Art vs. Trespassing and Vandalism

Graffiti artists suing 5Pointz owner for whitewashing their work from building

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/artists-suing-5pointz-owner-whitewashing-work-article-1.2256710

The plaintiffs — well-known taggers from New York, London and elsewhere — said developer Jerry Wolkoff broke the law by covering up the graffiti mecca without giving them time to retrieve their work.

Nine graffiti artists who spray painted creations across the world-renowned 5Pointz building filed a lawsuit Friday in Brooklyn federal court, seeking unspecified damages from the owner who whitewashed away their artwork.

The plaintiffs — well-known taggers from New York, London and elsewhere — said developer Jerry Wolkoff broke the law by covering up the graffiti mecca without giving them time to retrieve their work.

The aerosol artists say they are owed substantial cash damages because Wolkoff painted over their al fresco works.

In 2013, members of the 5Pointz nonprofit sued to try and stop Wolkoff from tearing down the buildings to construct new development.

They lost that battle, but Brooklyn Federal Judge Frederic Block noted in his ruling that they could be owed damages if their graffiti works qualified for “recognized stature.”

Such works are protected under the U.S. Visual Artists Rights Acts.

The “ephemeral nature” of graffiti on a building exterior would come into play, Block said.

The judge said some of the works cited, including a famous piece from Lady Pink titled “Green Mother Earth,” might have qualified for protection.

The artists who sued Friday were not given any warning from Wolkoff that a whitewash was coming — and therefore had no time to pull down or preserve their artwork, their attorney said.

The iconic buildings had more than 350 works of visual art on the walls — inside and out — when Wolkoff destroyed them, the lawsuit said.

Some of the pieces could have gone to museums, had the artists been given notice, the suit said.

“Our clients seek justice for the unlawful destruction of their artwork. This case will demonstrate that these cherished works of art must be protected to the fullest extent of the law,” said attorney Eric Baum of Eisenberg & Baum, who filed the suit.

“This case is not only brought on behalf of plaintiffs, but it sends a message to everyone that the unlawful destruction of artwork will not be tolerated. If anyone violates federal law under the Visual Rights Act, they must be held accountable,” added Baum.

The creation of 5Pointz dates to 1993, when Wolkoff first let visual arts use the derelict Long Island City property he owned as their large-scale canvases.

By 2002, well known artist Jonathan Cohen was running 5Pointz as an artist installation — attracting tagging talent from around the globe.

The iconic buildings had more than 350 works of visual art on the walls — inside and out — when Wolkoff destroyed them, the lawsuit said.

The colorful, eye-catching creations were torn down for good last summer.

He owns the building right? He can paint if he wants to. Case closed.

In reply to Nick_Comstock:

Thank you. I hope that this is thrown out of court very quickly.

Also note that the building was torn down last year.

They put it there for free under cover of darkness, and now they want money?

In reply to SVreX:

It seems like he gave them permission to tag the building. But still, his building, his prerogative.

In reply to Nick_Comstock:

Oh. Missed that part.

I agree with you.

How were the artists supposed to retreive their art? This is silly. I expected an onion symbol at the end.

Nick_Comstock wrote: He owns the building right? He can paint if he wants to. Case closed.

You've never tangled with a historic registry or the likes, have you?

Apparently, ownership is irrelevant.

Recognized stature VARA

He should have had a fire instead.

foxtrapper wrote:

Nick_Comstock wrote: He owns the building right? He can paint if he wants to. Case closed.

You've never tangled with a historic registry or the likes, have you?

I think an historic registry would have a big problem with covering it with graffiti if that was an issue.

As for that law, well, lets just say some lawmakers and judges are complete idiots.

In reply to Nick_Comstock:

That's not the way historic registries work.

People assume there is some amount of architectural significance or style to be preserved.

In actuality, registires pick a moment in time, and work toward preservation of the structure or neighborhood at that moment.

1965 is old enough to be on a National Historic Registry.

So, you can have a neighborhood of split levels that had graffiti on all of the garages in 1975, that has remained essentially unchanged since, except for the deterioration of time.

This neighborhood could qualify, and the graffiti would officially be historic. It would be offered all of the protections of a 200 year old Victorian.

It didn't sound like they are going quite down the historic preservation, but there is some legislation to protect noteworthy/valuable works of art. So he provided the canvas to artists, they created something they argue was noteworthy/valuable for the benefit of the public - so he no longer has the right to destroy it at will. At least that's the argument. His side is I had a derelict old building and I let these graffiti people play with it until I got around to knocking it down.

So at what point do you not own what you own?

You never own what you think you own.

You keep using that word. I do not believe it means what you think it means.

In reply to Appleseed:

Inconceivable!

If he only had a holocaust cloak.

I hope he wins but this is New York. A number of judges feel its their job to redistribute greedy property owner's money to starving artists.

T.J. wrote: How were the artists supposed to retreive their art? This is silly. I expected an onion symbol at the end.

This was my thought.. It's not like it's a freaking canvas they can roll up and take with them. It's a brick wall. you can't roll up a brick wall.

t25torx wrote:

T.J. wrote: How were the artists supposed to retreive their art? This is silly. I expected an onion symbol at the end.

This was my thought.. It's not like it's a freaking canvas they can roll up and take with them. It's a brick wall. you can't roll up a brick wall.

but i'm sure there are federal and state grants to pay for stuff like this... so, my guess is that the taxpayers would have been on the hook to preserve the "art" that people put on someone else's property for free..

hey... this gives me an idea to help save a building they are going to tear down here in town.. they are going to tear down the old school building that was built in the 1930's because they decided that the rooms in that building aren't as good for teaching kids as similarly shaped rooms in a shiny brand new building that they built outside of town, so they are starting the demolition process as of a week ago... maybe i can go spray paint a bunch of Metallica, SLAYER, Megadeth, and Anthrax logos all over it and claim that they can't tear it down because the "Big 4" changed the face of heavy metal forever and i did it as a homage to them.. should be able to tie things up in court for years and wind up with a multi million dollar settlement out of it if i play itright..

eh.

I don't necessarily buy the artist's arguments here. But that doesn't mean the owner is some saint. The guy let a large property rot for 40 years. I'm sure that was great for the neighborhood.

Some folks with spray-bombs made it an attraction (with his permission). They curated the content and made it a respected part of this particular art world. That's more than the he did in all those years. (I enjoyed seeing the place from the 7 train - very, very striking. Wish I'd made it a point to visit when I lived in NYC)

After other people did the hard work to turn the neighborhood around and his investment was assured, the owner said "berkeley you" to those people who actually did something positive with the property. Rather than work with them to preserve some of their positive contributions, he did the childish thing of just erasing it. If the art isn't there, you can't have a debate about its value, can you?

He also tried to trademark the name of the complex, because "5pointz" just the sort of creative name that Long Island developers are known for coming up with! (the USPTO denied the request, but not because it wasn't his creation). I'm sure his intentions for that name were only the best and would in no way have traded off of other people's hard work.

None of this is surprising, given the typical behavior of NYC landowners/developers, but Jerry Wolkoff is not someone I'd rush to canonize.

Incidentally, what we're talking about is this:

Not this:

personally, i think buildings look like crap when they've got a bunch of E36 M3 spray painted on them.. all those tagged train cars look like E36 M3, too..

but it is art, i guess, and they chose to put it on someone else's property. if he wants to knock it down, that's his prerogative. maybe all those artist should pool all of their money together and buy their own rundown E36 M3hole of a building and do whatever they want with it..

peter wrote: Incidentally, what we're talking about is this: Not this:

They're both equally ugly to me. When I see a building or train car or bridge covered in that crap it makes me sick. But I despise cities anyway.

Regardless of what I feel about this so called "art" I don't believe an artist should hold any rights to there work once it's sold. Someone else bought it, it belongs to them now you got paid for it, your obligation is done.

In this case, the artist never had any rights to the work because they put it on someone else's property. It never belonged to them. In my opinion.

Where I would make the distinction been this and what SVreX is talking about I'd that the guy didn't buy the property with the "art" on it. It was his property before the "art" was put on and therefore it's his property to do with as he wishes. To look at it any other way is idiotic. Again, in my opinion.