Yes, this was 2 years ago ;-)

Great news !!!

My first thought too was delight for the writers. But, having discussed this with friends, I have second thoughts. Is it not the case that building owners sympathetic to artists might now be put off allowing artists and writers from painting legally on their buildings in the future?

But why would the building owner owe any sort of explanation to the artist. Even if he had previously Allowed it, so what?
Was there a contract?

It sounds like the judge wanted to flex his power because the guy didnt wait long a enough for a specific permit to go through.

Although I previously commented on the 5Pointz case in a separate thread*, it seemed worthwhile to have another go.

__________


Indeed, good news for those 45 artists. At least for their bank accounts.

[I'm well aware of the gratuitous and reprehensible behaviour of the now-deceased Gerald Wolkoff. Even so, it looks as if the artists were rewarded for being chancers — for having spotted a financial opportunity and chosen to bite the hand that had (for many years) fed them.]

__________


But good news for street art in general? I would challenge that assertion.

[As a brief aside, reference to "thus recognizes intellectual property in this [street art] field" also felt misleading and a bit muddled to me. Moral rights were recognised in a specific situation, under quite specific circumstances. And that's largely it.]


Two scenarios for consideration (the first having previously been mentioned in this thread):


1.  Place yourself in the position of one of thousands of property owners or developers in the United States, with property that is currently not in use. It may be that you're weighing up the different development options available. Or perhaps dealing with planning permission issues. But whatever the reason for your property being in a temporary state of limbo, that situation could foreseeably continue for months or years to come.

Imagine you're then approached by a friendly graffiti writer who asks the following:

Since the buildings will eventually be torn down anyway and the entire property redeveloped, would you mind allowing his fellow artists to come over in the meantime to paint on the walls, under his curation?


It's a compelling proposition — one that would allow you to support the arts community at no real financial cost or material inconvenience to yourself. You'd become a patron. The writers would have a space to hone their craft and showcase their skills. Sounds like a win-win.

Now, in your capacity as an owner or developer with future plans for their property, would the 5Pointz court decision make you more likely or less likely to open your door to artists who wish to paint on your walls?

For individuals who might otherwise have been amenable to fostering the arts, I'd argue the court ruling will make them much more hesitant about giving artists access to their property.

[Expressed a different way, if presented with a choice, how many people would volunteer to (i) pick up a gun which may or may not be loaded, (ii) point it at their foot, and then (iii) pull the trigger in the hope that the gun isn't loaded?]


2.  Imagine both of us are among the tens or hundreds of thousands of street artists or graffiti writers in the USA.

I discover a prominent outdoor wall and paint on it. Days or months later, in time-honoured fashion, you go over my work with your own piece. Or, alternatively, you add your own work in an uninvited collaborative effort which alters the substance, context or tone of what I painted.

Under certain circumstances (for example, if enough street-art bloggers had written about my piece, or enough tourists had taken photos of it, and it were therefore deemed by some to be a "work of recognised stature"), the 5Pointz precedent would seem to allow me to sue you. This, notwithstanding the fact it would be a prat-like move on my part, going completely against the widely-recognised (and accepted) rules of graffiti and street art.

It does beg the question:

If I can rely upon the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) to issue legal proceedings in a damages claim against you (or anybody else who goes over my work), how is this "good news for street art in general"?