Graffiti Artists Triumph Over NY Developer Who Destroyed Their Work

Graffiti Artists Triumph Over NY Developer Who Destroyed Their Work Intellectual Property Lawsuit

The only branch of law that is more obtuse and arcane than copyright is property  law, so when the two intersect there is no easy way to predict what will happen.

The Guardian reports that a New York property magnate has lost a landmark copyright lawsuit:

A jury has ruled that a real estate developer broke the law by destroying a swath of graffiti art in New York City, in a verdict that could provide legal protections for street artists across the US.

The federal jury made its decision after a group of artists sued Jerry Wolkoff, who painted over their work at the 5Pointz building in Queens, New York City, in November 2013.

5Pointz, a former factory owned by Wolkoff, was a haven for graffiti artists from around the world and became a prominent tourist attraction. Wolkoff had given the artists permission to use the building as a canvas for “aerosol art” and the building was covered in multicolored murals and tags.

...

On Wednesday the jury decided that the artists’ work was legally protected under the Visual Artists Rights Act (Vara), and that meant that Wolkoff had broken the law. It was the first time graffiti, or “aerosol art” had been given that protection under federal law, potentially meaning thousands of graffiti murals across the country could now be preserved.

One would think that the building's owner would also own any decorations applied to the structure, but it's not that simple. The artists won their suit based on what is better known as moral rights clauses of copyright

Moral rights refer to a creator's right to things like attribution, the use of their name on works they did not create, and the right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification of their work. . This is a part of copyright law overreach that the US has mostly avoided implementing, although it has been codified into law in Europe.

Under VARA, the graffiti artists have the right to keep their work from being "distorted, mutilated, or modified".

While I'm sure that everyone has jumped to the worst case scenario, that this means a single piece of graffiti defacing a building can keep it from being remodeled or demolished, fortunately, the situation is not nearly that dire.

According to the summary posted by Harvard Law School, VARA includes a couple major loopholes that the building's owner could have used to their benefit.

The owner could have negotiated a contract with the artists which acknowledged the owner's intent to demolish the building (and artwork) at some point, or the owner could have complied with VARA by giving 90 days notice so that the artists could remove their work.

No, I don't think the artwork was removable, either, but that 90 days notice would have shifted the responsibility from the building's owner to the artists.

Lawyers are hesitant to bring VARA lawsuits unless the suit is a slamdunk, so that notice might probably have saved the developer from years of legal battles.

On the other hand, maybe not. The artists had lost a couple VARA lawsuits before finally winning this one. They had the resources and inclination to fight a legal battle where the odds were stacked against them, so even if the law were 100% against them they might still have fought.

image by sach1t

Nate Hoffelder

View posts by Nate Hoffelder
Nate Hoffelder is the founder and editor of The Digital Reader: He's here to chew bubble gum and fix broken websites, and he is all out of bubble gum. He has been blogging about indie authors since 2010 while learning new tech skills at the drop of a hat. He fixes author sites, and shares what he learns on The Digital Reader's blog. In his spare time, he fosters dogs for A Forever Home, a local rescue group.

4 Comments

  1. gbm14 November, 2017

    This is a completely wrong judgment that will be over turned on appeal.

    This puts all property owners in a catch22, get sued by the graffiti artists or get fined by the city/zoning board. That building would have been fined for now removal of graffiti in every major city I have lived in.

    Reply
  2. Harvey Stanbrough15 November, 2017

    To me the whole thing is simple: the building owner gave the artists permission to use his building as a canvas. In the absense of a contract clause that terminates that permission, he has no right to destroy the works.

    Had the “street artists” (read “taggers”) not had his permission, as is most often the case, they defaced his property. Period. Good luck holding them liable.

    Reply
  3. Albin Foro15 November, 2017

    You’re shorting one of the important considerations of VARA (from the Guardian article):

    “The legal team had to prove the artists’ work was of “recognized stature” – rising to the level of merit under Vara … In court Baum pointed to the artists’ years of experience and recognition within their field as proof of the merit of their work.”

    It’s not about any twerp with a spray can holding property owners hostage. It’s an interesting area of law. Worth remembering that, as in academic publishing, often the “moral rights” to attribution and integrity of artwork is far more consequential to a career and the public interest than its market commodity value.

    Reply
  4. Allen F15 November, 2017

    Give an inch and they’ll take a mile.

    The taggers knew their art would only last until the next tagger tagged it, yet were up in arms when it was taken down?

    Yeah, property owner should have just made monthly calls to the cops about the tagging, then there’d be no leg for them to stand on …

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to top
%d bloggers like this: