Something, something, 'art' they created on some elses property makes them owners of the property too. It's another testament to how even land ownership isn't real anymore and how cucked the Supreme Courts are for turning down the case.
WTF, there has to be more to this, the article doesn't provide any info for why beyond a reference to the "Visual Artist Rights Act (VARA)" (whatever that is) and the judge saying they had violated the artists rights. I literally don't understand how it could be illegal for a company that had previously given permission to rescind that permission and try to develop the property they own? I can't think of a single reason for this that makes sense. The only thing would be the artists owned their art and painting over it would be destructive to their property, but that would be retarded since it was on someone else's property!
critical for the rights of graffiti artists and others whose work lacks an established market value.
"Nah, we're real artists we swear, it's society's fault that us painting all over public and private spaces with or without permission isn't rewarded!"
VARA basically grants the artist full ownership of any work they do, and can extend to artwork that they don’t physically own anymore.
It’s vague and uses the term “recognized stature” to determine whether or not their work is protected from any destruction purposeful or not.
Not a lawyer, but from my understanding of the law, if, for example, I sell you a painting, and you destroy that painting, if I meet the vague requirements of being of “recognized stature” I could sue you for damages.
Edit: okay I am a bit wrong, it does have to be for public exhibition, so it doesn’t extend as far as my example, but it is still a bit ridiculous that it extends to graffiti
I wish we'd go back to calling graffiti vandalism, it's ugly af and makes for a huge eyesore. If the 'artists' want to 'protect their work' maybe they should paint on canvas like actual artists. Not sneeze it onto buildings that they don't own.
That's why you never allow (or even tolerate) anyone else to use your property even if you don't use it yourself. There are way too many bullshit laws that suddenly grant others rights to your property.
sounds like american bullshit, but i witnessed something even more fucked up in vienna.
a house that my friends father wanted to renovate, only 1 old lady left as tennant, already agreed to move to an appartement across the street that was bigger and in better condition, him giving her the same rent as in the old place. easy enough isn't it? she does't move but 30 meters, has an upgrade, he takes the L on 1 single unit, then renovates the building as he is forced to by the new fire standards anyways.
nope. some anitfants were wasting away their lives there and his (now formerly) leftwing, type i'm-so-green-because-i-vote-green-now-lets-fly-around-the-world-3times-a-year wife told them they can stay till the renovation.
not only didn't the not move out, but they bullied, even outright tyrannized, the old lady into staying.
police of course didn't do shit. took old ladies son, who was a farmer with the most primitive dialect and behaviour to gather his drinking buddies and beat them to a bloody pulp for them to fuck off.
well at least the police, strangly, couldn't find any reason to pursue that one.
Isn't the building itself "artwork" under this logic? If this ruling somehow makes sense, the artists owe the developer for graffiting over the utility art. Not only is it artistic, but it also serves a functional purpose, so I believe the property itself holds more value inherently.
Isn't the building itself "artwork" under this logic?
Remember that story about the Chrysler Building not appearing in the Spider-Man Miles Morales game because of copyright issues? Why do some people have the right to the images of their property and others do not? Is a developer not entitled to the sweat of his own building?
I always hated graffiti and I always had the sneaking suspicion that all of these "artists" don't put their own art on their own houses. Or maybe they do. Or maybe they're just like dogs pissing all over the place but would never piss on their own pillow or bed.
Graffiti is vandalism, not art. Imagine giving these morons money for removing their garbage from buildings that you own.
I saw. But since it is their property, they can at any moment decide to remove the supposed art.
Frankly, serves them right for allowing it to begin with.
Something, something, 'art' they created on some elses property makes them owners of the property too. It's another testament to how even land ownership isn't real anymore and how cucked the Supreme Courts are for turning down the case.
WTF, there has to be more to this, the article doesn't provide any info for why beyond a reference to the "Visual Artist Rights Act (VARA)" (whatever that is) and the judge saying they had violated the artists rights. I literally don't understand how it could be illegal for a company that had previously given permission to rescind that permission and try to develop the property they own? I can't think of a single reason for this that makes sense. The only thing would be the artists owned their art and painting over it would be destructive to their property, but that would be retarded since it was on someone else's property!
"Nah, we're real artists we swear, it's society's fault that us painting all over public and private spaces with or without permission isn't rewarded!"
VARA basically grants the artist full ownership of any work they do, and can extend to artwork that they don’t physically own anymore.
It’s vague and uses the term “recognized stature” to determine whether or not their work is protected from any destruction purposeful or not.
Not a lawyer, but from my understanding of the law, if, for example, I sell you a painting, and you destroy that painting, if I meet the vague requirements of being of “recognized stature” I could sue you for damages.
Edit: okay I am a bit wrong, it does have to be for public exhibition, so it doesn’t extend as far as my example, but it is still a bit ridiculous that it extends to graffiti
Pretty sure SCOTUS would shoot that down on First Sale Doctrine.
Ironically, SCOTUS turned down the case when the owners appealed.
So .... would statues count?
I wish we'd go back to calling graffiti vandalism, it's ugly af and makes for a huge eyesore. If the 'artists' want to 'protect their work' maybe they should paint on canvas like actual artists. Not sneeze it onto buildings that they don't own.
"Their" buildings? YOU OWN NOTHING, GOYIM!
and you're happy!
I won't live in a pod.
I won't eat bugs.
I won't give up on Trump.
And may God punish the globohomo for their sins.
That's why you never allow (or even tolerate) anyone else to use your property even if you don't use it yourself. There are way too many bullshit laws that suddenly grant others rights to your property.
sounds like american bullshit, but i witnessed something even more fucked up in vienna. a house that my friends father wanted to renovate, only 1 old lady left as tennant, already agreed to move to an appartement across the street that was bigger and in better condition, him giving her the same rent as in the old place. easy enough isn't it? she does't move but 30 meters, has an upgrade, he takes the L on 1 single unit, then renovates the building as he is forced to by the new fire standards anyways.
nope. some anitfants were wasting away their lives there and his (now formerly) leftwing, type i'm-so-green-because-i-vote-green-now-lets-fly-around-the-world-3times-a-year wife told them they can stay till the renovation.
not only didn't the not move out, but they bullied, even outright tyrannized, the old lady into staying.
police of course didn't do shit. took old ladies son, who was a farmer with the most primitive dialect and behaviour to gather his drinking buddies and beat them to a bloody pulp for them to fuck off.
well at least the police, strangly, couldn't find any reason to pursue that one.
"I PEED ON IT IT'S MINE!"
Isn't the building itself "artwork" under this logic? If this ruling somehow makes sense, the artists owe the developer for graffiting over the utility art. Not only is it artistic, but it also serves a functional purpose, so I believe the property itself holds more value inherently.
Clownish courts in NY strike again.
Remember that story about the Chrysler Building not appearing in the Spider-Man Miles Morales game because of copyright issues? Why do some people have the right to the images of their property and others do not? Is a developer not entitled to the sweat of his own building?
I always hated graffiti and I always had the sneaking suspicion that all of these "artists" don't put their own art on their own houses. Or maybe they do. Or maybe they're just like dogs pissing all over the place but would never piss on their own pillow or bed.
This is absolute insanity. Grafitti is criminal damage. The court is rewarding criminals.