Current Events > Man cleans graffiti from his building; ordered to pay "artists" $6.7M

(+) Yeah! (+)

LordMarshal posted...

You dont understand. My family has taken shits in the living room for generations. Its not a pile of shit in the living room, its my culture and you cant just clean that shit up or ill sue your ass.

You should feel embarrassed for having made this post
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Alexanaxela posted...

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Alexanaxela posted...

i guess you didnt read my post if you can't see what part i'm stuck on. Oh well

You don't understand why it isn't simply "removing vandalism?"

... you seem to have trouble reading. Don't really get why some guy has to wait 90 days for the legal system to give him the ok to remove vandalism from his private property. Law is weird

Because it wasnt vandalism. The guy allowed all of the art to be put on his property decades ago.

and then later he changed his mind about what to do with his property. Apparently legally he would have been fine after 90 days or whatever. So as i said: law is weird
---

therin_lews_kin posted...

The Admiral posted...

Also, this isn't art.

it's culture, dude

you just wouldn't understand it

Racists don't understand
---

LordMarshal posted...

You dont understand. My family has taken shits in the living room for generations. Its not a pile of shit in the living room, its my culture and you cant just clean that shit up or ill sue your ass.

the fuck is this post
---

Alexanaxela posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Alexanaxela posted...

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Alexanaxela posted...

i guess you didnt read my post if you can't see what part i'm stuck on. Oh well

You don't understand why it isn't simply "removing vandalism?"

... you seem to have trouble reading. Don't really get why some guy has to wait 90 days for the legal system to give him the ok to remove vandalism from his private property. Law is weird

Because it wasnt vandalism. The guy allowed all of the art to be put on his property decades ago.

and then later he changed his mind about what to do with his property. Apparently legally he would have been fine after 90 days or whatever. So as i said: law is weird

Why is it weird to need a permit to paint over what is considered art and basically a public landmark? Especially when the art in question isnt yours?

Its weird that you think its weird.
---

weapon_d00d816 posted...

That is absolutely fucking ridiculous.

It's his property.

They vandalized it.

What the fuck

This.

The quality is irrelevant if it wasn't sanctioned work.
---

Error1355 posted...

LordMarshal posted...

You dont understand. My family has taken shits in the living room for generations. Its not a pile of shit in the living room, its my culture and you cant just clean that shit up or ill sue your ass.

the fuck is this post

You wouldnt understand.
---

Error1355 posted...

LordMarshal posted...

You dont understand. My family has taken shits in the living room for generations. Its not a pile of shit in the living room, its my culture and you cant just clean that shit up or ill sue your ass.

the fuck is this post

Clearly its a shitpost.
---

Lets be real, this wont stand because the people behind this are insane.
---

CanuckCowboy posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

That is absolutely fucking ridiculous.

It's his property.

They vandalized it.

What the fuck

This.

The quality is irrelevant if it wasn't sanctioned work.

He told them is was ok fucking read post 88
---

CanuckCowboy posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

That is absolutely fucking ridiculous.

It's his property.

They vandalized it.

What the fuck

This.

The quality is irrelevant if it wasn't sanctioned work.

It was sanctioned work.
---

Awesome posted...

Lets be real, this wont stand because the people behind this are insane.

The people here saying it wont stand are the insane ones.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Alexanaxela posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Alexanaxela posted...

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Alexanaxela posted...

i guess you didnt read my post if you can't see what part i'm stuck on. Oh well

You don't understand why it isn't simply "removing vandalism?"

... you seem to have trouble reading. Don't really get why some guy has to wait 90 days for the legal system to give him the ok to remove vandalism from his private property. Law is weird

Because it wasnt vandalism. The guy allowed all of the art to be put on his property decades ago.

and then later he changed his mind about what to do with his property. Apparently legally he would have been fine after 90 days or whatever. So as i said: law is weird

Why is it weird to need a permit to paint over what is considered art and basically a public landmark? Especially when the art in question isnt yours?

Its weird that you think its weird.

because it is his private property. If he wants to paint over it or tear it down its on him because its his private property
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

@thanosibe posted...

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Alexanaxela posted...

... you seem to have trouble reading. Don't really get why some guy has to wait 90 days for the legal system to give him the ok to remove vandalism from his private property. Law is weird

Because it isn't vandalism.

Yes it 100% is. Anyone debating it's art or not is irrelevant. Don't deface private and public property. Law aside. Try not being a degenerate and have common sense.

Read post 88. The guy allowed it in the early 90s.

As someone pointed out. Maybe he changed his mind. Maybe he's going to sell it. Maybe people don't want to rent out in his building because of it. There's myriad reasons why he can change his mind. And the law being on the side of vandals over a property owner is awful. Yeah he should have waited the 90 days. But damn imagine siding with vandals.
---

For everyone saying it was vandalism:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/76316327/896036740

Please read and then kindly shut the fuck up. The guy allowed it, it became iconic for the area and actually helped bring the area up and the guy was impatient before he was legally able to paint over it. End. Of. Story.
---

thanosibe posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

@thanosibe posted...

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Alexanaxela posted...

... you seem to have trouble reading. Don't really get why some guy has to wait 90 days for the legal system to give him the ok to remove vandalism from his private property. Law is weird

Because it isn't vandalism.

Yes it 100% is. Anyone debating it's art or not is irrelevant. Don't deface private and public property. Law aside. Try not being a degenerate and have common sense.

Read post 88. The guy allowed it in the early 90s.

As someone pointed out. Maybe he changed his mind. Maybe he's going to sell it. Maybe people don't want to rent out in his building because of it. There's myriad reasons why he can change his mind. And the law being on the side of vandals over a property owner is awful. Yeah he should have waited the 90 days. But damn imagine siding with vandals.

They literally werent vandals if he told them to paint on his building. He should know the law before blatantly breaking a federal law.
---

samurai bandit posted...

For those saying it was due to the permit, at least to me it is still odd that you need to ask for a permit to paint over your property. Like wtf, it's yours you can do whatever you want.

and even assuming it would make sense to actually need a permit, how is everyone expected to know that?

The permit is just to make sure you don't put up an defamatory (racist, sexual, etc) pictures or statements. It's mostly legal coverage in this regard. Also environmental concerns, but I keep the legalese mostly relevant to the topic at hand. As for knowing, anyone who goes through the process of buying a building, or real estate (with the intention of construction), they generally aren't required to know, that's their lawyers job. When you buy, they are supposed to give their client a rundown on what they can or can't do, what permits will be required for what they want to do. So while you can do a lot of things, there are laws preventing you from doing a lot (you can't erect a 100 story skyscraper in a residential zone, or a nuclear reactor in the CBD [Central Business District] for example).
---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

CanuckCowboy posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

That is absolutely fucking ridiculous.

It's his property.

They vandalized it.

What the fuck

This.

The quality is irrelevant if it wasn't sanctioned work.

It was sanctioned work.

Oh. I have to read this now... Seems like the only way it's excusable is if it was a new owner and wasn't specified that he had to keep it / not sanctioned by the city. Otherwise fuck him, let him pay.

... Imma actually read now.

Fuck I need some holidays Im not even capable of being literate lately.
---

Im going to hang a literal piece of art on someones house and sue them if they ever remove it.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

For everyone saying it was vandalism:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/76316327/896036740

Please read and then kindly shut the fuck up. The guy allowed it, it became iconic for the area and actually helped bring the area up and the guy was impatient before he was legally able to paint over it. End. Of. Story.

none of that has anything to do with what I said about it being weird that he has to wait 90 days to take down graffiti on his private property
---

LordMarshal posted...

Im going to hang a literal piece of art on someones house and sue them if they ever remove it.

You realize thats not how the law works right?
---

LordMarshal posted...

Im going to hang a literal piece of art on someones house and sue them if they ever remove it.

Nice to see people still can't take 5 minutes to read this topic before making this dumbass joke again
---

LordMarshal posted...

Im going to hang a literal piece of art on someones house and sue them if they ever remove it.

At this point I can't tell if you guys are just pretending to be stupid or not.
---

I'm not surprised the guy allowed it in the first place. The whole thing would make no sense if it was just vandalism that was done without the owner's permission
---

Alexanaxela posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

For everyone saying it was vandalism:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/76316327/896036740

Please read and then kindly shut the fuck up. The guy allowed it, it became iconic for the area and actually helped bring the area up and the guy was impatient before he was legally able to paint over it. End. Of. Story.

none of that has anything to do with what I said about it being weird that he has to wait 90 days to take down graffiti on his private property

Because it was sanctioned art that was protected by VARA. Its a law that gives artists specifics rights about their work and how its used.

Spooking posted...

What about the art under that graffiti? The standard paint job is considered art, and these criminals put graffiti all over it.

He. Allowed. It. To. Be. Painted.
---

HBKick18 posted...

LordMarshal posted...

Im going to hang a literal piece of art on someones house and sue them if they ever remove it.

Nice to see people still can't take 5 minutes to read this topic before making this dumbass joke again

Thats not the first time hes made that stupid post in this topic.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

The guy allowed it, it became iconic for the area and actually helped bring the area up and the guy was impatient before he was legally able to paint over it.

You keep bringing this up but it's irrelevant the property never stopped being his so he shouldn't need permission to legally paint over it no matter how "iconic" it is. If I 100% owned the Mona Lisa and decided to draw a mustache on it I shouldn't have to request special permission to do whatever I want with my property.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

LordMarshal posted...

Im going to hang a literal piece of art on someones house and sue them if they ever remove it.

You realize thats not how the law works right?

He said i could in 92.
---

JustMonika posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

The guy allowed it, it became iconic for the area and actually helped bring the area up and the guy was impatient before he was legally able to paint over it.

You keep bringing this up but it's irrelevant the property never stopped being his so he shouldn't need permission to legally paint over it no matter how "iconic" it is. If I 100% owned the Mona Lisa and decided to draw a mustache on it I shouldn't have to request special permission to do whatever I want with my property.

Youre not the artist though.
---

JustMonika posted...

You keep bringing this up but it's irrelevant

This is a pretty odd stance to take in light of this ruling. You absolutely sure about that?
---

Deface my building w something that a sheet of paper couldve covered..yeah you can fuck right off, your graffiti is a joke

Whatever it stands for is prob a bigger a joke than the artist

Drawing on buildings, thatll really show em!! said nobody w importance
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Because it was sanctioned art that was protected by VARA. Its a law that gives artists specifics rights about their work and how its used.

so what is the 90 day wait suppose to do exactly?
sktgamer_13dude posted...

He. Allowed. It. To. Be. Painted.

and then he changed his mind
---

JustMonika posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

The guy allowed it, it became iconic for the area and actually helped bring the area up and the guy was impatient before he was legally able to paint over it.

You keep bringing this up but it's irrelevant the property never stopped being his so he shouldn't need permission to legally paint over it no matter how "iconic" it is. If I 100% owned the Mona Lisa and decided to draw a mustache on it I shouldn't have to request special permission to do whatever I want with my property.

Id sue the hell out of you. Thats mah culter!
---

Alexanaxela posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Because it was sanctioned art that was protected by VARA. Its a law that gives artists specifics rights about their work and how its used.

so what is the 90 day wait suppose to do exactly?
sktgamer_13dude posted...

He. Allowed. It. To. Be. Painted.

and then he changed his mind

Im not sure what the permit is about. Its probably a grace period to allow the artist to do something with their art (hint thy tried to buy the building and also tried to make it a legal landmark but neither went through).

He also didnt change his mind; he demolished he building. Idk why he wanted to paint the building first before demolishing it, but its now like high rise apartments or something.

Anyway, just look up VARA.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Im not sure what the permit is about.

thank you. Hence my point again for like the 5th time: Law. Is. Weird
---

The stuff also wasnt just graffiti; it helped revitalize the neighborhood and brought in tourists. The article in post 88 also said the artists didnt originally want to sue, but once the art was demolished, they had no other choice. The damages were only so high because of the amount of art that was destroyed.

Ill say it again for the trolls that have issues reading: it wasnt vandalism as the developer allowed them to paint on his walls. He broke the law by being impatient and he knew he broke the law when he did it. Stop complaining because you dont view it as art and because you dont understand the law.
---

Alexanaxela posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Im not sure what the permit is about.

thank you. Hence my point again for like the 5th time: Law. Is. Weird

Apparently its like a 90-day notice to the artist or something. Again, it was sanctioned art. Just because you own the building the art YOU SANCTIONED is on doesnt mean you can do whatever you want to said art. Artists have as many rights as property owners.
---

thanosibe posted...

Imagine thinking defacing someone's property is "art".

It can be both vandalism and art. If someone paints a beautiful picture on the side of a building they dont own its still a beautiful picture. Doesnt stop being one just because they created it illegally.
---

Guy let them paint it and then later destroyed the art which was their legal property. Fair next

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

thanosibe posted...

Imagine thinking defacing someone's property is "art".

It can be both vandalism and art. If someone paints a beautiful picture on the side of a building they dont own its still a beautiful picture. Doesnt stop being one just because they created it illegally.

But, were some rich fuck to buy the Mona Lisa and use it as grease rag, it's entirely within his right to do so.

It's a form of art, sure. I have no problem with that.

But art shouldn't be legally protected if the artist stole the canvas.

That's dumb. No matter the reasoning, if he let them paint it in the first place or not, it's his property. He has the right to clean it up.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Artists have as many rights as property owners.

thats probably the problem right there. Just because i let you draw on my property doesnt mean you ahould be able to stop me if I later decide I want to erase the drawing on my property . Apparently everyone involved agreed with this logic and he would be fine if the guy had waited a completely random 90 days. So again: law is weird
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

This needs to go to SCOTUS.

This. There is absolutely no fucking way that wins in the supreme Court unless it was there for like 20 years and was passable as evident domain.
---

Lordgold666 posted...

Deface my building w something that a sheet of paper couldve covered..yeah you can fuck right off, your graffiti is a joke

Whatever it stands for is prob a bigger a joke than the artist

Drawing on buildings, thatll really show em!! said nobody w importance

Bump
---

Lordgold666 posted...

Lordgold666 posted...

Deface my building w something that a sheet of paper couldve covered..yeah you can fuck right off, your graffiti is a joke

Whatever it stands for is prob a bigger a joke than the artist

Drawing on buildings, thatll really show em!! said nobody w importance

Bump

This wasn't vandalism, the murals were allowed by the property owner.

Topic title needs to be changed to "Reactionary morons who can't read proving they're reactionary morons who can't read".
---