Judge upholds $6.75M judgement against developer who destroyed 5Pointz graffiti

a reply to: JAGStorm
How many owners will now, if it's possible they will be sued for retarded amounts of money if they decide they want to do something else with their own property? You would have to be nuts to even risk it.

a reply to: Mailman


Very insightful video 5 Pointz in 5 minutes, beautiful music too!
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Mailman

What is absolutely crazy is that there was such a simple solution that would have benefited everyone.

The owner wanted to demolish the place and rebuild, that was his end goal.

He should have reached out to the artist, and had a set timeline for them to retrieve their works and in what manner
(w/ insurance etc)

He would have paid less and artists would have been given a choice or chance to do additional photography or remove their pieces.

Instead he PAINTED over the murals, which is weird, because if you were to demolish a building would you paint it first?? Of course not. Who would Paint and spend money to demolish something. I think this is what really chapped the Judges hide.

After all the artist got their chance to retrieve, he could have bulldozered the building and then invited the public to come and get a piece of the famous landmark. It would have been gone in a day. He would have saved all around..

If he was really smart, he could have even offered some of the artists a little money to buy some of the better works and have them displayed in the new condos. The gentrification folks would just salivate over that, just a little bit of culture but not too much!

So if I'm understanding this correctly.
The owner of a property decided to paint over graffiti on their building and have been sued by the artists.

Why the hell can't they do what they want with their own property?
Graffiti by definition is illegal.

a reply to: JAGStorm

I agree with you.

There is special circumstances here — plus there is a legal Act — the owner violated.

The owner agreed to let artists use the building as a canvas. Then, he sneakily, painted over it.

He KNEW he was doing something — at least questionably wrong.

“Visual Arts Act”
en.wikipedia.org...
www.law.harvard.edu...

a reply to: Annee

special circumstances

That's the part people aren't understanding. This is a very rare thing.

I'm one of the biggest proponents of property rights, but think of it this way.

If an artist loans you a large expensive Roman bust sculpture to display in your garden, and you agree. You enjoy
lots of traffic and acclaim for that bust. Then one night, you decide you are going to sell your place, and smash that sculpture without even giving the artist a chance to come get it.... It's not right

a reply to: JAGStorm


Well, in this case the artists didn't loan you anything - you lend something to THEM.

This is a lessen to everyone, everywhere in the great state of New York: Don't do anyone a favor.

It would be extremely difficult to demo this location and "save" the art it would cost a fortune, to even try. Essentially he wanted to sell his property so he painted over it to make it look more appealing.

So what happens when I hire somebody to paint designs on my car, truck, or van. But then decide to change or alter it...or even sell it to someone else.

Could I paint a mural on my home then sell the property and sue the new owner when they paint over it?

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind
Isn't vandalism against the law anymore? Isn't graffiti the definition of vandalism? This whole world has gone crazy. This case is just another example of the craziness.

I think it had something to do with this...

 In the beginning, Wolkoff had given the artists, including Jonathan Cohen, his permission to turn the building into a graffiti mecca.

originally posted by: Nyiah
That is a total BS judgement, it's graffiti. I.e unwanted scribbles on someone else's property. Murals/Art is done with permission to properties. Not without it. Screw these twits, they don't deserve a dime.

 In the beginning, Wolkoff had given the artists, including Jonathan Cohen, his permission to turn the building into a graffiti mecca.

So the artists hit a Wolkoff grand slam?

a reply to: DupontDeux

Well, in this case the artists didn't loan you anything - you lend something to THEM.

This is a lessen to everyone, everywhere in the great state of New York: Don't do anyone a favor.

Yes they did, their art.

I do agree with the lesson, think hard before you let people do things to your property ESPECIALLY if it is on an
ongoing basis.

Some details, since the OP didn't link to an actual story (link was to a Google search):

The building owner gave permission for the graffitti to be painted. It wasn't crime...the artists did it with consent. The key part of the ruling was that since there was a verbal agreement, he should have provided some sort of notice so the art could be preserved in some way prior to being destroyed.

This is a fight against gentrification, in my opinion. I can see why folks are upset over the ruling...but the gentleman who owned the building gave permission. Of course its his building, but the law seems fairly clear regarding the rights of the artists. We may not like the law...but it is the law.

Where the dude screwed up was giving the permission in the first place. He compounded it by having it whitewashed in the middle of the night to avoid any kind of confrontation. Sounds like a bit of a weasel to me.

Its hard to find it in my heart to defend a developer, to be frank. Even harder when the developer entered into an agreement that he sought to break without notice.

originally posted by: putnam6
It would be extremely difficult to demo this location and "save" the art it would cost a fortune, to even try. Essentially he wanted to sell his property so he painted over it to make it look more appealing.

So what happens when I hire somebody to paint designs on my car, truck, or van. But then decide to change or alter it...or even sell it to someone else.

Could I paint a mural on my home then sell the property and sue the new owner when they paint over it?

The artists were not hired. They had an agreement with the property owner to host their art. He, therefore, had a duty to oblige the agreement or serve reasonable notice that the agreement was being nullified.

All he had to do was have the stones to announce his plans, rather than act in the dead of night to avoid conflict. That, alone, tells me he knew was not acting appropriately.

a reply to: JAGStorm

How they agreed to use the walls thirty years ago was probably a simple verbal exchange I presume no contract or anything?
I mean come on, they should have just been thankful it was perceived well and wasn't criminalized.

People should have saw the end coming and did more to save it. People know when they are about to do work in their neighborhoods. I don't buy the cloak if darkness destruction sorry.
And we all know they could redo it and it would be just the same.


And then there you have a business trying to revitalize a property to whatever degree and it's met with this backlash and mega pricetag? Who will decide to build next door?

only one bad photo of this posted I googled it someone should add more really its nice some of these guys have real talent .
Its funny how some posters are making the people doing the art the bad guys when the owner said they could .

a reply to: Mailman

1. Banksy is a sell out. (IMHO)
Long past the mystique, he's mainstream.
He doesn't represent underground graf writers anymore. Just another millionaire.

2. I was an AVID graf writer in the 90's in Chicago (MOM/J4F/UAC)
As I remember, "Permission Walls" were usually a verbal agreement between the property owner and artist(s). I never heard of an actual contract existing, other than with the public walls in Logan Square, the Vic theatre, and a maybe few other venues. Normally, they were handshake deals, with no guarantees in anything other than not being arrested for the art.

3. We half expected our art (after time) to either be:

"Buffed" - graffiti blasted

"Dissed" - written over by another writer in disrespect

"White washed" - wall painted over by owner

Typically, these permission walls would change over time as different artists were allowed to "piece over" an older, "out of style" work.
There were/are some grand exhibits of graf on display throughout the city, almost everywhere.
But they would come and go.

I have never heard of a situation like this before.
I read the link on it and get the legalities.
Personally,
I'd like to take the property owners side here, but he should've been aware of the law.
I get the artists side too. It's a dedicated effort not some fly by night scrawl.
It's a shame all around.

originally posted by: midnightstar
only one bad photo of this posted I googled it someone should add more really its nice some of these guys have real talent .
Its funny how some posters are making the people doing the art the bad guys when the owner said they could .

It's not just one building either, it was a mecca.
The place is huge, and some of the works are incredible...