NYC-Building owner fined $6.7 million for painting over graffiti on his property

[Anti Federalist]

LOL - And you think you own anything.

LOL - And you wonder why there are so many homeless.


Developer must pay $6.7M for destroying iconic graffiti art

https://nypost.com/2018/02/12/develo...-graffiti-art/

By Emily Saul

February 12, 2018 | 6:09pm | Updated

[img]https://********************************/2018/02/112013_5pointz_emk_009.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w= 915[/img]

A developer has been tagged with a $6.7 million judgment for whitewashing the “formidable” work of 21 graffiti artists on the iconic 5 Pointz warehouse in Queens.

Brooklyn federal-court Judge Frederic Block on Monday angrily ordered developer Gerald Wolkoff — who erased about 45 works overnight in the middle of both sides’ court case in 2013 — to cough up the millions.

“The shame of it all is that since 5 Pointz was a prominent tourist attraction, the public would undoubtedly have thronged to say its goodbyes during those 10 months and gaze at the formidable works of aerosol art for the last time,” Block wrote in his decision. “It would have been a wonderful tribute for the artists that they richly deserved.”

The jurist noted that Wolkoff’s rash decision to ignore the legal proceeding and take matters into his own hands had sealed his fate and prompted the whopping judgment.

The artists sued him under a 1990 law, the Visual Rights Act, which protects works that are considered notable.

“If not for Wolkoff’s insolence, these damages would not have been assessed,” Block said. “If he did not destroy 5 Pointz until he received his permits and demolished it 10 months later, the Court would not have found that he had acted willfully.”

Block lauded the artists for comporting themselves “with dignity” during the pendency of the case.

Monday’s decision follows a three-week trial in November in which lawyers for Wolkoff unsuccessfully argued that the graffiti artists should have known better than to paint the site, given its slated fate.

5 Pointz was torn down in 2014, and the land that once housed the famed painted warehouse is now home to two luxury high-rise residential towers.

[Anti Federalist]

Which brings up a larger question: why is it that "urban youths" feel the need to spray paint that $#@! all over other's people's property?

And why is it a rather new phenomenon?

Invention of spray paint maybe?

Railroad cars are a high profile tagging target. Being a train nerd, I have numerous books and photos of all manner of rail equipment, and there was virtually no graffiti on railroad cars prior to 1960 or so.

[Zippyjuan]

Which brings up a larger question: why is it that "urban youths" feel the need to spray paint that $#@! all over other's people's property?

And why is it a rather new phenomenon?

Invention of spray paint maybe?

Railroad cars are a high profile tagging target. Being a train nerd, I have numerous books and photos of all manner of rail equipment, and there was virtually no graffiti on railroad cars prior to 1960 or so.

But "tagging" streets pretty much dates to the 1960's. It boomed as an "art form" in the 1980s.

https://www.widewalls.ch/graffiti-hi...ffiti-history/

Cornbread and The Start of Modern Graffiti History

What would graffiti history be without the name Cornbread? It is quite possible that there would be no graffiti history as we know it, for Darryl McCray, who was given the nickname Cornbread while in a juvenile corrections facility, is widely regarded as the father of modern day graffiti. The story goes that the young Cornbread developed a crush on a girl named Cynthia Custuss upon leaving the correctional facility, he wrote Cornbread Loves Cynthia all over the local area to win her affections. Finding he enjoyed this, he continued to tag Philadelphia with his name, including the jet plane that belonged to the Jackson 5 and on an elephant in the local zoo which resulted in an arrest!

TAKI 183 & Tagging

TAKI 183 engraved his name in graffiti history when The New York Times ran an article about him on July 21st, 1971. Prior to this, TAKI 183, which comes from the Greek version of his first name, Demetraki and his address, had been regularly tagging around New York City in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. The article, titled TAKI 183 Spawns Pen Pals, gave birth to a whole legion of kids who decided to copy him and tag their own names across the city. The tagging of names became highly competitive, with those who tagged more becoming better known in the graffiti community. TAKI 183 was not the first graffiti artist to tag in New York but he certainly got the most attention.

More at link.

[Anti Federalist]

But "tagging" streets pretty much dates to the 1960's. It boomed as an "art form" in the 1980s.

That's what I was getting at.

Graffiti itself is as old as cave dwelling.

[Krugminator2]

That decision obviously makes zero sense. I am in favor of putting the judge in prison.

A better question is should people be allowed to maintain their property however they want, even if it lowers the value of properties around it? Should this graffiti mess be allowed on a building in downtown Manhattan even if it is an eyesore? Likewise with people who maintain there yard poorly in a subdivision. A property owner isn't violating anyone else's property rights. But they are imposing a cost on other people.

[phill4paul]

Couldn't he just claim that he was just expressing his artist prerogative in a work he has entitled "The Great Whitewash" an "interpretive representation of how property owners are forced to behave at the whims and dictats of government functionaries."

[Dr.3D]

The judge just needs his house painted by the same folks who put the 'artwork' on that fellows building.

[Zippyjuan]

The art was actually pretty cool but the building owner should be able to do what he wants with it.

https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-...destroyed-work

The Backstory
VARA, a rarely invoked United States statute, allows certain visual artists to sue for infringement of what are known as “moral rights.” Those moral rights include the right to the attribution and integrity of their artwork. The law also protects against the destruction of “works of recognized stature.” The artist maintains these rights even if their work is sold or, as in the 5Pointz case, even if the work is painted on someone else’s building.

For many years, there was no acrimony between Jerry Wolkoff, the developer who owned the 5Pointz property, and the graffiti artists who he allowed to cover his warehouse. The warehouse was curated and organized under the supervision of Jonathan Cohen, who subsequently became one of the plaintiffs. Over time, the building grew into something of a mecca for graffiti artists, many of whom traveled from overseas for the opportunity paint on its walls.

But one night in November 2013, Wolkoff, who had announced that the building would be demolished to make way for luxury apartments, whitewashed the building without specific warning, destroying the graffiti artworks.

A team of 21 graffiti artists—dubbed “aerosol artists” in court documents—sued. They asserted that Wolkoff violated their VARA rights by whitewashing the works that adorned the warehouse walls. The artists charged that the destroyed artworks met VARA’s “recognized stature” requirement in spite of the fact that the artists did not own the 5Pointz property.

The case was initially tried in front of a jury, which overwhelmingly sided with the artists in November of 2017. But shortly before the jury issued their verdict, both sides agreed that the jury’s decision would be advisory and that the judge would have the final say.

Ultimately, that benefited the plaintiffs. The jury ultimately found that Wolkoff had acted willfully and awarded damages for 36 of the 49 individual works that were the subject of the dispute. But Judge Block’s opinion went further than the jury’s decision, holding that Wolkoff was liable for the destruction of 45 of the works. More significantly, the judge found that all of Wolkoff’s violations were willful—so much so that he awarded the maximum amount of damages available under the statute: $150,000 per piece.

[Swordsmyth]

The art was actually pretty cool but the building owner should be able to do what he wants with it.

https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-...destroyed-work

It's revolting, your bad taste is a symptom of your mental health issues.

[Zippyjuan]

[Anti Federalist]

Courts Force Owners to Pay Vandals Who Deface Their Property, I Kid You Not

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...perty-kid-not/

Becky Akers

In the People’s Democratic Republic of New York City, the owner of a building covered in graffiti must pay the “artists” who trespassed on and defaced his property because he whitewashed their “work,” a clown in a federal gown has decreed. And he must pay a lot: $6.7 million.

The clown fulminates in his ruling about “the formidable works of aerosol art”—oh, brother—and mourns that the building “would have been a wonderful tribute for the artists that they richly deserved” had its owner not acted as if he owned the place. We might credit the clown as a superb satirist– except that communists have no sense of humor.

Lest you smirk that such blatant Marxism confines itself to the PDR of NYC, consider that the “law” giving this dung its legal cover is a federal one, the “Visual Rights Act.” Ergo, you, too, could forfeit your property should thugs appropriate it with spray-paint—excuse me, “aerosol art.”

Meanwhile, I suspect His Dishonor is penalizing the owner more for thumbing his nose at the court than anything else–because, yes, in the PDR of NYC, anyone infringing on someone else’s land can sue and tie him up for years as the judiciary deliberates over how the guy with the deed and liability may dispose of his property. Indeed, the legal war over this building has been raging for at least five years. And all the while, the City that has denied the owner his rights has nonetheless been taxing the property.

No wonder the owner forged ahead with his plans to turn a derelict heap into housing. And taking his own matters into his own hands is what actually teed off the gowned clown: “If he did not destroy [the building] until he received his permits and demolished it 10 months later, the Court would not have found that he had acted willfully.”

The unforgivable sin in the People’s Democratic Republic: “acting willfully,” without Our Rulers’ permission.

[Zippyjuan]

The "vandals" had permission to paint on the building. From a link I posted earlier:

For many years, there was no acrimony between Jerry Wolkoff, the developer who owned the 5Pointz property, and the graffiti artists who he allowed to cover his warehouse. The warehouse was curated and organized under the supervision of Jonathan Cohen, who subsequently became one of the plaintiffs. Over time, the building grew into something of a mecca for graffiti artists, many of whom traveled from overseas for the opportunity paint on its walls.

He just changed his mind on what he wanted to do with the building- which should be his right.

[phill4paul]

It's revolting, your bad taste is a symptom of your mental health issues.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I tend to side with Zip in thinking there is some nice artwork there.

And that artists might not want to put their artwork on ownership transferable canvasses.

[Anti Federalist]

And who would get sued when one of these "artists" fell off of whatever they were on to paint above ground level?

[phill4paul]

I think these aerosal artists should be compensated. Destruction of public art, plain and simple.

[Zippyjuan]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...e-for-art.html

Here’s a tale of two real-estate men, each of whom owns an industrial building in a rundown part of New York. The first decides to convert the interiors to artist studios and cede the exterior walls to the graffiti artists who are tagging it anyway. He appoints a curator, sets up some ground rules, and makes it clear that, so long as the building stands, it can serve as a large-scale urban canvas. To his mild surprise, he spends decades as a patron of graffiti art.

The other developer decides to tear down his old factory and put up luxury condos instead. He whitewashes the graffiti that has spread across his property, depriving the artists of the chance to preserve their work, even in photographs. He immediately becomes the object of graffiti artists’ scorn.

Both developers are, of course, the same man, Jerry Wolkoff, who bought the 19th-century Neptune Meter factory in Long Island City in the early 1970s. Manufacturing had abandoned the derelict waterfront, and the idea that deluxe apartment buildings would one day sprout there seemed fantastical at best. Four decades later, in 2013, Wolkoff decided the time had come to reap a return on his investment. By then, 5Pointz, as it had come to be known, was an aerosol-art mecca, the backdrop to a thousand selfies, and a famous repository for a form that requires an architectural scale.

More at link.

[eleganz]

WWLSD?

What would Larry Silverstein do?

[Anti Federalist]

WWLSD?

What would Larry Silverstein do?