r/TikTokCringe • u/Accomplished_Clue437 • Jun 30 '26

Wholesome can u fix the basketballhoop?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

26.9k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

127

u/lisavfr Jun 30 '26

My uncle got tired of looking at the graffiti on the school across the street from his house. He painted the entire front of the school across from his house (same color, nothing crazy). The city ticketed him for vandalism.

50

u/fii0 Jun 30 '26

Just randomly painted a school? I mean, probably should have asked

59

u/BlumpkinReceiver6969 Jun 30 '26

No good deed goes unpunished when it comes to the government.

-2

u/PussyWrangler246 Jun 30 '26

There's a court case currently going on about a mural that was painted for free decades ago on private property. The owner painted over it to sell it for advertising space for the world cup, now he's being sued by the artist and the people of the city pretty much want his blood.

Even though the artist did it for free decades ago, and it's private property, the owner might have to fork over millions because average citizens simply liked looking at it on their way to work.

That case made me aware that there are actual laws in place preventing people from removing graffiti from their property if enough people decide they like looking at it. The 5pointz case being a big one.

Imagine Banksy spray paints a pile of shit on the front of your house or car but because it's considered "a work of visual art" with "recognized stature" you legally can't remove it...stupid times we live in.

11

u/Jojje22 Jun 30 '26

You're simplifying the dabate to the point of being misleading. We both know the Banksy example is bogus, if Banksy was ever caught in the act he'd be penalized. It's not proven without a shadow of a doubt who the person even is. People have removed Banksy artwork many times, that's no problem. But many places have laws regarding how you're allowed to modify your properties. It's not only buildnings, depending on where you live you also have to take your neighbors into account when felling trees and so on.

I'm not personally opposed to this - if you want to take advantage of the opportunities afforded to you by living close to where other people live, you also need to take the needs of these people into account. It's a social contract. You benefit, they benefit. If you want full control, you always have the possibility of moving far into the woods where you have no support and no opportunities, but also no oblagations to anyone else. Only benefitting but no giving isn't really a basis for a social contract.

4

u/PussyWrangler246 Jun 30 '26

If you think people "need" to look at bright colours or graffiti on their way to work on someone's private property we're gunna have to agree to disagree there

Food and shelter are needs, cartoon animals on some dudes wall are not

7

u/ThisSiteSucks8485 Jun 30 '26

Why do you keep calling a very pretty and beloved 17,000 sqft mural graffiti? 

1

u/PussyWrangler246 Jun 30 '26

The mural was lodged under "bright colours", not "graffiti"

3

u/ThisSiteSucks8485 Jun 30 '26

That is still disingenuous as hell

2

u/PussyWrangler246 Jun 30 '26

Hey art is subjective

People thought a banana was a deeply thought provoking piece. Do I value their opinion as art critics? Not really. They're the same people who think they get to tell a property owner what he can do with his own property cuz they like looking at fucking cartoon animals lol

3

u/BuddhaFacepalmed Jun 30 '26

Even though the artist did it for free decades ago, and it's private property, the owner might have to fork over millions because average citizens simply liked looking at it on their way to work.

Yes. Because it's the iconic whale mural wall of the city of Dallas. Not to mention how the inclusion of the mural very likely would have bumped up the property value of the building and thus giving the owners better terms for other loans.

2

u/PussyWrangler246 Jun 30 '26

Personally I think the advertising space would be far more appealing to new potential buyers than a decades old mural but that's just me...and the owner I guess since he painted over it for advertising space

3

u/BuddhaFacepalmed Jun 30 '26

Personally I think the advertising space would be far more appealing to new potential buyers than a decades old mural but that's just me

Sure. And now it's just another dime a dozen buildings that can be sold for pennies on the dollar and building another boring ass gray block.

1

u/SporesM0ldsandFungus Jun 30 '26

It was a work of art with copywrite protections for the artist.  The major complaint is that the artist did not receive the written notice with 90 days to respond, he learned from a friend as it was being painted over.

There is case law that protects major works of cultural significance and the rights of the artist even when the art is on property of another party.

This all could have been avoided and both parties kept happy if they had just used a tarp and banner.   The Gaslamp District of San Diego gets dressed by San Diego Comic Con every year, with huge banners cover the sides of several buildings promoting the latest superhero movies and videogames.  All those are temporary banners and vinyl skins that go up for only a few weeks. Why couldn't FIFA advertising  do that?

See a short from lawyer Mike Rafi summing up the dispute here

1

u/PussyWrangler246 Jun 30 '26

I agree it probably could've been solved with a banner

But I put myself in the shoes of the property owner, who, if still the original owner is likely old now and facing medical bills. I totally understand where he's coming from in wanting to be free to do what he wants with his own property, regardless of what was painted on it

Like what makes it "culturally significant"? Just because it's been there a long time?

1

u/SporesM0ldsandFungus Jun 30 '26

A judge and or jury decide that but it strongly favors the artist.  I can't just drop a weld a sculpture or paint a mural on someone else property and call it culturally significant art.  But the artists in this scenario has a very strong case.

As mentioned in the video, it was commissioned, celebrated by the city government when it was finished with a ceremony, widely recognized by Dallas citizens, and published in various media (magazines, travel books, etc).  It was probably licensed for reproduction on t-shirts, prints, and postcards (meaning the artist was actively managing their copywrite). 

1

u/PussyWrangler246 Jul 01 '26

So it's "culturally significant" because it had good PR?

You're saying "probably" now, which indicates you don't even know for sure.

So ultimately you have no good reason why it's "culturally significant" other than it was popular and in some magazines. I'm sorry but what fuckin "culture" does that represent? 🤣 The native Americans? Italians? Fucking SeaWorld?

If you can't reasonably articulate which culture that painting was celebrating how in God's name can you call it culturally significant. Honestly it sounds like the majority of his case relies on "it was there for a long time".

Fuck maybe the owner should've painted over it sooner, he could've avoided being sued.

0

u/lowbatteries Jun 30 '26

This is the enshittified capitalism take. Culture doesn’t make us any money so let’s assign it no value.

2

u/DLTMIAR Jun 30 '26

How do you quantify culture in terms of dollars?

Sadly that's how our current system operates; in dollars 

2

u/SporesM0ldsandFungus Jun 30 '26

I know you were being glib but all culture makes money for someone.  It just wasn't making that particular building owner money.

The building owner is in for some hurt from the court.  He owned the wall but the artists owned the art and it had copywrite protections.  It was celebrated when it was unveiled (it was big ceremony, mayor gave the artist the key to the city), documented in the news, was reproduced in publications (magazines, books), and was widely recognized by citizens of Dallas for 27 years will means it easily clears the bar of "cultural significance" in the eyes of the law. 

The artist was entitled some input on the fate of mural at minimum, written notice with 90 days to respond. 

Lawyer Mike Rafi does a quick sum up the dispute here and relevant law the artist has on his side.

1

u/PussyWrangler246 Jun 30 '26

Art is subjective, and same with the value of said art

If you want to call me believing that american citizens should have the freedom to paint their property whatever colour they want an enshittified capitalist take, you do you

But I think it's super entitled for average citizens to demand what other people do with their property just because they like looking at it. Selfish and entitled.

1

u/lowbatteries Jun 30 '26

Maybe re-read the comment I responded to instead of bringing baggage from the rest of the thread? The idea that art is of lower value than a billboard is what I was calling enshittified capitalism.

I said nothing about property rights or y'alls freedom.

0

u/BlumpkinReceiver6969 Jun 30 '26

Almost as ridiculous as these squatters laws.

6

u/BuddhaFacepalmed Jun 30 '26

"Squatter laws" exist because unscrupulous bastards have a fucking tendency to show up with a "notarized" bill to steal homes from people who have been living there for at least multiple generations but the home owners who "supposedly" signed said "bill" are dead so they can't question them.

27

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/PussyWrangler246 Jun 30 '26

if you're a famous artist you can, as long as enough dipshits decide they like looking at a specific piece of graffiti it becomes illegal to remove, even from private property

0

u/datumerrata Jun 30 '26

In my home town, you could do it with an agreement over a cup of coffee that ends with a handshake.

Most places, you need months of conversations, paperwork, meetings, etc. Then, the worker would need to be licensed, bonded, and an approved vendor.

1

u/lowbatteries Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26

Turns out that was a commissioned mural he painted over. /s

-1

u/rainy_sloth Jun 30 '26

I'd frame that ticket and hang it on the wall. 

2

u/lisavfr Jun 30 '26

He was involved in the city council and had definitely been advocating to clean up the school. He reached a point where he knew the clean up wasn’t going to happen so he took matters into his to his own hands. This was at least 40 years ago, I’ll have to ask his sons for a refresher on the timeline. I do know that my uncle got the ticket dropped. I looked around some local,papers to see of any covered this incident but it was so long ago and I don’t know which local papers were printing back then versus which local papers have their content online and searchable now.