying they should sue, but there is apparently an actual legal case here based on an established law.

No there is not

 

[Limbo Pete]

Merge incoming

 

[Bacco]

Some cool pieces there, but if the owner of the building chosen so, it should be his right to do as he want, even if is an asshole move

 

[livingdeadmoose]

There's also laws, and apparently they might have a case based on one.

There's also something called "the law." He didn't follow it. So fuck him.

A law that takes away a mans rights to do what he wishes with his own property? Fuck those laws and fuck that liberal cesspool of a city.

 

[nac386]

A law that takes away a mans rights to do what he wishes with his own property? Fuck those laws and fuck that liberal cesspool of a city.

It's a Federal Law passed under George H.W. Bush.

 

[oldshadow]

It's a Federal Law passed under George H.W. Bush.

Still sounds fucked up no matter who it was passed under.

 

[nac386]

Still sounds fucked up no matter who it was passed under.

That's a perfectly fine opinion to have on it. The law deserves criticism and debate. But pretending a 30 year old Federal law passed under a Republican president is the fault of "liberal cesspool" New York City is just dumb and inaccurate.

 

[oldshadow]

That's a perfectly fine opinion to have on it. The law deserves criticism and debate. But pretending a 30 year old Federal law passed under a Republican president is the fault of "liberal cesspool" New York City is just dumb and inaccurate.

Well they are the ones that decided this art was protected under this law.

Now that shows two things.

First the people in New York city decided they would wedge this art in. Which we will see how this holds up on appeal.

And next the law was poorly written not to protect private property.

 

[Byron Carter]

this wasn't some random street crap. this was an entire building complex with huge masterpieces & elaborate artwork projects always going up outside for decades, where there where hundreds of art studios inside. it was actually pretty cool & contributed to an awesome scenic subway commute to & from work.

You mean it was an abandoned building, filled with heroin and meth addicts, littered with drug paraphernalia, wasted countless tax dollars in police and EMS responding, was a fire hazard, and a blight on civilized society.

 

[nac386]

Well they are the ones that decided this art was protected under this law.

Now that shows two things.

First the people in New York city decided they would wedge this art in. Which we will see how this holds up on appeal.

And next the law was poorly written not to protect private property.

It is not poorly written, it is intentionally written to protect the artist in some cases over the owner's right to destroy the artist's work.

Like I said, you can disagree with the law. But the law is written exactly how it was meant to be written, and it is written to protect art and artist's rights. This is not the first time this law has protected a mural in a public place.

 

[oldshadow]

It is not poorly written, it is intentionally written to protect the artist in some cases over the owner's right to destroy the artist's work.

Like I said, you can disagree with the law. But the law is written exactly how it was meant to be written, and it is written to protect art and artist's rights. This is not the first time this law has protected a mural in a public place.

If it doesn't protect private property (unless there is a contract involved) then it's poorly written.

 

[nac386]

If it doesn't protect private property (unless there is a contract involved) then it's poorly written.

I think this is a semantics argument at this point.

But poorly written implies that the way the law is written does not have the effect that it is meant to have.

This law is written exactly the way it was meant to be written to accomplish what it means to accomplish. That is not poorly written, you just disagree with it. That is fine, there are lots of laws I disagree with.

 

[oldshadow]

I think this is a semantics argument at this point.

But poorly written implies that the way the law is written does not have the effect that it is meant to have.

This law is written exactly the way it was meant to be written to accomplish what it means to accomplish. That is not poorly written, you just disagree with it. That is fine, there are lots of laws I disagree with.

I'm going to say I was somewhat wrong with my post. The owner fucked up by not put in writing the terms of letting them use the building for art and did not let them know before removing the art so I can see how this could cover the artist.

I still say it could be written better or change to protect owners rights.

 

[snakeyes1022]

Sucks something fierce that its all gone. Was really hoping to make it there some day.

So since they got a financial judgement can Biggies estate now come after the money. Not that they would i just wanted to continue down the rabbit hole.

 

[livingdeadmoose]

It's a Federal Law passed under George H.W. Bush.

And? That makes it right? And what made you think I’d change my mind because it was passed under Bush?

If the government ever trampled your rights over your private property, I hope you’re just as cool about it.

 

[nac386]

And? That makes it right? And what made you think I’d change my mind because it was passed under Bush?

If the government ever trampled your rights over your private property, I hope you’re just as cool about it.

I didn't think you'd change your opinion about the law.

But I thought maybe the fact that it is Federal law, passed during a Republican president's reign, would make you rethink your accusation that this case is somehow evidence of New York City being a "liberal cesspool."

Since, you know, New York City did not come up with this law.

 

[weed]

You mean it was an abandoned building, filled with heroin and meth addicts, littered with drug paraphernalia, wasted countless tax dollars in police and EMS responding, was a fire hazard, and a blight on civilized society.

was it now?

 

[jefferz]

The story is not as simple as is laid out in the OP. The artwork was done with permission and the owner of the building did not give the artists any opportunity to save their work before painting over it. The artwork was apparently very well known and could have been removed and put in a museum.

I'm not saying they should sue, but there is apparently an actual legal case here based on an established law.

How are you going to remove spray paint from a wall and place it in a museum?

 

[nac386]

How are you going to remove spray paint from a wall and place it in a museum?

They said some parts were paneled and easily could have been removed. Other parts could have been documented with photography. I'm sure there were plenty of other salvageable pieces.

Somehow I've become the guy defending the artists here, and I'm really not very invested in this at all. I'm just pointing out some stuff that people are overlooking and jumping to conclusions.