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.
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.