tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post298871300751146278..comments2024-03-29T05:01:52.320-05:00Comments on Althouse: "5Pointz Graffiti Artists Whose Works Were Erased Will Get Day in Court."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-41649616360989828792017-04-10T22:49:40.496-05:002017-04-10T22:49:40.496-05:00Nope.
And fwiw Jefferson's quote there is bad...Nope.<br /><br />And fwiw Jefferson's quote there is badly misunderstood, and most often taken out of context.<br /><br />Kirk Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05921711310191924997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-26440148375173657982017-04-10T21:27:06.322-05:002017-04-10T21:27:06.322-05:00@Kirk Parker: Weren't you known as Jefferson ...@Kirk Parker: Weren't you known as Jefferson in a previous life? ("the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.")The Godfatherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10575359417766667457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-33144081648773993022017-04-10T18:02:07.335-05:002017-04-10T18:02:07.335-05:00Godfather,
Indeed we will not be back to a decent...Godfather,<br /><br />Indeed we will not be back to a decent equilibrium until grapeshot is considered a justifiable reply to lawfare.Kirk Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05921711310191924997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-90707705881628047232017-04-10T16:39:08.242-05:002017-04-10T16:39:08.242-05:00So it seems there's this thing called "th...So it seems there's this thing called "the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990", a FEDERAL law enacted in 1990 (so it was signed by Bush 41?), not some weird NYC ordinance. Does it really mean what the plaintiffs claim it means? I don't know. I'm a RETIRED lawyer, and I'm not going to analyze this statute and research the caselaw and legislative history; somebody's goin' get paid for doing that. But I'm not ready to say the trial judge should be impeached for not dismissing the case.<br /><br />In DC, where I practiced for many years, the following occurred. The owner of some old townhouse-style apartments in a part of town that was getting more desirable, demolished them in order to build a new high-rise apartment or condo building. However, at about that time the market went south, and the owner put his development plans on the shelf. So he had this vacant lot. Some folks in the neighborhood came around and asked him if they could use the vacant land for little garden plots. He agreed and allowed them to use his property this way for no charge. Several years later, when the market had improved and the owner was ready to build the long-anticipated apartment building, all the folks who were using his land for their garden plots got together to oppose his plans. They delayed him for a couple of years and cost him several hundreds of thousands of dollars. After that, every DC landowner who was asked to accommodate some neighbors who wanted to use some vacant property, and knew about that story, said No way!<br /><br />No good deed goes unpunished.The Godfatherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10575359417766667457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-25079480603576543862017-04-10T15:29:42.789-05:002017-04-10T15:29:42.789-05:00I'm guessing he tried the 501(c)(3) gambit to ...I'm guessing he tried the 501(c)(3) gambit to get the real estate taken off the tax roll and thereby substantially reduce the holding cost for the property. The whole owner assigns space, etc., detail was probably done in support of the 501(c)(3) effort to show active artistic management of the property rather than mere acquiescence in vandalism. Owners tax reduction efforts by inviting the graffiti artists in appear to be the source of their claim against him under the Visual Artists Rights Act. Of course I query under which of the enumerated powers that act falls.Beach Brutushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09825136242275961552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-39064553563667210972017-04-10T14:23:50.731-05:002017-04-10T14:23:50.731-05:00Steven,
What's "VARA"? Do you perh...Steven,<br /><br />What's "VARA"? Do you perhaps mean VAWA?Kirk Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05921711310191924997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-69699770176424305792017-04-10T14:18:06.476-05:002017-04-10T14:18:06.476-05:00The key problem here is Victor Hugo and the French...The key problem here is Victor Hugo and the French notion of "moral rights", which then got written into Berne and thus necessitated a law like VARA.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05138730966226244399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-12513345821288053942017-04-10T13:27:43.544-05:002017-04-10T13:27:43.544-05:00Althouse,
Where's the Lawsuits I Hope Will Lo...Althouse,<br /><br />Where's the Lawsuits I Hope Will Lose tag?<br />Kirk Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05921711310191924997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-57194784806210991912017-04-10T13:27:13.326-05:002017-04-10T13:27:13.326-05:00So I guess all of the graffiti artists filed 90-da...So I guess all of the graffiti artists filed 90-day notices to the artists whose works they painted over? Isn't that how it works?<br /><br />I see more lawsuits coming, starting with "BAZ 3:12 vs RaT FinktZ."Bill Peschelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15257587479467531187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1351895143230118072017-04-10T12:42:01.448-05:002017-04-10T12:42:01.448-05:00'“They call it bombing, and the next artist go...'“They call it bombing, and the next artist goes over someone else’s work,” he said. “They painted over their own work continually, and it goes on for years."'<br /><br />That immediately made me think of the Reddit "April Fools" experiment you showcased below. There's a point to made regarding that similarity, but I don't know what it is.Night Owlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04210637382517485619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-15145863301254809472017-04-10T11:56:02.657-05:002017-04-10T11:56:02.657-05:00@ Hoodlum Doodlum
My 10:03am post is the result. ...@ Hoodlum Doodlum<br /><br />My 10:03am post is the result. No art except that which specifically waves statutory protection under a signed contract.Birkelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205292523499913507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-40525624904966801832017-04-10T11:27:40.694-05:002017-04-10T11:27:40.694-05:00They obviously can't remove the work without d...They obviously can't remove the work without destroying the building, so that seems inoperative.MayBeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11966319657113124861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-53267824296619043332017-04-10T11:23:53.368-05:002017-04-10T11:23:53.368-05:00This is truly wonderful. The phrase "You did...This is truly wonderful. The phrase "You didn't build that" comes immediately to mind. And indeed Wolkoff did not build the building, he bought it, or he paid somebody to build it. So his property rights should not be normalized. What matters is Art. And the plaintiffs will be the judge of what that is, who gets to put it up, for how long, on whatever surface they can find.<br /><br />Wolkoff and his building, like the rest of us, are just convenient surfaces on which they can express their art.Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17054880952377156375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-22888598452392399982017-04-10T11:09:03.592-05:002017-04-10T11:09:03.592-05:00Ok, so, I'm still not a lawyer, but:
Aside fro...Ok, so, I'm still not a lawyer, but:<br />Aside from the Visual Artists Rights Act itself (which I have not read) is the general theory that because the property owner allowed this art (or "art," I dunno) to stay on his property in the past that constituted adverse possession of the wall/the "art space" and therefore the artists--either these artists in particular or potential artists in general--gained a prescriptive easement to the space (for the purpose of displaying and maintaining their art)??<br /><br />I mean, if so, imagine the incentive effect of a victory for the artists! Such a finding would mean that all property/wall owners would have to ban any painting/art forever, just to avoid being stuck in a situation like this. What are the property owner's court costs/lawyer fees, I wonder?!HoodlumDoodlumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17591221162603652473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-36624754453706007382017-04-10T10:29:08.452-05:002017-04-10T10:29:08.452-05:00Lesson: Don't feed.Lesson: Don't feed.Chris Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15369398178288055564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-44718979567216352152017-04-10T10:21:10.974-05:002017-04-10T10:21:10.974-05:00The fact that there is a law called the Visual Art...The fact that there is a law called the Visual Artists Rights Act seems to be the main problem here....Bircheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00045640752795693223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-24429910987265518302017-04-10T10:07:23.178-05:002017-04-10T10:07:23.178-05:00So many of our artists are Canadian.So many of our artists are Canadian.rhhardinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06901742898653890646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-47052410558396436302017-04-10T10:03:03.076-05:002017-04-10T10:03:03.076-05:00@ Left Bank
If the artists win, it means that in ...@ Left Bank<br /><br />If the artists win, it means that in the future their art will be done under contract whereby the creators assign all rights to the property owner whose property they use.<br /><br />The part you quoted (which contains an always dangerous ellipse) seems not to require reputational damage or a loss of honor.Birkelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205292523499913507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-81212191414056745902017-04-10T09:56:30.631-05:002017-04-10T09:56:30.631-05:00@ Althouse
This is what the legal system has becom...@ Althouse<br />This is what the legal system has become. Were you so busy teaching the law that you didn't notice? <br /><br />The labyrinth of laws that people have created are meant - purposefully designed - to make life harder for dispreferred groups. Democrats used to that sort of thing for one dispreferred group. Only the groups have changed.Birkelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205292523499913507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-87110272098438508362017-04-10T09:46:47.358-05:002017-04-10T09:46:47.358-05:00Time for loser pays legislation. Time for loser pays legislation. Achilleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04109507896997459818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-2681634403393163872017-04-10T09:28:34.569-05:002017-04-10T09:28:34.569-05:00The quote "they bit the hand that fed them&qu...The quote "they bit the hand that fed them" is a problematic admission. As the landlord admits he "fed" their graffiti painting, that takes it out of the category of vandalism.<br /><br />But the statute in question has this curious wording: "the author of a work of visual art ... shall have the right ... to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right".<br /><br />So, statutory interpretation mavens, do the visual artists have to show the paint over was prejudicial to their honor or reputation? Or just that their sanctioned visual art was intentionally painted over?Left Bank of the Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04494310302328322830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-22433849336963643792017-04-10T09:11:59.721-05:002017-04-10T09:11:59.721-05:00The key phrase here is "against its owner, Je...The key phrase here is "against its owner, Jerry Wolkoff, who ordered the artwork destroyed...."<br /><br />He is the property owner. He can do any damn thing he wishes to his own property.<br /><br />Property rights are THE most important rights we have.<br /><br />Truthavengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12379337866100660456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-82685034510035665812017-04-10T09:07:10.421-05:002017-04-10T09:07:10.421-05:00"Trump's name is in the post (and in the ..."Trump's name is in the post (and in the article I linked to)."<br /><br />Touche. But frankly, my interest in clicking through was only to scroll through to see who was commenting back then. The Trump reference at the end just sort of jumped out at me.CWJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03598487232861475833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-52979137362484943152017-04-10T09:02:57.862-05:002017-04-10T09:02:57.862-05:00The sharecroppers are taking over the land ..... e...The sharecroppers are taking over the land ..... er ....... building. Or what's left of it. <br /> It's only fair. <br /><br />The artists would be better served if Robert Mugabe could testify as an expert witness.Humperdinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08765464624483404218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-22346367133952808092017-04-10T08:58:20.117-05:002017-04-10T08:58:20.117-05:00Surely these "artists" would have no obj...Surely these "artists" would have no objection if I spray painted their residences, or their clothes, or their other property. After all, I consider it art.Wilburhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17648146528637449534noreply@blogger.com