Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Graffiti artists suing 5Pointz owner for whitewashing their work from building
NY Daily News ^ | June 12, 2015 | Ginger Adams Otis

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: 2016election; 5pointz; akadeblasio; bronx; brooklyn; donaldchump; donaldhump; donaldtrump; election2016; georgepataki; graffiti; lawsuits; manhattan; mikebloomberg; newyork; newyorkcity; nypd; peterking; propertyrights; queens; richmond
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last
To: Lurker

Amazing how many post without bothering to read the article.


21 posted on 06/17/2015 10:02:08 AM PDT by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

“Criminals...suing the property owner...whose property rights they violated...this is satire, right? RIGHT?!?!”

Read the article. They had his permission.


22 posted on 06/17/2015 10:03:10 AM PDT by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer
Should sue right back for destruction of property or vandalizing; either way.

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.

23 posted on 06/17/2015 10:03:36 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
How, exactly, were they criminals?

Let somebody spray paint your house, and then ask, "How, exactly, were they criminals?"
24 posted on 06/17/2015 10:03:51 AM PDT by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
They’re not artists, they’re vandals and it should be legal to shoot them on sight.

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.

25 posted on 06/17/2015 10:05:05 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Agreed, graffiti is the same as rap, a load of crap.


26 posted on 06/17/2015 10:05:51 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Signalman
Let somebody spray paint your house, and then ask, "How, exactly, were they criminals?"

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.

27 posted on 06/17/2015 10:06:04 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

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.


28 posted on 06/17/2015 10:07:32 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

Now that they’ve identified themselves charge them with vandalism and make them pay for the costs of repair.


29 posted on 06/17/2015 10:07:58 AM PDT by Ray76 (Obama says, "Unlike my mum, Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark's father was.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

And he can explicitly paint over it as he desires.


30 posted on 06/17/2015 10:08:24 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
They’re not artists, they’re vandals and it should be legal to shoot them on sight.

Many are artists. They being vandals is not a point of disagreement.

31 posted on 06/17/2015 10:08:36 AM PDT by rjsimmon (The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator
Actually, if one takes the time to read the article, the property owner gave his permission to allow ‘artists’ to do their thing.

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.

32 posted on 06/17/2015 10:08:59 AM PDT by dware (Yeah, so? What are you going to do about it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

The VANDALS should be in prison, not filing law suits.


33 posted on 06/17/2015 10:09:38 AM PDT by 5th MEB (Progressives in the open; --- FIRE FOR EFFECT!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

I despise graffiti.

Nothing makes a place look dumpier than graffiti on the walls.

These vandals should be punished, not compensated.


34 posted on 06/17/2015 10:11:08 AM PDT by Westbrook (Children do not divide your love, they multiply it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon

Fine you can call the artists, I call them vandals.
They want to express themselves, do it on their own homes and property!


35 posted on 06/17/2015 10:12:42 AM PDT by 5th MEB (Progressives in the open; --- FIRE FOR EFFECT!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dware

“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.


36 posted on 06/17/2015 10:13:01 AM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dware

” 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


37 posted on 06/17/2015 10:13:42 AM PDT by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

““Permission” verbal or otherwise doesn’t fulfill all the criteria for being a legal contract.”

Your point?


38 posted on 06/17/2015 10:16:12 AM PDT by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
How, exactly, were they criminals?

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.

39 posted on 06/17/2015 10:16:28 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 5th MEB

Somewhere along the line, almost by sleight-of-hand, property defacement and vandalism somehow became ‘art’.


40 posted on 06/17/2015 10:16:41 AM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson