Federal jury rules that you’re not allowed to remove graffiti from your own building

In New York City, the owner of a building gave graffiti artists permission to put graffiti on his building, with the understanding that the owner would eventually tear the building down.

However, after the owner did tear the building down, the artists filed a lawsuit, and a jury actually agreed with the artists.

A judge will be ruling on this in the future. But as it stands right now, the concept of private property has just been eroded by a huge amount.

And this is a federal ruling, so it applies to the entire country.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/nyregion/5pointz-graffiti-jury.html

Brooklyn Jury Finds 5Pointz Developer Illegally Destroyed Graffiti

November 7, 2017

Ending a trial that explored the question of whether graffiti, despite its transient nature, should be recognized as art, a jury found on Tuesday that a New York City real estate developer broke the law when he tore down the so-called 5Pointz complex in Queens three years ago. Along with the buildings nearly 50 swirling, colorful murals that had been spray-painted on its walls were lost.

The finding by the jury, in Federal District Court in Brooklyn, will serve as a recommendation to the judge who presided over the case and who will render a final verdict.

For the better part of 20 years, 5Pointz, a complex of buildings in Long Island City, was a New York rarity: an aesthetic collaboration between the developer, Jerry Wolkoff, and a scrappy crew of graffiti artists that not only became an offbeat tourist destination, but also helped transform the neighborhood into a thriving residential enclave. Though it eventually became what a lawyer for the artists called the “world’s largest open-air aerosol museum,” its existence was always predicated on Mr. Wolkoff tearing it down and turning the buildings into luxury apartments, which he ultimately did in 2014.

When the artists learned about the demolition, they filed suit against Mr. Wolkoff in Federal District Court in Brooklyn, accusing him of violating the Visual Artists Rights Act, which has been used to protect public art of “recognized stature” created on someone else’s property. During the trial, the artists’ lawyer, Eric Baum, claimed that Mr. Wolkoff had failed to give his clients the proper 90-day notice before he destroyed their work by sending in a team of workers one night to cover it in a coat of white paint.

Mr. Wolkoff’s lawyer, David Ebert, had argued at the trial that V.A.R.A. was irrelevant in the case because it was intended to protect art, not his client’s building. Mr. Ebert also maintained that the 21 artists who had joined the suit had known for years that 5Pointz would eventually come down and contended that they had destroyed more graffiti themselves by constantly changing their paintings than Mr. Wolkoff had in demolishing the structures. In the last decade or so, Mr. Ebert said, about 11,000 murals had come and gone on the walls of the complex.

Even though the jury rendered its decision after hearing three weeks of testimony, near the end of the trial both Mr. Baum and Mr. Ebert agreed that Judge Frederic Block, who presided over the case, should take its verdict only as a recommendation. Judge Block has asked both sides to submit court papers in the coming weeks about the validity of the verdict, at which point he will issue a final decision and, if warranted, force Mr. Wolkoff to pay the artists damages.

Despite this legal quirk, Mr. Baum claimed victory on Tuesday night. “The jury sided strongly with the rights of the artists,” he said. “This is a clear message from the people that the whitewashing of the buildings by its owner was a clear and willful act.”

Mr. Ebert declined to comment on the case.

November 13, 2017. Tags: 5Pointz, Dumb lawsuits, graffiti, Jerry Wolkoff, Politics, Property rights. Art and sculpture, Dumb lawsuits, Politics. 4 comments.