Judge awards $6.7 million to graffiti artists whose work was destroyed to build condo

[OuterBanksVol]

Owner of building sued - and loses - for destroying graffiti when he demolished building. This is crazy.

5Pointz graffiti artists awarded $6.7 million after their work was destroyed - CNN

 

[ButchPlz]

1. Wreck someone else's building with paint.
2. Owner of said building decides he doesn't like his building wrecked with paint and does something about it.
3. Sue.
4. ???
5. Profit.

Screw your rights to your own property!

 

[hog88]

Moral of the story, don’t allow anyone to paint on your building. Prosecute them.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

He gave them permission to paint the building. It was something of a landmark with tourists and schools going there to tour it. He decided to demolish it and didn't offer the artists a chance to preserve their work.

It was decided under the Visual Rights Act of 1990. It gives artist certain rights in their work regardless of ownership.

 

[Grand Vol]

It was decided under the Visual Rights Act of 1990. It gives artist certain rights in their work regardless of ownership.

So, now when anyone wants a BNSF train car they spray painted graffiti on, they get that awarded?

So called "artistic rights" stop at my private property rights. I can give you permission to paint until your heart is content. I can also take that away because, well, it's my damn property.

 

[tumscalcium]

He gave them permission to paint the building. It was something of a landmark with tourists and schools going there to tour it. He decided to demolish it and didn't offer the artists a chance to preserve their work.

It was decided under the Visual Rights Act of 1990. It gives artist certain rights in their work regardless of ownership.

All the more reason to tell the losers to **** off with their paint cans next time.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

So, now when anyone wants a BNSF train car they spray painted graffiti on, they get that awarded?

So called "artistic rights" stop at my private property rights. I can give you permission to paint until your heart is content. I can also take that away because, well, it's my damn property.

I agree, but this law gives the painter certain rights to protect the works of art he produces. I assume it is so that someone cannot simply eradicate an artists works.

 

[Septic]

He gave them permission to paint the building. It was something of a landmark with tourists and schools going there to tour it. He decided to demolish it and didn't offer the artists a chance to preserve their work.

It was decided under the Visual Rights Act of 1990. It gives artist certain rights in their work regardless of ownership.

wow.

 

[Grand Vol]

I agree, but this law gives the painter certain rights to protect the works of art he produces. I assume it is so that someone cannot simply eradicate an artists works.

Again, it opens up a huge can of worms for someone to claim "artistic works" and have that trump my property rights.

I can only hope this gets overthrown in appellate court.

 

[T-TownVol]

He gave them permission to paint the building. It was something of a landmark with tourists and schools going there to tour it. He decided to demolish it and didn't offer the artists a chance to preserve their work.

It was decided under the Visual Rights Act of 1990. It gives artist certain rights in their work regardless of ownership.

Explain to me just how that work could have been preserved.......and next you are going to tell me that the owner, at his own expense cause these "artists" have no money, should have saved the brick walls as he demolished the building........stupid law........but hell, it probably would not have cost him 6.7 million to do that.....our judicial system is so screwed up!!!

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Again, it opens up a huge can of worms for someone to claim "artistic works" and have that trump my property rights.

I can only hope this gets overthrown in appellate court.

Unlikely to be overturned. There have been other cases decided pursuant to this law that have survived appellate scrutiny.

 

[golfballs]

How can you preserve spray paint art?

I'm not familiar with the law in question, so I don't really know if the ruling is a good one or not.

 

[Madscientistvol]

Explain to me just how that work could have been preserved.......and next you are going to tell me that the owner, at his own expense cause these "artists" have no money, should have saved the brick walls as he demolished the building........stupid law........but hell, it probably would not have cost him 6.7 million to do that.....our judicial system is so screwed up!!!

Agree 100%. Also 6.7 million....dang that's high. Buying him the bricks and the paint and paying him whatever pay rate times the hours to recreate would cost a hell of a lot less than that. And that's just if you agree that the artist should receive some form of compensation or consolation.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

He gave them permission to paint the building. It was something of a landmark with tourists and schools going there to tour it. He decided to demolish it and didn't offer the artists a chance to preserve their work.

It was decided under the Visual Rights Act of 1990. It gives artist certain rights in their work regardless of ownership.

I gave Jethro permission to paint my house last summer. I'm the envy of the neighborhood. People come from far and wide to see Jethro's work. Is Jethro's work to be considered art now?

 

[Boca Vol]

Here's an understanding of the law from Harvard Law School:

Untitled Document

 

[golfballs]

Agree 100%. Also 6.7 million....dang that's high. Buying him the bricks and the paint and paying him whatever pay rate times the hours to recreate would cost a hell of a lot less than that. And that's just if you agree that the artist should receive some form of compensation or consolation.

Who buys graffiti art? And how much does it go for?

 

[Madscientistvol]

Who buys graffiti art? And how much does it go for?

I was just being generous, I sure wouldn't but if you take into account the man hours he spent on the project in some calculation for compensation. If it were my decision I wouldn't give him anything. IMO he already got free advertising for his work by being provided such a platform to showcase his skills to begin with.

 

[Boca Vol]

I was just being generous, I sure wouldn't but if you take into account the man hours he spent on the project in some calculation for compensation. If it were my decision I wouldn't give him anything. IMO he already got free advertising for his work by being provided such a platform to showcase his skills to begin with.

There were 21 plaintiffs. The amounts awarded varied.

 

[AirVol]

This artist should’ve painted The Obama’s portraits.

 

[Grand Vol]

Unlikely to be overturned. There have been other cases decided pursuant to this law that have survived appellate scrutiny.

My principle, as T-Town alluded to, is how can these artists receive that kind of settlement when they aren't receiving payment to begin with? We aren't talking about a musician that gets their song played on the radio and they don't receive compensation for it.

This was not a public dedicated landmark. This is private property that the landowner allowed people to paint on. And then revoked that permission when he decided to tear it down, as is his right as a property owner. The "artists" weren't receiving compensation to begin with, why suddenly get $6.7 million in compensation at the end?

 

[hog88]

He gave them permission to paint the building. It was something of a landmark with tourists and schools going there to tour it. He decided to demolish it and didn't offer the artists a chance to preserve their work.

It was decided under the Visual Rights Act of 1990. It gives artist certain rights in their work regardless of ownership.

This is what I can't believe ever passed.

 

[hog88]

Again, it opens up a huge can of worms for someone to claim "artistic works" and have that trump my property rights.

I can only hope this gets overthrown in appellate court.

It's already been held up in an appellate court in another case. I couldn't believe such a law existed so I looked it up.

So this should be a lesson to property owners. Prosecute these vandals and never let them paint on your property.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

It's already been held up in an appellate court in another case. I couldn't believe such a law existed so I looked it up.

So this should be a lesson to property owners. Prosecute these vandals and never let them paint on your property.

They weren't vandals. They were given permission to create their art on the buildings.

 

[hog88]

They weren't vandals. They were given permission to create their art on the buildings.

I know this.

I'm saying owners should stop letting them paint on their buildings. When one does it without permission, don't take the chance, prosecute them.

 

[Grand Vol]

I know this.

I'm saying owners should stop letting them paint on their buildings. When one does it without permission, don't take the chance, prosecute them.

I would suggest rock salt, but we are talking NYC here.