Posted on 06/17/2015 9:50:15 AM PDT by Zakeet
Nine graffiti artists who spray painted creations across the world-renowned 5Pointz building filed a lawsuit Friday in Brooklyn federal court, seeking unspecified damages from the owner who whitewashed away their artwork.
[Snip]
The aerosol artists say they are owed substantial cash damages because Wolkoff painted over their al fresco works.
[Snip]
The iconic buildings had more than 350 works of visual art on the walls inside and out when Wolkoff destroyed them, the lawsuit said.
The colorful, eye-catching creations were torn down for good last summer.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Amazing how many post without bothering to read the article.
“Criminals...suing the property owner...whose property rights they violated...this is satire, right? RIGHT?!?!”
Read the article. They had his permission.
If the property owner filed that lawsuit, it would (a) be dismissed immediately, with costs awarded to the defendants, and (b) invite a malicious prosecution lawsuit against the property owner. And rightfully so. The property owner explicitly gave the graffiti artists permission to do what they did.
So, invite them to paint on the building, and then shoot them on sight? That sounds like a brilliant idea. Or murder. One of the two.
Agreed, graffiti is the same as rap, a load of crap.
Funny you phrased it like that, because that's EXACTLY what the property owner did. He "let them" paint - that is, he explicitly gave them permission to spray paint on his building.
Vandalism is a crime. Unless the owner asked them to paint it and even then it is his property and he can do as he sees fit. If I owned a Picasso and decide to paint over it that is my business not your nor the world’s.
Now that they’ve identified themselves charge them with vandalism and make them pay for the costs of repair.
And he can explicitly paint over it as he desires.
Many are artists. They being vandals is not a point of disagreement.
I musta not been paying close enough attention, because I didn't catch that part. In that case, I rescind my 'criminal' moniker. If said owner gave permission, well then, he's clearly in quite the pickle.
The VANDALS should be in prison, not filing law suits.
I despise graffiti.
Nothing makes a place look dumpier than graffiti on the walls.
These vandals should be punished, not compensated.
Fine you can call the artists, I call them vandals.
They want to express themselves, do it on their own homes and property!
“Permission” verbal or otherwise doesn’t fulfill all the criteria for being a legal contract.
As for the ‘art’ itself, it is an eyesore and would be more appropriate tattooed on the back of a condemned criminal on death row.
” If said owner gave permission, well then, he’s clearly in quite the pickle. “
This is worth reading also. Turns out it may be against the law for you to throw away that ugly old painting hanging on your wall!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act
“Permission verbal or otherwise doesnt fulfill all the criteria for being a legal contract.”
Your point?
I'll explain.
When they first vandalized Wolkoff's property - which he bought as an abandoned warehouse in an uninhabited industrial area - he decided to let it slide.
Why?
I would guess because he figured that the vandals were not doing any structural damage and that they would prevent other people from doing structural damage that might threaten their artwork.
They clearly committed a crime, but he did the cost/benefit analysis and decided not to press charges.
Over time, that abandoned industrial zone started to revive as a residential area.
This altered the status of the graffiti; it went from being insurance preventing worse destruction to a burden preventing improvement.
The artists had twenty years to enjoy a canvas they never paid for.
Now he's taking the canvas back.
They cannot claim that they never committed the crime of vandalism just because the owner whose property they vandalized did not press charges.
He can argue he was coerced.
Somewhere along the line, almost by sleight-of-hand, property defacement and vandalism somehow became ‘art’.
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.