jury sides with graffiti artists over building owner

[Limbo Pete]

You know, there was a pretty good conversation about VARA through this thread a while ago. I'm not going to repeat myself, but it's there if anyone wants.

 

[jefferz]

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.

The panels and the rest of the building are the building owners property, not the artists.
You can't tag something that someone else owns and then go take that property claiming it's yours.

 

[nac386]

The panels and the rest of the building are the building owners property, not the artists.
You can't tag something that someone else owns and then go take that property claiming it's yours.

Is this entire conversation starting over now? Lol.

Summary: There is a federal law called the visual rights act of 1990 that actually does give the artist some rights to their art even if they do not own the art itself.

You can criticize that law, or even disagree with that law, but you cannot claim that the law does not exist.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Is this entire conversation starting over now? Lol.

Summary: There is a federal law called the visual rights act of 1990 that actually does give the artist some rights to their art even if they do not own the art itself.

You can criticize that law, or even disagree with that law, but you cannot claim that the law does not exist.

It's all right there in the thread lol

 

[livingdeadmoose]

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.

Well I guess I am mistaken on where it came from, but it’s still a POS law. And no, I’m not a party supporter of any type and, no, Bush being a Republican doesn’t be make me support him. He was never a true Republican/conservative.

 

[trident]

lol at the private property folks gettin triggered itt

 

[Bargey]

Hilarious.

Lesson? Never agree to any ‘artist’ painting graffiti on your wall. If you do, form a written contract, retaining ownership of the ‘art’ without limitation.

 

[machidafan99]

Although the jury’s decision is a boost for the 5Pointz artists, the issue is not yet resolved. The judge in the case will now make his own decision, Baum said, which will take into account the jury’s verdict, but could reach a different conclusion.

I used to live in LIC. Hipsters bask in amateur art there. It began a weird process of gentrification and faux liberal sympathies.

 

[lilelvis]

Sounds like the jury was huffing paint.

 

[Quipling]

https://www.reuters.com/article/ip-...ln-win-for-nyc-graffiti-artists-idUSL1N2AK28W

Saw this in my legal news feed. Took me a while to figure out why the story was familiar.

TLDR:

judge and court of appeals agreed that owner violated the law.


@KantoTerror remember that sig bet? I didn't either, but looks like it's been resolved. Let me know when you're ready for your new signature.

 

[MikeMcMann]

This ruling is not as outrageous as the OP suggests. I was prepared to be outraged on behalf of Private Ownership rights but this part matters,

"...5Pointz, a former factory owned by Wolkoff, was a haven for graffiti artists from around the world and became a prominent tourist attraction. Wolkoff had given the artists permission to use the building as a canvas for “aerosol art” and the building was covered in multicolored murals and tags.

But in 2013, when Wolkoff decided to demolish the building and replace it with apartments, he whitewashed the graffiti art in the dead of night..."

What happened here is that the Private Property Owner entered into a business transaction with these Private Artists BOTH of who provided something of value to get a finished product.

The property owner gave a canvas (his building) and the artists provide the graffiti which created something of value.

If you are going to do that as a property owner or artist, you should definitely draw up an agreement to govern the work otherwise expect the law to jump in and mediate when you have a dispute. Had the landlord simply stipulated 'I will allow the use of my building, but such use will be 100% at my discretion' and the artists choose to proceed then this is not an issue.

 

[Quipling]

This ruling is not as outrageous as the OP suggests. I was prepared to be outraged on behalf of Private Ownership rights but this part matters,

"...5Pointz, a former factory owned by Wolkoff, was a haven for graffiti artists from around the world and became a prominent tourist attraction. Wolkoff had given the artists permission to use the building as a canvas for “aerosol art” and the building was covered in multicolored murals and tags.

But in 2013, when Wolkoff decided to demolish the building and replace it with apartments, he whitewashed the graffiti art in the dead of night..."

What happened here is that the Private Property Owner entered into a business transaction with these Private Artists BOTH of who provided something of value to get a finished product.

The property owner gave a canvas (his building) and the artists provide the graffiti which created something of value.

If you are going to do that as a property owner or artist, you should definitely draw up an agreement to govern the work otherwise expect the law to jump in and mediate when you have a dispute. Had the landlord simply stipulated 'I will allow the use of my building, but such use will be 100% at my discretion' and the artists choose to proceed then this is not an issue.

You're missing two other things in the artists favor. First, they benefit from a federal law that codifies artist rights-that law, VARA, was pretty key to the artists legal argument.

Second, the paint job happened after the lawsuit was filed. It was a pretty blatant attempt to divest the court of jurisdiction.

Also, this thread is years old. I bumped it because the artists just won the appeal.

 

[MikeMcMann]

You're missing two other things in the artists favor. First, they benefit from a federal law that codifies artist rights-that law, VARA, was pretty key to the artists legal argument.

I am unfamiliar with that law but regardless it would not change my view.

If I read it and agreed the law was just I would still stand by my view that the 'Owner should lay out clear instructions that he and he alone maintains all control over the building and its facade and if they don't like it they don't have to paint there'. In no way are they coerced or forced to paint any building. If they choose to do so VOLUNTARILY while knowing the rules, then I would have zero sympathy for their point after.

However if the understanding is not clear, and the artists vest time and energy creating a unique work and provide that 'thing of value' to the landlord, then he should expect some issues if he just unilaterlaly decides what to do with that finish work that time, energy and value were vested in to.

Second, the paint job happened after the lawsuit was filed. It was a pretty blatant attempt to divest the court of jurisdiction.

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying the landlord had prior agreed but then changed and said no, and a lawsuit was filed and while it was filed they painted anyway?

Also, this thread is years old. I bumped it because the artists just won the appeal.

I just noticed that. Thx

 

[Quipling]

I am unfamiliar with that law but regardless it would not change my view.

If I read it and agreed the law was just I would still stand by my view that the 'Owner should lay out clear instructions that he and he alone maintains all control over the building and its facade and if they don't like it they don't have to paint there'. In no way are they coerced or forced to paint any building. If they choose to do so VOLUNTARILY while knowing the rules, then I would have zero sympathy for their point after.

However if the understanding is not clear, and the artists vest time and energy creating a unique work and provide that 'thing of value' to the landlord, then he should expect some issues if he just unilaterlaly decides what to do with that finish work that time, energy and value were vested in to.


Not sure what you mean. Are you saying the landlord had prior agreed but then changed and said no, and a lawsuit was filed and while it was filed they painted anyway?
I just noticed that. Thx

VARA says that the owner has to provide notice to artists before demolishing so that they can resolve these issues before demolition (or take steps to preserve the art at their own expense).

Owner planned on demolishing the property. Artists filed a lawsuit, and asked for a temporary order preventing demolition from going forward until their rights to the artwork were resolved (including whether they had any). Owner immediately painted over the artwork before the court could rule on the motion, without notice to the artists.