Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Graffiti Artist awarded $6.7M for destroyed work

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    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.
    You wouldn't even need that; the only way the owner's hands would be tied is if he agreed in the lease that the artwork would be preserved.
    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.
    It was a jackass move, but being a jackass isn't illegal.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      You wouldn't even need that; the only way the owner's hands would be tied is if he agreed in the lease that the artwork would be preserved.

      It was a jackass move, but being a jackass isn't illegal.
      Apparently it is. That is what the OP story is about.

      Comment


      • #18
        If he took action with the knowledge that a legal remedy was being sought and with the explicit purpose of preventing that legal remedy then that probably did not sit well with the court. I suspect that's why the settlement award was so high.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #19
          Seems like they should have used that VARA law to stop those idiots from removing the confederate statues. Seems like the same principal to me. Those statues are works of art and landmarks.

          Comment


          • #20
            VARA Law:
            The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA), 17 U.S.C. § 106A, is a United States law granting certain rights to artists.

            VARA was the first federal copyright legislation to grant protection to moral rights. Under VARA, works of art that meet certain requirements afford their authors additional rights in the works, regardless of any subsequent physical ownership of the work itself, or regardless of who holds the copyright to the work. For instance, a painter may insist on proper attribution of his painting, and in some instances may sue the owner of the physical painting for destroying the painting even if the owner of the painting lawfully owned it.[1]

            Although federal law had not acknowledged moral rights before this act, some state legislatures and judicial decisions created limited moral-rights protection. The Berne Convention required the protection of these rights by signatory states, and it was in response that the U.S. Congress passed the VARA.

            VARA exclusively grants authors of works that fall under the protection of the Act the following rights

            right to claim authorship
            right to prevent the use of one's name on any work the author did not create
            right to prevent use of one's name on any work that has been distorted, mutilated, or modified in a way that would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation
            right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation

            Additionally, authors of works of "recognized stature" may prohibit intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a work. Exceptions to VARA require a waiver from the author in writing. To date, "recognized stature" has managed to elude a precise definition. VARA allows authors to waive their rights, something generally not permitted in France and many European countries whose laws were the originators of the moral rights of artists concept.[2]

            In most instances, the rights granted under VARA persist for the life of the author (or the last surviving author, for creators of joint works).
            Covered works
            VARA provides its protection only to paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, still photographic images produced for exhibition only, and existing in single copies or in limited editions of 200 or fewer copies, signed and numbered by the artist. The requirements for protection do not implicate aesthetic taste or value.


            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act

            Comment


            • #21
              Yeah, but the statues were racist... or something.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Seems like they should have used that VARA law to stop those idiots from removing the confederate statues. Seems like the same principal to me. Those statues are works of art and landmarks.
                VARA, from what I can gather, largely expires upon the death of the author of the work. I don't think the creators of the Confederate statues are alive anymore, so I don't think it applies.

                Comment

                Related Threads

                Collapse

                Topics Statistics Last Post
                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                16 responses
                162 views
                0 likes
                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                53 responses
                400 views
                0 likes
                Last Post Mountain Man  
                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                25 responses
                114 views
                0 likes
                Last Post rogue06
                by rogue06
                 
                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                33 responses
                198 views
                0 likes
                Last Post Roy
                by Roy
                 
                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                84 responses
                379 views
                0 likes
                Last Post JimL
                by JimL
                 
                Working...
                X