Posted on 06/17/2015 9:50:15 AM PDT by Zakeet
My point is that unless there was a contract with mutual consideration (money for advertizing etc) the property owner should prevail.
Around 1980, someone spray painted some communist slogan on a freeway bridge tower. One night, a patriot artist covered the commie screed with a painting of an American flag. It lasted at least 20 years until the paint flaked off.
The damages are ‘unspecified’ because these morons are innumerate.
Good for the owner, Taggers should be shot.
And then he painted over it....big deal, he didn’t owe the taggers anything else.
I'm not saying he can't (though, under applicable laws, he may be liable for some amount of damages for doing so).
You have the facts wrong. It was not just that he did not press charges. Rather, he was asked for permission before the location became “5pointz”, and he gave that permission.
In perpetuity? So the graffiti "artists" (I still think of them as vandals) tag a building over 20 years ago, with the owner's permission. Then the owner wants to redevelop, he removes the graffiti, and the vandals now want to sue for cash damages?
And just how can these "works" be moved to a museum? And what right do these vandals have in expecting their graffiti to be on display forever?
I dont care how artistic some think these tags are. They are destructive by lowering property values, indicate the presence of vandals (criminals) and gang activity, and essentially serve to lower the quality of life in the area. Who wants to live or work in area like that?
We embarked upon a very slippery slope when we redefined vandals as artists, giving them carte blanche to deface public and private property. I'm sorry, but they have no right to expect their creations should live forever, especially on someone else's building.
Yep, I gave up saying that some time ago.
Prison for what? It’s not vandalism if they have the property owner’s permission.
“My point is that unless there was a contract with mutual consideration (money for advertizing etc) the property owner should prevail.”
VARA does not require a contract.
Love the dead end sign in front of all that lovely art work.
Interesting to read the sign on the building in the 1st photo on this thread. "Welcome to 5POINTZ. Painting with a permit only. No photoshoots or videos without permission. Email ___@aol.com for info." So this was an organized display but there is still much left unknown. The line; "The colorful, eye-catching creations were torn down for good last summer." is confusing. Is it bad writing, was the building itself torn down or does this refer to the 'painting' being covered over?
Still as property owner unless he agreed to a specific length of time for the 'display' - Ownership means, that within the zoning laws and city codes (NYC must have a zillion), he has the right to repaint unless he has a separate agreement that abrogates said right. This is what happens when you let and encourage 'out law' behavior, you open the door for outlaws to sue you!
“And what right do these vandals have in expecting their graffiti to be on display forever?”
VARA has no limitation on time.
““Criminals...suing the property owner...whose property rights they violated...this is satire, right? RIGHT?!?!””
Well, NO, we let Mexicans break into our country and then look the other way when the murder and rape us. Same difference!
“Still as property owner unless he agreed to a specific length of time for the ‘display’ - Ownership means, that within the zoning laws and city codes (NYC must have a zillion), he has the right to repaint unless he has a separate agreement that abrogates said right. “
Unless the painters signed a waiver, VARA over-rides ownership.
You clicked the wrong post.
Anybody can bring a lawsuit against anyone, for anything. This is how it gets resolved: First, the Defendant gets served, and then has a certain amount of time (depending on the state or federal court system you're in) to respond. Second, I would expect that the Defendant will move for a summary dismissal of the case, for failure to state a claim (i.e. the Defendant owned the property and could white wash the outside if he wanted to, so there is literally no claim that the Plaintiffs have against him). Third, the Plaintiff will have a specified time to respond to the motion to dismiss, and then the judge will rule. FOURTH: I expect the judge to dismiss the case, and to possibly refer the Plaintiffs' attorney(s) to the Bar Association for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
The country isn't falling apart (at least not based on this one ridiculous suit - don't get me started on 50 other things); this is about the process - expect the thing to be resolved in less than 2 months.
Where liberals are involved, you can throw out the law books. Feelings count more. The owners hurt the feelings of the uh “artists” involved. That probably counts more in today’s America.
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.