Initially I was concerned that someone was copying and reselling the works of others. However once reading I have to side with the developers and/or owners of t

Initially I was concerned that someone was copying and reselling the works of others. However once reading I have to side with the developers and/or owners of the property. Those being sued are simply being sued because they have the means to pay. It simply comes down to one fact. The art was all temporary with artist after artist replacing some of those before them. Their work is not being exploited by others for profit. Hence they are not owed anything, nothing was done under commission and it had been they would have been paid at the time. this is a money grab with a group attempting to play the victimization card. if those demolishing the buildings had no money there would never have been any issue raised nor if the buildings had been torn down for safety issues.