Current Events > Man cleans graffiti from his building; ordered to pay "artists" $6.7M

(+) Yeah! (+)

Cal12 posted...

This isnt a historical landmark in a true sense and should have no protection.

Yes, it is a significant landmark. This is a cut and dry fact.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Newhopes posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Read this earlier.

The judge decided to make him pay because he painted over them before the previous ruling came in place. There was like a law that if the art attracted people or something like that, that you needed a permit before painting over it. The guy painted over it before he got the permit (which he did get btw) and thats why the judge ruled in favor of the artist.

But continue to get upset because you dont understand the laws.

Who gives two fs about that, this is infringement of property rights and gives free reign to vandals to vandalise any property they want.

So do you want people to follow the law or not? Or only when it fits your narrative?

If you dont like the law, change it.

You are condoning criminal behaviour, not that it surprise's me.

Shouldn't he have to pay the city and not the artist?

Sounds like typical stupid NYC shit law to me though
---

this won't hold up on appeals
---

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/nyregion/5pointz-graffiti-judgment.html

Though Mr. Wolkoffs lawyers had argued that the buildings were his to treat as he pleased, the jury found he violated the Visual Artists Rights Act, or V.A.R.A., which has been used to protect public art of recognized stature created on someones else property.

Again, if you dont like the law, change it.
---

Epic-Vegan_420 posted...

Newhopes posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Read this earlier.

The judge decided to make him pay because he painted over them before the previous ruling came in place. There was like a law that if the art attracted people or something like that, that you needed a permit before painting over it. The guy painted over it before he got the permit (which he did get btw) and thats why the judge ruled in favor of the artist.

But continue to get upset because you dont understand the laws.

Who gives two fs about that, this is infringement of property rights and gives free reign to vandals to vandalise any property they want.

Nah, it really doesn't

5Pointz is the most famous graffiti spot on the fucking planet and people have been protesting its demolition for years now

It ain't like this is just some random building

Wow the law on the side of vandals. What's next lol
---

Newhopes posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Newhopes posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Read this earlier.

The judge decided to make him pay because he painted over them before the previous ruling came in place. There was like a law that if the art attracted people or something like that, that you needed a permit before painting over it. The guy painted over it before he got the permit (which he did get btw) and thats why the judge ruled in favor of the artist.

But continue to get upset because you dont understand the laws.

Who gives two fs about that, this is infringement of property rights and gives free reign to vandals to vandalise any property they want.

So do you want people to follow the law or not? Or only when it fits your narrative?

If you dont like the law, change it.

You are condoning criminal behaviour, not that it surprise's me.

Says the guy who is on the legally wrong side of the case. Maybe you should know what youre bitching about instead of just blindly bitching.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Its because he didnt wait for the permit to go through. He literally got approved for it after the fact. If he would have waited the extra time, there wouldnt have been a case against him.

I think the permit waiting time is 90 days, whereas he waited only a week.

Also, I don't think one can call the graffiti vandalism here because the owner never (as far as I know) brought up vandalism charges while he was renting the building out.
---

That's a stupid law.

Brb going to pain Hitler's face over the Statue of Liberty.
---

Someone should find the Judge's home and apply similarly hideous graffiti all over it.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Newhopes posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Newhopes posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Read this earlier.

The judge decided to make him pay because he painted over them before the previous ruling came in place. There was like a law that if the art attracted people or something like that, that you needed a permit before painting over it. The guy painted over it before he got the permit (which he did get btw) and thats why the judge ruled in favor of the artist.

But continue to get upset because you dont understand the laws.

Who gives two fs about that, this is infringement of property rights and gives free reign to vandals to vandalise any property they want.

So do you want people to follow the law or not? Or only when it fits your narrative?

If you dont like the law, change it.

You are condoning criminal behaviour, not that it surprise's me.

Says the guy who is on the legally wrong side of the case. Maybe you should know what youre bitching about instead of just blindly bitching.

So should I just go to your home and spray paint a face onto it then sue you when you remove it?

wh
---

Esrac posted...

Someone should find the Judge's home and apply similarly hideous graffiti all over it.

I'm glad when my son's friend spray painted on the side of my house and I cleaned it up he didn't know this law or I'd be paying some 14 punk kid 6mil lol
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Read this earlier.

The judge decided to make him pay because he painted over them before the previous ruling came in place. There was like a law that if the art attracted people or something like that, that you needed a permit before painting over it. The guy painted over it before he got the permit (which he did get btw) and thats why the judge ruled in favor of the artist.

But continue to get upset because you dont understand the laws.

Obey the law...unless it's not a minority breaking it.
---

Newhopes posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Newhopes posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Newhopes posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Read this earlier.

The judge decided to make him pay because he painted over them before the previous ruling came in place. There was like a law that if the art attracted people or something like that, that you needed a permit before painting over it. The guy painted over it before he got the permit (which he did get btw) and thats why the judge ruled in favor of the artist.

But continue to get upset because you dont understand the laws.

Who gives two fs about that, this is infringement of property rights and gives free reign to vandals to vandalise any property they want.

So do you want people to follow the law or not? Or only when it fits your narrative?

If you dont like the law, change it.

You are condoning criminal behaviour, not that it surprise's me.

Says the guy who is on the legally wrong side of the case. Maybe you should know what youre bitching about instead of just blindly bitching.

So should I just go to your home and spray paint a face onto it then sue you when you remove it?

Itd likely not fit under the VARA so do what you want.

Again, read the law before complaining about it next time. Kthx
---

thats not how this works

i cant tell if you actually are confused or are just feigning ignorance
---

holy shit what a joke.
---

The penalty and payout is absurd, but i'm pretty much on the same page as sktgamer here. All the guy had to do was wait for the permit to legally clear. Yes, it is art, it takes time and skill to do that with a spray paint can, and it is a big part of the city's culture, especially in the early 70's. "Culture" doesn't necessarily have to be positive, but it was a part of the history and development of the city and the people who lived during that time in the city. It's fine to disagree with the fact that it is illegal, and it is vandalism, I get that entirely, but it's still art and was appreciated and visited by many over the years.

I'm not by any means saying it's right, but I do have a bit of respect for the expression, and it's unfortunate it couldn't be preserved in some way or another. It IS his property, and it's his right to do with it what he pleases, i'm not debating or questioning that either. This would be a non-issue if he would have just waited out the legal system and done so properly. I'm not even saying the law is right, but the law is there, and he broke it by skipping steps. But the result, paying out $6.7 million is ridiculous.
---

Bullet_Wing posted...

SageHarpuia posted...

What has our judicial system come to? I say we wipe the board and start over from scratch with judges who actually have a functioning brain and education.

Have you seen some of the nominations attempted by this administration? They can't be trusted to start a clean slate

This was a liberal judge a Clinton appointee....

And yes I'd trust a consertive Judge to protect my property rights far more than a liberal.

don't really get why some guy has to wait 90 days for the legal system to give him the ok to remove vandalism from his private property. Law is weird
---

Alexanaxela posted...

don't really get why some guy has to wait 90 days for the legal system to give him the ok to remove vandalism from his private property. Law is weird

Because the issue is not that simple
---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Alexanaxela posted...

don't really get why some guy has to wait 90 days for the legal system to give him the ok to remove vandalism from his private property. Law is weird

Because the issue is not that simple

oh ok that totally explains it
---

It wasnt vandalism if the guy waited months/years to call it vandalism after it became a public landmark of sorts.

If the next day after the graffiti went up the guy complained about it, hed likely win. idk much about the VARA, but Id assume thats how itd work. Thats why the trolls getting butthurt saying how about I tag your house and you pay me 6mil!!!!! are so laughable. Context is key for everything.
---

The Admiral posted...

Also, this isn't art.

Yes it is. Just because its art doesn't make it necessary to do it on someone elses property but its still art
---

Also, my guess is that the ruling was more of a show of follow the fucking law akin to the McDonalds coffee case.
---

Alexanaxela posted...

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Alexanaxela posted...

don't really get why some guy has to wait 90 days for the legal system to give him the ok to remove vandalism from his private property. Law is weird

Because the issue is not that simple

oh ok that totally explains it

It's been explained fairly well in this topic already, what part are you stuck on? Maybe I can guide you through it.
---

So can I just spray paint shit all over the place and Sue people for money? This is awesome. Ill never need a real job
---

kyujo posted...

DuranOfForcena posted...

DocileOrangeCup posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

That is absolutely fucking ridiculous.

It's his property.

They vandalized it.

What the fuck

---

The Admiral posted...

Also, this isn't art.

Is that real? Because that Biggie looks photoshopped, that being said as Grandad once said on the Boondocks "It's great looking,boy, now wash it off before my property rate goes down! my house ain't an art gallery!"
---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Alexanaxela posted...

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Alexanaxela posted...

don't really get why some guy has to wait 90 days for the legal system to give him the ok to remove vandalism from his private property. Law is weird

Because the issue is not that simple

oh ok that totally explains it

It's been explained fairly well in this topic already, what part are you stuck on? Maybe I can guide you through it.

i guess you didnt read my post if you can't see what part i'm stuck on. Oh well
---

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

So can I just spray paint shit all over the place and Sue people for money? This is awesome. Ill never need a real job

Yes. Care to give me a hand with the Hitler painting? It's going to take a lot more paint to cover the Statue of Liberty than I realized.
---

Alexanaxela posted...

i guess you didnt read my post if you can't see what part i'm stuck on. Oh well

You don't understand why it isn't simply "removing vandalism?"
---

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

So can I just spray paint shit all over the place and Sue people for money? This is awesome. Ill never need a real job

DarkChozoGhost posted...

It's been explained fairly well in this topic already, what part are you stuck on? Maybe I can guide you through it.

---

ITT: Nuance doesn't exist.

I wish you clowns would tag up random houses expecting money.
---

Cal12 posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Read this earlier.

The judge decided to make him pay because he painted over them before the previous ruling came in place. There was like a law that if the art attracted people or something like that, that you needed a permit before painting over it. The guy painted over it before he got the permit (which he did get btw) and thats why the judge ruled in favor of the artist.

But continue to get upset because you dont understand the laws.

The judge is trying to apply a specific law to a privately owned building. The permission he was talking about was the owner painting the building while he was waiting for the demo permits. He literally is super offended in his decision that this guy denied fans 10 months to admire the building before he destroyed it. This isnt a historical landmark in a true sense and should have no protection.

Five point has been been around for decades dude

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/17/nyregion/at-core-of-5pointz-trial-is-graffiti-art-protected-by-law.html

5Pointz was a rare collaboration between a real-estate developer and a group of street artists. In 1993, when Long Island City was beset by crime, the developer, Jerry Wolkoff, allowed a crew of taggers to decorate his buildings at 45-46 Davis Street with a wild array of colorful, swirling murals.

For 20 years, 5Pointz was an offbeat tourist destination that not only attracted thousands of visitors, but also helped transform Long Island City into the thriving residential neighborhood it is today. 5Pointz eventually became the worlds largest open-air aerosol museum, in the words of Eric Baum, a lawyer for the artists, but its existence was always predicated on Mr. Wolkoff tearing it down and developing the complex, which he ultimately did in 2014.

But it was vandalism guys!!!!

Before the demolition, the artists tried several times to stop it asking city officials to grant the complex landmark status, even attempting to buy 5Pointz themselves, Mr. Baum said. They filed suit in Federal District Court in Brooklyn shortly after Mr. Wolkoff destroyed their art, sending in a team of painters to whitewash the graffiti.

Their claims rest on a rarely tested provision of a federal law called the Visual Artists Rights Act, or V.A.R.A., which has been used to protect public art of recognized stature created on someone elses property. Given that the plaintiffs are seeking financial damages for ephemeral work they did on Mr. Wolkoffs walls, Judge Frederic Block, who is presiding over the case, suggested on Tuesday that the case would very likely venture into novel legal territory. Were working with a clean slate, Judge Block said.

---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Alexanaxela posted...

i guess you didnt read my post if you can't see what part i'm stuck on. Oh well

You don't understand why it isn't simply "removing vandalism?"

... you seem to have trouble reading. Don't really get why some guy has to wait 90 days for the legal system to give him the ok to remove vandalism from his private property. Law is weird
---

Alexanaxela posted...

... you seem to have trouble reading. Don't really get why some guy has to wait 90 days for the legal system to give him the ok to remove vandalism from his private property. Law is weird

Because it isn't vandalism.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/nyregion/5pointz-graffiti-judgment.html

Though Mr. Wolkoffs lawyers had argued that the buildings were his to treat as he pleased, the jury found he violated the Visual Artists Rights Act, or V.A.R.A., which has been used to protect public art of recognized stature created on someones else property.

Again, if you dont like the law, change it.

If you don't like the law in this day and age, no common citizen could ever hope to change the law themselves or even have enough money to bribe politicians into repealing it for them, so you have to break the law and hope you get a judge that has the wisdom to overturn the law so that no misguided politician would dream of bringing it back, even if it means having to appeal it all the way to the SCOTUS.
---

If you read the article, it says that a jury decided that the guy who erased the graffiti broke the law. This was not a judge's finding.

It just seems strange that a jury would essentially be responsible for interpreting the law.
---

But in upholding the jurys verdict, which was used as a recommendation, Block said that Wolkoff decision to paint over the artworks in the middle of the night, especially when the building was set to be demolished 10 months later, was the point that tipped the scales in the case.

If not for Wolkoffs insolence, these damages would not have been assessed, Block wrote, according to the Daily News. If he did not destroy 5 Pointz until he received his permits and demolished it 10 months later, the Court would not have found that he had acted willfully.
---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Alexanaxela posted...

... you seem to have trouble reading. Don't really get why some guy has to wait 90 days for the legal system to give him the ok to remove vandalism from his private property. Law is weird

Because it isn't vandalism.

i'm on my phone and lazy but just imagine i posted a gif of someone rolling their eyes here
---

Alexanaxela posted...

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Alexanaxela posted...

i guess you didnt read my post if you can't see what part i'm stuck on. Oh well

You don't understand why it isn't simply "removing vandalism?"

... you seem to have trouble reading. Don't really get why some guy has to wait 90 days for the legal system to give him the ok to remove vandalism from his private property. Law is weird

Because it wasnt vandalism. The guy allowed all of the art to be put on his property decades ago.
---

For those saying it was due to the permit, at least to me it is still odd that you need to ask for a permit to paint over your property. Like wtf, it's yours you can do whatever you want.

and even assuming it would make sense to actually need a permit, how is everyone expected to know that?
---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Alexanaxela posted...

... you seem to have trouble reading. Don't really get why some guy has to wait 90 days for the legal system to give him the ok to remove vandalism from his private property. Law is weird

Because it isn't vandalism.

Yes it 100% is. Anyone debating it's art or not is irrelevant. Don't deface private and public property. Law aside. Try not being a degenerate and have common sense.
---

That's kind of a dumb law. imo, even if he allowed them to make all that and it did become a sort of landmark, if he still privately owns the building, he should be able to remove the art whenever he wants, vandalism or not.

samurai bandit posted...

For those saying it was due to the permit, at least to me it is still odd that you need to ask for a permit to paint over your property. Like wtf, it's yours you can do whatever you want.

and even assuming it would make sense to actually need a permit, how is everyone expected to know that?

Because it was labeled art and was allowed by the developer decades ago.

Holy fuck people, read post 88. The guy allowed the artists to paint murals and graffiti the side and it helped make the area a better place. It was basically a public landmark and therefore the guy needed a permit to paint away the stuff. If the guy would have just waited, this wouldnt have been an issue.
---

@thanosibe posted...

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Alexanaxela posted...

... you seem to have trouble reading. Don't really get why some guy has to wait 90 days for the legal system to give him the ok to remove vandalism from his private property. Law is weird

Because it isn't vandalism.

Yes it 100% is. Anyone debating it's art or not is irrelevant. Don't deface private and public property. Law aside. Try not being a degenerate and have common sense.

Read post 88. The guy allowed it in the early 90s.
---

You dont understand. My family has taken shits in the living room for generations. Its not a pile of shit in the living room, its my culture and you cant just clean that shit up or ill sue your ass.
---