Author Topic: After the Fall of 5Pointz (Read 4536 times)

NYC Peromyscus · « **Reply #15 on:** February 14, 2018, 05:59:46 PM »

Quote from: Shelby2 on February 14, 2018, 10:19:42 AM

Quote from: NYC Peromyscus on February 14, 2018, 07:36:17 AM
The verdict seems just given the mean-spiritedness of the actions taken by the building owner. But the ultimate outcome for NYC is likely that fewer buildings will allow graffiti murals over fears of expensive litigation.

Couldn't this have been prevented by a contract drafted by lawyers and signed by both parties?

Yes, probably. But I know some graffiti artists, and let's just say that they're not the type to engage in due diligence like this LOL

Shelby2 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 14, 2018, 06:25:39 PM »

Quote from: NYC Peromyscus on February 14, 2018, 05:59:46 PM

Quote from: Shelby2 on February 14, 2018, 10:19:42 AM
Quote from: NYC Peromyscus on February 14, 2018, 07:36:17 AM
The verdict seems just given the mean-spiritedness of the actions taken by the building owner. But the ultimate outcome for NYC is likely that fewer buildings will allow graffiti murals over fears of expensive litigation.

Couldn't this have been prevented by a contract drafted by lawyers and signed by both parties?

Yes, probably. But I know some graffiti artists, and let's just say that they're not the type to engage in due diligence like this LOL

I was actually talking about the building owner drawing up a contract and having the artists sign. If it had been written into the contact that the work could be destroyed upon sale or demolition of the building, then the lawsuit would not have happened. And future building owners can still allow artists to tag or paint on their buildings without fear of this kind of lawsuit, provided they have an appropriate contract that the artist signs.

The artist would of course also need to get a lawyer to review the contract to make sure the building owner doesn't have any intentions of infringing on the copyright of the work (which should belong to the artist) such as in this case in Brooklyn.

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/street-artist-sues-real-estate-developer-for-using-mural-in-ads-229475

If the contract has terms in it the artist doesn't like, then he/she should find another building to paint on.

Simka · « **Reply #17 on:** March 03, 2018, 10:49:04 AM »

It looks like the owner/demolisher is appealing, so the artists may not get that money after all. Or at least, not as much.

https://ny.curbed.com/2018/2/20/17033348/5-pointz-lawsuit-graffiti-artist-settlement-appeal

Shelby2, from what I've read about the original understanding between the owner and the artists, neither side probably ever gave the idea of a written contract a thought. It was a congenial agreement. And sure, the artists knew that eventually the building would come down, but in the beginning I doubt they had any idea how extensive the graffiti would become, or the way it would help draw attention to the neighborhood—making it possible for the owner to construct his 1,200 luxury high-rise apartments and count on getting high market-rate rents using the 5 Pointz name as a selling point (or five).

Like a lot of people, I was surprised by the amount awarded to the artists—actually, I was surprised that they won in the first place. I guess both the jury and the judge were satisfied that the art on the building was covered by the Visual Artists Rights Act. And I'm sure the amount reflects the fact that the owner whitewashed the art in the middle of the night, with no warning to the artists, which was the worst slap in the face to them. It should at least discourage other building owners from destroying artists' work without proper notice.

According to the Times, right after the whitewashing, "Mr. Wolkoff said he decided that painting over the art at night without fanfare or notice was the kindest way to end an era." What BS. At least, a few years later, he partly acknowledged that he did it to put a stop to "confrontations": "Mr. Wolkoff said he had chosen a stealth whitewashing option to avoid further confrontations and to spare everyone — himself included — the pain of seeing the painted walls being pulled down." (Ach! The poor guy!)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/nyregion/5pointz-a-graffiti-mecca-in-queens-is-wiped-clean-overnight.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/09/nyregion/5pointz-graffiti-artists-whose-works-were-erased-will-get-day-in-court.html

Minimal4me · « **Reply #18 on:** March 13, 2018, 09:07:11 PM »

You only have to look at London and other cosmopolitan city centers to know that wealth will continue to gobble up real estate in and around Manhattan - and every tiny square inch within commuting distance from Manhattan will continue to rise in value.

Paul11372 · « **Reply #19 on:** March 16, 2018, 01:58:56 PM »

"It should at least discourage other building owners from destroying artists' work without proper notice."

Seems like any future building owner would learn the lesson here that trying to allow "art" on private property is a huge liability and from a dollars and cents perspective not worth the risk.

To me it's not wholly different from you letting my kids draw chalk on your driveway and deciding one day to hose it off. You property, your rights. Clearly, the courts disagree which is their right and i don't begrudge them. That said, why would any business in their right mind allow something similar in the future?

Lilybell · « **Reply #20 on:** March 16, 2018, 04:04:33 PM »

Sort of on-topic - two new Bansky installations were discovered in Manhattan this morning!

Shelby2 · « **Reply #21 on:** March 16, 2018, 06:09:33 PM »

This is also sort of on topic
https://hyperallergic.com/432709/hm-lawsuit-street-artist-revok-copyright-law/

H&M Lawsuit Against Street Artist Could Have Changed Copyright Law [UPDATED]

Street artists are calling for a boycott of H&M after the Swedish clothing company took legal action against a graffiti artist to refute his rights over his own work. Across social media, artists including INSA, KAWS, and Lady Aiko are denouncing H&M for what they describe as an “assault on artists’ rights,” and calling for a boycott of the company.

H&M’s lawsuit, filed last week in a Brooklyn federal court, is an extraordinary response to attempts by the street artist Revok to receive compensation for his artwork, which features in the retailer’s new advertising campaign without his consent. Revok — the moniker of LA-based artist Jason Williams — had noticed that graffiti he had painted on a handball court in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, had served as the backdrop for an H&M photoshoot. In January, he sent the company a cease and desist letter, demanding that it stop circulating the images on social media and also compensate him. In an initial response, H&M denied his claims, arguing that the graffiti, which covers New York City property, is vandalism, and that Revok has no copyright rights to assert. After Revok repeatedly threatened to sue if no settlement was reached, H&M filed a lawsuit against him.

click link for article

Simka · « **Reply #22 on:** March 18, 2018, 02:52:01 PM »

Quote from: Shelby2 on March 16, 2018, 06:09:33 PM

This is also sort of on topic
https://hyperallergic.com/432709/hm-lawsuit-street-artist-revok-copyright-law/

H&M Lawsuit Against Street Artist Could Have Changed Copyright Law [UPDATED]

Street artists are calling for a boycott of H&M after the Swedish clothing company took legal action against a graffiti artist to refute his rights over his own work. Across social media, artists including INSA, KAWS, and Lady Aiko are denouncing H&M for what they describe as an “assault on artists’ rights,” and calling for a boycott of the company.

H&M’s lawsuit, filed last week in a Brooklyn federal court, is an extraordinary response to attempts by the street artist Revok to receive compensation for his artwork, which features in the retailer’s new advertising campaign without his consent. Revok — the moniker of LA-based artist Jason Williams — had noticed that graffiti he had painted on a handball court in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, had served as the backdrop for an H&M photoshoot. In January, he sent the company a cease and desist letter, demanding that it stop circulating the images on social media and also compensate him. In an initial response, H&M denied his claims, arguing that the graffiti, which covers New York City property, is vandalism, and that Revok has no copyright rights to assert. After Revok repeatedly threatened to sue if no settlement was reached, H&M filed a lawsuit against him.

click link for article

Interesting case! Looks like there've been a few updates. As it stands now, it seems to be confirmed that H&M has dropped its lawsuit.

Jackson Heights Life

News:

Author Topic: After the Fall of 5Pointz (Read 4536 times)

NYC Peromyscus

Re: After the Fall of 5Pointz

Shelby2

Re: After the Fall of 5Pointz

Simka

Re: After the Fall of 5Pointz

Minimal4me

Re: After the Fall of 5Pointz

Paul11372

Re: After the Fall of 5Pointz

Lilybell

Re: After the Fall of 5Pointz

Shelby2

Re: After the Fall of 5Pointz

Simka

Re: After the Fall of 5Pointz