5 Pontz-6.7 million Law Suit Award

farlymac said:
This sounds to me like a story of changing times. The developer bought the place when it was abandoned, and leased out space to make some money while trying to figure out what to do with the place. Many years go by, suddenly it makes sense to put up some new condos in the area, so now it's time to start all over.

But the artists revolt, claiming ownership of the art makes them owners of the property, which then really p's off the actual owner who tears the place down without waiting for permits to stop any legal action by the artists. Which then lands him in court for the permit violation.

He's not getting fined for destroying the art, but for demolishing the buildings without a permit, no? LIC will get the money, not the artists.

Am I right?

PF
Click to expand...

I really don't think those artists have any legal right to sue the owner. If that were true then banksy could probably sue most of the buildings in NYC. It's just a permit violation. The city will get the money. I don't understand how the artists can get anything. Unless they had a written contract which the owner violated
 
stompyq said:
I really don't think those artists have any legal right to sue the owner. If that were true then banksy could probably sue most of the buildings in NYC. It's just a permit violation. The city will get the money. I don't understand how the artists can get anything. Unless they had a written contract which the owner violated
Click to expand...

Pro-Mone,

Feb 12; (UPI). "A New York City developer must pay $6.7 million to 21 graffiti artists after he painted over their artwork, a judge ruled Monday."

There is a "Visual Artist Rights Act" that protects public art. No contract was needed.

"The judgement took into consideration that Wolkoff painted over the walls while litigation was pending."

"If not for Wolkoff's insolence, these damages would not have been assessed, the judge wrote."

The demo without a permit is a separate issue.

Cal
 
I'm a big fan of supporting the arts. That said, the mistake that the owner made was allowing it in the first place no? Since he allowed it initially and over the years it gained importance in some circles, then it was protected by this particular law?
 
jsrockit said:
I'm a big fan of supporting the arts. That said, the mistake that the owner made was allowing it in the first place no? Since he allowed it initially and over the years it gained importance in some circles, then it was protected by this particular law?
Click to expand...

John,

I'm thankful for his support, but like the judge said he acted above the law and displayed arrogance and insolence.

My gripe is that developers first welcome artists, but then disrespect us. I would think that rich developers can afford to remember to continue support the arts.

I'm not saying that 5 Pointz should have been preserved, but what about documenting the place. Even a small plaque would have mattered.

I don't think the city or these developers realize that artists and the communities they help create are the goose that lays the "golden egg."

Also as a gentrifier I have feelings for the poor people I help displace. This city should not be for only rich people, and I'm glad that this wealthy developer is being punished. Fug-him.

What ever happened to respect for the community?

Cal
 
Calzone said:
Pro-Mone,

Feb 12; (UPI). "A New York City developer must pay $6.7 million to 21 graffiti artists after he painted over their artwork, a judge ruled Monday."

There is a "Visual Artist Rights Act" that protects public art. No contract was needed.

"The judgement took into consideration that Wolkoff painted over the walls while litigation was pending."

"If not for Wolkoff's insolence, these damages would not have been assessed, the judge wrote."

The demo without a permit is a separate issue.

Cal
Click to expand...

Then it's completely ridiculous. If the law is interpreted in that way for this specific instance, no one would ever allow anything remotely similar to occur. Ever again. I'm siding with the developer on this instance. Damn greedy "artists" trying to make a buck.
 
stompyq said:
Then it's completely ridiculous. If the law is interpreted in that way for this specific instance, no one would ever allow anything remotely similar to occur. Ever again. I'm siding with the developer on this instance. Damn greedy "artists" trying to make a buck.
Click to expand...

Pro-Mone,

So you believe that wealthy people, in this case a developer, should be able to break the rule of law, and because of their wealth can basically do what they want like demo a building without permits, and deface art that was protected under law. You support the abuse of power and privilage.

I think the judge knows the law. In this case the judge sited "insolence" as the reason for the stiff penalty as punishment for someone that not only disrespected art and artists, but also the law.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
Pro-Mone,

So you believe that wealthy people, in this case a developer, should be able to break the rule of law, and because of their wealth can basically do what they want like demo a building without permits, and deface art that was protected under law. You support the abuse of power and privilage.

I think the judge knows the law. In this case the judge sited "insolence" as the reason for the stiff penalty as punishment for someone that not only disrespected art and artists, but also the law.

Cal
Click to expand...

I think the permit issue is another matter. The defacing of art? It's on his building. It's graffiti. If he violated city ordinance rules then he should be made to pay the city. Paying the artists for "defacing" graffiti? Absolutely not. If it were me I would appeal. If there's any body abusing something it's these so called "artists"
 
stompyq said:
I think the permit issue is another matter. The defacing of art? It's on his building. It's graffiti. If he violated city ordinance rules then he should be made to pay the city. Paying the artists for "defacing" graffiti? Absolutely not. If it were me I would appeal. If there's any body abusing something it's these so called "artists"
Click to expand...

Pro-Mone,

Clearly this developer bypassed the law by doing demolition without permit. That is a separate issue is correct. There is no question that he violated city ordinances and was inproper. Clearly with this developer broke the law with intent, and because of this disregard for rule of law he is rather being severely punished instead of getting "paper whipped."

If you think the other law that protects public art is unjust I can understand that, but this developer displayed insolence, disrespect and a disregard for the separate law that protected Public Art that was undergoing litigation and was severely punished for that by a judge who's judgement surely will be appealed.

It is all a matter of where one draws the line. That is what makes this case so interesting. Did the judge abuse his power? In a way all parties are guilty. To me there are three sides of the story. I see the most mal-intent by the developer, so I do kinda take the side of both the judge and the artists. This developer showed little respect for the art, artists and the laws. I don't pardon his errors like you do.

Cal
 
jsrockit said:
Wow Pramodh... another notch on your right wing belt!
Click to expand...

John,

What ever happened to rule of law?

Are Fascists really entitled to make their own justifications and get away with not following rule of law and civil society?

"Long live the republic," I say.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
John,

What ever happened to rule of law?

Are Fascists really entitled to make their own justifications and get away with not following rule of law and civil society?

"Long live the republic," I say.

Cal
Click to expand...

I think you are taking things a little too far. I don't understand how this is any different from me being allowed to sue my landlord if I painted the walls of my apartment and he whitewahsed them. It's his property.
 
stompyq said:
Damn greedy "artists" trying to make a buck.
Click to expand...

Pro-Mone,

I take exception to being called a greedy artist or with your inflammatory connotation.

I for one have struggled for decades in the arts. I have been forced to work humbly in day jobs that suck and are oppressive. I have sacrificed a lot. I have a rather imbalanced life where most of my disposable income goes into my art with little return or financial gain. The rewards are elsewhere, I have a rich life that has meaning, but the reward is seldom money.

While I may now have a luxury lifestyle that enjoys comforts, that only has happened over the past decade, and that was only because of my investments and a product of my day-jobs.

Greedy people generally do not pick the arts to make their buck. If I were pursuing wealth I would of done other things.

When I think of greed I think of landlords, bankers, and real estate developers. I generally don't associate artists with greed like you do.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
John,

What ever happened to rule of law?

Are Fascists really entitled to make their own justifications and get away with not following rule of law and civil society?

"Long live the republic," I say.

Cal
Click to expand...

Well, I´m not sure the owner was a complete fascist ...he did allow it for many, many years. I can´t find any information as to why he felt he needed to whitewash the building immediately. What was going on behind the scenes here? Were the artists threatening a long legal battle to stop him from using the building as he had originally purchased it for (development)? There's a lot of info I don't know. I support the arts, but I'd also like to think that if I own something legally, I should be able to use it the way I like. Probably would've benefited him to have a little patience, but he most likely thought he could do what he wanted with what he owned.
 
Greedy little fu***.
:D LOL

I see the point on both sides, then again, I think the judge had a hardo* for the developer because the owner decided to whitewash it while it was in court instead of waiting for the final verdict/ permits.
Judges, as all people of power, want their authority respected...
Respect my au-tho-ri-ty!
 
Calzone said:
Pro-Mone,

I take exception to being called a greedy artist or with your inflammatory connotation.

I for one have struggled for decades in the arts. I have been forced to work humbly in day jobs that suck and are oppressive. I have sacrificed a lot. I have a rather imbalanced life where most of my disposable income goes into my art with little return or financial gain. The rewards are elsewhere, I have a rich life that has meaning, but the reward is seldom money.

While I may now have a luxury lifestyle that enjoys comforts, that only has happened over the past decade, and that was only because of my investments and a product of my day-jobs.

Greedy people generally do not pick the arts to make their buck. If I were pursuing wealth I would of done other things.

When I think of greed I think of landlords, bankers, and real estate developers. I generally don't associate artists with greed like you do.

Cal
Click to expand...

It might help if you read what I wrote. Unlike you, I wasn't personally attacking you. I really don't care. I presented my point of view.
 
So when does graffiti become art? If I spray somebody else's property in NYC than the owner is banned from the full use of his property? If I allow someone to spray paint my property and then decide to sell my property, is the new owner than prohibited from the use of his property? Interesting, probably a big reason why I see in the Carolina's so many NY & NJ license plates.

Being arrogant, acting above the law and being greedy is not a criminal act. I know many arrogant people and unfortunately there is no law (at least in NC) to make them change their behavior. I think a lot of sellers and dealers on this web site are greedy; the idea of selling their property for money when they should be giving it to artists for free.
 
stompyq said:
I think you are taking things a little too far. I don't understand how this is any different from me being allowed to sue my landlord if I painted the walls of my apartment and he whitewahsed them. It's his property.
Click to expand...

Pro-Mone,

Following laws by definition is Civil Society. I question your defense of this developer because he did not follow the laws, the judge judged him harshly for his disregard, and basically he acted as if he was above the law. He defied Civil Society and acted in a Fascist manner.

As far as painting my apartment: the law is I have to have permission of my landlord because it is his property. In fact by NYC law landlords are responsible for painting an apartment every three years, but this is not enforced. Painting an apartment is the duty of a landlord and not the tenent, unless written in a lease or contract.

Many landlords put on their leases that tenants can't paint their apartments to ensure that murals are not painted or loud colors like purple or red that are hard, difficult or impossible to cover and make white again.

I know all these laws because I am a part of Civil Society, but I'm sorry your developer who you defend is not.

In Boston Legal the TV show there was a term "Willy-Nilly" used by one judge that would be spins on law interpetation.

Clearly there were laws to be followed, but your spin on them is a bit "Willy-Nilly."

Cal
 
In Elizabeth NJ it is illegal for a women to walk down the streets on a Sunday without a petticoat on.
Damn hooligans!

I take nothing in life serious, including what artists or developers do.I Ingest everything in jest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom