3 ms·

Artists drawing on temporary sections were expected to know that their graffiti would be deleted according to schedule. The owner, on the other hand, deleted gr

Artists drawing on temporary sections were expected to know that their graffiti would be deleted according to schedule. The owner, on the other hand, deleted graffiti in the permanent section without warning, ten months before the section was expected to be torn down.

yostrovs 9y ago
It sounds like the real owner of the walls was the guy setting the schedule of who and when gets to paint said walls. The owner that holds the title to the building has been reduced to one of the artists, if that, who should have known better than to decide what to do with what is actually his own property.
- victorNicollet 9y ago
  I don't understand what you're trying to say. It is a good thing for the owner to be able to willingly give up some of their rights over their property. You wouldn't consider renting a home or office if the owner had the right to kick all of your belongings out of their property, or change the lock and hold them for ransom. The reason why "using someone else's property" can work is precisely because the owner can credibly pledge not to use those rights for a time. This doesn't mean that you own that home or office.
  - yostrovs 9y ago
    I believe in contracts and I doubt there ever was a contract. This seems like someone thought that these walls will be forever theirs, though it was just a matter of a lenient landlord not caring too much about what was going on. And because the landlord wasn't a dick in the first place, but was a nice guy who let them use the walls he owned to display their art for free to a giant audience, he now owes them $6.5 million!! These people have probably never made $6.5 million between them.
    - victorNicollet 9y ago
      I'm not a native speaker so I'm not sure if it applies to the word "contract" that you are using, but in France a "contrat" exists as soon as there is a meeting of the minds. Writing it down and signing it makes it easier to prove to a judge, but it's not necessary.
  - yostrovs 9y ago
    One more thing, is there somewhere I can look up the street rules of graffiti artists? Perhaps the trial judge wasn't working directly off of those, but then shouldn't there be rules, perhaps not coded on paper, that exist?

yostrovs 9y ago

It sounds like the real owner of the walls was the guy setting the schedule of who and when gets to paint said walls. The owner that holds the title to the building has been reduced to one of the artists, if that, who should have known better than to decide what to do with what is actually his own property.

victorNicollet 9y ago
I don't understand what you're trying to say. It is a good thing for the owner to be able to willingly give up some of their rights over their property. You wouldn't consider renting a home or office if the owner had the right to kick all of your belongings out of their property, or change the lock and hold them for ransom. The reason why "using someone else's property" can work is precisely because the owner can credibly pledge not to use those rights for a time. This doesn't mean that you own that home or office.
- yostrovs 9y ago
  I believe in contracts and I doubt there ever was a contract. This seems like someone thought that these walls will be forever theirs, though it was just a matter of a lenient landlord not caring too much about what was going on. And because the landlord wasn't a dick in the first place, but was a nice guy who let them use the walls he owned to display their art for free to a giant audience, he now owes them $6.5 million!! These people have probably never made $6.5 million between them.
  - victorNicollet 9y ago
    I'm not a native speaker so I'm not sure if it applies to the word "contract" that you are using, but in France a "contrat" exists as soon as there is a meeting of the minds. Writing it down and signing it makes it easier to prove to a judge, but it's not necessary.
- yostrovs 9y ago
  One more thing, is there somewhere I can look up the street rules of graffiti artists? Perhaps the trial judge wasn't working directly off of those, but then shouldn't there be rules, perhaps not coded on paper, that exist?