Posted on 02/12/2018 7:25:13 PM PST by ilovesarah2012
It seems that some judges are nitwits. Who knew?
Yes, it is. Nearly $6M of taxpayer money being given to what amounts to graffiti artists is just nuts. The owner of the building should put his hand out to collect payment for using his building as a canvas illegally. I'm glad the building is gone, because then, so is the plug-ugly "art" these spray can wielders produced.
There is a high school in NYC in a ghetto neighborhood where the principal PAID GRAFITTI ARTISTS to come in and fill the hallway walls with their "art". Why? So that the mostly ghetto kids attending that bottom-of-the-barrel school would FEEL AT HOME, as the graffiti would make their environment similar to their 'hood. The pictures were painted with oil paints and there was virtually no ventilation in the hall, the windows having been closed. I had to leave my assignment at that school early, as the fumes brought about an asthma attack. I had to see a doctor, invest $30 in a nebulizer and get a couple of prescriptions because of that. Idiots. No wonder the kids at that school were knucklewalking imbeciles---look at their teachers and administrators.
Its why you just say NO to everything.
Its the special American brand of lawfare. Always remember, liability, liability, liability.
Yet their spray painted works are protected by the Visual Artists Rights Act. To me this looks like some people are more equal than others.
Excellent. Let NYC return to the filthy pos city it was before Giuliani turned it around. Paint and defecate on everything!
Sick.
This happened in America?
So the vandali...artwork... was more valuable than the BUILDING?
And for that...he gets to pay them 6.75 million.
Some people just suck.
Aside from the Apache helicopter, I see better artwork on many of the rail tanker cars that go through my small city every day.
I left NYC 3-1/2 years ago. I’m leaving NY State altogether this year, as long as I can find a buyer for my apartment. I’m voting with my feet. Enough is enough.
If I were the owner, I’d appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court. Those “artists” were vandals. What’s more, the graffiti vandals were always painting over someone else’s vandalism. I lived in Queens for years and commuted on the 7 line. Had to pass that hideous eyesore countless times. There was no set graffiti! That would have been one of my first arguments in the owner’s defense.
The other, of course, is private property rights.
Who was the Judge ? What court was this ? When was this decision made ?
A previous judge gave the permission to destroy the building:
“Brooklyn federal Judge Frederic Block cleared the way for the work earlier this month, denying an attempt by artists and fans to preserve the graffiti.”
https://nypost.com/2013/11/19/5-pointz-graffiti-erased-in-overnight-paint-job/
Like I said - insane.
Totally correct.
In addition, there is a tenant at law that says that in cases such as this, damages should be limited to losses.
Could the artist who received the $1 mil, have sold that “painting” on the day it was painted over, where it was and as it was, to a willing, informed buyer for $1 mil?
No.
Appeal as decision violates public policy.
Judicial activism at its best.
I’d file BK or leave that country before I’d ever pay.
This strikes as an appeal to higher court.
Nobody wants that crappy amateur ‘art’. Not enough to pay $6. Million for it. These ‘artists’ simply didn’t like knowing their ‘work’ had been disposed of and declared without value.
Sooooo easy for this idiotic judge to spend others’ money, no?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.