NY judge awards graffiti artists 6.7 million after building owner removes graffiti

February 13, 2018, 06:38 PM

rock185

No matter how long the aerosol "artists" had been painting their art on the owner's building, seems to me they never owned the "canvas"/building. Would V.A.R.A. protect the aerosol artists if they created their art on the judge's house? Is "partnering" not removing or painting over the "art" right away? I gots to remember not to "partner" with any aerosol artists

February 13, 2018, 07:16 PM

patw

Another sick liberal law that defends criminals. Only in Amercia.

February 13, 2018, 07:55 PM

RNshooter

If he invited them to paint his building because he considers what they do to be art, he just gave them rights to decide what happens to it, later.
It sounds like he allowed it, encouraged it, maybe profited from it, and then stopped considering his "partners" when it suited him.

Not as black and white as the headline.

Bruce

"The designer of the gun had clearly not been instructed to beat about the bush. 'Make it evil,' he'd been told. 'Make it totally clear that this gun has a right end and a wrong end. Make it totally clear to anyone standing at the wrong end that things are going badly for them. If that means sticking all sort of spikes and prongs and blackened bits all over it then so be it. This is not a gun for hanging over the fireplace or sticking in the umbrella stand, it is a gun for going out and making people miserable with." -Douglas Adams

“It is just as difficult and dangerous to try to free a people that wants to remain servile as it is to try to enslave a people that wants to remain free."
-Niccolo Machiavelli

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. -Mencken

February 13, 2018, 08:11 PM

SapperSteel

quote:
Originally posted by Lord Vaalic:
Someone needs to go add a shit ton of "visual art" to that judges house, car, roof, etc.

^^^^^This.

February 13, 2018, 09:09 PM

jljones

quote:
Originally posted by RNshooter:
Not as black and white as the headline.

Meh, why let little things like actual facts stand in the way of a good torch/pitchfork fest?

February 13, 2018, 09:15 PM

GregY

quote:
Originally posted by jljones:
quote:
Originally posted by RNshooter:
Not as black and white as the headline.

Meh, why let little things like actual facts stand in the way of a good torch/pitchfork fest?

Because this crowd is pretty strong on property rights.

February 13, 2018, 09:24 PM

jljones

quote:
Originally posted by GregY:
quote:
Originally posted by jljones:
quote:
Originally posted by RNshooter:
Not as black and white as the headline.

Meh, why let little things like actual facts stand in the way of a good torch/pitchfork fest?

Because this crowd is pretty strong on property rights.

Yep, as I am. Problem is they probably should be pretty big on obligations, as well. It appears that this guy didn't live up to his and got spanked for it. They probably should also be pretty strong on being a nation of laws, the whole jury trial thing, based upon actual facts and whatnot. I know, silly concept. I guess though as long as it can be spun, and we can justify this as a "PROPERTY RIGHTS" issue, and not a contractual obligation thing, people can get away with anything they want.

I guess this is the point where we cue up the "Juries don't always get it right, man"?

February 13, 2018, 09:38 PM

Infidel

quote:
Originally posted by gpbst3:
what a lawyer for the artists had called “the world’s largest open-air aerosol museum.”

Sounds like he's been huffing those aerosols, right along with the vandals - ahem, I mean artists.

I hate offended people. They come in two flavours - huffy and whiny - and it's hard to know which is worst. The huffy ones are self-important, narcissistic authoritarians in love with the sound of their own booming disapproval, while the whiny, sparrowlike ones are so annoying and sickly and ill-equipped for life on Earth you just want to smack them round the head until they stop crying and grow up.
- Charlie Brooker

February 13, 2018, 10:01 PM

GregY

quote:
Originally posted by jljones:
quote:
Originally posted by GregY:
quote:
Originally posted by jljones:
quote:
Originally posted by RNshooter:
Not as black and white as the headline.

Meh, why let little things like actual facts stand in the way of a good torch/pitchfork fest?

Because this crowd is pretty strong on property rights.

Yep, as I am. Problem is they probably should be pretty big on obligations, as well. It appears that this guy didn't live up to his and got spanked for it. They probably should also be pretty strong on being a nation of laws, the whole jury trial thing, based upon actual facts and whatnot. I know, silly concept. I guess though as long as it can be spun, and we can justify this as a "PROPERTY RIGHTS" issue, and not a contractual obligation thing, people can get away with anything they want.

I guess this is the point where we cue up the "Juries don't always get it right, man"?

Contractual obligations. Are those in there with the emanations and penumbras?

Please explain the contractual obligations one is under, without any relevant contract.

February 13, 2018, 10:07 PM

RogueJSK

Who says there's no relevant contract? Contracts don't don't just refer to a bunch of legalese that's written out and signed.

As a member of the Sigforum Bar put it so succinctly back on Page 1:

quote:
Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
Words and actions can create "contracts" that are enforceable.

February 13, 2018, 10:14 PM

GregY

quote:
Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Who says there's no relevant contract? Contracts don't just refer to a bunch of legalese that's written out and signed.

As a member of the Sigforum Bar put it so succinctly back on Page 1:

quote:
Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
Words and actions can create "contracts" that are enforceable.

Which is a horrifically repugnant notion to anyone sane.

I'm not saying you're incorrect, after all I've lived in NY and MA and have some familiarity with 'tenant law' in MA. Now that's a dark, perverse fantasy. NY is similar in spirit, to the best of my knowledge.

But now you know why people are responding negatively to this story, in case it's a surprise to you.

February 13, 2018, 10:19 PM

RogueJSK

So you see no value in a "gentleman's agreement", where two parties simply agree to something? (Aka an oral contract.)

Should one party get off scott free if they welch on that agreement, merely because it wasn't written down, signed, notarized, witnessed thrice, stamped, sealed, etc.?

February 13, 2018, 10:20 PM

Lefty Sig

So let's get this straight...

A Federal law protecting "public" art on other people private property has what jurisdiction under what interpretation of the Constitution? Interstate Commerce, because tourists go to see it? Equal Protection, the basis of ADA, EEOC, Civil Rights and other such laws? Or just "we can make any law we want and try to stop us", which seems to be the attitude in Congress of late.

I thought real estate law was state level common law. And trespassing, vandalism, are also state laws or local ordinances.

February 13, 2018, 10:26 PM

GregY

quote:
Originally posted by RogueJSK:
So you see no value in a "gentleman's agreement", where two parties simply agree to do something? (Aka an oral contract.)

Should one party get off scott free if they welch on that agreement, merely because it wasn't written down, signed, notarized, witnessed thrice, stamped, sealed, etc.?

I have honor.

My word binds me without a contract. A gentleman's agreement is not an enforceable contract, no. Sorry.

It's a gentleman's agreement. Contracts are for others than gentlemen.

Contracts are, dare I need to say it, contracts.

The concept of a contract that is neither written nor spoken (then what IS it?) seems to be some kind of mental defect. Maybe category error?

February 13, 2018, 10:28 PM

RogueJSK

What about a contract that are neither written nor explicitly spoken? When you go into a business, do you expect the business to perform some service? Does that business in turn expect you to pay for that service? (That's an implied contract... nonverbal and nonwritten).

If the service is rendered and you then walk out without paying for that service, do you get off scott free simply because you didn't write out a contract, sign it, etc. etc.?

If you pay for the service, and the business fails to provide it, do they get to skate because you didn't write out and sign a written contract?

February 13, 2018, 10:30 PM

RogueJSK

quote:
Originally posted by GregY:
My word binds me without a contract.

Ah, so you agree that such an agreement is binding?

quote:
A gentleman's agreement is not an enforceable contract

The fact is, the courts disagree. This is not a new concept, either. Its roots go back many hundreds of year in Western law.

February 13, 2018, 10:33 PM

GregY

quote:
Originally posted by RogueJSK:
What about a contract that are neither written nor spoken? When you go into a business, do you expect the business to perform some service? Does that business then expect you to pay for that service? (That's an implied contract... nonverbal and nonwritten).

If the service is rendered and you then walk out without paying for that service, do you get off scott free simply because you didn't write out a contract, sign it, etc. etc.?

Did you get in trouble for stealing the condiments at ChikFilA at some point?

Expecting to bind people by imaginary unwritten, unspoken (then how are they communicated?) contracts is mental illness. Or thievery. Sorry.

February 13, 2018, 10:35 PM

GregY

quote:
Originally posted by RogueJSK:
quote:
Originally posted by GregY:
My word binds me without a contract.

Ah, so you agree that such an agreement is binding?

To my own sense of right and wrong.

You're trying too hard with the gotcha games.

February 13, 2018, 11:04 PM

RogueJSK

quote:
Originally posted by GregY:
Did you get in trouble for stealing the condiments at ChikFilA at some point?

Nope.

And thankfully, I've never had to fill out and sign a printed contract when I order and pay for my chicken sandwich either. Aren't non-written contracts great?