The owner should counter sue for vandalism damages and press charges for trespassing and graffiti...both of which are illegal in New York.ip_law-hokie wrote:on his property. 6.75 million.
And it appears the court nailed it too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... 7da16dbd4e
Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Re: Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
You should read the entire article.Hokie5150 wrote:The owner should counter sue for vandalism damages and press charges for trespassing and graffiti...both of which are illegal in New York.ip_law-hokie wrote:on his property. 6.75 million.
And it appears the court nailed it too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... 7da16dbd4e
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
Using logic instead of trolling, explain it. How can anyone reasonably claim ownership over another's property? That's got to register as UnAmerican to you.ip_law-hokie wrote:You should read the entire article.Hokie5150 wrote:The owner should counter sue for vandalism damages and press charges for trespassing and graffiti...both of which are illegal in New York.ip_law-hokie wrote:on his property. 6.75 million.
And it appears the court nailed it too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... 7da16dbd4e
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
There was no trespass.awesome guy wrote:Using logic instead of trolling, explain it. How can anyone reasonably claim ownership over another's property? That's got to register as UnAmerican to you.ip_law-hokie wrote:You should read the entire article.Hokie5150 wrote:The owner should counter sue for vandalism damages and press charges for trespassing and graffiti...both of which are illegal in New York.ip_law-hokie wrote:on his property. 6.75 million.
And it appears the court nailed it too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... 7da16dbd4e
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is no claim to ownership.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
They got paid for removing graffiti. How is that sane?ip_law-hokie wrote:There was no trespass.awesome guy wrote:Using logic instead of trolling, explain it. How can anyone reasonably claim ownership over another's property? That's got to register as UnAmerican to you.ip_law-hokie wrote:You should read the entire article.Hokie5150 wrote:The owner should counter sue for vandalism damages and press charges for trespassing and graffiti...both of which are illegal in New York.ip_law-hokie wrote:on his property. 6.75 million.
And it appears the court nailed it too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... 7da16dbd4e
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is no claim to ownership.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
awesome guy wrote:They got paid for removing graffiti. How is that sane?ip_law-hokie wrote:There was no trespass.awesome guy wrote:Using logic instead of trolling, explain it. How can anyone reasonably claim ownership over another's property? That's got to register as UnAmerican to you.ip_law-hokie wrote:You should read the entire article.Hokie5150 wrote:The owner should counter sue for vandalism damages and press charges for trespassing and graffiti...both of which are illegal in New York.ip_law-hokie wrote:on his property. 6.75 million.
And it appears the court nailed it too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... 7da16dbd4e
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is no claim to ownership.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That’s incorrect. The landlord paid for removing graffiti. The artists got paid for doing nothing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
You're not making your case.ip_law-hokie wrote:awesome guy wrote:They got paid for removing graffiti. How is that sane?ip_law-hokie wrote:There was no trespass.awesome guy wrote:Using logic instead of trolling, explain it. How can anyone reasonably claim ownership over another's property? That's got to register as UnAmerican to you.ip_law-hokie wrote:You should read the entire article.Hokie5150 wrote: The owner should counter sue for vandalism damages and press charges for trespassing and graffiti...both of which are illegal in New York.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is no claim to ownership.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That’s incorrect. The landlord paid for removing graffiti. The artists got paid for doing nothing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
Don’t need to. Judge ruled.awesome guy wrote:You're not making your case.ip_law-hokie wrote:awesome guy wrote:They got paid for removing graffiti. How is that sane?ip_law-hokie wrote:There was no trespass.awesome guy wrote:Using logic instead of trolling, explain it. How can anyone reasonably claim ownership over another's property? That's got to register as UnAmerican to you.ip_law-hokie wrote: You should read the entire article.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is no claim to ownership.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That’s incorrect. The landlord paid for removing graffiti. The artists got paid for doing nothing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
No thoughts on it? Just trolling?ip_law-hokie wrote:Don’t need to. Judge ruled.awesome guy wrote:You're not making your case.ip_law-hokie wrote:awesome guy wrote:They got paid for removing graffiti. How is that sane?ip_law-hokie wrote:There was no trespass.awesome guy wrote:Using logic instead of trolling, explain it. How can anyone reasonably claim ownership over another's property? That's got to register as UnAmerican to you.
There is no claim to ownership.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That’s incorrect. The landlord paid for removing graffiti. The artists got paid for doing nothing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
-
- Posts: 3192
- Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:27 pm
Re: Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
While i agree with you 100% and this is insane level stupid, apparently there is some sort of public art domain in NYC if it becomes a "landmark" or some bullshit. Yes, the guy owned the building, but apparently it was "publicly" known as an art scape? or some nonsense? These spray can vagrants are getting paid- large on a technicality basically. They hit the lottery- only betterHokie5150 wrote:The owner should counter sue for vandalism damages and press charges for trespassing and graffiti...both of which are illegal in New York.ip_law-hokie wrote:on his property. 6.75 million.
And it appears the court nailed it too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... 7da16dbd4e
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
They should have to pay him then for taking over his property.CFB Apologist wrote:While i agree with you 100% and this is insane level stupid, apparently there is some sort of public art domain in NYC if it becomes a "landmark" or some bullshit. Yes, the guy owned the building, but apparently it was "publicly" known as an art scape? or some nonsense? These spray can vagrants are getting paid- large on a technicality basically. They hit the lottery- only betterHokie5150 wrote:The owner should counter sue for vandalism damages and press charges for trespassing and graffiti...both of which are illegal in New York.ip_law-hokie wrote:on his property. 6.75 million.
And it appears the court nailed it too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... 7da16dbd4e
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
-
- Posts: 3192
- Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:27 pm
Re: Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
You would think, but the biggest head scratcher continues to be that apparently if he just dozed the buildings altogether, the "artists" would not get a dime? Afterall, they are "his", but covering the art while the building is still standing is a no-no? makes zero sense- but typical inner city NY trash.awesome guy wrote:They should have to pay him then for taking over his property.CFB Apologist wrote:While i agree with you 100% and this is insane level stupid, apparently there is some sort of public art domain in NYC if it becomes a "landmark" or some bullshit. Yes, the guy owned the building, but apparently it was "publicly" known as an art scape? or some nonsense? These spray can vagrants are getting paid- large on a technicality basically. They hit the lottery- only betterHokie5150 wrote:The owner should counter sue for vandalism damages and press charges for trespassing and graffiti...both of which are illegal in New York.ip_law-hokie wrote:on his property. 6.75 million.
And it appears the court nailed it too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... 7da16dbd4e
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
This is speculation, but I think the Judge denied the preliminary injunction against demolishing the museum, but informed the owner not to remove the art. The PI was likely denied as not ripe, as the landlord did not yet have the proper permits in place to demolish the building.CFB Apologist wrote:You would think, but the biggest head scratcher continues to be that apparently if he just dozed the buildings altogether, the "artists" would not get a dime? Afterall, they are "his", but covering the art while the building is still standing is a no-no? makes zero sense- but typical inner city NY trash.awesome guy wrote:They should have to pay him then for taking over his property.CFB Apologist wrote:While i agree with you 100% and this is insane level stupid, apparently there is some sort of public art domain in NYC if it becomes a "landmark" or some bullshit. Yes, the guy owned the building, but apparently it was "publicly" known as an art scape? or some nonsense? These spray can vagrants are getting paid- large on a technicality basically. They hit the lottery- only betterHokie5150 wrote:The owner should counter sue for vandalism damages and press charges for trespassing and graffiti...both of which are illegal in New York.ip_law-hokie wrote:on his property. 6.75 million.
And it appears the court nailed it too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... 7da16dbd4e
The landlord takes the denial of the PI as license to do as he wishes He whitewashes the art, pisses off the judge, and gets stung.
You guys are also missing the fact fhat these artists were former tenants.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
So? They didn't rent the outside wall. The owner should be able to paint it if he wants.ip_law-hokie wrote:This is speculation, but I think the Judge denied the preliminary injunction against demolishing the museum, but informed the owner not to remove the art. The PI was likely denied as not ripe, as the landlord did not yet have the proper permits in place to demolish the building.CFB Apologist wrote:You would think, but the biggest head scratcher continues to be that apparently if he just dozed the buildings altogether, the "artists" would not get a dime? Afterall, they are "his", but covering the art while the building is still standing is a no-no? makes zero sense- but typical inner city NY trash.awesome guy wrote:They should have to pay him then for taking over his property.CFB Apologist wrote:While i agree with you 100% and this is insane level stupid, apparently there is some sort of public art domain in NYC if it becomes a "landmark" or some bullshit. Yes, the guy owned the building, but apparently it was "publicly" known as an art scape? or some nonsense? These spray can vagrants are getting paid- large on a technicality basically. They hit the lottery- only betterHokie5150 wrote:The owner should counter sue for vandalism damages and press charges for trespassing and graffiti...both of which are illegal in New York.ip_law-hokie wrote:on his property. 6.75 million.
And it appears the court nailed it too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... 7da16dbd4e
The landlord takes the denial of the PI as license to do as he wishes He whitewashes the art, pisses off the judge, and gets stung.
You guys are also missing the fact fhat these artists were former tenants.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
-
- Posts: 18547
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm
Re: Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
Not true.CFB Apologist wrote:Agree- if he would have just set a bulldozer to them one day, no issue by law. But to paint over them..blasphemy apparently. Ridiculous133743Hokie wrote:Only in NYC would a judge rule in favor of graffiti artists over the property owner because of hurt feelings. Essentially, the ruling didn't say he didn't have a right to paint over the graffiti and to ultimately tear down the building, but rather that he was mean and spiteful (how dare they tell him what he can so with his building!) and didn't consider the feelings of the artists and the community.
The building owner needs to go over this bleeding hearts head all the way to the supreme court if necessary.
First, the VARA is a federal law, not a NY law.
Second, I'm guessing the demolition of the buildings would have required that the owners preserve the walls that contain the murals so that they could be rebuilt somewhere else. That at least would have been a possible solution.
But, maybe the artists heard about the new project and starting doing things to piss off the owners, so the owners decided to say screw you.
And maybe the owners did some estimates and figured out that it would cost more to preserve the "art" than to just pay the settlement.
I do think it's stupid that they had to pay out anything, because I can't see how the artists were harmed in any way. They're taking themselves too seriously.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
Nope. Not if there is a civic interest.awesome guy wrote:So? They didn't rent the outside wall. The owner should be able to paint it if he wants.ip_law-hokie wrote:This is speculation, but I think the Judge denied the preliminary injunction against demolishing the museum, but informed the owner not to remove the art. The PI was likely denied as not ripe, as the landlord did not yet have the proper permits in place to demolish the building.CFB Apologist wrote:You would think, but the biggest head scratcher continues to be that apparently if he just dozed the buildings altogether, the "artists" would not get a dime? Afterall, they are "his", but covering the art while the building is still standing is a no-no? makes zero sense- but typical inner city NY trash.awesome guy wrote:They should have to pay him then for taking over his property.CFB Apologist wrote:While i agree with you 100% and this is insane level stupid, apparently there is some sort of public art domain in NYC if it becomes a "landmark" or some bullshit. Yes, the guy owned the building, but apparently it was "publicly" known as an art scape? or some nonsense? These spray can vagrants are getting paid- large on a technicality basically. They hit the lottery- only betterHokie5150 wrote: The owner should counter sue for vandalism damages and press charges for trespassing and graffiti...both of which are illegal in New York.
The landlord takes the denial of the PI as license to do as he wishes He whitewashes the art, pisses off the judge, and gets stung.
You guys are also missing the fact fhat these artists were former tenants.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
Nope. That's commie talk.ip_law-hokie wrote:Nope. Not if there is a civic interest.awesome guy wrote:So? They didn't rent the outside wall. The owner should be able to paint it if he wants.ip_law-hokie wrote:This is speculation, but I think the Judge denied the preliminary injunction against demolishing the museum, but informed the owner not to remove the art. The PI was likely denied as not ripe, as the landlord did not yet have the proper permits in place to demolish the building.CFB Apologist wrote:You would think, but the biggest head scratcher continues to be that apparently if he just dozed the buildings altogether, the "artists" would not get a dime? Afterall, they are "his", but covering the art while the building is still standing is a no-no? makes zero sense- but typical inner city NY trash.awesome guy wrote:They should have to pay him then for taking over his property.CFB Apologist wrote: While i agree with you 100% and this is insane level stupid, apparently there is some sort of public art domain in NYC if it becomes a "landmark" or some bullshit. Yes, the guy owned the building, but apparently it was "publicly" known as an art scape? or some nonsense? These spray can vagrants are getting paid- large on a technicality basically. They hit the lottery- only better
The landlord takes the denial of the PI as license to do as he wishes He whitewashes the art, pisses off the judge, and gets stung.
You guys are also missing the fact fhat these artists were former tenants.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- Major Kong
- Posts: 15759
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:35 pm
- Alma Mater: Ferrum VT ASU
- Party: Independent
- Location: Somewhere between Marion and Seven Mile Ford
Re: Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
The owner can declare the wall was friable asbestos and whitewashing the wall is considered encapsulation hence saving the public from asbestos fibers.
I only post using 100% recycled electrons.
Re: Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
Nope.ip_law-hokie wrote:You’d be wrong.HokieJoe wrote:F the 'artist(s)' and F the community. It's a personal property issue. End of story.133743Hokie wrote:Only in NYC would a judge rule in favor of graffiti artists over the property owner because of hurt feelings. Essentially, the ruling didn't say he didn't have a right to paint over the graffiti and to ultimately tear down the building, but rather that he was mean and spiteful (how dare they tell him what he can so with his building!) and didn't consider the feelings of the artists and the community.
The building owner needs to go over this bleeding hearts head all the way to the supreme court if necessary.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
Got it.HokieJoe wrote:Nope.ip_law-hokie wrote:You’d be wrong.HokieJoe wrote:F the 'artist(s)' and F the community. It's a personal property issue. End of story.133743Hokie wrote:Only in NYC would a judge rule in favor of graffiti artists over the property owner because of hurt feelings. Essentially, the ruling didn't say he didn't have a right to paint over the graffiti and to ultimately tear down the building, but rather that he was mean and spiteful (how dare they tell him what he can so with his building!) and didn't consider the feelings of the artists and the community.
The building owner needs to go over this bleeding hearts head all the way to the supreme court if necessary.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Re: Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
The artist got paid for defacing another's property.ip_law-hokie wrote:The landlord paid for removing graffiti. The artists got paid for doing nothing.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
That’s simply incorrect. The works were created with the permission of the landlord.Hokie5150 wrote:The artist got paid for defacing another's property.ip_law-hokie wrote:The landlord paid for removing graffiti. The artists got paid for doing nothing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Re: Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
Being a tenant allows one to vandalize the building?ip_law-hokie wrote:You guys are also missing the fact fhat these artists were former tenants.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
So? How do they all of a sudden own it?ip_law-hokie wrote:That’s simply incorrect. The works were created with the permission of the landlord.Hokie5150 wrote:The artist got paid for defacing another's property.ip_law-hokie wrote:The landlord paid for removing graffiti. The artists got paid for doing nothing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Liberal Court fines landowner for removing graffiti
When it’s rented out to be a graffiti museum, yes.Hokie5150 wrote:Being a tenant allows one to vandalize the building?ip_law-hokie wrote:You guys are also missing the fact fhat these artists were former tenants.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.