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

Banksy has appeared alongside President Barack Obama and Apple founder Steve Jobs on Time magazine’s list of the world’s 100 most influential people

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

This is what the left wants a whole lot more of. If this was so important why didn't they make more effort to purchase the property?

I had Notorious BIG's albums back then I can understand their argument but if it wasn't their property, isn't it their own fault for where they chose to display the art in question?
I just find this unbelievable that this could happen.

a reply to: Mailman

You will own nothing and you will like it. - World Economic Forum

a reply to: seeker1963.

The original article I saw had the final payout much closer to 10 million.

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.

a reply to: Mailman

There is so much more to this story....

Graffiti artists approached him the 1990s, asking if they could display their art on the vacant five-story building. Wolkoff agreed.

"Had the appropriate notice been provided, they could have taken steps to remove the art from the building, they could have taken steps to have better photographed and videotaped the art, they could have preserved the art," the artists' lawyer, Eric Baum, told member station WNYC last year.

Wolkoff should have never agreed....

Same thing happens all the time on a smaller scale.
Neighbor mows a part of another neighbors yard, after doing it for so many years, that part of the yard can be considers theirs....

Maybe I'm biased being an artist and I happen to love graffiti art.
It should also be known graffiti is established as a form of art all over the world...

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.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Mailman

There is so much more to this story....

Graffiti artists approached him the 1990s, asking if they could display their art on the vacant five-story building. Wolkoff agreed.

"Had the appropriate notice been provided, they could have taken steps to remove the art from the building, they could have taken steps to have better photographed and videotaped the art, they could have preserved the art," the artists' lawyer, Eric Baum, told member station WNYC last year.

Wolkoff should have never agreed....

Same thing happens all the time on a smaller scale.
Neighbor mows a part of another neighbors yard, after doing it for so many years, that part of the yard can be considers theirs....

Doesn't make any difference. Once the owner decides to get rid of it, end of discussion, the building doesn't belong to the "artist".

a reply to: Nyiah

Doesn't make any difference. Once the owner decides to get rid of it, end of discussion, the building doesn't belong to the "artist".

Actually it does, hence the ruling and the law.

violated the Visual Artists Rights Act

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

I think part of the problem is that many people do not associate graffiti with true art, but it is.

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.

The key word is "unwanted"

The owner agreed.

If the owner said no, and they painted it would be a non issue to remove it.
That was not the case here, these artist flew in all over the world, 21 artists.

This does not just give rights to any ol' teen with a spray can.
This is a rare judgement due to the circumstances.
The building owner knew exactly what was up which is why he painted over it at night..

More significantly, the judge found that all of Wolkoff’s violations were willful—so much so that he awarded the maximum amount of damages available under the statute: $150,000 per piece.

a reply to: Mailman

images.app.goo.gl...

It is not as bad as I thought it would look. Looked better than mine, but still a problem. Yes. My property, my art. Which is up to me to remove if I so desire.

Since the artist did not own the property where they did their work, I don't feel they can claim ownership of the artwork, once it was placed on the building. Just like they would have had to obtain or purchase the canvas and other materials, if they wished to exercise their artistic freedoms. The same goes for artwork done on a building.

While they may claim it as art, the creations that were placed on my property, to me wasn't art, it wasn't even graffiti. To me it was vandalism and it cost me a huge amount of money to correct, that IRS would not allow me to claim, nor the insurance would allow me to claim.

So for what it is worth, I think the judge is daft, and should allow the artist to do up his place with a bit of art.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Apples and coffee beans, sculptures may vary wildly in weight, but are portable. And no, your "keyword" retort doesn't fly, because at some point or another, even the most wanted of items can and will become unwanted & thus can be disposed of. This would be like having a #fit over someone washing off some kid's sidewalk chalk drawing from their driveway (BTDT a gazillion times with my kids) You can call it art if you want, it in no way, shape or form means I'm legally obligated to NOT wash their or their friends' drawing off with the hose. Same concept with this "graffiti art" debate.

Encouraging people to claim someone else's property as theirs simply because they drew/painted on it is a slippery slope, and not a hill worth dying on.

Its all part of their plan. More psychological warfare.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: Mailman

www.google.com... k038bOrL7L1w77qIjh2R6v64OOZ0jg:1607016145190&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiht-3TqbLtAhUR1VkKHaBiCZ0Q_AUoAnoECAQQAg&cshid=1607016267523&biw=360 &bih=560

It is not as bad as I thought it would look. Looked better than mine, but still a problem. Yes. My property, my art. Which is up to me to remove if I so desire.

Since the artist did not own the property where they did their work, I don't feel they can claim ownership of the artwork, once it was placed on the building. Just like they would have had to obtain or purchase the canvas and other materials, if they wished to exercise their artistic freedoms. The same goes for artwork done on a building.

While they may claim it as art, the creations that were placed on my property, to me wasn't art, it wasn't even graffiti. To me it was vandalism and it cost me a huge amount of money to correct, that IRS would not allow me to claim, nor the insurance would allow me to claim.

So for what it is worth, I think the judge is daft, and should allow the artist to do up his place with a bit of art.

You sum it up far better than I did. This is the crux of it -- you don't waltz out of a supply shop with free canvases just because you want them, regardless of how renowned you are

a reply to: JAGStorm

VARA exclusively grants authors of works that fall under the protection of the Act the following rights

right to claim authorship
right to prevent the use of one's name on any work the author did not create
right to prevent use of one's name on any work that has been distorted, mutilated, or modified in a way that would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation
right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation
Additionally, authors of works of "recognized stature" may prohibit intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a work.

That's from here, now I imagine the last aspect of gross negligent destruction is what's being applied. However the quoted words "recognized stature" would have to be up to interpretation, unless of course it could be proven to be recognized in some fashion. I know nothing of the building or the artwork, but it does have a Wikipedia page, and it does look like there was a good amount of effort that went into the work there. I would have to ask though, in trying to interpret "recognized stature", is this building generally known of outside of the world of artists? I imagine it goes to appeals further up the chain and "recognized stature" is more clearly defined.

It's an absurd ruling, and it will just hurt "grafiti artists" in the long run. If # like this will fly, no one in their right minds will ever allow their property to be used to display "grafiti art" again. There goes your "canvas".

a reply to: Nyiah

www.artsy.net...

This would be like having a #fit over someone washing off some kid's sidewalk chalk drawing from their driveway

No this is nothing like sidewalk chalk, or you or I spray painting on a building.
Like I said there are a lot of details missing from this OP.
The art itself must be significant. This one was. The art itself helped make that area more valuable.

Additionally, the court indicated that deeming artwork to be of a “recognized stature”—a requirement for certain VARA protections—may not be as high a bar as earlier cases suggested.
In his opinion, the judge was deferential to the testimony of the artists. The judge cited evidence that the graffiti works had generated “social media buzz” and coverage in articles, blogs, and films as proof that the works attained “recognized stature.”

The a reply to: visitedbythem

This is from 2018.

Are you blaming Trump for more psychological warfare?

I agree that the world has gone mad, but it started long before 2020, and there are few, if any politicians with clean hands.

originally posted by: TKDRL
It's an absurd ruling, and it will just hurt "grafiti artists" in the long run. If # like this will fly, no one in their right minds will ever allow their property to be used to display "grafiti art" again. There goes your "canvas".

Actually this ruling was amazing news for graffiti artist.

Street art is taking off and store owners are now paying artist.
Japan is a great example of this emerging scene.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Ah, I skimmed that article. That sets precedent, and maybe not in a good fashion. Say for example you have a building that's owned by a developer who does nothing with it, some artists get together and do some work and get social media "buzz" and maybe it's featured in an indie film or two as a backdrop. All of this could occur over the course of a month or less, but based on this judges ruling the precedent has been set, that the developer could not remove it, at least that's my interpretation of it. I am not a lawyer, law student, etc.

a reply to: JAGStorm

FFS. Yes, this is like sidewalk chalk art (only uglier) That building was 5 freaking floors of utter hideousness any random gangbanger would spray paint on an overpass. This was so overblown in value that it's ridiculous.

This is not worth $50, let alone millions, holy hell.



Edit: Can't remember how to resize, go ogle the full-sized pic here.