[reaganaut1]

There is no right to vandalize the property of another person, and the Visual Artists Rights Act needs to be changed.

[null and void]

I wonder how the outcome of this would have gone if the graffiti was on the walls of the judge’s gated community?

[robroys woman]

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.

[txrefugee]

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.

[grobdriver]

That which you thought you owned, you don't really own.

Not in new York, anyway...

[LIConFem]

Good. Now claw back all that $$$ (pre-tax, of course) and use it to clean the graffiti all over Brooklyn.

Then send the "artists" a bill for the taxes on the $6.7 Million.

[Trump20162020]

So it's no longer your property if it becomes "famous" vandalism? Whose retarded idea was this law?

I'd appeal this.

[Army Air Corps]

Ping.

[Professional]

Blue state problem, blue city problem.....

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

[Army Air Corps]

If this building belonged to the mafia, the outcome would have been different.

[Fiji Hill]

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 It needs to be repealed pronto!

[nuke_road_warrior]

Does this mean that the NYC Subway system owes gang bangers money when they clean the tags and profanity off the cars?

[Varda]

If it were my building I’d paint over the graffiti with brown paint and call it art.

[eyeamok]

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.

[Alberta's Child]

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.

[heterosupremacist]

[Red Badger]

This will not make it past appeal.....................

[PIF]

There is no right to vandalize the property of another person, and the Visual Artists Rights Act needs to be changed torn up.

[anton]

The good news is that building owners will now police their walls for this vandalism like a cat for mice in the basement and destroy them before they can gain recognition.

Right now, owners association newsletters are pumping out warnings to building owners not to let a graffiti movement get started on their buildings lest they lose them to the vandals.

[Terry Mross]

What if the owner wants to tear it down? Better yet, what if the government wants to tear it down to build something for the people?

[The Cuban]

Well the law says otherwise. And I bet you didn’t read the facts of the case either.