Results 1 to 34 of 34

Thread: Interesting New York court decision

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    593

    Default Interesting New York court decision

    I'm curious as to how such a law was passed.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/n...-article-click

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Hyannis, MA, USA
    Posts
    44,985

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    The law gets at the sometimes edgy distinction between art and vandalism.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    17,519

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian McColgin View Post
    The law gets at the sometimes edgy distinction between art and vandalism.

    "If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass — a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience."


    Visual Artists Rights Act, or V.A.R.A., which has been used to protect public art of “recognized stature” created on someone’s else property.


    A couple questions:

    1. Does this set the precedent that one can vandalize any building or structure - Govt or not - with spray paint and call it art and get away with it, plus receive compensation when it is removed by the owner?

    2. Does this set the precedent that one can vandalize any building to property with spray paint and call it art and get away with it, plus receive compensation when it is removed by the owner? BTW do you have a Ferrari?

    I'll bet that Judge Blockwould not be amused if those self same artists recreated those self same 'murals' on the walls of his property?

    Best clean it off immediately one is aware of it and sue (the American way) the
    vandal for the costs to clean it.
    Last edited by Rum_Pirate; 02-14-2018 at 07:35 AM.
    Enjoy a good rum on the rocks at sunset.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Central MA
    Posts
    7,130

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    I'm a strong supporter of the arts but I think this law and decision are absolutely wrong. Whatever its artistic merits, graffiti is vandalism and the rights of the property owner to maintain his property as he desires within the constraints of the applicable codes and zoning rules should not be subservient to the rights of someone who engages in criminal and unwanted defacement of that property.

    If the courts maintain that the rights of the property owner are supersceded by those of the "artist", couldn't that be construed as an illegal taking of property by the government?
    I rather be American than a Republican.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    17,519

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianY View Post
    I'm a strong supporter of the arts but I think this law and decision are absolutely wrong. Whatever its artistic merits, graffiti is vandalism and the rights of the property owner to maintain his property as he desires within the constraints of the applicable codes and zoning rules should not be subservient to the rights of someone who engages in criminal and unwanted defacement of that property.
    Hear hear!
    Enjoy a good rum on the rocks at sunset.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    40,169

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate View Post




    A couple questions:

    1. Does this set the precedent that one can vandalize any building or structure - Govt or not - with spray paint and call it art and get away with it, plus receive compensation when it is removed by the owner?

    2. Does this set the precedent that one can vandalize any building to property with spray paint and call it art and get away with it, plus receive compensation when it is removed by the owner? BTW do you have a Ferrari?

    .
    Nope and Nope
    Monday, Judge Block upheld the jury’s decision, and his ruling awarded the artists the maximum damages possible, saying that 45 of the dozens of ruined murals had enough artistic stature to merit being protected. The jury had found that only 36 of the works should be guarded under V.A.R.A.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    40,169

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    I wonder if you guys would complain if Banksy adorned your wall?
    Banksy graffiti doubles derelict pub's value
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...ubs-value.html
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    17,519

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    I wonder if you guys would complain if Banksy adorned your wall?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...ubs-value.html

    Doesn't change the situation :

    Graffiti are writing or drawings that have been scribbled, scratched, or painted illicitly on a wall or other surface, often within public view.

    In most (apparently excludes the USA) countries, marking or painting property without the property owner's permission is considered defacement and vandalism, which is a punishable crime.
    Enjoy a good rum on the rocks at sunset.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    450

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    There should be a wall built somewhere where artists can express themselves.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    40,169

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    @ Rummy So you would rather be poor and righteous.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    17,519

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    @ Rummy So you would rather be poor and righteous.
    I'd prefer my property not defaced or vandalized in the first instance.

    In the second instance, I'd like to retain the right to clean/paint/etc my building without a law I couldn't redecorate it.
    Enjoy a good rum on the rocks at sunset.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Central MA
    Posts
    7,130

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    I wonder if you guys would complain if Banksy adorned your wall?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...ubs-value.html
    A few questions:

    1) What gives any graffiti artist the right to paint on someone else's property?
    2) If painting on walls and surfaces without the consent of the owner is ok, why shouldn't artists be allowed to place sculptures on private property?
    3) For that matter, why shouldn't anyone be allowed to do anything they want on someone else's property?
    4) Can I invite myself and my friends to have a party on your boat sometime?
    5) Why should the decision to keep or paint over Banksy's artwork on my property be anyone's decision but my own?
    6) Why does graffiti deserve to be an exception to the laws governing private property?
    I rather be American than a Republican.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    17,029

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    Quote Originally Posted by redeye1962 View Post
    There should be a wall built somewhere where artists can express themselves.
    There can be as many as they will pay for.
    He's a Mexican. -- Donald Trump.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey
    It wasn't racism, it was an attack on Christianity. -- Fox News
    Crying white mothers are ratings gold. -- National Rifle Association

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    19,761

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    Yeah, that's the crux - since when does a vandal 'trump' the rights of a tax-paying property owner? This decision, blew it.
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    40,169

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    Philistines.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    huntsville, al, usa
    Posts
    3,016

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    wow. if i was the guy that just got screwed, i'd be over at that judge's house spray painting the crap out of it.

    that's some of the most absurd CRAP i've ever seen.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    47,938

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    I wonder if you guys would complain if Banksy adorned your wall?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...ubs-value.html
    I like art. I love good art. I like sex. I love good sex. But have either visited upon me uninvited seems... unpleasant, unfair, and even actionable.
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    http://www.harborwoodworking.com/boat.html

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    47,938

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianY View Post
    I'm a strong supporter of the arts but I think this law and decision are absolutely wrong. Whatever its artistic merits, graffiti is vandalism and the rights of the property owner to maintain his property as he desires within the constraints of the applicable codes and zoning rules should not be subservient to the rights of someone who engages in criminal and unwanted defacement of that property.

    If the courts maintain that the rights of the property owner are supersceded by those of the "artist", couldn't that be construed as an illegal taking of property by the government?
    This
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    http://www.harborwoodworking.com/boat.html

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    huntsville, al, usa
    Posts
    3,016

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    in the spirit of this thread.... could i buy the mona lisa and burn it? would that be a crime since i owned it?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Traverse City MI and Charlotte NC
    Posts
    3,278

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    I assume that if the graffiti had been promptly removed, there’d be no problem. A building owner should maintain his building, just as a patent owner must maintain his patent.
    Well, Mr. Botard, do you still deny all rhinocerotic evidence?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    17,519

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanMc View Post
    in the spirit of this thread.... could i buy the mona lisa and burn it? would that be a crime since i owned it?
    Probably not a crime.

    Hind purchased the One Cent Magenta British Guiana for a world-record price.

    According to Alexander Séfi, because of his obsession with the "black on magenta," Hind (according to rumor) bought not only one of the stamps, but the other remaining one, and then destroyed one so that he would own the only one in the world.

    Enjoy a good rum on the rocks at sunset.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    17,519

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    This
    Care to elaborate?
    Enjoy a good rum on the rocks at sunset.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Northwest Oregon coast
    Posts
    26,465

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    Mr baxter and joey blasted me for me saying i thought the obama paintings were bad art, so im going to cover my bases and say this is fine art and needed to be protected...

    Judge , right on this !

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    7,264

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate View Post


    A couple questions:

    1. Does this set the precedent that one can vandalize any building or structure - Govt or not - with spray paint and call it art and get away with it, plus receive compensation when it is removed by the owner?

    I'll bet that Judge Blockwould not be amused if those self same artists recreated those self same 'murals' on the walls of his property?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate View Post

    Graffiti are writing or drawings that have been scribbled, scratched, or painted illicitly on a wall or other surface, often within public view.

    In most (apparently excludes the USA) countries, marking or painting property without the property owner's permission is considered defacement and vandalism, which is a punishable crime.
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianY View Post
    A few questions:

    1) What gives any graffiti artist the right to paint on someone else's property?
    OK, these are just a few of the questions asked. But did you know that the owner of the property in question had actually given his permission, in fact he had encouraged the artists to decorate his building.

    5Pointz was a rare collaboration between a real-estate developer and a group of street artists. In 1993, when Long Island City was beset by crime, the developer, Jerry Wolkoff, allowed a crew of taggers to decorate his buildings at 45-46 Davis Street with a wild array of colorful, swirling murals.

    For 20 years, 5Pointz was an offbeat tourist destination that not only attracted thousands of visitors, but also helped transform Long Island City into the thriving residential neighborhood it is today. 5Pointz eventually became “the world’s largest open-air aerosol museum,” in the words of Eric Baum, a lawyer for the artists, but its existence was always predicated on Mr. Wolkoff tearing it down and developing the complex, which he ultimately did in 2014.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/17/n...ed-by-law.html
    Somewhere between Murder and Suicide, there is a place called Merseyside.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    17,519

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    Quote Originally Posted by isla View Post
    OK, these are just a few of the questions asked. But did you know that the owner of the property in question had actually given his permission, in fact he had encouraged the artists to decorate his building.

    5Pointz was a rare collaboration between a real-estate developer and a group of street artists. In 1993, when Long Island City was beset by crime, the developer, Jerry Wolkoff, allowed a crew of taggers to decorate his buildings at 45-46 Davis Street with a wild array of colorful, swirling murals.

    For 20 years, 5Pointz was an offbeat tourist destination that not only attracted thousands of visitors, but also helped transform Long Island City into the thriving residential neighborhood it is today. 5Pointz eventually became “the world’s largest open-air aerosol museum,” in the words of Eric Baum, a lawyer for the artists, but its existence was always predicated on Mr. Wolkoff tearing it down and developing the complex, which he ultimately did in 2014.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/17/n...ed-by-law.html
    Did (or do) the 'artists' retain copyright?

    Was there any agreement that he could or could not destroy the buildings (and thus the 'artwork') ?
    Enjoy a good rum on the rocks at sunset.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    47,938

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    Quote Originally Posted by isla View Post
    OK, these are just a few of the questions asked. But did you know that the owner of the property in question had actually given his permission, in fact he had encouraged the artists to decorate his building.

    5Pointz was a rare collaboration between a real-estate developer and a group of street artists. In 1993, when Long Island City was beset by crime, the developer, Jerry Wolkoff, allowed a crew of taggers to decorate his buildings at 45-46 Davis Street with a wild array of colorful, swirling murals.

    For 20 years, 5Pointz was an offbeat tourist destination that not only attracted thousands of visitors, but also helped transform Long Island City into the thriving residential neighborhood it is today. 5Pointz eventually became “the world’s largest open-air aerosol museum,” in the words of Eric Baum, a lawyer for the artists, but its existence was always predicated on Mr. Wolkoff tearing it down and developing the complex, which he ultimately did in 2014.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/17/n...ed-by-law.html
    Interesting. That changes the complexion of the caper.
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    http://www.harborwoodworking.com/boat.html

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Baltimore Maryland
    Posts
    11,234

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    There is no hope for my country.
    Ratus ratus bilgeous snipeous!

    You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
    Mahatma Gandhi

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    huntsville, al, usa
    Posts
    3,016

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    Interesting. That changes the complexion of the caper.

    not for me. if anything, it makes me more in favor of the building owner. if he asked for it to be done to his property, then it's even MORE his to do with as he chooses.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    23,838

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    Interesting. That changes the complexion of the caper.
    I don't think there would have been any settlement if the owner had waited for his permits. The judge said he could have been more lenient had the developer waited until he got his permits to demolish the building. Instead, Jerry Wolkoff decided to short-circuit the legal process, and acted as if it would be easier to ask forgiveness than permission. I would guess he underestimated the cost, but given the fact that the building was worth more than $200 million, which is why the artists didn't buy it, he'll just take this as the cost of doing business. After all, for it to be worth tearing the building down and putting up something new, the project has to be worth something like $500 million when it's finished. I'm sure Wlkoff figures it's worth the money to be sure he could tear down the building.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    7,264

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate View Post
    Did (or do) the 'artists' retain copyright?
    Was there any agreement that he could or could not destroy the buildings (and thus the 'artwork') ?
    Generally, if there is no formal contract, then copyright on a work of art belongs to the artist. It lasts the lifetime of the artist plus 20 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanMc View Post
    not for me. if anything, it makes me more in favor of the building owner. if he asked for it to be done to his property, then it's even MORE his to do with as he chooses.
    It does change the focus of the discussion. We have people jumping up and down squawking about vandalism and the illegality of graffiti, but that is obviously not the case here.
    Consider this.. you give a canvas to an artist and ask him/her to paint a picture. The picture is completed and the artist leaves it with you although he/she has not been paid for the work.
    Who has the copyright on that painting? You because you provided the canvas, or the artist for doing the painting? Which way would that swing in a court of law?
    Somewhere between Murder and Suicide, there is a place called Merseyside.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Central MA
    Posts
    7,130

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    A few points
    1) You cannot claim ownership of somebody's property simply because you occupy it for a time. If I invite you to stay on my boat for a month, the boat is still mine to do with as I wish. It doesn't become your property.
    2) Copyright applies to the creative work - in this case, the painted images - but not the paper, canvas, or building the work is printed or painted on.
    3) the property owner is entirely within his rights to revoke permission or change his mind about how his property is used.
    4) It seems that it was understood that the property would eventually be torn down and developed. Any artwork on the building was therefore understood to be temporary.
    Last edited by BrianY; 02-14-2018 at 03:46 PM.
    I rather be American than a Republican.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    47,938

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianY View Post
    A few points
    1) You cannot claim ownership of somebody's property simply because you occupy it for a time. If I invite you to stay on my boat for a month, the boat is still mine to do with as I wish. It doesn't become your property.
    2) Copyright applies to the creative work - in this case, the painted images - but not the paper, canvas, or building the work is printed or painted on.
    3) the property owner is entirely within his rights to revoke permission or change his mind about how his property is used.
    4) It seems that it was understood that the property would eventually be torn down and developed. Any artwork on the building was therefore understood to be temporary.
    No dog in the fight... but that all seems 'arguable' at best. The law is a slippery witch... and DETAILS matter.
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    http://www.harborwoodworking.com/boat.html

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    19,761

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    I'd agree with BrianY's analysis. Suspect this 'decision' will be appealed.
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    23,838

    Default Re: Interesting New York court decision

    Quote Originally Posted by George Jung View Post
    I'd agree with BrianY's analysis. Suspect this 'decision' will be appealed.
    If it was that cut and dried, the owner would have waited for his permits.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •