Vandals win $6.7 million for having their vandalism removed (Very non-Valk)

[Serk]

I'm sorry to start one of "those" threads, but this one has me even more dumbfounded than usual.

Vandals spraypaint all over a building, the building owner paints over the vandalism. The vandals sue the building owner for destruction of art, win $6.7 million judgement against the building owner.

W the F!??!?!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/nyregion/5pointz-graffiti-judgment.html

[Wizzard]

I hate to say it,, but cases like this make me think we get more STUPID judges as time goes on

[Daniel Meyer]

That's....insane...

[Skinhead]

So when the "artists" show up to collect their judgement, arrest them for vandalism and destruction of property.

[GiG]

So when the "artists" show up to collect their judgement, arrest them for vandalism and destruction of property.

You should hire them to paint your new Interstate   

[czuch]

I had an issue with graffiti "artists".
Pressure washed the wall, painted the wall, crap was back in 24 hours.
Finally, after the clown's name/tag, I wrote, "Likes it Folsom style".
Then I left it up.
Then it stopped.

[..]

Go paint yer own f'in property.

Idiots all around.

[3fan4life]

WTF

[DirtyDan]

Sounds like the graffiti was......

......UNDOCUMENTED!!!

Dan

[Pete]

It appears that we may have another problem with politicians who created laws protecting crap like this!

[Wizzard]

Basically it sounds like you can paint anyone's property and call it art.

[mark81]

This should be an Onion News story not real life

[PAVALKER]

An article I read said that he allowed them to do it with the understanding that at some point the buildings were to come down.  If there was a previous agreement.....maybe, just maybe that is what it is based on.

[Wizzard]

He allowed,, unless its a contract in writing its his property and he can do what he wants.

[PAVALKER]

He allowed,, unless its a contract in writing its his property and he can do what he wants.

I agree with your logic.  However, apparently "allowed with understand that the buildings could come down" were taken by a judge as a one sided opinion.  They should have been reported, sued etc....by the owner from the onset maybe.

[Serk]

This ruling guarantees no one will ever allow vandals to vandalize property ever again, if nothing else...

Farking ridiculous...

[The emperor has no clothes]

This ruling guarantees no one will ever allow vandals to vandalize property ever again, if nothing else...

Farking ridiculous...

Agreed. Can a civil judgement be appealed ? If so, I can’t imagine this will stand up.

[Serk]

This ruling guarantees no one will ever allow vandals to vandalize property ever again, if nothing else...

Farking ridiculous...

Agreed. Can a civil judgement be appealed ? If so, I can’t imagine this will stand up.

I'm pretty sure it can be, pretty sure it will be, and even with my fading hope in the future of sanity in this country, I hope it gets thrown out; but even if it gets thrown out, the victim of barratry in this case will still be out the time and money he's had to spend defending against this ridiculous frivolous lawsuit...

(Even if New York has a "loser pays" system, good luck collecting from a bunch of admitted vandals...)

[Jess from VA]

This ruling guarantees no one will ever allow vandals to vandalize property ever again, if nothing else...

Farking ridiculous...

Agreed. Can a civil judgement be appealed ? If so, I can’t imagine this will stand up.

That is my point.  With that kind of judgment, that gets appealed, not paid.

Visual Artists Rights Act,  Bullshit!   (If someone gets trademark protection, they have every right to sue.  So the graffiti guys got trademark protection??????)

This is malicious destruction of property in excess of X dollars and a felony.  

If he was my client, I would have had him go out and add a bunch of GANG TAGS, then take pictures, then paint over it all.  (if we get called to a sworn deposition, he takes the fifth)

I was out painting over some local MS 13 tags on my side street, and someone asked if I wanted to get shot. I said they better be good shots, I shoot back.  Then he told me to call VA DOT next time, and there was a next time and I did call them.  And was told our DOT put high priority on eradicating all gang tags, and they were out the next day, and did a much better job than I did.  They used hot tar and not rattle can.

[Wizzard]

He allowed,, unless its a contract in writing its his property and he can do what he wants.

I agree with your logic.  However, apparently "allowed with understand that the buildings could come down" were taken by a judge as a one sided opinion.  They should have been reported, sued etc....by the owner from the onset maybe.

Yeah,, the whole title reeks,, Vandals,, and vandalism,, and the good guy is the looser,, WOW

[Oss]

NYC will come and remove graffiti from my property in the Bronx for free  and they have   and they did a good job

I aint gonna read the story, dont want to upset my digestion.

Perhaps the owner should spray paint the judge's home and then say the judge said he could and then sue him  But then again he or she probably lives in a rent controlled apt at way below market rent

Maybe, just maybe in this case   revenge is best served cold spray can style

[_Sheffjs_]

Higher court please

[Serk]

Maybe, just maybe in this case   revenge is best served cold spray can style

Normally I'd agree with you...



But the judge in this case is 83... About the only thing that's gonna be served cold any time soon is hizzoner...

[DirtyDan]

Maybe, just maybe in this case   revenge is best served cold spray can style

Normally I'd agree with you...



But the judge in this case is 83... About the only thing that's gonna be served cold any time soon is hizzoner...

  beat me too it

Dan

[Serk]

Maybe, just maybe in this case   revenge is best served cold spray can style

Normally I'd agree with you...



But the judge in this case is 83... About the only thing that's gonna be served cold any time soon is hizzoner...

  beat me too it

Dan

I know it'd be via airplane or cage, but... I sincerely hope you're able to make it to Roanoke... I'd still love to shake your hand and buy you an adult beverage...

[DirtyDan]

I hope health holds, it would be an honor

Keep up the references..... anything....... geek 

Dan

[Rams]

It appears that we may have another problem with politicians who created laws protecting crap like this!

Remind me which party controls this state's legislature.

I'm not sure which coast has crazier stuff now.    Correction, pretty sure the west leads in bizarre.

Rams

[Serk]

Remind me which party controls this state's legislature.

I'm not sure which coast has crazier stuff now.    Correction, pretty sure the west leads in bizarre.

Rams

I was all ready to rant and rave (My rants get raves!) about the idiocy race to the bottom between the coasts but, alas... This is a federal law signed by a Republican president (George HW Bush in 1990) and the case was a federal case tried by a federal judge (Albeit one appointed by Clinton).

We're all in this ridiculous mess together on this one.

Might be time to start calling and writing our congresscritters requesting that bad law be repealed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act

[indybobm]

How did the court decide on 6.7 Million?

[Serk]

How did the court decide on 6.7 Million?

$150,000 awarded for each individual piece of vandalism that was removed. (45 pieces of vandalism were declared art of "recognized stature.")

[Jess from VA]

I already looked this up (fed law, fed judge, in Brooklyn).

I'm not going to make a protracted study of this, but obviously it seems (very very) strange to apply it to a situation where the artwork is otherwise placed through criminal trespass and malicious destruction of property.

But say, just for argument, that it does apply to the facts of this case.  Look at the artwork again, and tell me this art work was worth anywhere near 6.7 million????  There is plenty of precedent, in strange cases, where the plaintiffs may prevail on the merits of fault, but when it comes to damages, they win a verdict of $1 (or up to the cost of 1000 cans of spray paint).  But I suppose a verdict like that would be racist.  

And this was a jury (of course it was).  I didn't see any information on jury demographic composition, but it is a well know fact that city juries love to give away rich people's money, and will work very hard to get to the point where they can award said money.  This is just one of several reasons, I chose not to drive my vehicles into DC on a daily basis.  Juries also love to give away insurance company money; even though you are rarely allowed to tell them there is applicable insurance coverage, they know there is.  

One would also think that the property owner could come up with some pretty good evidence of the loss of value of the underlying expensive city property with said artwork left intact.  But once this federal law was found applicable, it may be that that issue was irrelevant.

The appeal that will surely come will challenge both the applicability of the law, and if that doesn't work, the damage award.

A very good argument can be made that applying this law to these facts sets a very bad precedent and public policy in supporting artists applying graffiti to public and private property.  I sure don't want it on the Lincoln or Vietnam Vets Memorials.  It might be an improvement on the Capital though (you know, the guys who passed this law).

It puts me in mind of what happened to the Air Force when we made a deal to trade a big chunk of dry scrub desert for new off base housing construction (a straight trade with a private property developer).  The rodent called the Kangaroo Rat, nixed the whole deal.  To give you an idea of how bad the existing crumbling down housing was, my wife, who had been raised in relative poverty in the third word, cried when I told her we had to move in there to save all the money we were wasting in a SoCA off-base rental (over and above the tax free housing allowance I received, which only covered about half the rent and no utilities).   One of our NCOICs at 15th AF regularly hooked his car exhaust up to his house to exterminate the mouse populations that lived in his house (and every house in that tract), that simply could not be got rid of.  These were field mice, not Kangaroo Rats, as if there is any difference whatsoever.

Endangered species my ass.

[Robert]

I like many was ready to rant on this, but wanted to check it out a bit more first and while it still is ridiculous I now understand a bit more. It sounded like the judge had it out for this guy as well since he said the land owner was totally not remorseful. I would have a hard time being remorseful to paint my property also and being sued for doing so. 


Federal Judge Awards Graffiti Artists $6.7 Million After Spray Paintings Destroyed
New York's graffiti iconic spot '5Pointz' / Getty

http://freebeacon.com/culture/federal-judge-awards-graffiti-artists-6-7-million-work-destroyed/

BY: Haris Alic   Follow @realHarisAlic
February 13, 2018 8:48 pm

A federal judge on Monday awarded graffiti artists $6.7 million in damages after a developer whitewashed their artwork, which was spray painted on the walls of several blighted warehouse buildings at the 5 Pointz mural art space in Queens, New York City.

U.S. District Judge Frederic Block in Brooklyn said that 45 of the 49 paintings were recognized works of art that Jerry Wolkoff, who owned the buildings, "wrongfully and willfully destroyed," the Associated Press reported.

Wolkoff, who owned the site for years, had allowed the artists to use the buildings as canvases for their work, prior to deciding to redevelop the area. Wolkoff's attorney argued that he had told the artists in advance that the buildings were not permanent as he had plans to redevelop.

Twenty-one artists sued Wolkoff under the Visual Rights Act, a federal law that protects artists' rights even if another individual owns the physical artwork.

Block wrote that had Wolkoff waited for his permits to be officially authorized by the city, as they were 10 months after the graffiti was painted over, the artists would have had no legal recourse.

"If not for Wolkoff's insolence, these damages would not have been assessed," Block wrote. "If he did not destroy 5 Pointz until he received his permits and demolished it 10 months later, the Court would not have found that he had acted willfully."

"The shame of it all is that since 5 Pointz was a prominent tourist attraction, the public would undoubtedly have thronged to say its goodbyes during those 10 months and gaze at the formidable works of aerosol art for the last time," Block wrote. "It would have been a wonderful tribute for the artists that they richly deserved."

[vanagon40]

People who spray graffiti on property at the invitation of the owner of the property are not "vandals" and the graffiti is not "vandalism."

The owner "had invited artists to paint on his property for over 20 years . . . ."

Jury Sides with 5Pointz Artists in Lawsuit Over Destroyed Graffiti

[Willow]

Some of our comments in this thread demonstrate very well how people have a tendency to jump to incorrect conclusions resulting in unwarranted condemnations.   I'm not saying whether the judge's ruling was correct or not, but I was pretty sure that we needed more information.

It's a good rule to expect that an initial news report, especially regarding a court ruling, is incomplete and missing some information to make its story more shocking, more sell-able.

[Wizzard]

People who spray graffiti on property at the invitation of the owner of the property are not "vandals" and the graffiti is not "vandalism."

The owner "had invited artists to paint on his property for over 20 years . . . ."

Jury Sides with 5Pointz Artists in Lawsuit Over Destroyed Graffiti

I do not see how that makes any difference,, if he wants to repaint his building,, that is his option is it not?

[Serk]

People who spray graffiti on property at the invitation of the owner of the property are not "vandals" and the graffiti is not "vandalism."

The owner "had invited artists to paint on his property for over 20 years . . . ."

Jury Sides with 5Pointz Artists in Lawsuit Over Destroyed Graffiti

I'll accept a mea culpa for my wording of the graffiti "artists" as vandals, but I stand by calling the graffiti graffiti... I refuse to use the new PC term "Aerosol based art."

And the greater issue is still that he allowed them to do it (As they were doing it anyway and he gave up trying to stop them), and then HE was sued when he decided to do something else with his own property? That's not right.

I see this backfiring pretty hard on these "artists", as no property owner in his right mind will allow anyone to use their property for their "art" ever again.

[Rams]

Remind me which party controls this state's legislature.

I'm not sure which coast has crazier stuff now.    Correction, pretty sure the west leads in bizarre.

Rams

I was all ready to rant and rave (My rants get raves!) about the idiocy race to the bottom between the coasts but, alas... This is a federal law signed by a Republican president (George HW Bush in 1990) and the case was a federal case tried by a federal judge (Albeit one appointed by Clinton).

We're all in this ridiculous mess together on this one.

Might be time to start calling and writing our congresscritters requesting that bad law be repealed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act

While what you say is true, judges are not empowered to make law.   Our elected leadership does that.   Protecting graffiti on another person's or entity's property is a pretty stupid law.     

Rams

[Willow]

Remind me which party controls this state's legislature.

I'm not sure which coast has crazier stuff now.    Correction, pretty sure the west leads in bizarre.

Rams

I was all ready to rant and rave (My rants get raves!) about the idiocy race to the bottom between the coasts but, alas... This is a federal law signed by a Republican president (George HW Bush in 1990) and the case was a federal case tried by a federal judge (Albeit one appointed by Clinton).

We're all in this ridiculous mess together on this one.

Might be time to start calling and writing our congresscritters requesting that bad law be repealed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act

While what you say is true, judges are not empowered to make law.   Our elected leadership does that.   Protecting graffiti on another person's or entity's property is a pretty stupid law.     

Take a step back.  Aren't we still trying to determine the right or wrong from just a few lines from a news story?  Maybe we would see things differently if we saw everything that had been presented to the judge and jury.

[Rams]

Remind me which party controls this state's legislature.

I'm not sure which coast has crazier stuff now.    Correction, pretty sure the west leads in bizarre.

Rams

I was all ready to rant and rave (My rants get raves!) about the idiocy race to the bottom between the coasts but, alas... This is a federal law signed by a Republican president (George HW Bush in 1990) and the case was a federal case tried by a federal judge (Albeit one appointed by Clinton).

We're all in this ridiculous mess together on this one.

Might be time to start calling and writing our congresscritters requesting that bad law be repealed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act

While what you say is true, judges are not empowered to make law.   Our elected leadership does that.   Protecting graffiti on another person's or entity's property is a pretty stupid law.    

Take a step back.  Aren't we still trying to determine the right or wrong from just a few lines from a news story?  Maybe we would see things differently if we saw everything that had been presented to the judge and jury.

No doubt that is true.    I'm not criticizing the judge, I'm critical of the law and those who enacted such a stupid law.  Just my opinion, not worth much but, it is mine, all mine.    

Rams

[Jess from VA]

People who spray graffiti on property at the invitation of the owner of the property are not "vandals" and the graffiti is not "vandalism."

The owner "had invited artists to paint on his property for over 20 years . . . ."

Jury Sides with 5Pointz Artists in Lawsuit Over Destroyed Graffiti

Yes Van, as Carl pointed out, I had failed to read up entirely on this case and it's facts before my post.  I try not to do that, but it happens.  If as reported, the owner did not only allow or consent to the graffiti, but actually invited these people to do it (and for a long time), then it seems all criminality in the acts of spray painting graffiti (trespass/destruction of property) would disappear.  

Moreover, actively soliciting graffiti may have even put him squarely inside the parameters of this bullshit artist protection law.  Though, it is also reported that he always told them it was his intent to eventually develop this property, so they knew in advance that their art work had a limited life expectancy.

The other part of the story I did not read, was that the property owner failed to follow the required notice and wait procedures (just like the laws that protect tenants ahead of landowner-landlords everywhere), that he was obliged to follow (and if he had lawyers on retainer he should have been well aware of them).  Seemingly, if he had followed these procedures to the letter, there would have been no case against him under this goofy law.  This was an even bigger mistake than actively letting them paint up his property.

But as in my original post, even assuming without conceding that he was in strict violation of a law that applied to him (and graffiti), the actual dollar amount of the the verdict is ridiculously high..... like some kind of tort punitive damage award to send an example to the world.  And I stand by my comments on city juries.

And also in line with my previous post, applying this law to graffiti (anywhere, and under any circumstances) seems overly broad and ridiculous.