> What alarms me is the inability to think through consequences. If the artist wins this case, property owners will stop letting artists paint on their buildin

> What alarms me is the inability to think through consequences. If the artist wins this case, property owners will stop letting artists paint on their buildings. They'd be stupid not to. Permitting it would be giving artists a permanent easement on their property. But if people want to go that way and destroy an art form.. This apology is rather off-base. It's not like property owners generally permit artists to paint on their buildings in the first place. 5Pointz was a different case in that the landlord permitted the use of the building as a museum and charged for its use. It wasn't an illicit or secret subversion of the property; it was the agreed-upon, intended use for about two decades. There's lots and lots of case law for this. It's not new. It's not like ruling in favor of 5Pointz would create some new, anti-artist precedent. (Yes, that may be what the lawyers representing the landlord want you to think, but it's very demonstrably wrong.)