LogFAQs > #896045487

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Man cleans graffiti from his building; ordered to pay "artists" $6.7M
sktgamer_13dude 02/13/18 11:42:50 PM #216:	Dragonblade01 posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Dragonblade01 posted... A_Good_Boy posted... Dragonblade01 posted... A_Good_Boy posted... He could have done that already, all he had to do was a few days. He already managed like 3 decades, dude played himself. And I think the law should be changed so that the owner of said property doesn't need to adhere to some arbitrary time frame. That owner probably should have adhered to proper legal channels to challenge the law instead of breaking it. He had plenty of time prior to that 90 day time frame to figure something out, shame he had to resort to the worst option that he could. Sure, he should have followed the law. But the law should also be changed. Why? Artists deserve rights when it comes to their artwork when theyre alive. Because property owners deserve rights when it comes to the images on their private property. Maybe he shouldnt have been impatient. Maybe he should have followed the law. The fact of the matter isnt that he destroyed the artwork. The fact is that he destroyed it without following the law. If he would have waited, the artists wouldnt have won. End. Of. Story. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896045487] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote> He could have done that already, all he had to do was a few days. He already managed like 3 decades, dude played himself.</quote> And I think the law should be changed so that the owner of said property doesn't need to adhere to some arbitrary time frame.</quote> That owner probably should have adhered to proper legal channels to challenge the law instead of breaking it. He had plenty of time prior to that 90 day time frame to figure something out, shame he had to resort to the worst option that he could.</quote> Sure, he should have followed the law. But the law should also be changed.</quote> Why? Artists deserve rights when it comes to their artwork when theyre alive.</quote> Because property owners deserve rights when it comes to the images on their private property.</quote> Maybe he shouldnt have been impatient. Maybe he should have followed the law. The fact of the matter isnt that he destroyed the artwork. The fact is that he destroyed it without following the law. If he would have waited, the artists wouldnt have won. End. Of. Story. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1