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

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
sktgamer_13dude 02/13/18 9:58:56 PM #152:	Alexanaxela posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Artists have as many rights as property owners. thats probably the problem right there. Just because i let you draw on my property doesnt mean you ahould be able to stop me if I later decide I want to erase the drawing on my property . Apparently everyone involved agreed with this logic and he would be fine if the guy had waited a completely random 90 days. So again: law is weird So what if its weird to you? And yes it does (related to the bold). The artist has the rights to their artwork for their lifetime, even if they dont own it. Its literally how the law is written for VARA. I dont know how else to explain this to you. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896039982] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Alexanaxela posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>Artists have as many rights as property owners.</quote> thats probably the problem right there. Just because i let you draw on my property doesnt mean you ahould be able to stop me if I later decide I want to erase the drawing on my property . Apparently everyone involved agreed with this logic and he would be fine if the guy had waited a completely random 90 days. So again: law is weird</quote> So what if its weird to you? And yes it does (related to the bold). The artist has the rights to their artwork for their lifetime, even if they dont own it. Its literally how the law is written for VARA. I dont know how else to explain this to you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 02/13/18 9:59:46 PM #153:	@Corrik posted... Questionmarktarius posted... This needs to go to SCOTUS. This. There is absolutely no fucking way that wins in the supreme Court unless it was there for like 20 years and was passable as evident domain. Developer allowed them to paint on the building in the early 90s and continued to allow them to paint on it. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896040027] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>@Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote>This needs to go to SCOTUS.</quote> This. There is absolutely no fucking way that wins in the supreme Court unless it was there for like 20 years and was passable as evident domain.</quote> Developer allowed them to paint on the building in the early 90s and continued to allow them to paint on it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkChozoGhost 02/13/18 10:01:51 PM #154:	Here's a rundown of the history of the site. Jerry Wolkoff buys the site. In the early 90s, the building is rented out to artists as a massive studio space. Wolkoff is approached by group to create legal graffiti on the property. He explicitly grants them permission to do so. Under strict rules, artists begin to cover the building with graffiti artwork. The site becomes known worldwide as 5 Pointz, a museum of aerosol artwork. It's a tourist attraction and revitalizes the neighborhood. In 2013, Wolkoff decides to develop the property for condos. The City Planning Commission approves the plans (which include walls that are to be used exclusively for curated graffiti art). 10 months before the scheduled demolition, Wolkoff has the graffiti painted over in the middle of the night. The artists start a lawsuit over his malicious destruction of their artwork without notice. In 2014 The building is demolished. The foundation is built for the condos. Jerry Wolkoff attempts to copyright the name "5 Pointz" and use it for the condos, capitalizing on the fame the graffiti created for the site. 2017, Judge Frederic Block finally makes a ruling based on the jury's verdict. He has gone on record saying that the case was tipped in the artists' favor due to Wolkoff deliberately acting with the purpose of destroying their work. --- My sister's dog bit a hole in my Super Mario Land cartridge. It still works though - Skye Reynolds 3DS FC: 3239-5612-0115 <cite>DarkChozoGhost posted [p:896040140] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote>Here's a rundown of the history of the site. Jerry Wolkoff buys the site. In the early 90s, the building is rented out to artists as a massive studio space. Wolkoff is approached by group to create legal graffiti on the property. He explicitly grants them permission to do so. Under strict rules, artists begin to cover the building with graffiti artwork. The site becomes known worldwide as 5 Pointz, a museum of aerosol artwork. It's a tourist attraction and revitalizes the neighborhood. In 2013, Wolkoff decides to develop the property for condos. The City Planning Commission approves the plans (which include walls that are to be used exclusively for curated graffiti art). 10 months before the scheduled demolition, Wolkoff has the graffiti painted over in the middle of the night. The artists start a lawsuit over his malicious destruction of their artwork without notice. In 2014 The building is demolished. The foundation is built for the condos. Jerry Wolkoff attempts to copyright the name "5 Pointz" and use it for the condos, capitalizing on the fame the graffiti created for the site. 2017, Judge Frederic Block finally makes a ruling based on the jury's verdict. He has gone on record saying that the case was tipped in the artists' favor due to Wolkoff deliberately acting with the purpose of destroying their work.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 02/13/18 10:05:48 PM #155:	sktgamer_13dude posted... @Corrik posted... Questionmarktarius posted... This needs to go to SCOTUS. This. There is absolutely no fucking way that wins in the supreme Court unless it was there for like 20 years and was passable as evident domain. Developer allowed them to paint on the building in the early 90s and continued to allow them to paint on it. It might be allowed based upon a time.period then which is what I said. Hell... If I build my shit on your land and you do not tell me to remove it within a certain amount of years, you lose the right to that piece of the property by evident domain. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:896040345] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>@Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote>This needs to go to SCOTUS.</quote> This. There is absolutely no fucking way that wins in the supreme Court unless it was there for like 20 years and was passable as evident domain.</quote> Developer allowed them to paint on the building in the early 90s and continued to allow them to paint on it.</quote> It might be allowed based upon a time.period then which is what I said. Hell... If I build my shit on your land and you do not tell me to remove it within a certain amount of years, you lose the right to that piece of the property by evident domain.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Alexanaxela 02/13/18 10:06:19 PM #156:	sktgamer_13dude posted... Alexanaxela posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Artists have as many rights as property owners. thats probably the problem right there. Just because i let you draw on my property doesnt mean you ahould be able to stop me if I later decide I want to erase the drawing on my property . Apparently everyone involved agreed with this logic and he would be fine if the guy had waited a completely random 90 days. So again: law is weird So what if its weird to you? And yes it does (related to the bold). The artist has the rights to their artwork for their lifetime, even if they dont own it. Its literally how the law is written for VARA. I dont know how else to explain this to you. there's nothing to explain. I'm simply stating that the law is weird. Everything the artists tried to save their graffiti failed because everyone sided with the property owner. However he didnt wait an arbitrary 90 days to clean graffiti off his property so now he's wrong. Its just weird to me. You're not going to make it unweird to me --- Tomorrow will be the most beautiful day of Raymond K. Hessel's life. His breakfast will taste better than any meal you and I have ever tasted. <cite>Alexanaxela posted [p:896040368] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Alexanaxela posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>Artists have as many rights as property owners.</quote> thats probably the problem right there. Just because i let you draw on my property doesnt mean you ahould be able to stop me if I later decide I want to erase the drawing on my property . Apparently everyone involved agreed with this logic and he would be fine if the guy had waited a completely random 90 days. So again: law is weird</quote> So what if its weird to you? And yes it does (related to the bold). The artist has the rights to their artwork for their lifetime, even if they dont own it. Its literally how the law is written for VARA. I dont know how else to explain this to you.</quote> there's nothing to explain. I'm simply stating that the law is weird. Everything the artists tried to save their graffiti failed because everyone sided with the property owner. However he didnt wait an arbitrary 90 days to clean graffiti off his property so now he's wrong. Its just weird to me. You're not going to make it unweird to me</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 02/13/18 10:08:49 PM #157:	Alexanaxela posted... However he didnt wait an arbitrary 90 days to clean graffiti off his property so now he's wrong. Six million dollars wrong? <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:896040478] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Alexanaxela posted...</cite> <quote>However he didnt wait an arbitrary 90 days to clean graffiti off his property so now he's wrong.</quote> Six million dollars wrong?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Musourenka 02/13/18 10:11:39 PM #158:	You still have to wait for city permits and such for destroying or adding to your own property. I don't see how that concept is different here. --- Shooing away pigeons crapping on debate tables is not a violation of the pigeons' free speech. <cite>Musourenka posted [p:896040620] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote>You still have to wait for city permits and such for destroying or adding to your own property. I don't see how that concept is different here.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bloodychess 02/13/18 10:13:13 PM #159:	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. Literal 6.7 million. --- To err is human To arr is pirate <cite>Bloodychess posted [p:896040706] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> Literal 6.7 million.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 02/13/18 10:13:17 PM #160:	Corrik posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... @Corrik posted... Questionmarktarius posted... This needs to go to SCOTUS. This. There is absolutely no fucking way that wins in the supreme Court unless it was there for like 20 years and was passable as evident domain. Developer allowed them to paint on the building in the early 90s and continued to allow them to paint on it. It might be allowed based upon a time.period then which is what I said. Hell... If I build my shit on your land and you do not tell me to remove it within a certain amount of years, you lose the right to that piece of the property by evident domain. There is no time period. Physical art is the property of the artist who creates it until they die. If there are multiple artists, then its the property of all of the artists until the last one dies. Just because you own the art doesnt mean you can destroy it without getting said artists permission/giving them notice while they still legally own it. Just because you disagree with this doesnt change the fact that this is the law. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896040709] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>@Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote>This needs to go to SCOTUS.</quote> This. There is absolutely no fucking way that wins in the supreme Court unless it was there for like 20 years and was passable as evident domain.</quote> Developer allowed them to paint on the building in the early 90s and continued to allow them to paint on it.</quote> It might be allowed based upon a time.period then which is what I said. Hell... If I build my shit on your land and you do not tell me to remove it within a certain amount of years, you lose the right to that piece of the property by evident domain.</quote> There is no time period. Physical art is the property of the artist who creates it until they die. If there are multiple artists, then its the property of all of the artists until the last one dies. Just because you own the art doesnt mean you can destroy it without getting said artists permission/giving them notice while they still legally own it. Just because you disagree with this doesnt change the fact that this is the law.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 02/13/18 10:13:57 PM #161:	Bloodychess 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. Literal 6.7 million. There were like 40 pieces of art. Again; read post 88. Guy allowed it and then destroyed it in the middle of the night because he was impatient. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896040734] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bloodychess posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> Literal 6.7 million.</quote> There were like 40 pieces of art. Again; read post 88. Guy allowed it and then destroyed it in the middle of the night because he was impatient.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
muchdran 02/13/18 10:18:16 PM #162:	RebelElite791 posted... Can someone explain to me why the usual crowd are pretending this is a liberal vs conservative issue Error1355 posted... It's art even if you don't like it. However it's absolutely asinine the owner of this property is being ordered to pay money to people who vandalized his property for wanting to repaint it. Error1355 posted... It's art even if you don't like it. However it's absolutely asinine the owner of this property is being ordered to pay money to people who vandalized his property for wanting to repaint it. Lead mod logic holy shit --- If liberals didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have standards at all. <cite>muchdran posted [p:896040949] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>RebelElite791 posted...</cite> <quote>Can someone explain to me why the usual crowd are pretending this is a liberal vs conservative issue</quote> <cite>Error1355 posted...</cite> <quote>It's art even if you don't like it. However it's absolutely asinine the owner of this property is being ordered to pay money to people who vandalized his property for wanting to repaint it.</quote> <cite>Error1355 posted...</cite> <quote>It's art even if you don't like it. However it's absolutely asinine the owner of this property is being ordered to pay money to people who vandalized his property for wanting to repaint it.</quote> Lead mod logic holy shit</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 02/13/18 10:24:51 PM #164:	sktgamer_13dude posted... Corrik posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... @Corrik posted... Questionmarktarius posted... This needs to go to SCOTUS. This. There is absolutely no fucking way that wins in the supreme Court unless it was there for like 20 years and was passable as evident domain. Developer allowed them to paint on the building in the early 90s and continued to allow them to paint on it. It might be allowed based upon a time.period then which is what I said. Hell... If I build my shit on your land and you do not tell me to remove it within a certain amount of years, you lose the right to that piece of the property by evident domain. There is no time period. Physical art is the property of the artist who creates it until they die. If there are multiple artists, then its the property of all of the artists until the last one dies. Just because you own the art doesnt mean you can destroy it without getting said artists permission/giving them notice while they still legally own it. Just because you disagree with this doesnt change the fact that this is the law. You misunderstood my post to post unrelated stuff to what I said and thus I am done responding about it. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:896041248] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>@Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote>This needs to go to SCOTUS.</quote> This. There is absolutely no fucking way that wins in the supreme Court unless it was there for like 20 years and was passable as evident domain.</quote> Developer allowed them to paint on the building in the early 90s and continued to allow them to paint on it.</quote> It might be allowed based upon a time.period then which is what I said. Hell... If I build my shit on your land and you do not tell me to remove it within a certain amount of years, you lose the right to that piece of the property by evident domain.</quote> There is no time period. Physical art is the property of the artist who creates it until they die. If there are multiple artists, then its the property of all of the artists until the last one dies. Just because you own the art doesnt mean you can destroy it without getting said artists permission/giving them notice while they still legally own it. Just because you disagree with this doesnt change the fact that this is the law.</quote> You misunderstood my post to post unrelated stuff to what I said and thus I am done responding about it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 02/13/18 10:28:43 PM #165:	Corrik posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Corrik posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... @Corrik posted... Questionmarktarius posted... This needs to go to SCOTUS. This. There is absolutely no fucking way that wins in the supreme Court unless it was there for like 20 years and was passable as evident domain. Developer allowed them to paint on the building in the early 90s and continued to allow them to paint on it. It might be allowed based upon a time.period then which is what I said. Hell... If I build my shit on your land and you do not tell me to remove it within a certain amount of years, you lose the right to that piece of the property by evident domain. There is no time period. Physical art is the property of the artist who creates it until they die. If there are multiple artists, then its the property of all of the artists until the last one dies. Just because you own the art doesnt mean you can destroy it without getting said artists permission/giving them notice while they still legally own it. Just because you disagree with this doesnt change the fact that this is the law. You misunderstood my post to post unrelated stuff to what I said and thus I am done responding about it. No, I explained what the actual law is and how it doesnt need to fall under evident domain because its protected under a completely different act. Im sorry that upsets you so much. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896041454] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>@Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote>This needs to go to SCOTUS.</quote> This. There is absolutely no fucking way that wins in the supreme Court unless it was there for like 20 years and was passable as evident domain.</quote> Developer allowed them to paint on the building in the early 90s and continued to allow them to paint on it.</quote> It might be allowed based upon a time.period then which is what I said. Hell... If I build my shit on your land and you do not tell me to remove it within a certain amount of years, you lose the right to that piece of the property by evident domain.</quote> There is no time period. Physical art is the property of the artist who creates it until they die. If there are multiple artists, then its the property of all of the artists until the last one dies. Just because you own the art doesnt mean you can destroy it without getting said artists permission/giving them notice while they still legally own it. Just because you disagree with this doesnt change the fact that this is the law.</quote> You misunderstood my post to post unrelated stuff to what I said and thus I am done responding about it.</quote> No, I explained what the actual law is and how it doesnt need to fall under evident domain because its protected under a completely different act. Im sorry that upsets you so much.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
dave_is_slick 02/13/18 10:29:00 PM #166:	RebelElite791 posted... Can someone explain to me why the usual crowd are pretending this is a liberal vs conservative issue I'd just like to point out out that the point in time when this post was made, literally no one was doing this. --- The most relaxing version of Aquatic Ambiance I've ever heard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl61y1XM7sM <cite>dave_is_slick posted [p:896041462] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>RebelElite791 posted...</cite> <quote>Can someone explain to me why the usual crowd are pretending this is a liberal vs conservative issue</quote> I'd just like to point out out that the point in time when this post was made, literally no one was doing this.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 02/13/18 10:31:32 PM #167:	dave_is_slick posted... RebelElite791 posted... Can someone explain to me why the usual crowd are pretending this is a liberal vs conservative issue I'd just like to point out out that the point in time when this post was made, literally no one was doing this. Is it even really, yet? <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:896041593] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>dave_is_slick posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RebelElite791 posted...</cite> <quote>Can someone explain to me why the usual crowd are pretending this is a liberal vs conservative issue</quote> I'd just like to point out out that the point in time when this post was made, literally no one was doing this.</quote> Is it even really, yet?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 02/13/18 10:35:52 PM #168:	sktgamer_13dude posted... Corrik posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Corrik posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... @Corrik posted... Questionmarktarius posted... This needs to go to SCOTUS. This. There is absolutely no fucking way that wins in the supreme Court unless it was there for like 20 years and was passable as evident domain. Developer allowed them to paint on the building in the early 90s and continued to allow them to paint on it. It might be allowed based upon a time.period then which is what I said. Hell... If I build my shit on your land and you do not tell me to remove it within a certain amount of years, you lose the right to that piece of the property by evident domain. There is no time period. Physical art is the property of the artist who creates it until they die. If there are multiple artists, then its the property of all of the artists until the last one dies. Just because you own the art doesnt mean you can destroy it without getting said artists permission/giving them notice while they still legally own it. Just because you disagree with this doesnt change the fact that this is the law. You misunderstood my post to post unrelated stuff to what I said and thus I am done responding about it. No, I explained what the actual law is and how it doesnt need to fall under evident domain because its protected under a completely different act. Im sorry that upsets you so much. Okay so you are trolling. Got it. Literally arguing with someone who said something in favor of the artists while you are arguing for them. Get lost. Stop tagging me. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:896041830] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>@Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote>This needs to go to SCOTUS.</quote> This. There is absolutely no fucking way that wins in the supreme Court unless it was there for like 20 years and was passable as evident domain.</quote> Developer allowed them to paint on the building in the early 90s and continued to allow them to paint on it.</quote> It might be allowed based upon a time.period then which is what I said. Hell... If I build my shit on your land and you do not tell me to remove it within a certain amount of years, you lose the right to that piece of the property by evident domain.</quote> There is no time period. Physical art is the property of the artist who creates it until they die. If there are multiple artists, then its the property of all of the artists until the last one dies. Just because you own the art doesnt mean you can destroy it without getting said artists permission/giving them notice while they still legally own it. Just because you disagree with this doesnt change the fact that this is the law.</quote> You misunderstood my post to post unrelated stuff to what I said and thus I am done responding about it.</quote> No, I explained what the actual law is and how it doesnt need to fall under evident domain because its protected under a completely different act. Im sorry that upsets you so much.</quote> Okay so you are trolling. Got it. Literally arguing with someone who said something in favor of the artists while you are arguing for them. Get lost. Stop tagging me.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DemonBuffet 02/13/18 10:36:57 PM #169:	Someone should strap the judge to chair, have a tattoo artist tattoo the word fuck across his forehead, have it recognized as art by a group of artists, and forbid him from ever removing it or covering it up. --- Trololol <cite>DemonBuffet posted [p:896041882] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote>Someone should strap the judge to chair, have a tattoo artist tattoo the word fuck across his forehead, have it recognized as art by a group of artists, and forbid him from ever removing it or covering it up.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
dave_is_slick 02/13/18 10:39:24 PM #170:	dave_is_slick posted... RebelElite791 posted... Can someone explain to me why the usual crowd are pretending this is a liberal vs conservative issue I'd just like to point out out that the point in time when this post was made, literally no one was doing this. And after reading the topic, it still didn't become this. Why are you so angry all the time and when have you devolved to blatant lies and trying to start shit? --- The most relaxing version of Aquatic Ambiance I've ever heard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl61y1XM7sM <cite>dave_is_slick posted [p:896042024] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>dave_is_slick posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RebelElite791 posted...</cite> <quote>Can someone explain to me why the usual crowd are pretending this is a liberal vs conservative issue</quote> I'd just like to point out out that the point in time when this post was made, literally no one was doing this.</quote> And after reading the topic, it still didn't become this. Why are you so angry all the time and when have you devolved to blatant lies and trying to start shit?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
St0rmFury 02/13/18 10:40:33 PM #171:	DemonBuffet posted... Someone should strap the judge to chair, have a tattoo artist tattoo the word fuck across his forehead, have it recognized as art by a group of artists, and forbid him from ever removing it or covering it up. But in this case, the judge did not allow the tattoo artist to tattoo the work "fuck" across his forehead. --- "Average Joe" is a trolling term since it's completely an opinion. "Overachieving" is also an opinion. - SBAllen (Hellhole: 52458377) <cite>St0rmFury posted [p:896042085] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>DemonBuffet posted...</cite> <quote>Someone should strap the judge to chair, have a tattoo artist tattoo the word fuck across his forehead, have it recognized as art by a group of artists, and forbid him from ever removing it or covering it up.</quote> But in this case, the judge did not allow the tattoo artist to tattoo the work "fuck" across his forehead.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 02/13/18 10:42:02 PM #172:	St0rmFury posted... DemonBuffet posted... Someone should strap the judge to chair, have a tattoo artist tattoo the word fuck across his forehead, have it recognized as art by a group of artists, and forbid him from ever removing it or covering it up. But in this case, the judge did not allow the tattoo artist to tattoo the work "fuck" across his forehead. But if he did, would have to play the tattoo nearly seven million when he gets it lasered off? <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:896042171] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>St0rmFury posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DemonBuffet posted...</cite> <quote>Someone should strap the judge to chair, have a tattoo artist tattoo the word fuck across his forehead, have it recognized as art by a group of artists, and forbid him from ever removing it or covering it up.</quote> But in this case, the judge did not allow the tattoo artist to tattoo the work "fuck" across his forehead.</quote> But if he did, would have to play the tattoo nearly seven million when he gets it lasered off?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 02/13/18 10:42:36 PM #173:	Corrik posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Corrik posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Corrik posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... @Corrik posted... This. There is absolutely no fucking way that wins in the supreme Court unless it was there for like 20 years and was passable as evident domain. Developer allowed them to paint on the building in the early 90s and continued to allow them to paint on it. It might be allowed based upon a time.period then which is what I said. Hell... If I build my shit on your land and you do not tell me to remove it within a certain amount of years, you lose the right to that piece of the property by evident domain. There is no time period. Physical art is the property of the artist who creates it until they die. If there are multiple artists, then its the property of all of the artists until the last one dies. Just because you own the art doesnt mean you can destroy it without getting said artists permission/giving them notice while they still legally own it. Just because you disagree with this doesnt change the fact that this is the law. You misunderstood my post to post unrelated stuff to what I said and thus I am done responding about it. No, I explained what the actual law is and how it doesnt need to fall under evident domain because its protected under a completely different act. Im sorry that upsets you so much. Okay so you are trolling. Got it. Literally arguing with someone who said something in favor of the artists while you are arguing for them. Get lost. Stop tagging me. I brought up something that doesnt pertain to this case and when you showed me it didnt, I got upset! Waaaaah! Basically your post. I dont care if you believe its protected by evident domain. That literally has nothing to do with this case. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896042196] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>@Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>This. There is absolutely no fucking way that wins in the supreme Court unless it was there for like 20 years and was passable as evident domain.</quote> Developer allowed them to paint on the building in the early 90s and continued to allow them to paint on it.</quote> It might be allowed based upon a time.period then which is what I said. Hell... If I build my shit on your land and you do not tell me to remove it within a certain amount of years, you lose the right to that piece of the property by evident domain.</quote> There is no time period. Physical art is the property of the artist who creates it until they die. If there are multiple artists, then its the property of all of the artists until the last one dies. Just because you own the art doesnt mean you can destroy it without getting said artists permission/giving them notice while they still legally own it. Just because you disagree with this doesnt change the fact that this is the law.</quote> You misunderstood my post to post unrelated stuff to what I said and thus I am done responding about it.</quote> No, I explained what the actual law is and how it doesnt need to fall under evident domain because its protected under a completely different act. Im sorry that upsets you so much.</quote> Okay so you are trolling. Got it. Literally arguing with someone who said something in favor of the artists while you are arguing for them. Get lost. Stop tagging me.</quote> I brought up something that doesnt pertain to this case and when you showed me it didnt, I got upset! Waaaaah! Basically your post. I dont care if you believe its protected by evident domain. That literally has nothing to do with this case.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 02/13/18 10:43:39 PM #174:	Questionmarktarius posted... St0rmFury posted... DemonBuffet posted... Someone should strap the judge to chair, have a tattoo artist tattoo the word fuck across his forehead, have it recognized as art by a group of artists, and forbid him from ever removing it or covering it up. But in this case, the judge did not allow the tattoo artist to tattoo the work "fuck" across his forehead. But if he did, would have to play the tattoo nearly seven million when he gets it lasered off? Im pretty sure tattoos dont fall under VARA as they get covered up/lasered off all the time, so no. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896042266] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>St0rmFury posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DemonBuffet posted...</cite> <quote>Someone should strap the judge to chair, have a tattoo artist tattoo the word fuck across his forehead, have it recognized as art by a group of artists, and forbid him from ever removing it or covering it up.</quote> But in this case, the judge did not allow the tattoo artist to tattoo the work "fuck" across his forehead.</quote> But if he did, would have to play the tattoo nearly seven million when he gets it lasered off?</quote> Im pretty sure tattoos dont fall under VARA as they get covered up/lasered off all the time, so no.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BigTee66 02/13/18 10:45:02 PM #175:	Kaname_Madoka posted... yo that biggie looks awesome i agree --- MSI Z170-A PRO LGA 1151 \| i5 6500K \| ASUS ROG GeForce GTX 1070 \| 8GB DDR4 x 2 \| EVGA 650W \| Inwin 703 Black \| Steam: teeman92 <cite>BigTee66 posted [p:896042333] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kaname_Madoka posted...</cite> <quote>yo that biggie looks awesome</quote> i agree</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkChozoGhost 02/13/18 10:48:33 PM #176:	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 --- My sister's dog bit a hole in my Super Mario Land cartridge. It still works though - Skye Reynolds 3DS FC: 3239-5612-0115 <cite>DarkChozoGhost posted [p:896042557] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</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> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Alexanaxela 02/13/18 10:56:41 PM #177:	why are you @ing me? Who cares if he gave permission before? He's allowed to change his mind. Who cares if he wanted to destroy some graffiti? It's on his private property. You haven't swayed anyone apposed to you at all. And repeating the same thing ("but he originally was ok with it!") over and over again is just annoying and again does nothing to sway anyone --- Tomorrow will be the most beautiful day of Raymond K. Hessel's life. His breakfast will taste better than any meal you and I have ever tasted. <cite>Alexanaxela posted [p:896042976] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote>why are you @ing me? Who cares if he gave permission before? He's allowed to change his mind. Who cares if he wanted to destroy some graffiti? It's on his private property. You haven't swayed anyone apposed to you at all. And repeating the same thing ("but he originally was ok with it!") over and over again is just annoying and again does nothing to sway anyone</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 02/13/18 11:04:12 PM #178:	Alexanaxela posted... why are you @ ing me? Who cares if he gave permission before? He's allowed to change his mind. Who cares if he wanted to destroy some graffiti? It's on his private property. You haven't swayed anyone apposed to you at all. And repeating the same thing ("but he originally was ok with it!") over and over again is just annoying and again does nothing to sway anyone Because the law with art doesnt care if you change your mind. You cant just destroy art that you own if youre not the artist and its still protected under VARA. You saying he changed his mind doesnt follow the law. You can move it, but you cant destroy it purposefully. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896043370] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Alexanaxela posted...</cite> <quote>why are you @ ing me? Who cares if he gave permission before? He's allowed to change his mind. Who cares if he wanted to destroy some graffiti? It's on his private property. You haven't swayed anyone apposed to you at all. And repeating the same thing ("but he originally was ok with it!") over and over again is just annoying and again does nothing to sway anyone</quote> Because the law with art doesnt care if you change your mind. You cant just destroy art that you own if youre not the artist and its still protected under VARA. You saying he changed his mind doesnt follow the law. You can move it, but you cant destroy it purposefully.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordMarshal 02/13/18 11:06:20 PM #179:	Look he invited me over to his house. He cant just change his mind and kick me out! ~~Oh wait, he can. This is stupid.~~ --- There can be only one. <cite>LordMarshal posted [p:896043507] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote>Look he invited me over to his house. He cant just change his mind and kick me out! Oh wait, he can. This is stupid.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Alexanaxela 02/13/18 11:08:18 PM #180:	sktgamer_13dude posted... Alexanaxela posted... why are you @ ing me? Who cares if he gave permission before? He's allowed to change his mind. Who cares if he wanted to destroy some graffiti? It's on his private property. You haven't swayed anyone apposed to you at all. And repeating the same thing ("but he originally was ok with it!") over and over again is just annoying and again does nothing to sway anyone Because the law with art doesnt care if you change your mind. You cant just destroy art that you own if youre not the artist and its still protected under VARA. You saying he changed his mind doesnt follow the law. You can move it, but you cant destroy it purposefully. which again brings us back to my original point for the upteenth time: Law. Is. Weird --- Tomorrow will be the most beautiful day of Raymond K. Hessel's life. His breakfast will taste better than any meal you and I have ever tasted. <cite>Alexanaxela posted [p:896043620] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Alexanaxela posted...</cite> <quote>why are you @ ing me? Who cares if he gave permission before? He's allowed to change his mind. Who cares if he wanted to destroy some graffiti? It's on his private property. You haven't swayed anyone apposed to you at all. And repeating the same thing ("but he originally was ok with it!") over and over again is just annoying and again does nothing to sway anyone</quote> Because the law with art doesnt care if you change your mind. You cant just destroy art that you own if youre not the artist and its still protected under VARA. You saying he changed his mind doesnt follow the law. You can move it, but you cant destroy it purposefully.</quote> which again brings us back to my original point for the upteenth time: Law. Is. Weird</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordMarshal 02/13/18 11:09:12 PM #181:	Im selling my house but leaving all my art on the walls. The next owner better not touch them or im suing. --- There can be only one. <cite>LordMarshal posted [p:896043676] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote>Im selling my house but leaving all my art on the walls. The next owner better not touch them or im suing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 02/13/18 11:09:27 PM #182:	LordMarshal posted... Look he invited me over to his house. He cant just change his mind and kick me out! ~~Oh wait, he can. This is stupid.~~ Im willfully trolling because I fail to understand how the law actually works. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896043687] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>LordMarshal posted...</cite> <quote>Look he invited me over to his house. He cant just change his mind and kick me out! Oh wait, he can. This is stupid.</quote> Im willfully trolling because I fail to understand how the law actually works.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordMarshal 02/13/18 11:10:41 PM #183:	sktgamer_13dude posted... LordMarshal posted... Look he invited me over to his house. He cant just change his mind and kick me out! ~~Oh wait, he can. This is stupid.~~ Im willfully trolling because I fail to understand how the law actually works. Thats how the TOS works so, its ok. --- There can be only one. <cite>LordMarshal posted [p:896043762] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LordMarshal posted...</cite> <quote>Look he invited me over to his house. He cant just change his mind and kick me out! Oh wait, he can. This is stupid.</quote> Im willfully trolling because I fail to understand how the law actually works.</quote> Thats how the TOS works so, its ok.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
NINExATExSEVEN 02/13/18 11:10:57 PM #184:	Questionmarktarius posted... therin_lews_kin posted... The Admiral posted... Also, this isn't art. it's culture, dude you just wouldn't understand it vandalism is "culture"? You didn't know? --- Listen to my story... This... May be our last chance... <cite>NINExATExSEVEN posted [p:896043782] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>therin_lews_kin posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>Also, this isn't art. </quote> it's culture, dude you just wouldn't understand it</quote> vandalism is "culture"?</quote> You didn't know?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 02/13/18 11:13:16 PM #185:	Alexanaxela posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Alexanaxela posted... why are you @ ing me? Who cares if he gave permission before? He's allowed to change his mind. Who cares if he wanted to destroy some graffiti? It's on his private property. You haven't swayed anyone apposed to you at all. And repeating the same thing ("but he originally was ok with it!") over and over again is just annoying and again does nothing to sway anyone Because the law with art doesnt care if you change your mind. You cant just destroy art that you own if youre not the artist and its still protected under VARA. You saying he changed his mind doesnt follow the law. You can move it, but you cant destroy it purposefully. which again brings us back to my original point for the upteenth time: Law. Is. Weird Thats not an argument against it though. Just because you think its weird doesnt mean its not the law. Im sorry that giving artists rights is weird to you. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896043915] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Alexanaxela posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Alexanaxela posted...</cite> <quote>why are you @ ing me? Who cares if he gave permission before? He's allowed to change his mind. Who cares if he wanted to destroy some graffiti? It's on his private property. You haven't swayed anyone apposed to you at all. And repeating the same thing ("but he originally was ok with it!") over and over again is just annoying and again does nothing to sway anyone</quote> Because the law with art doesnt care if you change your mind. You cant just destroy art that you own if youre not the artist and its still protected under VARA. You saying he changed his mind doesnt follow the law. You can move it, but you cant destroy it purposefully.</quote> which again brings us back to my original point for the upteenth time: Law. Is. Weird</quote> Thats not an argument against it though. Just because you think its weird doesnt mean its not the law. Im sorry that giving artists rights is weird to you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 02/13/18 11:13:48 PM #186:	@NINExATExSEVEN posted... Questionmarktarius posted... therin_lews_kin posted... The Admiral posted... Also, this isn't art. it's culture, dude you just wouldn't understand it vandalism is "culture"? You didn't know? IT WASNT FUCKING VANDALISM READ THE TOPIC KTHX --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896043950] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>@NINExATExSEVEN posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>therin_lews_kin posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>Also, this isn't art. </quote> it's culture, dude you just wouldn't understand it</quote> vandalism is "culture"?</quote> You didn't know?</quote> IT WASNT FUCKING VANDALISM READ THE TOPIC KTHX</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Alexanaxela 02/13/18 11:15:27 PM #187:	sktgamer_13dude posted... Alexanaxela posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Alexanaxela posted... why are you @ ing me? Who cares if he gave permission before? He's allowed to change his mind. Who cares if he wanted to destroy some graffiti? It's on his private property. You haven't swayed anyone apposed to you at all. And repeating the same thing ("but he originally was ok with it!") over and over again is just annoying and again does nothing to sway anyone Because the law with art doesnt care if you change your mind. You cant just destroy art that you own if youre not the artist and its still protected under VARA. You saying he changed his mind doesnt follow the law. You can move it, but you cant destroy it purposefully. which again brings us back to my original point for the upteenth time: Law. Is. Weird Thats not an argument against it though. Just because you think its weird doesnt mean its not the law. Im sorry that giving artists rights is weird to you. and? You're argument is just "it's the law." Anyway this is a waste of time, neither side is going to be swayed by repeating the same thing around in a circle ad infinity --- Tomorrow will be the most beautiful day of Raymond K. Hessel's life. His breakfast will taste better than any meal you and I have ever tasted. <cite>Alexanaxela posted [p:896044038] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Alexanaxela posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Alexanaxela posted...</cite> <quote>why are you @ ing me? Who cares if he gave permission before? He's allowed to change his mind. Who cares if he wanted to destroy some graffiti? It's on his private property. You haven't swayed anyone apposed to you at all. And repeating the same thing ("but he originally was ok with it!") over and over again is just annoying and again does nothing to sway anyone</quote> Because the law with art doesnt care if you change your mind. You cant just destroy art that you own if youre not the artist and its still protected under VARA. You saying he changed his mind doesnt follow the law. You can move it, but you cant destroy it purposefully.</quote> which again brings us back to my original point for the upteenth time: Law. Is. Weird</quote> Thats not an argument against it though. Just because you think its weird doesnt mean its not the law. Im sorry that giving artists rights is weird to you.</quote> and? You're argument is just "it's the law." Anyway this is a waste of time, neither side is going to be swayed by repeating the same thing around in a circle ad infinity</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
A_Good_Boy 02/13/18 11:16:54 PM #188:	Alexanaxela posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Alexanaxela posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Alexanaxela posted... why are you @ ing me? Who cares if he gave permission before? He's allowed to change his mind. Who cares if he wanted to destroy some graffiti? It's on his private property. You haven't swayed anyone apposed to you at all. And repeating the same thing ("but he originally was ok with it!") over and over again is just annoying and again does nothing to sway anyone Because the law with art doesnt care if you change your mind. You cant just destroy art that you own if youre not the artist and its still protected under VARA. You saying he changed his mind doesnt follow the law. You can move it, but you cant destroy it purposefully. which again brings us back to my original point for the upteenth time: Law. Is. Weird Thats not an argument against it though. Just because you think its weird doesnt mean its not the law. Im sorry that giving artists rights is weird to you. and? You're argument is just "it's the law." What else should we talk about in relation to a legal matter? Your feelings? --- Posted with GameRaven 3.4 <cite>A_Good_Boy posted [p:896044116] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Alexanaxela posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Alexanaxela posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Alexanaxela posted...</cite> <quote> why are you @ ing me? Who cares if he gave permission before? He's allowed to change his mind. Who cares if he wanted to destroy some graffiti? It's on his private property. You haven't swayed anyone apposed to you at all. And repeating the same thing ("but he originally was ok with it!") over and over again is just annoying and again does nothing to sway anyone </quote> Because the law with art doesnt care if you change your mind. You cant just destroy art that you own if youre not the artist and its still protected under VARA. You saying he changed his mind doesnt follow the law. You can move it, but you cant destroy it purposefully. </quote> which again brings us back to my original point for the upteenth time: Law. Is. Weird </quote> Thats not an argument against it though. Just because you think its weird doesnt mean its not the law. Im sorry that giving artists rights is weird to you.</quote> and? You're argument is just "it's the law."</quote> What else should we talk about in relation to a legal matter? Your feelings?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 02/13/18 11:18:24 PM #189:	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." <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:896044195] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</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> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 02/13/18 11:23:15 PM #190:	Alexanaxela posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Alexanaxela posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Alexanaxela posted... why are you @ ing me? Who cares if he gave permission before? He's allowed to change his mind. Who cares if he wanted to destroy some graffiti? It's on his private property. You haven't swayed anyone apposed to you at all. And repeating the same thing ("but he originally was ok with it!") over and over again is just annoying and again does nothing to sway anyone Because the law with art doesnt care if you change your mind. You cant just destroy art that you own if youre not the artist and its still protected under VARA. You saying he changed his mind doesnt follow the law. You can move it, but you cant destroy it purposefully. which again brings us back to my original point for the upteenth time: Law. Is. Weird Thats not an argument against it though. Just because you think its weird doesnt mean its not the law. Im sorry that giving artists rights is weird to you. and? You're argument is just "it's the law." Anyway this is a waste of time, neither side is going to be swayed by repeating the same thing around in a circle ad infinity Because everyone is saying that it was vandalism and that the owner was in the right. Theyre 100% wrong because they dont understand the situation (he allowed it) and the fact that artists have rights when it comes to their own artwork, especially when theyre being told hey you can do this. Now Im not sure if itd still fall under the same laws if it was true vandalism, but in this case, it wasnt. Your feelings on whether its weird or not doesnt change the fact that the owner fucked up and has to pay for his damages. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896044473] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Alexanaxela posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Alexanaxela posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Alexanaxela posted...</cite> <quote>why are you @ ing me? Who cares if he gave permission before? He's allowed to change his mind. Who cares if he wanted to destroy some graffiti? It's on his private property. You haven't swayed anyone apposed to you at all. And repeating the same thing ("but he originally was ok with it!") over and over again is just annoying and again does nothing to sway anyone</quote> Because the law with art doesnt care if you change your mind. You cant just destroy art that you own if youre not the artist and its still protected under VARA. You saying he changed his mind doesnt follow the law. You can move it, but you cant destroy it purposefully.</quote> which again brings us back to my original point for the upteenth time: Law. Is. Weird</quote> Thats not an argument against it though. Just because you think its weird doesnt mean its not the law. Im sorry that giving artists rights is weird to you.</quote> and? You're argument is just "it's the law." Anyway this is a waste of time, neither side is going to be swayed by repeating the same thing around in a circle ad infinity</quote> Because everyone is saying that it was vandalism and that the owner was in the right. Theyre 100% wrong because they dont understand the situation (he allowed it) and the fact that artists have rights when it comes to their own artwork, especially when theyre being told hey you can do this. Now Im not sure if itd still fall under the same laws if it was true vandalism, but in this case, it wasnt. Your feelings on whether its weird or not doesnt change the fact that the owner fucked up and has to pay for his damages.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordMarshal 02/13/18 11:24:49 PM #191:	A_Good_Boy posted... Alexanaxela posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Alexanaxela posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Alexanaxela posted... why are you @ ing me? Who cares if he gave permission before? He's allowed to change his mind. Who cares if he wanted to destroy some graffiti? It's on his private property. You haven't swayed anyone apposed to you at all. And repeating the same thing ("but he originally was ok with it!") over and over again is just annoying and again does nothing to sway anyone Because the law with art doesnt care if you change your mind. You cant just destroy art that you own if youre not the artist and its still protected under VARA. You saying he changed his mind doesnt follow the law. You can move it, but you cant destroy it purposefully. which again brings us back to my original point for the upteenth time: Law. Is. Weird Thats not an argument against it though. Just because you think its weird doesnt mean its not the law. Im sorry that giving artists rights is weird to you. and? You're argument is just "it's the law." What else should we talk about in relation to a legal matter? Your feelings? Remember when owning people was lawful? --- There can be only one. <cite>LordMarshal posted [p:896044550] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Alexanaxela posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Alexanaxela posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Alexanaxela posted...</cite> <quote> why are you @ ing me? Who cares if he gave permission before? He's allowed to change his mind. Who cares if he wanted to destroy some graffiti? It's on his private property. You haven't swayed anyone apposed to you at all. And repeating the same thing ("but he originally was ok with it!") over and over again is just annoying and again does nothing to sway anyone </quote> Because the law with art doesnt care if you change your mind. You cant just destroy art that you own if youre not the artist and its still protected under VARA. You saying he changed his mind doesnt follow the law. You can move it, but you cant destroy it purposefully. </quote> which again brings us back to my original point for the upteenth time: Law. Is. Weird </quote> Thats not an argument against it though. Just because you think its weird doesnt mean its not the law. Im sorry that giving artists rights is weird to you.</quote> and? You're argument is just "it's the law."</quote> What else should we talk about in relation to a legal matter? Your feelings?</quote> Remember when owning people was lawful?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 02/13/18 11:25:09 PM #192:	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. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896044576] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</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> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 02/13/18 11:26:25 PM #193:	The discussion of what people feel the law "should be" is just as important as the discussion of what the law "is." <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:896044640] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote>The discussion of what people feel the law "should be" is just as important as the discussion of what the law "is."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
A_Good_Boy 02/13/18 11:26:36 PM #194:	LordMarshal posted... A_Good_Boy posted... Alexanaxela posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Alexanaxela posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Alexanaxela posted... why are you @ ing me? Who cares if he gave permission before? He's allowed to change his mind. Who cares if he wanted to destroy some graffiti? It's on his private property. You haven't swayed anyone apposed to you at all. And repeating the same thing ("but he originally was ok with it!") over and over again is just annoying and again does nothing to sway anyone Because the law with art doesnt care if you change your mind. You cant just destroy art that you own if youre not the artist and its still protected under VARA. You saying he changed his mind doesnt follow the law. You can move it, but you cant destroy it purposefully. which again brings us back to my original point for the upteenth time: Law. Is. Weird Thats not an argument against it though. Just because you think its weird doesnt mean its not the law. Im sorry that giving artists rights is weird to you. and? You're argument is just "it's the law." What else should we talk about in relation to a legal matter? Your feelings? Remember when owning people was lawful? Remember when you had a point? --- Posted with GameRaven 3.4 <cite>A_Good_Boy posted [p:896044657] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>LordMarshal posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Alexanaxela posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Alexanaxela posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Alexanaxela posted...</cite> <quote> why are you @ ing me? Who cares if he gave permission before? He's allowed to change his mind. Who cares if he wanted to destroy some graffiti? It's on his private property. You haven't swayed anyone apposed to you at all. And repeating the same thing ("but he originally was ok with it!") over and over again is just annoying and again does nothing to sway anyone </quote> Because the law with art doesnt care if you change your mind. You cant just destroy art that you own if youre not the artist and its still protected under VARA. You saying he changed his mind doesnt follow the law. You can move it, but you cant destroy it purposefully. </quote> which again brings us back to my original point for the upteenth time: Law. Is. Weird </quote> Thats not an argument against it though. Just because you think its weird doesnt mean its not the law. Im sorry that giving artists rights is weird to you. </quote> and? You're argument is just "it's the law." </quote> What else should we talk about in relation to a legal matter? Your feelings?</quote> Remember when owning people was lawful?</quote> Remember when you had a point?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 02/13/18 11:28:17 PM #195:	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. <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:896044750] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</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> ... Copied to Clipboard!
St0rmFury 02/13/18 11:30:10 PM #196:	Alexanaxela posted... and? You're argument is just "it's the law." Anyway this is a waste of time, neither side is going to be swayed by repeating the same thing around in a circle ad infinity Actually I'm one of those swayed by his arguments. I came into this topic on the owner's side before reading further. --- "Average Joe" is a trolling term since it's completely an opinion. "Overachieving" is also an opinion. - SBAllen (Hellhole: 52458377) <cite>St0rmFury posted [p:896044855] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Alexanaxela posted...</cite> <quote>and? You're argument is just "it's the law." Anyway this is a waste of time, neither side is going to be swayed by repeating the same thing around in a circle ad infinity</quote> Actually I'm one of those swayed by his arguments. I came into this topic on the owner's side before reading further.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
A_Good_Boy 02/13/18 11:30:35 PM #197:	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 could have done that already, all he had to do was a few days. He already managed like 3 decades, dude played himself. --- Posted with GameRaven 3.4 <cite>A_Good_Boy posted [p:896044872] 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 could have done that already, all he had to do was a few days. He already managed like 3 decades, dude played himself.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordMarshal 02/13/18 11:30:39 PM #198:	Remember when people destroyed statues because they find them offensive? --- There can be only one. <cite>LordMarshal posted [p:896044874] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote>Remember when people destroyed statues because they find them offensive?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DevsBro 02/13/18 11:31:25 PM #199:	gatorsPENSbucs posted... What a load of shit. Hopefully those artists use that money to get some paper or something thats not a building. Or any public property. You kidding? All they have to do is vandalize another building and wait for a big payoff. --- http://backloggery.com/devsbro/sig.gif http://i.imgur.com/kU5vu5N.png Never pepper popcorn <cite>DevsBro posted [p:896044919] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>gatorsPENSbucs posted...</cite> <quote>What a load of shit. Hopefully those artists use that money to get some paper or something thats not a building. Or any public property.</quote> You kidding? All they have to do is vandalize another building and wait for a big payoff.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Alexanaxela 02/13/18 11:31:26 PM #200:	sktgamer_13dude posted... Alexanaxela posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Alexanaxela posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Alexanaxela posted... why are you @ ing me? Who cares if he gave permission before? He's allowed to change his mind. Who cares if he wanted to destroy some graffiti? It's on his private property. You haven't swayed anyone apposed to you at all. And repeating the same thing ("but he originally was ok with it!") over and over again is just annoying and again does nothing to sway anyone Because the law with art doesnt care if you change your mind. You cant just destroy art that you own if youre not the artist and its still protected under VARA. You saying he changed his mind doesnt follow the law. You can move it, but you cant destroy it purposefully. which again brings us back to my original point for the upteenth time: Law. Is. Weird Thats not an argument against it though. Just because you think its weird doesnt mean its not the law. Im sorry that giving artists rights is weird to you. and? You're argument is just "it's the law." Anyway this is a waste of time, neither side is going to be swayed by repeating the same thing around in a circle ad infinity Because everyone is saying that it was vandalism and that the owner was in the right. Theyre 100% wrong because they dont understand the situation (he allowed it) and the fact that artists have rights when it comes to their own artwork, especially when theyre being told hey you can do this. Now Im not sure if itd still fall under the same laws if it was true vandalism, but in this case, it wasnt. Your feelings on whether its weird or not doesnt change the fact that the owner fucked up and has to pay for his damages. apparently you don't understand the situation. Literally everyone agreed that the property owner has the right to clean up graffiti on his private property, even if he previously gave the go ahead for the graffiti to be put up. However he didn't wait an arbitrary 90 days so now the he is wrong because the law --- Tomorrow will be the most beautiful day of Raymond K. Hessel's life. His breakfast will taste better than any meal you and I have ever tasted. <cite>Alexanaxela posted [p:896044922] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Alexanaxela posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Alexanaxela posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Alexanaxela posted...</cite> <quote>why are you @ ing me? Who cares if he gave permission before? He's allowed to change his mind. Who cares if he wanted to destroy some graffiti? It's on his private property. You haven't swayed anyone apposed to you at all. And repeating the same thing ("but he originally was ok with it!") over and over again is just annoying and again does nothing to sway anyone</quote> Because the law with art doesnt care if you change your mind. You cant just destroy art that you own if youre not the artist and its still protected under VARA. You saying he changed his mind doesnt follow the law. You can move it, but you cant destroy it purposefully.</quote> which again brings us back to my original point for the upteenth time: Law. Is. Weird</quote> Thats not an argument against it though. Just because you think its weird doesnt mean its not the law. Im sorry that giving artists rights is weird to you.</quote> and? You're argument is just "it's the law." Anyway this is a waste of time, neither side is going to be swayed by repeating the same thing around in a circle ad infinity</quote> Because everyone is saying that it was vandalism and that the owner was in the right. Theyre 100% wrong because they dont understand the situation (he allowed it) and the fact that artists have rights when it comes to their own artwork, especially when theyre being told hey you can do this. Now Im not sure if itd still fall under the same laws if it was true vandalism, but in this case, it wasnt. Your feelings on whether its weird or not doesnt change the fact that the owner fucked up and has to pay for his damages.</quote> apparently you don't understand the situation. Literally everyone agreed that the property owner has the right to clean up graffiti on his private property, even if he previously gave the go ahead for the graffiti to be put up. However he didn't wait an arbitrary 90 days so now the he is wrong because the law</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
A_Good_Boy 02/13/18 11:32:29 PM #201:	LordMarshal posted... Remember when people destroyed statues because they find them offensive? I remember how the law in several instances forbid that from happening. Hey wait a second... --- Posted with GameRaven 3.4 <cite>A_Good_Boy posted [p:896044969] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>LordMarshal posted...</cite> <quote>Remember when people destroyed statues because they find them offensive?</quote> I remember how the law in several instances forbid that from happening. Hey wait a second...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 02/13/18 11:33:01 PM #202:	A_Good_Boy posted... He could have done that already, all he had to do was a few days. He already managed like 3 decades, dude played himself. And I think the law should be changed so that the owner of said property doesn't need to adhere to some arbitrary time frame. <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:896044999] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote>He could have done that already, all he had to do was a few days. He already managed like 3 decades, dude played himself.</quote> And I think the law should be changed so that the owner of said property doesn't need to adhere to some arbitrary time frame.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Current Events > Man cleans graffiti from his building; ordered to pay "artists" $6.7M (+) Yeah! (+)

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