United We Stand - uwsboard.com

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 owner should counter sue for vandalism damages and press charges for trespassing and graffiti...both of which are illegal in New York.

Hokie5150 wrote:

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 owner should counter sue for vandalism damages and press charges for trespassing and graffiti...both of which are illegal in New York.

You should read the entire article.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Hokie5150 wrote:

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 owner should counter sue for vandalism damages and press charges for trespassing and graffiti...both of which are illegal in New York.

You should read the entire article.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Hokie5150 wrote:

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 owner should counter sue for vandalism damages and press charges for trespassing and graffiti...both of which are illegal in New York.

You should read the entire article.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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 was no trespass.

There is no claim to ownership.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Hokie5150 wrote:

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 owner should counter sue for vandalism damages and press charges for trespassing and graffiti...both of which are illegal in New York.

You should read the entire article.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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 was no trespass.

There is no claim to ownership.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They got paid for removing graffiti. How is that sane?

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Hokie5150 wrote:

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 owner should counter sue for vandalism damages and press charges for trespassing and graffiti...both of which are illegal in New York.

You should read the entire article.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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 was no trespass.

There is no claim to ownership.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They got paid for removing graffiti. How is that sane?

That’s incorrect. The landlord paid for removing graffiti. The artists got paid for doing nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

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.

You should read the entire article.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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 was no trespass.

There is no claim to ownership.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They got paid for removing graffiti. How is that sane?

That’s incorrect. The landlord paid for removing graffiti. The artists got paid for doing nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're not making your case.

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote: You should read the entire article.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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 was no trespass.

There is no claim to ownership.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They got paid for removing graffiti. How is that sane?

That’s incorrect. The landlord paid for removing graffiti. The artists got paid for doing nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're not making your case.

Don’t need to. Judge ruled.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

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 was no trespass.

There is no claim to ownership.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They got paid for removing graffiti. How is that sane?

That’s incorrect. The landlord paid for removing graffiti. The artists got paid for doing nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're not making your case.

Don’t need to. Judge ruled.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No thoughts on it? Just trolling?

Hokie5150 wrote:

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 owner should counter sue for vandalism damages and press charges for trespassing and graffiti...both of which are illegal in New York.

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

CFB Apologist wrote:

Hokie5150 wrote:

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 owner should counter sue for vandalism damages and press charges for trespassing and graffiti...both of which are illegal in New York.

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

They should have to pay him then for taking over his property.

awesome guy wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

Hokie5150 wrote:

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 owner should counter sue for vandalism damages and press charges for trespassing and graffiti...both of which are illegal in New York.

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

They should have to pay him then for taking over his property.

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.

CFB Apologist wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

Hokie5150 wrote:

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 owner should counter sue for vandalism damages and press charges for trespassing and graffiti...both of which are illegal in New York.

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

They should have to pay him then for taking over his property.

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.

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.

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

ip_law-hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

Hokie5150 wrote:

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 owner should counter sue for vandalism damages and press charges for trespassing and graffiti...both of which are illegal in New York.

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

They should have to pay him then for taking over his property.

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.

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.

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

So? They didn't rent the outside wall. The owner should be able to paint it if he wants.

CFB Apologist wrote:

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.

Agree- if he would have just set a bulldozer to them one day, no issue by law. But to paint over them..blasphemy apparently. Ridiculous

Not true.
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.

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

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.

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

They should have to pay him then for taking over his property.

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.

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.

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

So? They didn't rent the outside wall. The owner should be able to paint it if he wants.

Nope. Not if there is a civic interest.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

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

They should have to pay him then for taking over his property.

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.

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.

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

So? They didn't rent the outside wall. The owner should be able to paint it if he wants.

Nope. Not if there is a civic interest.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope. That's commie talk.

The owner can declare the wall was friable asbestos and whitewashing the wall is considered encapsulation hence saving the public from asbestos fibers.

ip_law-hokie wrote:

HokieJoe wrote:

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.

F the 'artist(s)' and F the community. It's a personal property issue. End of story.

You’d be wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope.

HokieJoe wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

HokieJoe wrote:

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.

F the 'artist(s)' and F the community. It's a personal property issue. End of story.

You’d be wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope.

Got it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ip_law-hokie wrote:The landlord paid for removing graffiti. The artists got paid for doing nothing.

The artist got paid for defacing another's property.

Hokie5150 wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:The landlord paid for removing graffiti. The artists got paid for doing nothing.

The artist got paid for defacing another's property.

That’s simply incorrect. The works were created with the permission of the landlord.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ip_law-hokie wrote:You guys are also missing the fact fhat these artists were former tenants.

Being a tenant allows one to vandalize the building?

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Hokie5150 wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:The landlord paid for removing graffiti. The artists got paid for doing nothing.

The artist got paid for defacing another's property.

That’s simply incorrect. The works were created with the permission of the landlord.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So? How do they all of a sudden own it?

Hokie5150 wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:You guys are also missing the fact fhat these artists were former tenants.

Being a tenant allows one to vandalize the building?

When it’s rented out to be a graffiti museum, yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk