Graffiti Artist awarded $6.7M for destroyed work

[Sparko]

Graffiti Artists Awarded $6. 7 Million for Destroyed 5Pointz Muralshttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/n...-judgment.html

[Sparko]

I think artworks should be protected but when the artwork is put on someone else's property without permission, that is just vandalism. How can they sue the property owner for removing it? It's completely insane.

[Mountain Man]

This is an insane ruling, but what else would you expect from a liberal hellhole like New York City? I can't see this surviving appeals.

[One Bad Pig]

This is an insane ruling, but what else would you expect from a liberal hellhole like New York City? I can't see this surviving appeals.

The judge in question, being a political appointee, is not necessarily from the hellhole in question. I agree, it's unlikely to survive appeal.

[Sparko]

Someone on facebook told me that the previous owner allowed the graffiti to stay and it became a public landmark, then the new owner decided to remove it.

If that IS the case (I can't find any info on it) then it makes it more complicated.

[Mountain Man]

Someone on facebook told me that the previous owner allowed the graffiti to stay and it became a public landmark, then the new owner decided to remove it.

If that IS the case (I can't find any info on it) then it makes it more complicated.

Seems to me that unless that agreement was in writing, and the new owner submitted to being bound by the same agreement, then I'm not sure it's of any legal relevance. Of course those of you who work in the legal profession probably have a better understanding.

[One Bad Pig]

Someone on facebook told me that the previous owner allowed the graffiti to stay and it became a public landmark, then the new owner decided to remove it.

If that IS the case (I can't find any info on it) then it makes it more complicated.

It's still private property. Absent a complicating agreement such as an HOA or zoning laws, the property owner can legally do whatever he wants with it.

[Sparko]

OK so it is more complicated...

according to what I found:

https://nypost.com/2013/11/19/5-poin...ght-paint-job/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Pointz

The owner Wolkoff leased out the building to various artists, many who decorated the building with graffiti. Then in 2013 Wolkoff decided he wanted to tear down the building, so he painted over the graffiti to prevent the artists from getting the building designated a landmark.

[guacamole]

Dude probably could have made a pile of cash with some accessibility improvements and charging admission.

[Leonhard]

Its complicated as soon as a building is declared a landmark or historical. The office I'm currently in is a historical building. A remnant of the old warehouses in the city, now remodelled as an office space. This has limitations on what we can do.

I'm sorry to see the grafitti go. Its one of the most interesting art forms when done properly.

[Sparko]

Its complicated as soon as a building is declared a landmark or historical. The office I'm currently in is a historical building. A remnant of the old warehouses in the city, now remodelled as an office space. This has limitations on what we can do.

I'm sorry to see the grafitti go. Its one of the most interesting art forms when done properly.

Yeah. Since the owner leased the property and gave the artists permission to use the building for graffiti, and the graffiti became a famous landmark, it makes it a lot tougher to defend removing it. He still owns the property, but once he leased it to others he gave up a lot of his rights. Depends on the contract he had probably.

[Leonhard]

Yeah. Since the owner leased the property and gave the artists permission to use the building for graffiti, and the graffiti became a famous landmark, it makes it a lot tougher to defend removing it. He still owns the property, but once he leased it to others he gave up a lot of his rights. Depends on the contract he had probably.

Especially if it was in the process of being officially declared a historical landmark, or anything worth protecting.

[Mountain Man]

OK so it is more complicated...

according to what I found:

https://nypost.com/2013/11/19/5-poin...ght-paint-job/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Pointz

The owner Wolkoff leased out the building to various artists, many who decorated the building with graffiti. Then in 2013 Wolkoff decided he wanted to tear down the building, so he painted over the graffiti to prevent the artists from getting the building designated a landmark.

I take back what I said earlier. Sounds like the owner was just being a jerk.

[One Bad Pig]

Yeah. Since the owner leased the property and gave the artists permission to use the building for graffiti, and the graffiti became a famous landmark, it makes it a lot tougher to defend removing it. He still owns the property, but once he leased it to others he gave up a lot of his rights. Depends on the contract he had probably.

Er, leasing it doesn't necessarily forfeit many of your rights; you're merely letting someone else use your property for a limited length of time.

[Sparko]

Er, leasing it doesn't necessarily forfeit many of your rights; you're merely letting someone else use your property for a limited length of time.

That's why I said it would depend on the contract. If it were specified in the contract that the art could be removed once the lease was over, for instance, then it would be a simple matter to paint over them. But apparently in this case, the artwork and building became something of a famous landmark. And since the art was done legally, the artists did have a case to try to get the courts to declare it an actual landmark. The owner apparently decided to take matters into his own hand and painted over the artwork instead of waiting for the court to decide.