5 ms·

Wow. To add some other interesting info to this, Jay Maisel is the owner of (and lives in) a large building in lower manhattan 190 Bowery. If you've ever walked

Wow. To add some other interesting info to this, Jay Maisel is the owner of (and lives in) a large building in lower manhattan 190 Bowery. If you've ever walked past this building you'd recognize it as it's covered in street art all the time, and is constantly changing as more art is added and falls apart. I always though Jay was a good guy for letting artists use that space (even if it was a silent agreement), but maybe that's not the case... Not that it directly involves this case of fair use, but that building is worth millions of dollars, so Jay was doing this for the sake of "artistic purity" or whatever you want to call it, not because he's a starving photographer... An article about his building a few years back: http://nymag.com/realestate/vu/2008/09/50481/ http://nymag.com/realestate/vu/2008/09/50481/

thomasgerbe 15y ago
"Not that it directly involves this case of fair use, but that building is worth millions of dollars, so Jay was doing this for the sake of "artistic purity" or whatever you want to call it, not because he's a starving photographer..." I could see it being a mix of both. I don't think it makes him less of a good guy.
tptacek 15y ago
The magazine leads one to believe that the "street art" isn't really condoned (and may actually be a legal hassle for him), it's just inevitable in that area of Manhattan. Gruber made, I think, a somewhat asinine point about this being an example of how spectacularly well-off Maisel is and how much of a dick that makes him for enforcing his IP rights. But Maisel bought the place for a pittance in the '70s and doesn't collect rents on it. I'm sure he's much better off than Baio, but he's not a mogul.
- jonknee 15y ago
  He could be a mogul though, that building would sell for many tens of millions. He's a very wealthy man.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - ChrisLTD 15y ago
    That's exactly right. Owning a lot of valuable "stuff" makes you wealthy even if you don't have a lot of cash.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      I agree that he's wealthy.
  - jholman 15y ago
    And if he needed money, he could take out a HELOC for a few million on the place. Or a reverse mortgage. He's wealthy.
- Lagged2Death 15y ago
  Maisel bought the place for a pittance in the '70s... 2008 - 42 = 1966. $102K in 1966 is $711K in 2011 inflation-adjusted dollars.
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    It's a 72-room building... I'm pretty sure that qualifies for "a pittance".

thomasgerbe 15y ago

"Not that it directly involves this case of fair use, but that building is worth millions of dollars, so Jay was doing this for the sake of "artistic purity" or whatever you want to call it, not because he's a starving photographer..." I could see it being a mix of both. I don't think it makes him less of a good guy.

tptacek 15y ago

The magazine leads one to believe that the "street art" isn't really condoned (and may actually be a legal hassle for him), it's just inevitable in that area of Manhattan. Gruber made, I think, a somewhat asinine point about this being an example of how spectacularly well-off Maisel is and how much of a dick that makes him for enforcing his IP rights. But Maisel bought the place for a pittance in the '70s and doesn't collect rents on it. I'm sure he's much better off than Baio, but he's not a mogul.

jonknee 15y ago
He could be a mogul though, that building would sell for many tens of millions. He's a very wealthy man.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- ChrisLTD 15y ago
  That's exactly right. Owning a lot of valuable "stuff" makes you wealthy even if you don't have a lot of cash.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    I agree that he's wealthy.
- jholman 15y ago
  And if he needed money, he could take out a HELOC for a few million on the place. Or a reverse mortgage. He's wealthy.
Lagged2Death 15y ago
Maisel bought the place for a pittance in the '70s... 2008 - 42 = 1966. $102K in 1966 is $711K in 2011 inflation-adjusted dollars.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  It's a 72-room building... I'm pretty sure that qualifies for "a pittance".