LogFAQs > #896045699

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Man cleans graffiti from his building; ordered to pay "artists" $6.7M
0AbsoluteZero0 02/13/18 11:46:48 PM #218:	Dragonblade01 posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Dragonblade01 posted... DarkChozoGhost posted... He didn't paint over the graffiti (once again, artwork that was made with his explicit permission) because he was impatient, he painted over for the sole purpose of destroying their artwork. He had no intentions of repainting the building for development. His intent, and pending permits were for the demolition of the building. Painting over just the art had nothing to do with advancing the project. Alexanaxela Error1355 ChaoticKnuckles @Dragonblade01 Though I concede that I misread the article and that this was something the owner allowed, I still believe that the owner should have more authority over their property than the artist should have over their "canvas." Not when theyre still alive and you told them to put artwork there and you fail to understand the law. You cant destroy artwork like that. And I think the law should be changed so that an owner can freely remove art that is physically on their property. He absolutely was going to be legally allowed to paint over the graffiti, he simply had to wait for a short period. I assume this is built into the law to allow artists time to document or preserve their work. Its entirely reasonable, and its ridiculous that youre acting like the building owner is having his rights trampled in this situation. --- -The Admirable <cite>0AbsoluteZero0 posted [p:896045699] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkChozoGhost posted...</cite> <quote>He didn't paint over the graffiti (once again, artwork that was made with his explicit permission) because he was impatient, he painted over for the sole purpose of destroying their artwork. He had no intentions of repainting the building for development. His intent, and pending permits were for the demolition of the building. Painting over just the art had nothing to do with advancing the project. Alexanaxela Error1355 ChaoticKnuckles @Dragonblade01</quote> Though I concede that I misread the article and that this was something the owner allowed, I still believe that the owner should have more authority over their property than the artist should have over their "canvas."</quote> Not when theyre still alive and you told them to put artwork there and you fail to understand the law. You cant destroy artwork like that.</quote> And I think the law should be changed so that an owner can freely remove art that is physically on their property.</quote> He absolutely was going to be legally allowed to paint over the graffiti, he simply had to wait for a short period. I assume this is built into the law to allow artists time to document or preserve their work. Its entirely reasonable, and its ridiculous that youre acting like the building owner is having his rights trampled in this situation. --- -The Admirable</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1