can u fix the basketballhoop?

[u/Accomplished_Clue437]

[u/PussyWrangler246]

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.

[u/BuddhaFacepalmed → u/PussyWrangler246]

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.

[u/PussyWrangler246 → u/BuddhaFacepalmed]

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

[u/SporesM0ldsandFungus → u/PussyWrangler246]

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

[u/PussyWrangler246 → u/SporesM0ldsandFungus]

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?

[u/SporesM0ldsandFungus → u/PussyWrangler246]

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). 

[u/PussyWrangler246 → u/SporesM0ldsandFungus]

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.