Only in Fairyland...

They should have been awarded 10x that amount.

Your frequent references to gayness are telling.

But it was on Private property...

I'm sure this will be appealed.

Cheers

One surely hopes so. ...Jim Thompson

e:

Where did the building owner agree to provide permanent space? What was the consideration paid by the artists? How was the bonkers value of $45 millio n arrived at? I don't know US law but under UK law the judgement would sure ly be overturned on these basic points.

One thing's for sure, unless this is reversed on appeal no building owner w ill ever permit graffiti again.

NT

snip

Bullshit. You do not give permission and then rescind it by destroying what you gave permission for.

Read the story, they originally had the owners permission.

ote:

he consideration paid by the artists? How was the bonkers value of $45 mill ion arrived at? I don't know US law but under UK law the judgement would su rely be overturned on these basic points.

will ever permit graffiti again.

Visual Artists Rights Act takes precedence over some dumb ritualistic real estate law conceived by cavemen.

the consideration paid by the artists? How was the bonkers value of $45 mi llion arrived at? I don't know US law but under UK law the judgement would surely be overturned on these basic points.

er will ever permit graffiti again.

l estate law conceived by cavemen.

I'm glad that isn't so where I live.

NT

This is the "Visual Artists Rights Act"...

The mistake made in Fairyland was allowing continuing application on private property. The property owner should, at the very least, required these "artists" to sign a release, otherwise paint it over every time it appeared.

But, given that this is in Fairyland, subject to Fairyland judges, it's hard to say if the artists will lose their suit... whether private property rights trump "artists" rights.

Here in law-abiding land the cities have anti-graffiti painting crews... here today, gone tomorrow, so it never gets out-of-hand.

Zero tolerance pretty much stops it. ...Jim Thompson

On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 6:31:23 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrot e:

ote:

as the consideration paid by the artists? How was the bonkers value of $45 million arrived at? I don't know US law but under UK law the judgement woul d surely be overturned on these basic points.

wner will ever permit graffiti again.

eal estate law conceived by cavemen.

It wasn't just random graffiti, the place was a museum. https://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/5_Pointz

rote:

was the consideration paid by the artists? How was the bonkers value of $45 million arrived at? I don't know US law but under UK law the judgement wou ld surely be overturned on these basic points.

owner will ever permit graffiti again.

real estate law conceived by cavemen.

even if done with permission on private property?

Looks like one of those edge-cases that the legislature didn't really take into account. The painting may have been in a graffiti style, but they were not put there unlawfully, and the law would not impact on someone who painted over unlawful graffiti. It's also clear that the landlord sought to avoid the jurisdiction of the court.

I think the Landlord made a mistake when he painted over the paintings, because that was clearly caught by the law. He should have left them there until the building was demolished.

Sylvia.

Picking at straws are we ?:-)

Use your head. I believe you've been in Arizona? ...Jim Thompson

Somebody should paint the artist's face so he's never allowed to wash again.

As soon as New York City started cleaning the graffiti off the subway, the kids stopped making more. It just took almost a century before they even tried, because the city government used to be even more weenie than DiBlasio.

Probably doesn't.

Under Giuliani?

The clean-up started under Koch, who was by far the best Democrat to serve as Mayor.

But my cop friends were still under orders to avoid making arrests until Guliani changed that. That's when the murder rate went from 2400 to 600 per year. And that's when there was a shift to the right. Before Guliani NYC was farther to the left than it is now in some ways, but not in all ways of course. City job application forms didn't have check boxes for 32 different genders back then.

Nah.

Koch was followed by David heart-of-darkness Dinkins, which was the very bottom. Giuliani is a RINO, but was blessed by having Bratton as police commissioner. Giving tickets for jaywalking and busting people for busting windows was what did it.

DeBlasio is another Lindsay--it's all a good time until the money runs out, and then it all turns into a s***hole.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I thought you were implying that (Koch's and) Guiliani's NY was more "weenie" than DiBlasio's. No, I don't buy that it was more weenie before Koch than it is now, either. Did they ban soft drinks before Koch?