pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Here's why grafitti artists are scary to agencies  (Read 3055 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 13, 2018, 10:40 »
+4
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-ny-graffiti-artists-settlement-20180212-story.html

Judge awards graffiti artists $6.7 million after their New York works were destroyed

Best part is the building owner, who painted over the works and tore down the buildings was the defendant. This is going to be appealed of course, but shows how dumb things can be. Who wants to defend against a lawsuit from an artist or a vandal? Some of these people had permission to paint on the buildings.

Bigger issue, is graffiti protected under federal law?


Shelma1

« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2018, 11:06 »
+4
This is an unusual case. According to the article, the building owner had given permission to the artists, the art was so good the buildings became a tourist attraction, and it would have been possible to salvage a lot of the art if the building owner had given the artists the opportunity to do so.

Also, it sounds like the art may have helped with the gentrification of the neighborhood, which is what made the building site so valuable to the owner.

StockbyNumbers

  • www.StockbyNumbers.com
« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2018, 18:43 »
0
This is an unusual case. According to the article, the building owner had given permission to the artists, the art was so good the buildings became a tourist attraction, and it would have been possible to salvage a lot of the art if the building owner had given the artists the opportunity to do so.

Also, it sounds like the art may have helped with the gentrification of the neighborhood, which is what made the building site so valuable to the owner.

Agreed that it is an unusual case and seemed to hinge partially on whether or not the building owner knowingly exploited the artists. I do think this will make agencies more cautious though as it creates ambiguity and muddies the waters.

JimP

« Reply #3 on: February 13, 2018, 22:43 »
+2
Oh please stop the bull crap. The guy owns the building, the art is allowed but then he wanted to tear down his building. Now the taggers claim it's art and protected. So I call a drawing on the sidewalk art and no one can erase it?

« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2018, 00:28 »
+2
Oh please stop the bull crap. The guy owns the building, the art is allowed but then he wanted to tear down his building. Now the taggers claim it's art and protected. So I call a drawing on the sidewalk art and no one can erase it?

If you give permission as the owner, then that might be the case, yes.

He could have easily given them a chance to remove the artwork before tearing the building down.

he owns the wall, but not the art itself, so in this special case it makes sense.

But this does not mean, that you can place graffiti anywhere and then "own" the wall or the building.

In this case there was consent, and the art raised the value of the location, so this is different.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
4130 Views
Last post January 05, 2008, 01:52
by Fred
Scary! My CD/DVD drive damages discs

Started by microstockphoto.co.uk Software - General

4 Replies
3361 Views
Last post January 06, 2011, 08:48
by jbarber873
35 Replies
8515 Views
Last post October 23, 2014, 01:10
by michaeldb
Scary experience!

Started by gyllens « 1 2  All » Shutterstock.com

35 Replies
4746 Views
Last post December 13, 2016, 16:13
by Giveme5
0 Replies
1056 Views
Last post February 01, 2017, 22:52
by encrenciel

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results