Warfish Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/13/us/5pointz-graffiti-artists-award-trnd/index.html In before folks defend this travesty, because of course they will, but ****s sake. There are days I wonder what realm of insanity world I now find myself living in. In so many ways, it seems lawbreakers and their ilk have vastly more rights than the law abiding. What a world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 Not a great idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombdirt Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 It'll get appealed; I doubt anything will come of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustInFudge Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 wtf? i dont even... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chirorob Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 This thread will get shut down. But guys suing for graffiti painted on buildings they didn't even own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 Graffiti is generally disgusting and people caught doing it should be forced to wash toilets at the bus station until they die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbatesman Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 Here, as in most cases, the villains are [checks notes] artists, and the victims are [removes glasses, squints] real estate developers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 1 hour ago, dbatesman said: Here, as in most cases, the villains are [checks notes] artists, and the victims are [removes glasses, squints] real estate developers I would like to sue those artist that make those pictures you have to squint in order to see the images. I would go to the mall with my kids and they would see stuff and I would see dots. Fuck those guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 5 hours ago, dbatesman said: Here, as in most cases, the villains are [checks notes] artists, and the victims are [removes glasses, squints] real estate developers it's high time you acrylic obsessed, Banksy worshipping jagaloons got taken down a peg from bullying the repressed neoliberals, pal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 Wolkoff had allowed artists to paint murals and graffiti on the buildings he owned since 2002 and over time, the location evolved into a New York City cultural landmark that appeared in tourist guidebooks. context Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewilly12 Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crimson King Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 2 hours ago, Larz said: Wolkoff had allowed artists to paint murals and graffiti on the buildings he owned since 2002 and over time, the location evolved into a New York City cultural landmark that appeared in tourist guidebooks. context But ... He owned the building and hence should own the "art" and should have been free to do with it what he wished Was there any written or implied contract with the "artists" that required him to retain the "work"? Was it declared a landmark by the city or NPS? If not, no matter that it was in tourist guidebooks Our entire judicial system needs to be overhauled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crimson King Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 1 minute ago, joewilly12 said: Sharks 2 (Riff and Tony) Jets 1 (Bernardo) They even lost that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 Once he agreed to let them do it then it’s on him. I think it’s pretty. I spray painted myself in the eye once when I was little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 36 minutes ago, The Crimson King said: But ... He owned the building and hence should own the "art" and should have been free to do with it what he wished Was there any written or implied contract with the "artists" that required him to retain the "work"? Was it declared a landmark by the city or NPS? If not, no matter that it was in tourist guidebooks Our entire judicial system needs to be overhauled Free Robby Anderson!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 1 hour ago, The Crimson King said: But ... He owned the building and hence should own the "art" and should have been free to do with it what he wished Was there any written or implied contract with the "artists" that required him to retain the "work"? Was it declared a landmark by the city or NPS? If not, no matter that it was in tourist guidebooks Our entire judicial system needs to be overhauled The law, known as the Visual Artists Rights Act, affords legal protections to artists whose work meets certain requirements, whether or not the artists own the work. i guess it depends on the details. seems like this could have been negotiated or worked out of he didn't paint over it in the middle of the night. just pointing out this wasnt vandalism or gang sign's, its more complicated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crimson King Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 2 hours ago, Larz said: The law, known as the Visual Artists Rights Act, affords legal protections to artists whose work meets certain requirements, whether or not the artists own the work. i guess it depends on the details. seems like this could have been negotiated or worked out of he didn't paint over it in the middle of the night. just pointing out this wasnt vandalism or gang sign's, its more complicated you're right, this is more complicated than I thought upon seeing the report Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 18 hours ago, The Crusher said: I would like to sue those artist that make those pictures you have to squint in order to see the images. I would go to the mall with my kids and they would see stuff and I would see dots. **** those guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 11 hours ago, joewilly12 said: The artist should be sued in this instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kleckineau Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 Unless of course your name is Banksy because if left unguarded people will steal your graffiti and sell it for 6 figures and more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 1 hour ago, Kleckineau said: Unless of course your name is Banksy because if left unguarded people will steal your graffiti and sell it for 6 figures and more. Stealing an old building would be a little tricky. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kleckineau Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 5 hours ago, The Crusher said: Stealing an old building would be a little tricky. No? Dont need the whole building and when big bucks are involved....... http://www.firstpost.com/world/graffiti-artist-banksys-mural-stolen-from-london-appears-in-us-auction-630807.html http://muralform.com/2016/banksys-stolen-art/ https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/banksy-hits-back-art-thieves-11053933 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighPitch Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 Yea read about this. Just insane. Private property means nothing now? Wtf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 41 minutes ago, HighPitch said: Yea read about this. Just insane. Private property means nothing now? Wtf The property owner granted them permission, then destroyed the art in the middle of the night. This all could have been avoided with a simple negotiation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelticwizard Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 6 hours ago, HighPitch said: Yea read about this. Just insane. Private property means nothing now? Wtf Ummmm, ever hear of an easement? It's not a newfangled law, it's a legal principle from way back. It's a similar principle here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Division Marduk Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 On 15/02/2018 at 3:33 AM, Larz said: The law, known as the Visual Artists Rights Act, affords legal protections to artists whose work meets certain requirements, whether or not the artists own the work. And who decides what these requirements are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighPitch Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 8 hours ago, kelticwizard said: Ummmm, ever hear of an easement? It's not a newfangled law, it's a legal principle from way back. It's a similar principle here. Easement? Dude this is graffiti sprayed all over an old warehouse. The owner paints over to sell. Thats not an easment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 4 hours ago, Panzer Division Marduk said: And who decides what these requirements are? google it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelticwizard Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 2 hours ago, HighPitch said: Easement? Dude this is graffiti sprayed all over an old warehouse. The owner paints over to sell. Thats not an easment It's the same principle. You were complaining about the so-called outrage of a property owner losing his rights to a portion of his property because he allowed someone else to take it over. That's what an easement is-when it comes to property, in some cases you have to use it or lose it. This case is not an easement per se, but a law which protects the rights of an artist who paints something on a building of which the owner is aware and lets go for a certain amount of time works on the same principle as an easement. When it comes to property, you have to assert your rights or you can lose the property to someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighPitch Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 ......? so the so called artists now have legal ownership of the property? heeellloooooooo has the world gone mad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 1 hour ago, HighPitch said: ......? so the so called artists now have legal ownership of the property? heeellloooooooo has the world gone mad No. But the imagery belongs to them. It’s the owners fault for giving them permission in the first place. Who the hell does that with property? “Yeah sure , go ahead and vandalize my real restate investment.” Stupid people earn it when dumb things happen to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kleckineau Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 6 minutes ago, The Crusher said: No. But the imagery belongs to them. It’s the owners fault for giving them permission in the first place. Who the hell does that with property? “Yeah sure , go ahead and vandalize my real restate investment.” Stupid people earn it when dumb things happen to them. Hindsight of course but maybe going forward property owners can put up signs stating that if graffiti artists use the walls as a canvas the owner of the property will always retain the right to paint over, sell or demolish it all without any legal recourse. On second thought never mind, if a property owner put up a sign they would probably just cover it with graffiti anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 1 hour ago, Kleckineau said: Hindsight of course but maybe going forward property owners can put up signs stating that if graffiti artists use the walls as a canvas the owner of the property will always retain the right to paint over, sell or demolish it all without any legal recourse. On second thought never mind, if a property owner put up a sign they would probably just cover it with graffiti anyway. They probably had scaffolding up to paint that building This wasn't some random gang sign painted in 25 seconds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kleckineau Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 55 minutes ago, Larz said: They probably had scaffolding up to paint that building This wasn't some random gang sign painted in 25 seconds Yeah....you're probably right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighPitch Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 This is the all time dumbest thread of jn. You guys are lost! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.