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
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?