I do not care.
The building was demolished 10 months after it was painted over.
Who wants to exist in Queens?
Cra’y-cra’y
That’s more than Leonardo da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Raphael and Rembrandt ever made combined.
The “Judge” needs to pay from his own Sta$h.
Sure that is art just like the Obama portraits unveiled today. Dumbing down everything.
Time to appeal.
It is just so contrary to normal concepts of property rights. Are they insinuating that the artists take some microscopic slice of the exterior surface of the building by adverse possession? I don’t think so.
Giving them permission to spay paint does not give them ownership. They knew it and had no right to expect any permanency.
Then again, NYC has its preservation statutes, and those have been upheld.
This is flipping crazy.
The judge is obviously an art lover.
A good candidate for next head of the NEA.
If I was the owner of the building, I would deduct the cost of the “canvas” they painted on, since it was not their property.
Funny thing, the cost of the “canvas” that they painted on is $ 6.75 million.
Now, how about that!
Plank #1 of the Communist Manifesto: The abolition of private property rights.
Absolutely nuts. And 90% of the “art” could not have been retrieved/artists would have paid what was required to do so.
This judge will get a spanking from the appellate court.
According to the article the judge does not have a name.
Hopefully this eventually makes it way to the Supreme Court. This is crap.
“no good deed goes unpunished” — the owner never should have allowed these turds to paint on his property.... now he is screwed unless he can get this over-turned on appeal.
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.