Posted on 02/14/2018 6:27:26 AM PST by reaganaut1
Ruling that graffiti — a typically transient form of art — was of sufficient stature to be protected by the law, a federal judge in Brooklyn awarded a judgment of $6.7 million on Monday to 21 graffiti artists whose works were destroyed in 2013 at the 5Pointz complex in Long Island City, Queens.
In November, a landmark trial came to a close in Federal District Court in Brooklyn when a civil jury decided that Jerry Wolkoff, a real estate developer who owned 5Pointz, broke the law when he whitewashed dozens of swirling murals at the complex, obliterating what a lawyer for the artists had called “the world’s largest open-air aerosol museum.”
Though Mr. Wolkoff’s lawyers had argued that the buildings were his to treat as he pleased, the jury found he violated the 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.
In an odd legal twist, the judge at that trial, Frederic Block, altered the verdict at the 11th hour to make it merely a recommendation. But on 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.
From the start, the 5Pointz case had pitted two of New York City’s most prominent sectors against each other: the art world and the real estate business. Judge Block’s ruling — and the size of the judgment he awarded — was a decisive victory for the former, said Dean Nicyper, a partner who specializes in art law at the firm Withers Bergman.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I wonder how the outcome of this would have gone if the graffiti was on the walls of the judge’s gated community?
Just makes me want to fiddle harder (while Rome burns).
The good news is that the law he “broke” is unconstitutional, assuming he goes to the supreme court. Property rights are almost as important as speech rights.
Where was the “artists” signed contracts to paint on these buildings? There are no more property rights in the USA. The government does not like private property.
Not in new York, anyway...
I'd appeal this.
Ping.
Blue state problem, blue city problem.....
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
If this building belonged to the mafia, the outcome would have been different.
That monstrosity known as the Visual Artist Rights Act was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush. It needs to be repealed pronto!
Does this mean that the NYC Subway system owes gang bangers money when they clean the tags and profanity off the cars?
If it were my building I’d paint over the graffiti with brown paint and call it art.
Ruling that graffiti — a typically transient form of art — was of sufficient stature to be protected by the law
Sounds like an Open Invitation to put your “ART” on the Judges House and Fences.
There is more to this story than what is being reported. My understanding is that this didn’t involve vandalism at all ... and that the property owner agreed to let them paint all this crap on his building.
Obama already said “You didn’t build that.”
This will not make it past appeal.....................
If this building belonged to the mafia, it would never have been painted.....................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.